The Philosophy Now Forum

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2026 12:33 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2026 3:45 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2026 3:30 am

Fair enough. I don't see everything you said as being true, but I'm just a fallible mortal.

Well, check it out. Read a Marx biography. Then you can make up your own mind.

I wasn't referring to Marx's biography. I was referring to your beliefs about all socialism being evil and your beliefs about some of Marx's observations that you think are false.

It's not an either or. It's not, either Marx was evil, OR Socialism is bad. It's both. What sprang from that rotten root turned out to be nothing but poisonous fruit. The verification is in what Socialism has done, not merely in what Marx was.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2026 1:08 am

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2026 11:39 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2026 7:46 pm No, "Marxist" is a subset of "Socialist," rather than the other way around, just as "Communist" is a subset of "Socialist." "Socialist" is the umbrella term. But you'll have a hard time finding Socialists who are not willing to confess they admire Marx. He's pretty much the guy they look to. All the worse for them.

You admit it! (what a turnaround from arguing socialism is a contained within Marxism)

Admit what? Socialism is all the same pablum, just served in different bowls. The names change, but the substance is the same.

Discuss The True Levelers, the Shakers, and The Catholic Workers ) respectively well pre-Marx, slightly pre-Marx and overlapping, and post Marx). No ducking, for example "the True Levelers were agrarian, not industrial"(the means of production in their day almost entirely agrarian). They do not to me appear to be "same pablum". Note that I do not care if you want to exclude the "Christian communists" from your definition of communists provided you accept that I would be including them << that we would be differing on what we included/excluded when we used the term "communism" >>

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2026 3:29 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2026 1:08 am

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2026 11:39 pm You admit it! (what a turnaround from arguing socialism is a contained within Marxism)

Admit what? Socialism is all the same pablum, just served in different bowls. The names change, but the substance is the same.

Discuss The True Levelers, the Shakers, and The Catholic Workers...

We can. But there is an important factor you haven't included in your thinking, when you turn to those examples. It's actually very plain in the examples you've selected; but you're not alert to it, apparently.

Every one of them was tamed by subordination to Western, Judeo-Christian ethics. Whenever Socialist zeal has been tempered by that ethos, it turned into things like collective bargaining, labour laws, welfare, prison reform, healthcare and education initiatives, social security and a reasonable level of economic viability to sustain those efforts, as well. Good things can happen when Judeo-Christian values are generally regnant in a society, regardless of the liabilities of various political options.

But you cannot miss this difference: historically, wherever Socialist zeal has been turned loose in the absence of such an ethos, and the whole system given over to Socialist dogma, the universal results have been quite different -- not just economic unsustainability, but violent revolution, theft, blackballing, racism, censorship, tyranny, starvation, torture, gulags and re-education 'camps,' death marches, executions, killing fields...and final social decay and collapse. The differences could not be more stark.

Does it make a difference whether Socialism is subjugated to the ethos of Judeo-Christian belief, or paired up with Atheism and turned loose on the whole system? You bet it does. And the virtues that we find in limited welfare-states are not due to Socialism. If they were, it would make no difference which regime we were considering...or, we might even find, the Judeo-Christian societies were less successful and free than the Atheist-Socialist regimes. But that is not at all what we find, is it?

So we have to keep those phenomena separate. There's one kind of Socialism that kills people: the totalitarian kind, the Atheist, secular kind. And there's a subordinate, less dysfunctional Socialist-desire that does not quite get out of hand, because it's moderated by a stable, moral, Judeo-Christian ethos.

Here's the most important question, maybe: what kind of a moral ethos is the West becoming now?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2026 6:12 pm
Every one of them was tamed by subordination to Western, Judeo-Christian ethics. [/i]Whenever Socialist zeal has been tempered by that ethos, it turned into things like collective bargaining, labour laws, welfare, prison reform, healthcare and education initiatives, social security and a reasonable level of economic viability to sustain those efforts, as well. Good things can happen when Judeo-Christian values are generally regnant in a society, regardless of the liabilities of various political options.

You are sort of wrecking your case. It is one thing when you argue that only a religious based morality is possible. In effect, that only people who believe some god or gods instructed them how to conduct themselves would conduct themselves accordingly. It is another when you argue only Christianity will do*.

Look IC, I realize that is your sincere belief, but simply saying it over and over won;t convince any of different religions or secularists.

And you are confusing the (absolute) truth of a belief with the effect of a belief. It shouldn't matter if the god of the "pagan" is a false god, only whether the believer believes z(in the moral decrees of that god). Or for that matter, it shouldn't natter if the moral beliefs of the secularist are built on sand, only whether that secularist believes them to be correct.

