What is the best way to convert everyone to your own personal -ism?

[Elok]

i actually saw the original post (but i'm snowed under with work at the moment, so i have little time to respond) and didn't think it needlessly confrontational, but in any case thank you.

I try to hold myself to the same standards as I hold others. Sometimes it happens, sometimes not.

for me a religion is an organised belief system and world view that attempt to explain the world and man's place in and/or relationship with it. this often means some kind of creation myth, which details how the world was made and the starting point for man's relationship with god(s). it is not scientific, though it may (and often does) have a philosophical underpinning, relying instead on faith in a higher power, or something intangible within ourselves.

The first sentence seems like a good description of Marxism to me. As for the others, they don't apply to a significant percentage of the world's religions. Theravada Buddhists, Confucians and Taoists are largely indifferent to the question of deities. Which, of course, is why they are sometimes called philosophies, not religions, but I hold that the distinction isn't very meaningful except as a way of saying certain belief systems, from the perspective of modern secular liberals, have cooties. Much like the question of whether Mormonism is technically Christian; imposing a sharp line on the blur is mainly useful for separating the sheep from the goats.

a critical framework is a set of assumptions and premises with a logical, scientific, and/or philosophical background. a critical framework can used to examine historical events or phenomena; it's a prism through which they can be viewed if you like. so you can examine the american civil war, brazilian urbanisation in the 20th century, or the effects of globalisation on vietnam from a marxist perspective, but you'd struggle to do the same from say an islamic one.

Actually, given the extent to which sharia tries to regulate every detail of life, there almost certainly is an Islamic perspective on history. If not several dozen competing Islamic perspectives. IIRC the first formal "theory of history" was posited by a Muslim scholar, and his POV would certainly have been steeped in Muslim scripture and tradition. As is whatever history, literature, etc. they teach in majority-Muslim countries. Come to think of it, it's kind of odd that you picked Islam for this comparison, because originally Islam was concerned with precisely the same sort of class problems as Marx. The first Muslims, you might say, were seventh-century Arabian Marxists. You could say much the same for early Christianity, and many if not most of the mass Christian movements since. Though only the earliest Muslims were actually made up mostly of poor people who forcibly leveled the playing field by declaring an end to class distinctions. Until the whole thing was subverted by a new set of distinctions invented by the new rulers. So I guess you could say the early history of Islam was strikingly similar to that of Marxism in many respects.

As for being based on science, you know more of Marxism than I do, but what I do know of it makes that claim appear dubious. It doesn't invoke anything "supernatural" per se, but it seems concerned mostly with abstractions or generalizations of human relationships. You can't measure those. History, economics, etc. are called "social sciences," but it's really something of a stretch. They're informed by science, certainly, but to what extent?

(this is leaving out Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao, and everyone else who claimed to actually apply Marxism as a political system; I assume you'd call those distortions of the original)

[C0ckney]

The first sentence seems like a good description of Marxism to me. As for the others, they don't apply to a significant percentage of the world's religions. Theravada Buddhists, Confucians and Taoists are largely indifferent to the question of deities. Which, of course, is why they are sometimes called philosophies, not religions, but I hold that the distinction isn't very meaningful except as a way of saying certain belief systems, from the perspective of modern secular liberals, have cooties. Much like the question of whether Mormonism is technically Christian; imposing a sharp line on the blur is mainly useful for separating the sheep from the goats.

that i suspect is because your knowledge of marxism comes mostly from its critics (this is fairly common). marxism doesn't seek to explain man's place in the world, but rather to provide to tools to examine human interactions with other humans or with systems created by humans.

there are several thousand religions in the world, so it's somewhat hard to come up with a convincing general definition, but i think i covered most of them, including buddhism, karma, inner peace and all that jazz coming under 'something intangible within ourselves'. i will confess however to not knowing a huge amount about eastern mysticism.

Actually, given the extent to which sharia tries to regulate every detail of life, there almost certainly is an Islamic perspective on history. If not several dozen competing Islamic perspectives. IIRC the first formal "theory of history" was posited by a Muslim scholar, and his POV would certainly have been steeped in Muslim scripture and tradition. As is whatever history, literature, etc. they teach in majority-Muslim countries. Come to think of it, it's kind of odd that you picked Islam for this comparison, because originally Islam was concerned with precisely the same sort of class problems as Marx. The first Muslims, you might say, were seventh-century Arabian Marxists. You could say much the same for early Christianity, and many if not most of the mass Christian movements since. Though only the earliest Muslims were actually made up mostly of poor people who forcibly leveled the playing field by declaring an end to class distinctions. Until the whole thing was subverted by a new set of distinctions invented by the new rulers. So I guess you could say the early history of Islam was strikingly similar to that of Marxism in many respects.

