are you an atheist?

Religion' is just a construct used since the Enlightenment to compare things that are as dissimilar as they are similar.

i think this point cannot be emphasized enough. it's really only a relatively recent that "religion" constitutes a differentiated social system a la art, politics, etc. one might call this "modernity"! that is, a certain pluralism that isn't going anywhere any time soon.

2. purges and great leap forwards and treatises on dialectics don't strike you as pointing to some grander ideology at work?

I've read a fair bit about mao, in pretty much every case the goal was simply to consolidate power in a single set of hands. like Stalin, Mao just used the handiest ideological tools available at the time. This has pretty much continued post-Mao as well fwiw (does anyone honestly think there's anything at all Marxist/Communist about the PRC? Sole goal is the concentration and persistence of power).

xp

in the abstract it's less divisive, but i feel like calling Mormonism a "harmful movement" would get some hackles raised all the same.

Political and economic ideologies don't tend to make the metaphysical claims that religions all make, do they?

If you're calling for the elimination of Mormonism I don't think there's a term you can use that will make Mormons okay with it. So maybe stick to the term that makes intellectual sense and not the one you have a hard-on for? xp

being wrong about how humans behave and how societies work vs. being wrong about how the universe works
xp

it's really only a relatively recent that "religion" constitutes a differentiated social system

Huh? You can argue that several hundred years ago, pretty much everyone expected religion to be as decisive a force in public behavior as politics and many actively encouraged it but ppl certainly knew about disbelievers and heretics and other religions and days other than the Sabbath and pastimes more entertaining than worship.

wk - if you have a broad enough understanding of "metaphysical claims" then you could argue they do. but you dont need to go that far. you'd simply say that those ideologies are only capable of "observing" after their own distinctions. they remain blind to other factors. economics isn't able to identify the non-economic causes of phenomena.

post-Mao PRC seems to be Dengist "get rich" capitalism, but you don't feel that's religious-y either. Aren't there still Maoist rebels around, though?

there's an intrinsically metaphysical component to capitalism. "money -- how does it work?" instead of magnets

If you're calling for the elimination of Mormonism I don't think there's a term you can use that will make Mormons okay with it. So maybe stick to the term that makes intellectual sense and not the one you have a hard-on for? xp

who are you talking to??

I don't think money is metaphysical. It's just a convenience so you don't have to take cowrie shells or your cattle down to the gas station.

Granny, I've been fasting for 23 hours now so I may be feeling more testy than normal. I was speaking to Philip who bumped this thread to argue that Maoism + Capitalism are religions like Mormonism and Judaism are religions. (Incidentally an argument that would indicate that religion has grown exponentially and not dwindled at all.) I have continually tried to argue that the very term 'religion' is a problematic inheritance from Hume that obscures more than it illuminates. It was an attempt to compare a variety of unrelated phenomena (such as Buddhism and Calvinism). In that sense, Philip is using the term correctly - by trying to compare things that have nothing in common besides his feeling that they are similarly destructive.

"in pretty much every case the goal was simply to consolidate power in a single set of hands."
I don't necessarily agree this was the case with Mao (because frankly he seemed a little nuts),
but why don't you allow this to be a valid religious ideology?

also, money is faith! it's one of the few examples of literal magic.

mordy, totally agree with your posts about needinga diff term. Go eat something!

hour and a half to go. i've got bagels, lox, cream cheese + white fish in the fridge.

there's an intrinsically metaphysical component to capitalism. "money -- how does it work?" instead of magnets

The answer to that is to come up with some sort of theory of how money might work and test it out. Communism and capitalism are at least somewhat like scientific experiments compared to metaphysics.

from what i've read about the fed reserve, there's nothing at all scientific, and very much faith and shrugging of shoulders about what they're doing.

id argue that's because economics per se is responding to a complex "environment" (ie,non-economic factors, things that aren't "money") that it literally can't "see."

religion is especially interesting in this contest because maybe more than any other discourse it's basically obsessed with what it can't see and has tools (ie, negative theology for one) for exposing that fact.

*context

(which is why you get someone like Derrida giving negative theology a tip of the hat, even if he wants to ultimately distinguish what he's doing from it.)

inexact science is still a science. meteorology vs groundhog seeing its shadow

in some sense i feel like the strain of conservativism that wants to go back to the gold standard wants this faith renewed into a biblically approved metal rather than in the state, in the same way they want charity/alms to be private rather than public -- a power struggle for faith mana.

i dont exactly disagree granny--im simply arguing on behalf of things that aren't exact or inexact sciences.

i thought i was backing up your point about responding to a complex environment

i dunno dudes, economics lookin a lot like eschatology for like, the past few decades...

they involve forcible re-education, penalties for teaching religion to children, etc.

The english tried that in Ireland with the Penal Laws. The irish catholics just went underground with the hedge schools. And ironically, the greatest success the english had was in solidly uniting irish nationalism with irish catholicism so that the church was greatly strengthened by alliance with a powerful secular movement.

I should have used the term supernatural rather than metaphysical. Economics involves some highly abstract concepts, but even the most arcane wall street paper-pushing shenanigans are ultimately tied to the physical at some level (real estate, oil, etc).

