George wrote:

"Marxism is also not as psychologically difficult to breakout of, because if a Marxist converts to Capitalism, they're not tormented for years after with ingrained thoughts of possible eternal consequences if they've got it wrong about their new belief."

The statement is problematical. It equates two different concepts. Marxism is an ideology. It is not socialism. Capitalism and socialism are economic systems. One does not convert to an economic system. One may abandon Marxism and still be a socialist.

However, the psychological processes used in keeping people in line are much the same in a religious cult as in a Marxist cell. One becomes immersed in the activities of the group so that one has cut the bonds with people not in the group. Excommunication from the religious sect or expulsion from the party have much the same effect. The individual has been cast off from the group adrift in a world where one is an atomized individual.

The consequences in this world are much the same.

david f,
You say > George wrote: "Marxism is also … about their new belief."< These are AJ’s words not mine. I do not want to comment on these things, except by repeating that I experienced life under a marx-leninist regime (yes, I know there are many versions of Marxism, and many meanings of the term socialism), as well as the Christian faith (in particular loyalty to a Church whose ‘headquarters’ were in the then ‘free world‘) that sustained me during those years. However, I agree that this is hard to understand for somebody with only an outsider‘s theoretical knowledge of both.

AJ,
I appreciate the fact that you actually read the pieces I linked to. Let me just try to address some of your objections.

> To say they are compatible, ... there's still nothing to say that the answers it provides are correct.<

I think compatibility and correctness are two very different things: The professional qualifications of a scientist and the Christian outlook are shown to be compatible if you can find a person who is genuinely both. I hope I do not have to list here contemporary (or 20th century) Christian scientists.

The term ‘correct‘ is more ambiguous. You refer to the correctness of answers Christianity provides. That is a very complex issue even if we could agree on what ‘correct‘ means in this context, because among other things, as you know, there is a whole variety of answers claimed to be Christian, some of them mutually incompatible.

Of course I agree that the meaning of ‘correct answer’ in a metaphysical context of the Christian faith is quite different from its meaning in a scientific context, and, of course, it is the former, not the latter, that is disputed on this thread. Like the correct answer to the question “What is this piece of paper, what is its meaning, purpose?“ will be different when given by a scientist, who tested it in a chemical laboratory, from the answer given by a banker who recognised it as a note in a foreign currency etc. (ctd)

(ctd) Another term you mention — perhaps even more difficult to define so that everybody, especially philosophers, will accept it (including philosophers of science) — is ‘truth’. I do not like people who quote the bible in every suitable or unsuitable situation, but “What is truth?“ is exactly the question that Pilate addressed Jesus with. We know how it ended, partly also because Pilate did not understand Jesus’ answer. And theologians for two millennia, together with philosophers, have been struggling to understand it or find another answer. So we must be careful with terms like, correct, truth, evidence, facts, etc., unless, of course, we deal with philosophically trivial situations.

I agree that for different people answers to the question of the meaning of life, or how they ought to live their lives, are different, perhaps even meaningless. Some find it in this or that religion some in a mental setup that does not like to be called religious. I can accept that. What I cannot accept is if somebody tells me what should be the meaning of my life (unless he/she is a therapist - it used to be a priest - whom I asked to help me to find the meaning of my life). Neither can I accept if somebody tells me that my world view is irrational, immoral, illogical or worse, just because it does not fit into the rational construction of his/her world view.

There, I think, I can agree with you, and other tolerant secular humanists (yes there are both tolerant and intolerant humanists as there are tolerant and intolerant Christians).

Davidf,

<<The statement is problematical. It equates two different concepts...>>

All irrelevant.

Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Keynesianism, Capitalism, Fascism, Economic ideology, Social ideology, it doesn’t matter.

The point remains that Stalin and the other Atheist evildoers of the 20th century, did not commit their atrocities in the name of Atheism. I don’t know of any wars that had been launched in the name of Atheism, and even if you could find one example, it would still be insignificant compared to the amount of times wars have been launched in the name of a God.

There may be some comparisons between social ideologies and religious belief when you look at the extremes. But the fact that Marxists (and others) don’t believe in eternal rewards and punishments, separates them from Theists in a way that you could never compare – no matter how hard you try.

George,

<< I think compatibility and correctness are two very different things…>>

Yes, I agree.

I was specifically referring to evolution, not science as a whole. After all, there are Christians out there who believe that God created life on Earth through an evolutionary process, and that each of the 6 days mentioned in Genesis could have actually meant 100 million years, since that amount of time would feel like a mere day to a being like God.

But my main point was the question of how loosely could/should a Theist translate their Holy Book before they give the whole thing up?

<< The term ‘correct‘ is more ambiguous...>>

’Correct’ probably wasn’t the best word to use in that situation.

All I was saying is that you run the risk of potencially heading down the wrong track if you apply Theology as the only method of answering the “Why” question. That’s not to say that it's the wrong method, but just that the answers that are derived from Theology rely on the assumption that there really is a God. For example, if I’m told to go and look for a black book, I’m never going to find it if the book I’m supposed to find is actually red. I might find other black books, the not the one I was actually supposed to find.

<<I do not like people who quote the bible in every suitable or unsuitable situation, but “What is truth?“>>

Would “rightness” be a better term then?

An analogy of what I meant when I used the word “truth”, is if a doctor tells you that you’re fine, when in fact you actually have terminal cancer, that’s comforting, but it doesn’t mean it’s true.

But if you can ask: “What is truth?”, then that’s a good thing. One thing that can really get up my nose, is when some Christians find it impossible to type the word “truth” (in regards to Biblical truth), without starting it with a capital ‘T’. I find this kind of certainty concerning.

AJ Philips wrote:

"There may be some comparisons between social ideologies and religious belief when you look at the extremes. But the fact that Marxists (and others) don’t believe in eternal rewards and punishments, separates them from Theists in a way that you could never compare – no matter how hard you try."

I didn't compare them. I only compared the effects in this world. I think there is an ingrained skepticism even in supposed believers that causes most of them to ignore the supposed eternal rewards or punishments for the immediate gratification or disappointment.