Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Thursday, December 21, 2006 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments |

Document I love the commercialisation of Christmas

by Johann Hari

Reposted from:
http://comment.independent.co.uk

Far better to worship Mammon than to waste our time worshipping a supernatural being

johannAt this time of year, a low, familiar bleat is invariably heard from the pulpits and vestries: Christmas has become crudely commercialised. Money, money, money has trumped Messiah, Messiah, Messiah.

This year, the first to utter this cry has been Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, warning "the spiritual values that many people rightly acknowledge at the heart of Christmas are [now] subjected to an assault of materialism". Many of us nod solemnly at this thought, before guiltily dashing out to Brent Cross to buy another DVD player, remote-control dinosaur and pair of Heelys for the kids.

I am on the side of the DVD players, the dinosaurs and the Heelys. Far better to worship Mammon - and our friends and family - than to waste our time worshipping a supernatural being for whom there is no evidence, speaking through a holy book littered with repellent ideas.

At the end of 2006, a year in which the atheist fight-back against resurgent religion finally began again, we should celebrate a nakedly materialist Christmas with glee, not guilt.

The word "materialism" has been hijacked by the religious as a stick to beat atheists with. While we are staring at the stars, they claim, you are obsessed with the squalid status symbols of life on earth. But if you return to the original understanding of materialism - articulated by the Roman philosopher Lucretius, who lived just before Christ - it is an essential moment in the development of reason. It is the claim that all that exists is physical matter. Everything, including your thoughts, is the result of this physical matter combining, separating or rearranging in various ways. These movements have nothing to do with ghosts or Gods. They are governed by physical laws. You, me, this newspaper, everything you will ever see - it is all just matter.

This was violently resisted by the religious. The early church fathers, especially Jerome, accused Lucretius of witchcraft. But the birth of materialism cleared the way not only for modern physics, but for science itself. It prevented people from attributing recovery from illness to divine intervention, and made them investigate its material causes. Without it, there would be no germ theory of disease, no medicines, no eradication of smallpox and plague.

Today, the religious have been forced to retreat further and further into acknowledging material reality - but still the descendants of Jerome continue with their slurs, attacking the idea of a properly materialist Christmas as something base and suspect. They aren't doing this because they think there is something inherently wrong with, say, credit card debt, or parents who shunt gifts at their kids to compensate for never spending time with them.

Many atheists would agree with that. They do it because they want to guilt-trip people into returning to the non-material (i.e., the unproven), embodied in their unpleasant holy texts. (Remember their God commands parents to kill their children if they talk back to them, in Exodus 21:15, and feeds small children to bears, in Elisha 2:22.)

Why should we allow the adherents of this book - even those who somehow ignore these ugly passages - to seize our greatest annual festival, one that far predates the birth of Christ? There were winter festivals with trees and gifts on these islands long before a non-virgin gave birth in a Bethlehem stable, and there will be one long after the Judaeo-Christian God has joined Zeus, Baal and Odin in the cemetery for forgotten deities.

This year there has been an attempt by the right-wing press to import into Britain the hilarious Fox News hysteria that claims "the left is waging war on Christmas", as if we were wannabe Grinches tearing down tinsel. That's not true, but we should be trying to de-Christianise the festival, turning it into a celebration of our existing friends and relatives, rather than a fiction. There's no need to change the name to "Winterval" - just encourage people to carry on as they are, shunning the churches and turning Brent Cross, the Arndale Centre and (most importantly) the arms of their loved ones into their substitutes.

Of course, the archbishops will resist this, but they speak for a tiny, irrelevant fringe: just 7 per cent of Brits regularly attend religious services. This group has become increasingly hysterical this year, claiming they are being persecuted. The Catholic commentator Cristina Odone, for example, has claimed secularists are "the new fascists".

But in reality, the religious are still given extraordinary and undemocratic privileges. Their representatives are given seats in the House of Lords. Their ideas are protected from insult by law. They are given a vast network of state-funded centres to indoctrinate children, even though more than 70 per cent of us oppose these schools. They are allowed to commit repulsive acts of animal cruelty in the creation of halal and kosher meat. They are legally allowed to discriminate against gay men and lesbians.

