“communism is most definitely not a religion”
Was evolution a religion for some adherents of evolution?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_34af14fc-b6fd-4d71-a428-179897a7057d
**Prominent evolutionists and philosophers of biology have at times described evolutionary theory and Darwinism in explicitly religious terms—as a secular faith, ideology, myth, or alternative religion providing meaning, morality, and ultimate commitment.**
### Michael Ruse
Philosopher of biology and self-described ardent evolutionist Michael Ruse has repeatedly acknowledged the religious character of much evolutionary advocacy:
> “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science.
Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality.
I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint… the literalists are absolutely right.
Evolution is a religion.
This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”
Ruse has noted that figures from T.H. Huxley onward consciously built Darwinism into a phenomenon that could substitute for traditional religion and supply similar emotional satisfactions.
### Julian Huxley
Evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley (grandson of T.H. Huxley and a central figure in the modern evolutionary synthesis) explicitly sought to establish evolutionary humanism as a new religion.
He titled a major work *Religion without Revelation* and, at the 1952 World Congress on Humanism and Ethical Culture, offered “evolutionary humanism” as a world religion in which humanity, as the product of evolution, would consciously guide its further development.
He argued that evolution should become the central hypothesis of a new, non-theistic religious framework that sanctifies higher human possibilities and provides a unifying faith for the modern age.
### Other notable statements
– Nobel Prize-winning biologist George Wald:
“There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose:
Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God…
There is no other possibility…
I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution”
(because he did not want to believe in God).
– E.O. Wilson (leading evolutionary biologist) has described evolutionary naturalism as a “myth” capable of replacing traditional religions and providing a comprehensive world picture.
– Historical observers and some scientists have noted the “religious fervor” with which Darwinian orthodoxy has been preached and the tendency to treat skepticism as a failure of “scientific faith.”
These statements—from Ruse (an insider critic), Huxley (a founder of modern evolutionary thought who sought to institutionalize it as religion), Wald, and others—illustrate how some leading evolutionists have treated evolutionary theory not merely as a scientific explanation but as an all-encompassing worldview, source of meaning, and object of committed faith that can function as a secular alternative to traditional religion.
“do a search: ‘Is communism a religion.’ It is all explained there (by AI no less) why communism is absolutely not a religion”
In what ways if any has communism been a religion for some communists?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
perplexity.ai/search/15d65565-2ab9-4d98-93e5-01c2ee59afd3
Yes—**for some communists, especially within particular revolutionary movements and state systems, communism has operated in ways that resemble religion**, even though classical Marxism is explicitly materialist and generally hostile to supernatural religion.
Calling it a “religion” is therefore a sociological or metaphorical claim, not usually a claim that communists worshipped a god.
## The basic distinction
Marx and later Marxist–Leninist traditions generally treated religion as a product of suffering, alienation, and unequal social conditions—something expected to fade when those conditions changed. Marx’s own ideal of communism was an earthly social order, not salvation in a supernatural realm. [plato.stanford](** you do not have permission to see this link **)
So communism is not inherently a religion in the ordinary sense: it has no necessary belief in divinity, afterlife, revelation, prayer, or transcendent reality. Many communists have been committed atheists, and many have approached Marxism as a political and economic theory subject—at least in principle—to criticism and evidence.
But some forms of communist commitment have taken on **religion-like functions**.
## Religion-like features
| Feature often associated with religion | Communist analogue in some movements or regimes |
|—|—|
| Comprehensive account of reality | Historical materialism could offer an all-encompassing explanation of economics, politics, culture, war, and social conflict |
| Story of fall and redemption | Class society and capitalism were cast as the condition of oppression; revolution and communism as collective liberation |
| Sacred texts and authoritative interpretation | Marx, Engels, Lenin, and sometimes Mao or Stalin were treated as canonical authorities; in rigid settings, disputing their interpretations could be treated as ideological deviance |
| Saints, martyrs, and exemplary figures | Fallen revolutionaries, workers, soldiers, and party leaders were commemorated as models of sacrifice |
| Ritual and ceremony | Parades, party congresses, May Day demonstrations, oaths, songs, portraits, funerals, youth organizations, and public commemorations created collective belonging |
| Moral discipline | The party could define the virtues of the “new socialist person”—discipline, sacrifice, solidarity, labor, vigilance—and condemn “bourgeois” or “counterrevolutionary” behavior |
| Promised future | The expectation of a classless society could supply hope, purpose, and a sense that present suffering was meaningful in light of a future transformation |
The key point is not merely that communists had slogans or ceremonies—every political movement does. It is that, in some cases, the ideology supplied a **total worldview**, a moral community, a sacred historical mission, and rituals that bound people emotionally to that mission.
