I hear a lot of people talk about how we need to look at religion from a materialist lens and that religion is incomparable with socialism. But I think we need to seperate the two. Religion is about the metaphysical so it's hard to look at it from a materialist lens. While politics deals with materialist matters, so it's necessary to view it with a materialist lens. And it's not like atheism is fully materialist either, with 'nothing after death', and 'universe starting without a god' being metaphysical explanations as well. And humans are naturally spiritual and to deny that, makes it harder for socialism to be accepted by people. But of course that doesn't mean we should tolerate the reactionary aspects of religion. We should combat it whenever necessary.
What's your opinion?
I think that one philosopher said it best (paraphrasing because I'm no good at quotemining): in order to make religion less shitty, we need to do something about the shitty conditions that gave rise to it.
I don't think metaphysics is real though. The material world is all there is. When I say there is nothing after death, I mean that the chemistry inside your body that makes you alive stops functioning, and that's all that happens.
EDIT: to be clear, I'm not anti-religion. It's just that powerful people have a habit of using religious thinking for self-aggrandizement, shutting down criticism, and for justifying exploitation. It's not a coincidence that missionaries came hand in hand with colonizers
with 'nothing after death', and 'universe starting without a god' being metaphysical explanations as well.
Uh, no? This is such a weird, confused argument. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god, which is the natural, intuitive stance to hold in the world we live in where there is no evidence of any gods. No "metaphysical explanations" required. Show me evidence of a god and I'll change my view, just like with everything else.
And humans are naturally spiritual
I mock people who bring up "human nature" arguments in any other circumstance, I don't know why it would be different here. You're not "naturally spiritual" you've been indoctrinated into a system of beliefs by people motivated by their material interests.
But there's also no proof that god doesn't exist, so the actual materialist thing to do is to be agnostic
But humans ARE naturally spiritual, spirituality literally goes back tens of thousands of years, and maybe even longer. And this was before hierarchy existed.
But we are talking about the beginning of the universe, something that we don't understand yet. So in that way the existence of god, and god not existing are both metaphysical explanations
I don't see how an event that took place billions of years ago has any bearing on human politics. Or why a gap in knowledge is the same as belief in divinity in your eyes.
I also don't believe that it has any bearing on politics. Thats my point. I believe spirituality and politics are two different domains.
Suppose you’re genuinely a religious person without ulterior motives. If you believe at minimum that killing random citizens is wrong, shouldn’t you speak out against murder committed by your government? If you do, isn’t that getting into politics?
My point is that politics should remain secular. But that doesn't mean that ideas inspired by religion aren't allowed in politics, as long as they're not reactionary and have secular argumentation.
That’s a nice ideal. I certainly wouldn’t have any problems with religious comrades who think like that.
I would add that it needs to be in good faith. If a religious person were to argue against abortion, but proceed to oppose policies that make abortions a necessity, then you’re a hypocrite.
something that we don’t understand yet
Are you saying your god is only as powerful as the gaps in human knowledge?
I'm not saying that, I don't believe in a god of the gaps. I'm just saying we don't know what's out there
we don’t know what’s out there
I’ve come to believe that it’s extremely unlikely that it’s the Christian god though, and that even if it were, it sounds like the abusive dictator that the West accuses North Korea of being.
As an aside, do you also think it’s equally likely to be every one of the other ~10,000 gods humans have invented?
Well I don't necessarily believe in a god, but if there's a god, it's probably a monotheistic god, which is what most religious people believe. The case for polytheistic gods existing, who are the majority of the gods in your argument is pretty weak
it’s probably a monotheistic god
Are you a deist then? There’s no practical difference between that and atheism IMHO. What real difference does it make if it turned out a time-traveling Pokémon created the universe if it just relaxes on another planet and demands nothing of anyone or anything?
Here’s a quote attributed to Marcus Aurelius:
“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”
In that case christians who are open to the idea of being wrong are also agnostic. You could use agnostic as an adjective to atheism, but I believe agnostic, as a noun, is the way to be truly materialist
That depends on what your religion is and what your questions are IMHO
I'm an atheist but I think we should respect people's religious beliefs. If someone is a good socialist then it shouldn't matter if they are religious or not, being anti-religious will only make religious people avoid socialism for no real reason, we don't get anything by being anti-religious.