And is there such a thing as an economic agnostic? Somebody who claims that the way markets work is fundamentally unknowable?

throw your hand in the ay-er
if you eschew prayer

― fman29.5 (k3vin k.), Monday, June 7, 2010 11:53 AM (2 years ago)

this was a good post

isn't economics called "dismal science" because of its lack of verifiability? anyway in a foxhole we're all keynesians.

And is there such a thing as an economic agnostic? Somebody who claims that the way markets work is fundamentally unknowable?

― wk, Wednesday, September 26, 2012 7:18 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Market goes up, market goes down- you can't explain that!

this is a really good read (i'm interested in checking out his new book too): http://www.salon.com/2013/01/13/jared_diamond_its_irrational_to_be_religious/

The writer is making a pretty big assumption that the entire content of spiritual writings seems to be in a literal, historical, non-metaphorical readings, which is a terrible interpretation. In addition to this gross oversimplification, there are a few more things i take issue with:

No other feature of religion creates a bigger divide between religious believers and modern secular people, to whom it staggers the imagination that anyone could entertain such beliefs. No other feature creates a bigger divide between believers in two different religions, each of whom firmly believes its own beliefs but considers it absurd that the other religion’s believers believe those other beliefs.

Supernatural beliefs are bad because they divide people. Inversely, modern secularists are above such illogical divisiveness. Yet the author polarizes all possible shades of spirituality into either antiquated dogmatic religious literalists or modern secular people. There is some level of hypocrisy here, though taking into account the author's logical desire to sell books to the neo atheist market, it does make sense.

I do agree that the sort of Old World Creationist this article is criticizing is ridiculous. But to use that as a general example for all religious experience is a simple and easy way to go about making your argument.

He could do with toning down the condescension too. But that may make it difficult to market his book to the desired demographic.

maybe new world creationists should do more to separate themselves from the old world ones, if being lumped in together is such a problem, idk

Not really feasible as I have known both to exist within the same congregations/denominations, and the distinction cuts across a plethora of beliefs.

It only becomes a problem when writers oversimplify the scope of religious belief in order to make broad, clumsy statements like the one quoted above.

The title of that piece is really really dumb. Was anyone really arguing that religion is a rational thing today? Or are religious people more likely saying 'yeah, but rationality will only get you so far'? And then, the article concludes: 'Thus, religious supernatural beliefs are irrational, but emotionally plausible and satisfying.' Yep, because being emotionally satisfied is a totally irrational thing to choose to be...

The ex-communicated minister episode of "this american life" makes a similar point though, not that TAL doesn't also sometimes oversimplify, but there's something to it, and if it in any way counters the idea that you can bring people of clashing faiths into accord by simply defeating them in an argument, then it's a net positive.

you have to defeat them in a race war

Um, reading what I wrote, perhaps they are not more likely saying that, but... some people are saying that.

what I found interesting was the idea that it is specifically the irrationality of the belief that makes it constitutive; you signal belonging by saying some crazy shit no one could possibly believe

literary cfuck rules

it's interesting to me that articles like that never mention, say, William James. Not that James is foundational but he signals a particular way of taking religion on its own terms. what happens too often (particularly of the Dawkins/Hitchens school) is that we are just fighting the same old battles of secularization and modernity over and over again. maybe that's necessary but it's also boring and not a little obtuse.

Mordy i like that idea too, particularly if you're willing to reject the idea of rationality as totalizing (ie, as simply a replacement for the pre-modern role of religion).

I think it's more being high stakes than irrationality, but it's easier to access high stakes through irrationality? Like global warming deniers aren't necessarily resorting to irrational arguments off the bat.

Pointing out that people believe something or socially proclaim something because it gives them an emotional gratification is sort of duh. There are plenty of things we do - rational and otherwise - that have that appeal and don't have roots in religion. Pointing it out specifically in this case just seems like a dog whistle for neo atheists.

Well it's not kind of "duh" if people are still stockpiling appeals to rationalism as antidote, and atheists of the dawkinsy-evangelical bent especially ought to absorb that point.

Also, the fact that it's obvious (or 'duh') doesn't constitute an argument against it. That amounts to discounting an argument because it's obviously true, which is a rather odd point of view. Lots of theories are intuitively obvious, and that doesn't mean, by itself, that we should dismiss them.

Moreover, while many people have an emotional connection to certain true beliefs, it is non-emotional facts that make that belief true. So, for example, the fact that the earth is round may make me feel warm and fuzzy. The illusory belief that I am a member of the master race may also make me feel warm and fuzzy. The fact that both beliefs are, in my belief system, entirely emotionally founded does not mean that an understanding of how this process works is irrelevant to understanding how delusion is created. On the contrary, it's extremely important that we understand this process.

'Thus, religious supernatural beliefs are irrational, but emotionally plausible and satisfying.' Yep, because being emotionally satisfied is a totally irrational thing to choose to be...

― Frederik B, Monday, January 14, 2013 3:05 AM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

So all delusions are rational as long as they make you feel good?

more like: it may be rational to hold irrational beliefs. tho how one can choose whether or not to hold a belief i'm not sure.

I must be an atheist. I think I had a level of agnosticism, possibly something close to faith all the way up into my early 20s, but now I find the whole subject of religion a bit icky, like talking about the existence of Father Christmas with grown adults might.