## Soviet and Mao-era examples
In the Soviet Union, communist authorities promoted atheist and secular alternatives to established religious practice, including public holidays, civic ceremonies, inductions, and life-cycle rituals such as secular weddings and funerals. These were intended in part to replace religious institutions and practices with Soviet values. [scholarsbank.uoregon](** you do not have permission to see this link **)
Under Stalin, the party, doctrine, class mission, and leader could be treated as *sacrosanct*: set apart from ordinary criticism and affirmed through public loyalty rituals. Portraits, mass processions, pledges, and commemorations helped construct this political culture. [tandfonline](** you do not have permission to see this link **)
The cult around Lenin and Stalin illustrates the ambiguity. It was not ordinarily a claim that Stalin was literally divine. Rather, the leader was elevated into a near-infallible symbol of historical truth, national destiny, and revolutionary legitimacy. Some scholars thus describe Stalinism as a form of “political religion” or “secular religion,” while others reject that label because it lacked a genuinely transcendent deity, worship in the theological sense, or rituals of communion comparable to those in Christianity. [tandfonline](** you do not have permission to see this link **)
## Why the comparison is useful—and limited
The comparison is useful when it identifies:
– **Dogmatism:** treating a doctrine as beyond correction.
– **Sacralization of politics:** treating party, leader, nation, class, or revolution as objects of reverence.
– **Redemptive history:** seeing political struggle as the path to ultimate collective liberation.
– **Ritualized loyalty:** using ceremony and public participation to establish belonging and conformity.
– **Heresy and apostasy dynamics:** treating dissent not as ordinary disagreement but as betrayal or moral contamination.
But it becomes misleading if it implies that all communists were irrational believers, that communist theory is simply disguised theology, or that every communist movement had the same relationship to ritual, authority, and dissent.
A labor organizer who supported collective ownership while criticizing Marx, Lenin, and the Communist Party is very different from a party member in a highly centralized one-party state required to affirm an official doctrine and participate in loyalty rituals.
## A balanced conclusion
Communism has been **religion-like for some communists**, particularly where it became a comprehensive doctrine of history, a source of ultimate meaning, a moral code, an organized community, and a system of public ritual centered on a redemptive political future. In authoritarian communist states, these features could become especially strong through party orthodoxy and leader cults.
Yet it is not automatically or essentially a religion. Classical Marxism defines itself partly through opposition to religion and supernatural explanation.
The most precise formulation is that some forms of communism have functioned as a **secular faith** or **political religion**—terms that describe how people related to the ideology and institutions, not a literal belief in God.
“Religion involves belief in a higher power, gods or the supernatural”
Is Buddhism a religion?
How about:
Jainism?
Confucianism?
“religious naturalism”?
“naturalistic religious humanism”?
What are some religions if any that lack belief in a higher power, gods or the supernatural?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
perplexity.ai/search/15d65565-2ab9-4d98-93e5-01c2ee59afd3
Yes. A tradition can be religious without being theistic: it may center on ethical discipline, liberation, ritual, community, or a way of life rather than worship of a creator or higher power.
But **few large, long-standing religions lack every supernatural belief**; more commonly, they lack a creator God while retaining ideas such as karma, rebirth, spirits, sacred powers, or ritual efficacy.