firstly, there's a big difference between a muslim writing history and examining history from an islamic perspective. by that i mean that several muslims could write about one historical event, but even though their religious views would no doubt have some influence on their work, they would probably use different tools and approaches to arrive at their conclusions, depending on the time and culture they lived in; there being no specifically 'islamic' tools for examining history (though there is of course a historiography of islamic history).

what would an islamic scholar say about social relations in the incan empire: nothing, or at least nothing that has anything (besides some personal preconceptions provided by his faith) to do with islam; he would need to use other tools. a marxist on the other hand has the tools to examine events that occurred before marxism even existed, in places wholly untouched by the cultural and philosophical background from which it came.

finally, marxism didn't start with the oppressed and downtrodden working class overthrowing their oppressors but with a comfortably middle class german writing about philosophy. you could say though that christianity (in its communitarian phase at least), islam, and marxism are part of a history of people seeking justice and resisting oppression (i recently read a brazilian book called 'the illusion of innocents' which dealt with this idea rather better than i have).

As for being based on science, you know more of Marxism than I do, but what I do know of it makes that claim appear dubious. It doesn't invoke anything "supernatural" per se, but it seems concerned mostly with abstractions or generalizations of human relationships. You can't measure those. History, economics, etc. are called "social sciences," but it's really something of a stretch. They're informed by science, certainly, but to what extent?

well of course it depends what you mean by science, but i think it's silly to claim that history, economics, sociology etc. are not at least mostly based on it. i disagree that one can't measure human relationships; these can be measured by observation, or simply through logic. theories can be put forward and tested etc.

(this is leaving out Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao, and everyone else who claimed to actually apply Marxism as a political system; I assume you'd call those distortions of the original)

that's rather my point, marxism itself isn't a political system, though it can very easily be to attached to things that are. this why actual implementations of 'marxism' as a political system are called something else 'marxist-leninism', 'stalinism', maoism' etc.

i'd like to say more but bed is calling.

[Alexander's Horse]

maybe I should get PROT going again...

[ricketyclik]

Tism.

Jizm.

[Dr Strangelove]

I think a religion has to involve the worship of a deity otherwise there is no distinction between religion and philosophy or religion and science.

[Jon Miller]

I think a religion has to involve the worship of a deity otherwise their is no distinction between [snip]religion and science.

Very much not true (as someone who is a scientist and a believer). It might be true for a certain belief system which elevates science (I think one is known as scientism), but science is a very different system/activity.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Here is a blog post which might be interesting about what science is.

In general I recommend her blog (because it is interesting, not just because she was wrote about one of my papers):

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2012/01/what-is-science.html

I also have started reading the following book which is good (but I have not completed yet):

http://www.amazon.com/The-Island-Knowledge-Science-Meaning/dp/0465031714

JM

[Dr Strangelove]

So you're saying that you're a believer because you're a scientist?

[Jon Miller]

No, I have never actually thought about that statement (although they are related in the same sense as they were for Newton et al.). I will think about it and will see if I can say that or say that it is not true.

JM

[Lorizael]

Here is a blog post which might be interesting about what science is.

In general I recommend her blog (because it is interesting, not just because she was wrote about one of my papers):

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2012/01/what-is-science.html

I also have started reading the following book which is good (but I have not completed yet):

http://www.amazon.com/The-Island-Knowledge-Science-Meaning/dp/0465031714

JM

Hey, we read the same blog!

[Dr Strangelove]

No, I have never actually thought about that statement (although they are related in the same sense as they were for Newton et al.). I will think about it and will see if I can say that or say that it is not true.

JM

You made this statement:"Very much not true (as someone who is a scientist and a believer)" concerning my proposal:"I think a religion has to involve the worship of a deity otherwise there is no distinction between [snip] religion and science" without having any idea why you said it's "very much not true"?

[Jon Miller]

As a scientist and a believer I think I know a bit about science and religion. I think that science (not scientism) is not at all the same sort of thing as religion, and is definitely not the same as religion san God.

I think your statement was likely made due to a mistake in thinking about Science and not due to a mistake in thinking about Religion, and gave links to two people who explain what science is better than I would at this moment (and the book directly confronts this 'science as belief').

JM
(I believe that both people are atheists, just of the generally respectful variety)

(I agree with HC that I don't know what exists in Lorizael's belief system that has not been described by at least a half dozen SF writers, but he hasn't gone into detail about his belief system so I have assumed that the issue was with the details)

[Lorizael]

(I agree with HC that I don't know what exists in Lorizael's belief system that has not been described by at least a half dozen SF writers, but he hasn't gone into detail about his belief system so I have assumed that the issue was with the details)

To answer this in a little bit more detail: Essentially every time I've attempted to describe, in detail, my true beliefs to people (irl), it has resulted in confusion and hostility on both sides. These experiences are not ones I wish to repeat, so I basically don't talk about what I actually believe. Here, on Apolyton, I dole out some of the whacky consequences of what I believe because they're fun, but I don't delve into why I believe the insane **** I believe.

