First, I don’t know where I have to put this kind of question on Lemmy so I’m asking it here. Marx viewed religion as a negative force, often referring to it as the ‘opiate of the masses.’ If someone is religious and also identifies as a Marxist, do you think that’s contradictory, or is it just a matter of mislabeling themselves? Would it be more accurate for them to call themselves a socialist instead of a Marxist?

  • einkorn@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Depends.

    There are phenomena we can’t explain. So there is room in reality for things beyond our understanding, which traditionally are filled with myth and believe. However, I agree given that for basically every claim religion has put forth science has been able to demonstrate non-supernatural causes, it only seems logical to assume that this will still be the case further down the line.

    • Jeena@piefed.jeena.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      About the things we can’t explain yet, we should be honest and the only moral thing is to say we just don’t know. Lying and pretending otherwise is immoral and wrong.

      • einkorn@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        There is a difference between lying and believing.

        We know that plants have evolved along every other living being on this planet. Yet for an ancient farmer sowing their field, asking “who or what sowed everything else around me”, the assumption of some godlike original farmer being is reasonable. So, believe in and of itself is not immoral. Believe contrary to better knowledge is.