## Closest fits
| Tradition or movement | Creator/high god? | Supernatural beliefs? | Important qualification |
|—|—:|—:|—|
| Religious naturalism | No | No, by definition | A modern family of religious orientations that finds religious meaning and ethical commitment in the natural world while holding that nature is all that exists. [en.wikipedia](** you do not have permission to see this link **) |
| Some forms of Unitarian Universalism / Religious Humanism | No required belief | Often no | These are pluralistic communities rather than one uniform creed; individual members may be atheist, naturalist, theist, or otherwise. The humanist/naturalist streams are the relevant non-supernatural forms. [blog.unitedseminary](** you do not have permission to see this link **) |
| Secular Buddhism / naturalistic Buddhist modernism | No creator god | Often minimized or rejected | These modern interpretations retain meditation, ethics, and practices aimed at reducing suffering while interpreting karma, rebirth, and cosmology nonliterally—or setting them aside. This is not identical to most traditional Buddhist communities. [plato.stanford](** you do not have permission to see this link **) |
Religious naturalism is probably the clearest answer if you mean **no gods, no higher supernatural power, no souls surviving death, no miracles, and no supernatural realms**. It treats the universe revealed through science as the whole of reality but considers awe, reverence, moral seriousness, communal practice, and ecological responsibility “religious” responses. [en.wikipedia](** you do not have permission to see this link **)
## Nontheistic, but supernatural
Several major traditions are often called **nontheistic**, meaning they do not require belief in a supreme creator God. That does *not* mean they are wholly naturalistic.
– **Buddhism:** Mainstream Buddhism does not require belief in a creator God; Buddhist liberation concerns awakening, suffering, impermanence, and dependent arising rather than obeying a divine creator. Yet many Buddhist traditions include karma, rebirth, multiple realms of existence, and devas or other supernatural beings. [plato.stanford](** you do not have permission to see this link **)
– **Jainism:** Jainism has no omnipotent creator God. Its universe, souls, and matter are generally understood as uncreated and eternal; liberation comes through disciplined ethical and spiritual practice, especially nonviolence. But Jainism includes souls, karma as a real binding force, rebirth, liberated beings, and cosmic realms—so it does not meet the “no supernatural” condition. [britannica](** you do not have permission to see this link **)
– **Confucianism:** Confucianism is sometimes categorized as a religion and sometimes as an ethical-political philosophy. It has no deity who is worshipped in the usual sense and emphasizes moral cultivation, family obligations, education, ritual propriety, and humane social relations. However, ancestor reverence and concepts such as *Tian* (“Heaven”) make it difficult to classify all versions as straightforwardly non-supernatural. [britannica](** you do not have permission to see this link **)
## Why definitions matter
There are two different questions hidden in “religion without a higher power”:
1. **Can a religion lack a creator God?**
Absolutely. Buddhism, Jainism, and many forms of Confucianism are leading examples.
2. **Can a religion lack all supernatural commitments?**
Yes, but the examples are usually modern movements or explicitly naturalistic interpretations, such as religious naturalism and some forms of religious humanism or secular Buddhism. [en.wikipedia](** you do not have permission to see this link **)
That distinction matters because “God,” “higher power,” and “supernatural” are not interchangeable. A person may reject a creator deity while believing in rebirth; reject gods while believing in sacred spirits; or reject all supernatural entities while still participating in a community they regard as religious.
## A practical summary
If you want the **strictest** answer, religious naturalism and naturalistic religious humanism are the best examples:
they can retain religion’s functions—ritual, shared values, awe, ethical obligation, and community—while affirming only the natural world.
If you mean **religions without a creator God**, the principal historical examples are Buddhism and Jainism, with Confucianism often included.
But they should not be described as simply atheistic or free of supernatural beliefs, since traditional forms commonly affirm realities beyond ordinary materialism.
“might some forms of socialism be good?”
Maybe.
Would you consider this form of socialism a good arrangement?:
Acts 2 (NIV)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship,
to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles.
44 All the believers were together and had everything in common.
45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.
46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts.
They broke bread in their homes
and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,
47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people.
And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
Do approve of this socialist arrangement?:
“For the yong-men [among the Pilgrims] that were most able and fitte for labour and service did repine that they should spend their time and streingth to worke for other mens wives and children, with out any recompence.