** Jews do not bother correcting the notion of "Judeo-Christian" but the reality is that they believe in no such thing. Surrounded by Chrisitians, it can't hurt Jews if the Christians believe in this commonality

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2026 11:46 pm It is another when you argue only Christianity will do*.

So you didn't notice the "Judeo-" part? Kind of an odd oversight, on your side.

I think the case makes itself. The Socialist impulse has only ever been turned to anything close to good uses when it is subordinated to a Judeo-Christian moral ethos. That's just a fact. In every other case, it's been a disaster of the most absolute type.

The inescapable conclusion is that whatever good has happened, it hasn't come from Socialism itself. It's come from that Judeo-Christian ethos. And it doesn't matter much whether or not people are ready to believe it, because the obvious facts are the obvious facts, and the truth is its own vindication.

Jews do not bother correcting the notion of "Judeo-Christian"

Well, let's see you "correct" it now, if you can. I'll be interested to see what you think Jews have going for them morally that isn't carried over into Christianity as well.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 3:28 am

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2026 11:46 pm It is another when you argue only Christianity will do*.

So you didn't notice the "Judeo-" part? Kind of an odd oversight, on your side.

I think the case makes itself. The Socialist impulse has only ever been turned to anything close to good uses when it is subordinated to a Judeo-Christian moral ethos. That's just a fact. In every other case, it's been a disaster of the most absolute type.

The inescapable conclusion is that whatever good has happened, it hasn't come from Socialism itself. It's come from that Judeo-Christian ethos. And it doesn't matter much whether or not people are ready to believe it, because the obvious facts are the obvious facts, and the truth is its own vindication.

Jews do not bother correcting the notion of "Judeo-Christian"

Well, let's see you "correct" it now, if you can. I'll be interested to see what you think Jews have going for them morally that isn't carried over into Christianity as well.

I have to admit, Christianity is at least, in theory, non-violent compared to Islam. Not sure how non-violent other religions, such as Buddhism or Hinduism, are. The world would be a better place if everyone were non-violent. Of course, even Christians seem to slip or slack on the "non-violence" thing sometimes.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 11:19 am
I have to admit, Christianity is at least, in theory, non-violent compared to Islam.

True in modern times - with exceptions - but definitely not throughout most of its history.

The following is called - for those who are interested in an easy analysis of Christianity, its contradictions and dubious history....

10 Hard Questions Christians Should Ask (But Never Do)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m5Q1tZtnIw&t=1238s

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 12:26 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 11:19 am
I have to admit, Christianity is at least, in theory, non-violent compared to Islam.

True in modern times - with exceptions - but definitely not throughout most of its history.

Actually, it is...depending on your definition of "Christianity."

Some people just accept every person's word for whatever he/she says "I am." If they say they're "Christian," then the reasoning goes, it must be true. Likewise, if they say "I'm a woman" or "I'm a cat," there are people who insist that it must be true. For such, identity has no criterion, except the word of the speaker. And if we take the same view, then anybody who uses the word "Christian," or is even just born into a country labelled "Christian," must be what a Christian is...even if he/she has no knowledge of or interest in God, in Christ, or in anything to do with Christianity.

My suggestion would be that that definition's so inclusive as to be useless. When a definition fails to distinguish between those who merely profess a view and those who actually live it, it's fallen short of defining anything adequately at all. And if that's right, we have to drop the common view that makes of the word "Christian" merely "somebody who uses the word 'Christian'." And if that's at least a little bit contradictory to them, we'll have to accept that reality.

So how many real Christians have caused violence? We can make a case that those who call themselves Catholic have, and some who go by the label Protestant -- though we have to question the validity of those labels, just as we had to question the self-identifier "Christian." Some will be adherents of their faith, and some not. We cannot blame those who do adhere to the religion and live like it's true for the behaviour of those who only claim it hypocritically and unauthentically, and who do not live it out at all.

So then, how many Christians have done violence? It's hard to say. But the number is vanishingly small. For example, only about 8% of those who have died in history's wars have died in genuinely religious wars. Half of that number, 4% have died at the hands of one religion: Islam. The remaining 4% comprises every other religion of history: Catholics, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddists, tribalist religions...all of them. And among that mere 4%, some religious people have never caused or participated in any wars at all: the Quakers, the Hassidim, the Mennonites...and so on.

So does religion cause violence? The answer always depends on which religion. And at the most, religion is actually a very small cause of wars...orders of magnitude below, say, Atheism, if we use the same selfl-identification criterion we're applying to Christianity in an equitable way, to refer to it as well.

The following is called - for those who are interested in an easy analysis of Christianity, its contradictions and dubious history....