Compared to all this, the best the "we are being hounded" religious hysterics can come up with is a single British Airways staff-member who was (stupidly) asked to take off her cross. That's it. They occasionally claim Richard Dawkins is hounding them, when he is in fact merely putting forward a perfectly sensible proposition: in the absence of any evidence whatsoever for a belief, we should assume it is untrue and not teach it to children as fact. For this, he has been savaged as "an ayatollah of atheism" and other preposterous claims. (You'll notice that when atheists are attacked, we do not howl that we are "offended" and demand the censorship of our opponents. We simply argue back.)

The attempt to restore religion to the heart of a fun winter festival is another attempt by this tiny religious fringe to battle against their slow eclipse across western Europe. The commercialisation and secularisation of Christmas is a sign that they are failing and flailing. The religious have always claimed that materialism is a dry, dessicated philosophy that cannot inspire anyone.

The great atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell once outlined a materialist picture of human life that seemed to reinforce this. He wrote: "Our Milky Way is a tiny fragment; within this fragment, the solar system is an infinitesimal speck, and this speck of our planet is a microscopic dot. On this dot, tiny lumps of impure carbon and water crawl about for a few years, until they are dissolved again into the elements of which they are compounded. In the life of the solar system, the period during which the existence of man will have been physically possible is a minute portion of the whole. Such is man's life viewed from the outside."

But are we then to ignore this reality and believe in a comforting fiction? Russell warned: "The search for happiness based upon untrue beliefs is neither very noble nor very glorious." And then he added, with a smile: "There is a stark joy in the unflinching perception of our true place in the world ... No man can achieve the greatness of which he is capable until he has allowed himself to see his own littleness."

Embrace your littleness, embrace the people you love - and have a very merry, very materialist Christmas.

j.hari@ independent.co.uk

Comments 1 - 41 of 41 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #14090 by leonora on December 21, 2006 at 4:49 am

 avatarGood points! I remember when I was a child in the 1950s, adults kept saying how much they "hated Christmas these days, it's so commercialised"...and now, 50 years later, people go around saying "I hate Christmas these days, it's so commercialised"...so I do rather wonder, if everyone hates the commercialisation of Christmas as they claim, why do they contribute to its further commercialisation?
I agree that the festival should be secularised (I can just hear the fire being prepared for me as I type this!!), and there may be an argument for changing the name, since many of us don't actually celebrate CHRISTMAS as such, not the birth of Christ, we just celebrate the Winter Solstice - every culture that has ever existed has had some kind of ritual to observe the Winter Solstice. So perhaps some more inclusive name might be a good idea....but then the Christians would take offence.....

Other Comments by leonora

2. Comment #14092 by eggplantbren on December 21, 2006 at 4:53 am

 avatarGood article - but the two different meanings of materialism are unrelated and shouldn't really be used interchangeably like that.

Other Comments by eggplantbren

3. Comment #14098 by Didaktylos on December 21, 2006 at 5:17 am

Q: What do you call someone who bans Christmas?

A: Oliver Cromwell

Other Comments by Didaktylos

4. Comment #14104 by Yorker on December 21, 2006 at 6:27 am

Atheism is the only point of agreement I have with this guy. Ever since I found out the lie of Santa, christmas has meant nothing to me. Nowadays, I do my best to minimise it's impact on me; I find the fakery, insincerity and commercial greed, distasteful.



Other Comments by Yorker

5. Comment #14105 by anon on December 21, 2006 at 6:34 am

 avatarGreat article! Nice to see a shameless secularist who isn't afraid to say that we can have christmas without christ. This is of course the worst time of year for the wanton guilt-tripping by christian leaders to herd people into church.