[Sava]

confusion and hostility

This is my experience as well... but with every topic

[Elok]

that i suspect is because your knowledge of marxism comes mostly from its critics (this is fairly common). marxism doesn't seek to explain man's place in the world, but rather to provide to tools to examine human interactions with other humans or with systems created by humans.

As cosmology and explanations of natural phenomena make up a trivial portion of most post-bronze age religions, this is pretty minor. Note that the Bible contains basically none of that after the first half of Genesis. After that, God is very much concerned with norms of human behavior and the direction of human history.

there are several thousand religions in the world, so it's somewhat hard to come up with a convincing general definition, but i think i covered most of them, including buddhism, karma, inner peace and all that jazz coming under 'something intangible within ourselves'. i will confess however to not knowing a huge amount about eastern mysticism.

Well, for starters, to a hardcore Theravada Buddhist, the phrase 'something intangible within ourselves' is nonsensical, since they believe the self is an illusion and everything is just interconnected energies. I have no idea how the hell they reconcile that with reincarnation, but IIUC some of them don't believe in that either. It's very confusing, and makes the Trinity seem straightforward. I forget what Jains believe, but I think there's no God there either. Confucius makes some vague references to "Heaven," but in general the point of all his endless ritual and ceremony is to create a peaceful and harmonious society on earth. Taoists believe in "The Way," but categorically refuse to elaborate on what it is beyond involving inaction and passivity most of the time. I've even heard that Shinto, despite all the Kami, involves little worship as we understand it. What you've described applies to (some) Hindus and Mahayana Buddhists.

firstly, there's a big difference between a muslim writing history and examining history from an islamic perspective. by that i mean that several muslims could write about one historical event, but even though their religious views would no doubt have some influence on their work, they would probably use different tools and approaches to arrive at their conclusions, depending on the time and culture they lived in; there being no specifically 'islamic' tools for examining history (though there is of course a historiography of islamic history).

Do you actually know that last bit? Because seriously, Islam is ferociously comprehensive, Allah sticks a finger in every pie. There are very likely multiple competing Islamic perspectives on history, just like there are multiple competing Islamic everything elses.

what would an islamic scholar say about social relations in the incan empire: nothing, or at least nothing that has anything (besides some personal preconceptions provided by his faith) to do with islam; he would need to use other tools. a marxist on the other hand has the tools to examine events that occurred before marxism even existed, in places wholly untouched by the cultural and philosophical background from which it came.

I don't get this. What distinguishes personal preconceptions provided by faith from personal preconceptions provided by Marxism? Don't say 'based in science,' most of Islamic culture was formed in the most advanced intellectual climate of its time. You can argue that such viewpoints are irrelevant to the digital age, but you could also say the same for insights from the belly of Industrial-era Europe.

finally, marxism didn't start with the oppressed and downtrodden working class overthrowing their oppressors but with a comfortably middle class german writing about philosophy. you could say though that christianity (in its communitarian phase at least), islam, and marxism are part of a history of people seeking justice and resisting oppression (i recently read a brazilian book called 'the illusion of innocents' which dealt with this idea rather better than i have).

Ditto again. Muhammad occupied a largely analogous position in Meccan society, if not a smidge higher. He was an orphaned member of the ruling clan, without much personal pull, but comfortably well-off from marrying well and sharp business practices. I actually can't think of an instance where poor people came up with the ideas and leadership for a successful revolution.

well of course it depends what you mean by science, but i think it's silly to claim that history, economics, sociology etc. are not at least mostly based on it. i disagree that one can't measure human relationships; these can be measured by observation, or simply through logic. theories can be put forward and tested etc.

History is the attempt to impose a narrative on a collection of old documents and (if the historians are lucky) some archeological evidence. Logic and reason are involved, yes, but the same can be said of all but the most rigid fundamentalisms. It, like sociology, economics, and the other so-called social sciences, studies a field where far too much is unknown or uncontrollable for anything like scientific rigor to be applied. Few or none of the conclusions are legitimately falsifiable, which is why they tend to bounce from one ideological slant to the next, as they go in or out of fashion. All this is not to say they're all useless or bad--I enjoy reading history books--but that ain't science.

that's rather my point, marxism itself isn't a political system, though it can very easily be to attached to things that are. this why actual implementations of 'marxism' as a political system are called something else 'marxist-leninism', 'stalinism', maoism' etc.

Fair enough, but I think it's also fair to note that such hybrids have had vastly more influence than any pure, ungrafted form.