10 Hard Questions Christians Should Ask (But Never Do)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m5Q1tZtnIw&t=1238s

Well, you know this is bound to be a fake, just by the title. There's almost NO question that Christian apologetics hasn't enthusiastically plunged into and addressed, in fact. It's just that Atheists don't read what Christians write, and are usually like the woman in Browning's famous poem: "She had. A heart—how shall I say?— too soon made glad, Too easily impressed..." Atheists should really read some Christian apologetics. And why not? Christians read the skeptics' stuff. But Atheists like to be "made glad" without the hard work of facing the answers Christians have found to their (generally shallow) complaints.

I'll be curious to see this wond'rous list of questions. I'll get back to you, if I see anything in it I haven't seen answered a hundred times already.

P.S. -- I looked. I recognized it as something I'd already seen, already found silly, and already dismissed. It's a perfect example of the sort of facile hogwash I was talking about above. It's smug, shallow, and untrue. For example, it makes the claim that the only reason Christians are Christians is because of their community, or that they are afraid of questions, or doubt is sin...it's all silly, very untrue, and any thoughtful Christian or honest skeptic would realize it instantly. But I guess it impresses some Atheists, because their standards of knowledge aren't as high as they should be.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 11:19 am I have to admit, Christianity is at least, in theory, non-violent compared to Islam.

You are correct.

Not sure how non-violent other religions, such as Buddhism or Hinduism, are.

There are Buddhists wars, as in Myanmar, for example, or Hindu wars, as with Pakistan, for instance...although we might have to argue that the matter was more over language, culture or territory, in the latter case. Still, it happens.

However, none of these, even Islam, comes within orders of magnitude of Atheism, and particularly Socialist Atheism, which is by far the creed most associated with violence. Historically, no other single factor is so associated with violence as that.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 1:50 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 11:19 am I have to admit, Christianity is at least, in theory, non-violent compared to Islam.

You are correct.

Not sure how non-violent other religions, such as Buddhism or Hinduism, are.

There are Buddhists wars, as in Myanmar, for example, or Hindu wars, as with Pakistan, for instance...although we might have to argue that the matter was more over language, culture or territory, in the latter case. Still, it happens.

However, none of these, even Islam, comes within orders of magnitude of Atheism, and particularly Socialist Atheism, which is by far the creed most associated with violence. Historically, no other single factor is so associated with violence as that.

So, I take it that your argument would be that things like the Inquisition, Crusades, etc. were acts initiated by non-Christian elites who were more interested in furthering their interests in power and control?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 1:55 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 1:50 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 11:19 am I have to admit, Christianity is at least, in theory, non-violent compared to Islam.

You are correct.

Not sure how non-violent other religions, such as Buddhism or Hinduism, are.

There are Buddhists wars, as in Myanmar, for example, or Hindu wars, as with Pakistan, for instance...although we might have to argue that the matter was more over language, culture or territory, in the latter case. Still, it happens.

However, none of these, even Islam, comes within orders of magnitude of Atheism, and particularly Socialist Atheism, which is by far the creed most associated with violence. Historically, no other single factor is so associated with violence as that.

So, I take it that your argument would be that things like the Inquisition, Crusades, etc. were acts initiated by non-Christian elites who were more interested in furthering their interests in power and control?

Look at the numbers in the Crusades, Gary. Even if we decide that the motives for the crusades were purely religious (which, of course, we know is untrue, but let's play along), and even if we argue that "Catholic" always means "Christian," (which we also know is not the case, but let's grant that, as well), and even if we include all that died, by any causes during that period (which we know to be an excessive and inflated total, but let's play along), then the people killed in all the Crusades still number less than one 100th of those we certainly know were killed by Secular Atheists in the last century.

Meanwhile, the total of Quaker dead? Zero. The number of Mennonite murders? Zero. The number of Methodist crusades? Zero. The number of Baptist wars? Zero. Do those people get to be considered "Christians" too? Or just Catholics do?

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 12:26 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 11:19 am
I have to admit, Christianity is at least, in theory, non-violent compared to Islam.

True in modern times - with exceptions - but definitely not throughout most of its history.

The following is called - for those who are interested in an easy analysis of Christianity, its contradictions and dubious history....

10 Hard Questions Christians Should Ask (But Never Do)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m5Q1tZtnIw&t=1238s

I have to agree that questioning things should never be stifled. Freedom of thought, to pursue truth wherever it takes us, should be encouraged (I think). I agree that religious congregations have a natural tendency to descend into "group think" (or maybe we should call it group non-thinking) through peer pressure and other factors that put stress on a divergent individual. But that tends to happen almost everywhere, even in the sciences, from time to time. However, I suppose the saving grace of the sciences is that science is, as a matter of principle, always "theoretical" and ought to consider itself nothing more than that. Religion, on the other hand, if a religion is found to be fundamentally incongruent with reality, then that's the end of the church and the congregation. Science is by nature open-ended. It cannot have an orthodoxy and still be called "science". However, a religion can have an orthodoxy and call itself a "religion".