Other Comments by anon

6. Comment #14119 by Badger on December 21, 2006 at 7:48 am

as far as I'm aware christmas is the third most important feastday in the christian calendar with good friday and easter day being the more important. These are not celebrated as much so it must be the commercialism that makes christmas/winter solstice so popular

Other Comments by Badger

7. Comment #14126 by blaine on December 21, 2006 at 8:26 am

Re: #14092 by eggplantbren

Exactly! I agree with Hari's points, except that the history and defense of philosophical materialism can do nothing to advance a point about the hedonistic preoccupation with material things. One can be a Materialist, an Idealist, or anything in between, and still be be materialist in the hedonistic sense.

Other Comments by blaine

8. Comment #14130 by ICONIC FREEDOM on December 21, 2006 at 8:32 am

 avatar"Of all the 'isms' in the world, commercialism is the worst" - Miracle on 34th Street ...how many decades ago? Oh brother.

Who cares about all this "dear lord baby jesus" cr*p?

Buy, buy, buy, it keeps the economy going, illegal immigrants employed, the 'war on christmas' overstated and exaggerated - thereby selling more of O'Reilly's stupid book(I'm sure there are illegals processing those orders somewhere in the U.S.); it keeps lawyers in business fighting all the 'secular progressives' who purchased winter paper plates for the school "winter party" defying "christ" in christmas; blah, blah, blah.

I wish I would be alive for the time when religion is no longer in our society - I can only hope for the future generations that they not be demoralized by all this religiosity.

I hear some people get use out of the bible by substituting it for toilet tissue. Not a bad idea, eh!

Other Comments by ICONIC FREEDOM

9. Comment #14132 by Edutheria on December 21, 2006 at 8:40 am

Is it wrong to buy things that you enjoy? To buy presents which your loved ones enjoy? Is it wrong to sell things that people enjoy? What is wrong with commerce? Anti-commercial moralizing is just as unfounded and "holier-than-thou" as religious moralizing.

Other Comments by Edutheria

10. Comment #14134 by Jonathan Dore on December 21, 2006 at 8:47 am

Comment #14098 by Didaktylos

" Q: What do you call someone who bans Christmas?

A: Oliver Cromwell"

Not so, Didaktylos: it was banned by parliament in a bill passed on 4 January 1645 -- a time when Cromwell was barely a national figure even as a military leader, let alone head of the army or head of state.

Other Comments by Jonathan Dore

11. Comment #14143 by Diplo on December 21, 2006 at 9:13 am

 avatarYou'll notice that when atheists are attacked, we do not howl that we are "offended" and demand the censorship of our opponents. We simply argue back

Exactly! Great article, apart from I really wish the forces of materialism didn't have to align with Slade. Still, you can't win them all...

Other Comments by Diplo

12. Comment #14145 by Jiten on December 21, 2006 at 9:14 am

 avatarEdutheria asks what is wrong with commerce.The short answer is Capitalism.It is destroying this world.

Other Comments by Jiten

13. Comment #14152 by Yorker on December 21, 2006 at 9:42 am

9. Comment #14132 by Edutheria

>>What is wrong with commerce?<<

I could give you a lot of answers, but instead I'll ask you a question.

Would you spend $60 on a designer shirt that a worker got paid 7 cents for making?

Other Comments by Yorker

14. Comment #14174 by blaine on December 21, 2006 at 10:51 am

There are plenty of other forums where politics and economics can be discussed without introducing unnecessary division and indignation among the New Atheists here. Besides, a forum for political or economic discussion will have many more members who are particularly skilled or interested in those fields.

Other Comments by blaine

15. Comment #14205 by Andrew Charles on December 21, 2006 at 1:33 pm

 avatarI am sitting here in South Africa and it is almost 40 degrees celsius. The shopping malls have fuckin' trees with fake snow and are playing wintery carols and all that shit. Materialist or not, it's a fuckin' joke...

I think in the Southern Hemisphere we should move christmas to 25 June...

Other Comments by Andrew Charles

16. Comment #14206 by Andrew Charles on December 21, 2006 at 1:34 pm

 avatarExcuse my language...