I mean, of course we shouldn't let religious institutions have power as they are usually quite reactionary, but the religious beliefs of people should be respected in my opinion.
I agree. Religion is something personal, and religious institutions only push one 'correct' view
Just so other people don’t get the wrong idea from my comments, I don’t have any issue with the personal practice of religion either. If you find particular religious practices or values personally helpful, great!
I think the problems are when religion either is forced on others (evangelizing can be really disrespectful — I’ve seen Christian evangelization at a Jewish dinner) or preying on its followers (taking the little money that poor people have)
I agree, I was tricked into a conversation by a muslim man who started talking about heaven and that islam is the way into it. He then made me recite the shahada. On another occasion two christians came to me and said that jesus loves me.
When the Catholic church was an important political power of the feudal societies, the revolutionary bourgeois developped criticism of religion to be able to separate politics from spirituality and claim the freedom to build a liberal capitalist society.
How is it now? On one hand you have far-right sects and religious orders that clench to reactionary ideas, but in the other you have billions of people who are oppressed by the imperial core and have been raised in a religious tradition. For a lot of people, like the Muslims in France, Islam is weaponized by the colonialist factions to demonize them. A lot of leftists fall for it. Outside of the imperial core, great parts of the masses won't listen to anyone who doesn't respect their religion because their religion is part of their culture, part of themselves.
My conclusion is : far-right religious factions must be dealt with because they are reactionary not because they are religious. Faith must be respected so that people aren't alienated from their culture. No organisation should ask religious people to renounce their faith as long as they are willing to use dialectical materialism and refrain from using scriptures to participate in debates.
I’m a Socialist that believes in Advaita Vedanta.
I’ve come to understand life and society through a foundational truth: beneath our diverse experiences, backgrounds, and roles, there’s an undeniable shared essence that ties us together. This understanding isn’t derived from mere philosophical musings, but from an intrinsic observation of the world and its workings.
For me, the idea of any individual being lesser or more based on arbitrary societal constructs contradicts this core essence. It’s not a matter of idealism; it’s about coherence and consistency. Given this, the glaring disparities in resources, power, and opportunities present in our society don’t just seem unjust—they seem illogical.
My belief is simple and grounded: if at our very core we all share a common thread, then fairness and equity aren’t lofty aspirations. They’re logical necessities. Our societal structures and systems should be designed to reflect this truth, ensuring that each individual’s worth is recognized and that opportunities are equitably distributed.
This is not about charity or temporary fixes. It’s about re-envisioning and realigning society in a manner that resonates with the profound truth of our shared essence.
They are not incomparable/incompatible, but each religion will be vastly different in how it engages with socialism. I am what is called a scientific/naturalistic pantheist—which I once had someone sum up as atheism with pagan decor. There is nothing metaphysical in such a worldview, but certainly, there is a different way of looking at the world. You want Heaven? You have to build it. Justice? Again, you have to build it. And rituals are great at communicating with the subconscious—one of the best examples is the "hold your breath for x seconds and then take y gulps of water to get rid of hiccups." The specifics and values shift based on who you ask, but the folk-idea behind it is widespread and the actions and symbols of the ritual can communicate to ourselves that we want to stop hiccuping. There is the practical safety aspect of taking the time to bow so you can observe the martial art mat, and the 'spiritual' aspect of quickly getting your mind in the right state to learn.
I think much of the incompatibility perceived comes from when religion mirrors our present class conditions. "God/s" as kings, rulers, as a grand bourgeoisie essentially. And that's where the problem can come in because that aspect of more traditional religions is rarely challenged. "God/s" as a grand comrade is a far more interesting concept and one that has more back and forth—there is room to disagree/alter/adapt/learn from/etc with that authority instead of that authority always overwriting the believer's own instincts (such as on moral issues). I forget where it's from, but "beware the believer who has never disagreed with their God over anything for their God is an unchallenged mirror."
Religion is not torture, religious people can use it for torture but that's the fault of the people, not the religion
Philosophers have only interpreted god in various ways, the point is to punch him in the balls