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 2:09 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 12:26 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 11:19 am
I have to admit, Christianity is at least, in theory, non-violent compared to Islam.

True in modern times - with exceptions - but definitely not throughout most of its history.

The following is called - for those who are interested in an easy analysis of Christianity, its contradictions and dubious history....

10 Hard Questions Christians Should Ask (But Never Do)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m5Q1tZtnIw&t=1238s

I agree that religious congregations have a natural tendency to descend into "group think" (or maybe we should call it group non-thinking) through peer pressure and other factors that put stress on a divergent individual. But that tends to happen almost everywhere, even in the sciences, from time to time.

Yes, that's true. And if "Wokism" is any indicator, it's not a phenomenon alien to Leftists, either. Cult-think is just a general human danger.

Science is by nature open-ended. It cannot have an orthodoxy and still be called "science".

Thomas Kuhn pointed out that that's not true. And even today, we see it demonstrated in the case of things like COVID. Remember how often you were told, "Follow the Science," meaning silly things like wearing masks, taking untested syringes of toxic material, being scared of all your neighbours, or washing your groceries in antiseptic, all of which have been abandoned today, and we now know were never sensible in the first place? But once, those were "the Science." Those who asked questions of all that were mocked as "unscientific" and "dangerous" -- we now know they were actually right.

Groupthink is always a danger. I find it pretty funny that an Atheist would think Christians don't ask those "10 questions," when I can list dozens of well-known writers who have books on those very questions. It's like the poster of that video did no real research at all. But even Atheists, apparently, are victims of such groupthink.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 2:03 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 1:55 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 1:50 pm
You are correct.


There are Buddhists wars, as in Myanmar, for example, or Hindu wars, as with Pakistan, for instance...although we might have to argue that the matter was more over language, culture or territory, in the latter case. Still, it happens.

However, none of these, even Islam, comes within orders of magnitude of Atheism, and particularly Socialist Atheism, which is by far the creed most associated with violence. Historically, no other single factor is so associated with violence as that.

So, I take it that your argument would be that things like the Inquisition, Crusades, etc. were acts initiated by non-Christian elites who were more interested in furthering their interests in power and control?

Look at the numbers in the Crusades, Gary. Even if we decide that the motives for the crusades were purely religious (which, of course, we know is untrue, but let's play along), and even if we argue that "Catholic" always means "Christian," (which we also know is not the case, but let's grant that, as well), and even if we include all that died, by any causes during that period (which we know to be an excessive and inflated total, but let's play along), then the people killed in all the Crusades still number less than one 100th of those we certainly know were killed by Secular Atheists in the last century.

Meanwhile, the total of Quaker dead? Zero. The number of Mennonite murders? Zero. The number of Methodist crusades? Zero. The number of Baptist wars? Zero. Do those people get to be considered "Christians" too? Or just Catholics do?

You have a fair point. Most people who practice Christianity as found in the writings of the New Testament properly ought, at least in theory, to be majority non-violent or at least extremely reluctant to resort to violence. The same maybe doesn't hold true with some of the other world religions, I don't know. Although, Islam describes itself as a "religion of peace," which I guess makes many people who call themselves "Muslim" either not-correctly adhering to Islam or else maybe they aren't "Muslim at all" (or maybe Islam isn't a "religion of peace" or something). They seem to do a lot of fighting over things, including with each other. But the same is true of self-proclaimed Christians. Christian countries have chalked up a large tally of wars too, including mostly non-religious wars that were more about domination and conquest. And there didn't seem to be a shortage of willing soldiers in those allegedly Christian nations ready to fight in those wars.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 2:23 pm Although, Islam describes itself as a "religion of peace," which I guess makes many people who call themselves "Muslim" either not-correctly adhering to Islam or else maybe they aren't "Muslim at all" (or maybe Islam isn't a "religion of peace" or something).

Well, Islam means "submission," not "peace." And Islam has always, since its founding and its founder, been a religion of pacification and subjugation by force, not of free peace or voluntary faith. To this day, to leave Islam is often a death-sentence. That's a pretty odd "peace," isn't it?

They seem to do a lot of fighting over things, including with each other. But the same is true of self-proclaimed Christians.

What forms do those "fightings" take? In Islam, it's slitting throats and blowing up or shooting people. In Christianity, it's a vigorous exchange of ideas in a free-speech situation. Let's not pretend that's equivalent, right?