Other Comments by Andrew Charles

17. Comment #14208 by StephenH on December 21, 2006 at 1:36 pm

 avatarThe commercial side of Christmas, you could argue that at least those products are real and tangible.. you can hold the presents in your hand (or throw them across the room, when you realise you have been given a 10th pair of slippers)

But why does the advertising have to begin in August? When people are still are on their summer holidays. That creates 'overhype'
I think that contributes to the feelings of anti-climax that some people experience on Dec 26th

I have problems with both sides (religious & commercial)

Other Comments by StephenH

18. Comment #14215 by Edutheria on December 21, 2006 at 1:57 pm

Yorker,
Would you rather the worker have to resort to her second-most favored available employment choice, which presumably is worse than her first (perhaps prostitution or even more squalid subsistence farming)? How is not buying the shirt helping the worker in any way?

Other Comments by Edutheria

19. Comment #14216 by Edutheria on December 21, 2006 at 1:58 pm

Blaine,
There are interesting similarities between the economic left and the religious right. Both hate free individual choice. And in my opinion, both are unskeptical, unempirical, and unrigorous about their assertions. I think the comparisons are enlightening enough that they should be fair game in a forum such as this. And keep in mind that the anti-commercial comments came first. I'm just responding.

And there is the all-important question of what to DO about widespread theism and credulity. Dawkins is rightfully worried about how parents indoctrinate their children with superstition. He considers religious education a form of child abuse and even seems to suggest it should be regulated. He's got the problem right, but the answer wrong. Instead we should be DEregulating secular education. The vibrant and nimble private religious education and evangelical church movements are beating the hell out of secular education, because the latter is hopelessly flabby, having been monopolized and cosseted by the government. Empiricism and reason are naturally stronger than superstition and dogma. Science will beat religion in the marketplace of ideas, if you allow the marketplace to exist.

If secular education were deregulated, science teachers would be permitted to say such politically incorrect, but scientifically valid things as, "God almost certainly does not exist", as Dawkins so honestly and bravely proclaimed in his book. Enlightenment will make no real headway until science teachers are allowed to say that. But so long as schools are under government control and religious people have the vote, we will never have intellectual honesty in the science classroom. We (obviously) will never disenfranchise people for their religion. So we need to start deregulating the school system. The dirigsme-loving wing of the atheist movement is fundamentally opposed to that, so for the sake of allowing atheism to punch at its weight in the marketplace of ideas, I must oppose them.

Other Comments by Edutheria

20. Comment #14217 by Cholmonedeley on December 21, 2006 at 2:03 pm

It seems to me that Christianity today is facing the same problem they did when they first decided to celebrate Christmas over Saturnalia. The tradition of festivities and gift-giving at the most dreary time of the year is just too appealing to leave to one religion alone. One wonders how they ever got so many people to convert in the first place.

Jiten said:
"Edutheria asks what is wrong with commerce.The short answer is Capitalism.It is destroying this world."

What a pity that one of the greatest advances in human interactions is so often considered disease upon the planet. I suppose seeing the burning rivers left behind by the Soviet government after it collapsed aren't enough to convince people that the government can't really stop pollution or alleviate social problems.

If we were in a Capitalist system, things would look very different. However, the word that better describes our current (domestic and international) systems is Mercantilism, which is use of companies by the government, to put it shortly. The government doesn't place a zillion advertisements out for Christmas, but the real problems such as pollution and war are directly attributable to the influence of the government. That they use companies to assist in their self-destruction is coincidental.

Other Comments by Cholmonedeley

21. Comment #14218 by Edutheria on December 21, 2006 at 2:05 pm

Jiten,
We ask theists to support their claims with evidence. Then given that evidence, we must compare their paradigm with other paradigms, each of which has its own set of evidence.

So first of all, what is your evidence that capitalism is destroying the world? Secondly what are your alternatives to capitalism? The elimination of private property and individual freedom of exchange? What effect would that have on the world? Would it be better or worse than capitalism? Let's look at the one source of evidence for generalizations about human affairs: history. Which societies had general economic liberty, which did not, and how did they fare respectively? I would argue that from the beginning of civilization up until late modern times, practically the entire world was economically illiberal: there were huge government restrictions on property and exchange. And throughout that same period, malnutrition and infant mortality was an ever-present high probability for everybody on the planet except for a tiny elite. Since governments began to liberalize the economies that they were previously lording it over, there has been progressively fewer diseased adults and starved children in those economies.