The strong, or man of parts, had no more in devission of victails and cloaths, then he that was weake and not able to doe a quarter the other could;
this was thought injuestice.
The aged and graver men to be ranked and [97] equalised in labours, and victails, cloaths, etc., with the meaner and yonger sorte, thought it some indignite and disrespect unto them.
And for mens wives to be commanded to doe servise for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, etc., they deemd it a kind of slaverie, neither could many husbands well brooke it.”
Do approve of this socialist arrangement?:
“When our [Virginia] people were fed out of the common store, and labored jointly together, glad was he who could slip from his labor or slumber over his task he cared not how…
neither cared they for the increase, presuming that howsoever the harvest prospered, the general store must maintain them.”
William Bradford (1588-1657), History of Plymouth Plantation, 1620-1647, on 300-303
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Page 300
At length, after much debate of things, the Gov[erno]r (with the advise of the cheefest amongest them) gave way that they should set corne every man for his owne perticuler, and in that regard trust to them selves;
in all other things to goe on in the generall way as before.
And so assigned to every family a parcell of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end, only for present use (but made no devission for inheritance), and ranged all boys and youth under some familie.
This had very good success;
for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted then other waise would have bene by any means the Gov[erno]r or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave farr better contente.
The women now wente willingly into the feild, and tooke their htle-ones with them to set corne, which before would aledg weaknes, and inabihtie;
whom to have compelled would have bene thought great tiranie and oppression.^1
The experience that was had in this commone course and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince they [the] vanitie of that conceite of Platos and other ancients, applauded by some of later times;
that the taking away of propertie, and bringing in communitie into a comone wealth, would make them happy and fiorishing;
as if they were wiser then God.
For this comunitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much imployment that would have been to their benefite and comforte.
For the yong-men that were most able and fitte for labour and service did repine that they should spend their time and streingth to worke for other mens wives and children, with out any recompence.
The strong, or man of parts, had no more in devission of victails and cloaths, then he that was weake and not able to doe a quarter the other could;
this was thought injuestice.
The aged and graver men to be ranked and [97] equalised in labours, and victails, cloaths, etc., with the meaner and yonger sorte, thought it some indignite and disrespect unto them.
And for mens wives to be commanded to doe servise for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, etc., they deemd it a kind of slaverie, neither could many husbands well brooke it.
Upon the poynte all being to have alike, and all to doe alike, they thought them selves in the like condition, and one as good as another;
and so, if it did not cut of those relations that God hath set amongest men, yet it did at least much diminish and take of the mutuall respects that should be preserved amongst them.
And would have bene worse if they had been men of another condition.
Let none objecte this is men’s corruption, and nothing to the course it selfe.
I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in his wisdome saw another course fiter for them.
But to returne.
After this course setled, and by that their corne was planted, all ther victails were spente, and they were only to rest on Gods providence.
footnote 1:
The Virginian experiment in common developed one danger that threatened its continuance:
“When our people were fed out of the common store, and labored jointly together, glad was he who could slip from his labor or slumber over his task he cared not how, nay, the most honest among them would hardly take so much pains in a week, as now they themselves will do in a day:
neither cared they for the increase, presuming that howsoever the harvest prospered, the general store must maintain them.”
Ralph Hamor, in Purchas, Pilgrimes, iv. 1766.
About 1614 the advisability of allotting to each man a “private garden” was considered, but the plan did not meet with acceptance, and a number of allotments of three acres each were made to leasing farmers, who should pay an annual rent of two and one-half barrels of corn into the common store for each male worker.
These farmers gave only one month’s labor a year for the community, and that labor was not to be given in seed-time or in harvest.
Smith may have had this experiment in a common stock in mind when he advised the new plantations not to stand
“too much upon the letting, setting, or selling those wild Countries, nor impose too much upon the commonalty either by your maggazines, which commonly eat out all poore mens labours, nor any other too hard imposition for present gaine;
but let every man so it bee by order allotted him, plant freely without limitation so much as hee can, be it by the halfes or otherwayes:
And at the end of five or six yeares, or when you make a division, for every acre he hath planted, let him have twenty, thirty, forty, or an hundred; or as you finde hee hath extraordinarily deserved, by it selfe to him and his heires for ever; all his charges being defrayed to his lord or master, and publike good.”tisements for the Unexperienced Planters_, *23.
