From time to time, a record is made on this site of contributions to the worldincommon discussion forum, which otherwise would be lost and forgotten, although the ideas come around in later loops on similar themes. Discussions involving several people are difficult to record in a way they can be followed subsequently. Sometimes a single contribution is so thoughtful, wise and useful, it can stand alone, as here:

From TB, 22 December 2007

All

I will try to answer some of the point that have come up under various headings discussing whether socialists can be/should be in a dialogue with and/or work with people with religious beliefs. I will also see if I can summarise what my own position is. If anyone has a point they feel I should have answered, please let me know - perhaps itemise your questions/challenges.

Perhaps I can start with TL’s comment: “In my opinion atheists such as yourself betray your own philosophy in an effort to accommodate ideas with no basis in fact, ideas that are destructive to we human mammals.” I am not totally sure what you mean, but I’ll attempt an interpretation. I am obviously not trying to “accommodate” these ideas within my own mind, as we both know I am an atheist (or “agnostic” may be the better word - religion plays no part I my life.) So I take it you are saying that I am trying to accommodate them within the movement for socialism. My answer to that is, yes, I am - with some provisos, which I’ll go on to highlight below.

I see the fight to establish socialism as very much a practical fight. We need people who understand the basics of why capitalism is damaging, who have the vision to think that a better society is possible and who have the “fire” within them to want to do their best to effect changes to get us there - whether by propagating ideas or by showing by example what can be done. In socialism (if we ever get there), we are going to need people who can bake bread, cultivate the soil, build homes, plan production, etc., etc. We need practical and theoretical people with a range of skills. What we do not particularly need, is for everyone to be a master philosopher.

Neither in this society, nor a future one, would I like to think that there is any need for us to follow a friend into his or her sitting room, and make sure that they do not light some candles and lay out a prayer mat or a yoga mat - any more than I would want us to police what consenting adults get up to in their bedrooms. These are private decisions by individuals and we only need concern ourselves with them if their ideas get damaging to society at large; i.e. with moves to try to subjugate women, other “races” or conduct “holy wars”. There are people with private, religious beliefs who do not want to do any of these things. And I hope that has answered your quip about the Taliban, L--, of course I would not want to make common cause with someone who believes that women are inferior to men.

Most people are not sufficiently interested in philosophy (they may have other interests equally or more demanding of their brain power) to ever bother about the difference between “materialism” and “idealism”. It does not therefore follow that they would not make good socialists. Karl Marx said: “Philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways, the task is to change it.” I think he would have agreed with my analysis above!

TB

top