So we have the following historical circumstances...

A. Ancient, medieval and early modern times:
1. Property and exchange greatly hampered by state agents (emperors, kings, dukes, bureaucracies, clergy, etc)
2. Mass starvation and suffering, even in peacetime

B. Late modern times:
1. Not nearly so much of A1 in some places
2. Not nearly so much of A2, in those same places

Now you might argue that this is correlation, and not causation. But economics and common sense present very convincing causal mechanisms for why A1 causes A2 and B1 causes B2. If you don't believe me, I can go into them.

Or you might argue that it was the industrial revolution that decreased starvation and suffering so much, and not economic liberalism. Then I would point to societies which embraced industrialism, but shunned economic liberalism, and what became of them (famines in Russia, China, Ukraine, Cambodia, India, North Korea, etc).

I assume that your solution to the problem you see would be to remove individual freedom of economic choice for most everybody, including me. I happen to like my freedom to make my own economic choices. So before you take it away from me, and perhaps cause innumerably more problems than you solve in the process, I simply ask that you convincingly prove your assertions. We would ask no less of theists. So I ask no less of you.

Other Comments by Edutheria

22. Comment #14219 by Logicel on December 21, 2006 at 2:06 pm

 avatarEdutheria, excellent posts, thanks.

Other Comments by Logicel

23. Comment #14226 by kcjerith on December 21, 2006 at 2:30 pm

wow, right on target Edutheria! I think it is improtant to note the economic freedom and freedom of ideas go hand in hand, if you can limit one you can limit the other.

Also, Yorker, yes the wage you listed is low, but you are using american money and trying to compare it to another currency, that crappy wage buys a lot more where the worker lives than you expect, and that worker agreed to voluntaryly work for that wage, if he/she is forced to work than that is a different issue, and has nothing to do with caplitalism. Lastly is you force comapines to pay more then they will likely leave, and the worker will be out of work. Buy the shirt! help your fellow human being out :)

Other Comments by kcjerith

24. Comment #14228 by Jared on December 21, 2006 at 2:39 pm

 avatarI can see Yorker's point in that he is not supporting the company using such awful labour practices, which is commendable in thought if not necessarily (as has been pointed out by Edutheria and kcjerith) in practice. Unfortunately I think any abuses of the capitalist system occur just there, on the SYSTEMATIC level, and so until the reason for using unfair labour practices disappears, they'll likely continue to do so whether we support them or not.

I'd also like to join the respect parade for Edutheria, who has said what I often cannot express well enough when dealing with people who are less inclined towards economic liberalism and the capitalist way. Bravo!

We might need you on the board about the CBC story, as we're having a discussion that might swing in a similar direction :)

Other Comments by Jared

25. Comment #14230 by Jiten on December 21, 2006 at 2:54 pm

 avatarEdutheria : the long answer has been more than adequately provided by Marx and I wouldn't be able to match his eloquence.His critique of Capitalism is still very relevant today.The evidence is all around you.

Why do you assume that any alternative to Capitalist society will result in an erosion of economic freedom or for that matter the freedom of ideas? Is it because of what went on in the former USSR?

Other Comments by Jiten

26. Comment #14233 by princepetr on December 21, 2006 at 3:13 pm

 avatarJohann Hari, the main reason I don't buy the independent anymore!

This little toerag thought the KLA were freedom fighters! Thought it was a great idea to bomb innocent civilians in Serbia, and was fully behind the psuedo Christian crusaders Bush and Blair's invasion and subsequent destruction of Iraq.

This nauseating little warmonger may be an atheist but deserves no place on a site, which prides itself on moral and rational thinking.