============================
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Yes, the Pilgrims did conduct an experiment with socialism.
Initially, they implemented a communal system where the community shared the produce from the fields equally among all members.
However, this system led to confusion, discontent, and a significant decrease in productivity.
Governor William Bradford noted that people began to allege weakness and inability because no matter how much or how little work someone did, they still received the same amount of food.
The communal system undermined motivation as young men resented working for other families without additional reward, and older men felt disrespected.
Wives also complained about doing household chores for others, considering it a form of slavery.
Recognizing the failure of this system, the Pilgrims eventually abandoned socialism and adopted a system of private property where each family was responsible for their own crops.
This change greatly increased productivity and improved overall satisfaction.
“Define what you mean by ‘socialism'”
socialism
** you do not have permission to see this link **
1: any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
…
2a: a system of society or of group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
DavidFord said
“Define what you mean by ‘socialism'”
socialism
** you do not have permission to see this link **
1: any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
…
2a: a system of society or of group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
Well that’s what the dictionary says but based on your previous comments that’s not what YOU mean by it.
DavidFord said
“based on your previous comments that’s not what YOU mean by it”
How so?– details?
I suppose I object most to your using the word “socialism” to include so many different groups, some of whom would despise each other.
You should pursue some nuance in this discussion. Even Webster acknowledges the loosey goosey quality of the term. For example, you seem to identify socialism and communism. May I recommend the writings of George Orwell, life-long socialist and ardent anti-communist?
For the record, I am not a socialist. I think it best to keep the economy in private hands as far as possible. But capitalism has negative qualities. Why not use the regulatory power of the government, working on behalf of the people, to mitigate against the defects of capitalism?
This is what the Europeans have done. None are socialist. The vast portion of their economies remain in private hands. (There are millionaires even in the Nordic states.) What they have is not socialism but well-regulated capitalism. This is what we must do.
“I object most to your using the word ‘socialism’ to include so many different groups, some of whom would despise each other”
2 examples of those uses of mine?
“Webster acknowledges the loosey goosey quality of the term”
“you seem to identify socialism and communism. May I recommend the writings of George Orwell, life-long socialist and ardent anti-communist?”
Do you believe I equated “socialism and communism”?
“capitalism has negative qualities”
Unethical capitalists commit negative actions.
“Why not use the regulatory power of the government, working on behalf of the people, to mitigate against the defects of capitalism?”
What are 2 of those “defects”?
“the Nordic states… have… not socialism but well-regulated capitalism”
What label would you assign to this collectivization?:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
From 1958 onward, Mao’s collectivization folded hundreds of millions of farmers into People’s Communes, where the state controlled planting, harvesting, and distribution. The result was the Great Leap Forward famine: 15 to 55 million dead between 1959 and 1961, depending on whose count you trust. Collective farming killed because it severed the link between individual effort and individual reward. You plant, a committee harvests, a bureaucrat distributes. The incentive to produce collapses. Starvation follows.
Starting in 1978, Deng Xiaoping’s government rolled out the household responsibility system across rural China. Families signed contracts with the state, leased land, met a quota, and kept the surplus for themselves. Private production rights, even inside a Communist structure. Grain output rose from 305 million tons in 1978 to 407 million tons by 1984. Six years. No foreign aid. No green revolution miracle. Farmers simply responded to incentives once you stopped shooting them for having them.
Free market thinkers have never found this surprising. Ludwig von Mises wrote in 1920 that rational economic calculation becomes impossible without private property, because prices require owners making real decisions with real stakes. Collectivized agriculture failed because the price signal disappeared and nobody bore the cost of bad decisions.
What China proved in 1978 is what every free market thinker already knew from pure logic: property rights produce food, committees produce paperwork. It’s tragedy that Beijing still calls it a managed reform rather than an admission that the state had been wrong about everything since 1949.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)