Other Comments by princepetr

27. Comment #14234 by Jared on December 21, 2006 at 3:13 pm

 avatarJiten:
I would wager that it's largely because most of Marx's theories are now taken seriously primarily within the liberal arts and academia rather than amongst practicing economists. I've seen it stated numerous times that Marx and Freud share the interesting distinction of being used primarily in areas outside of their own speciality long after they were more or less abandoned by economists and psychaitrists, respectively. While this isn't entirely true (there are still some true Freudians, and several third-world economists [and, nominally, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc] hold to some form of Marxism), functionally speaking the letter-of-the-law Marxist movement has gone down. Just because he made some insightful points and proposed solutions doesn't mean that his solutions were tenable in real-world situations.

As to your second point, it's not as if ANY alternative to Capitalist society will necessarily erode freedoms. It's just that the existing ones do, in varying degrees, by force, policy, or coercion. Whether it's good, bad, or indifferent is another story; it's simply a matter of fact.

Other Comments by Jared

28. Comment #14239 by kcjerith on December 21, 2006 at 3:30 pm

Jiten, no the reason freedom is limited in any non-capitalist is not because of the USSR, though i think is a good example, it is because one is required for the other, if the state controls the means of production, labor, mangement, etc. then it can control the output of ideas. It can control what is or not to be researched, it can force for a subject to be taught in a certain way.

A free market lets people do as they wish as long as they not intiate the use of force. Remember, Jinten, all non-capitalist use force to acomplish there goals. Such use of force is an ersion of freedom

Other Comments by kcjerith

29. Comment #14241 by Aussie on December 21, 2006 at 3:50 pm

"as far as I'm aware christmas is the third most important feastday in the christian calendar with good friday and easter day being the more important. These are not celebrated as much so it must be the commercialism that makes christmas/winter solstice so popular"

Winter Solstice?

Norther Hemisphere Chauvinism again.

As the American astronaut so famously remarked. "It it Springtime back on Earth"


Did you know that everybody is:

White
Male
Affluent
Educated
Well fed
City based
Supplied with clean water
Medically attended to
Living in a democracy
Committed to a nation state rather than a tribe
located in the Northern Hemisphere
An employee not an employer
Christian if religious
etc etc

What about the other 90% of the world's population.

(Just my little pet antipodean whinge :)

Other Comments by Aussie

30. Comment #14242 by princepetr on December 21, 2006 at 3:55 pm

 avatarJiten

I think you are wrong wrong about Marx and ecomomists. Marx's critique of Capitalism has stood the test of time as the vast majority of economists would agree.

The reason freedom was curtailed in Communist ( or more correctly State Capitalist) soceities is beacuse of Marxist-Leninist theory in regard to the state aparatus and the so called "transitional phase" from Capitalism to Socialsm. The trouble is that the transistion is never completed beacuse the state instead of "withering away" as Lenin predicted just grows and gets stronger and stronger.

The state needs to be destroyed before socialism and freedom can co-exist.

Other Comments by princepetr

31. Comment #14250 by Jared on December 21, 2006 at 4:27 pm

 avatarprincepetr:

I think you were referring to me, and not to Jiten, who was supportive of Marx.

Well, I can't personally speak for economists, only what I've read about Marxism in my travels through academia, where the point of his current irrelevance has been raised several times. I'm not much interested in economics or socialist theories so I know no more than that.

And as to the 'transitional phase,' and Lenin's predictions...I'm not sure, but I'd hazard a guess that there's a reason for the failure of the state to wither away. And, my hunch is, that the reason is that humans tend towards power structures and hierarchies, and certain people tend to want to dominate. I think it is likely part of human nature that this occurs, not any failures of each particular state that has tried.

Even though the man in your userpic was a committed socialist, he too expressed doubts that a socialist state and freedom could ever co-exist. Regardless, your statement that 'the state needs to be destroyed before socialism and freedom can co-exist' is debatable, but even under an assumption of its truth, my question is: how long after the state is destroyed does something very much like the state rise up again?

Other Comments by Jared

32. Comment #14261 by Edutheria on December 21, 2006 at 5:33 pm

Jiten,

You wrote,
"Edutheria : the long answer has been more than adequately provided by Marx"

Thank you for providing yet another fascinating parallel between the religious right and the economic left: the habitual recourse to authoritative dogma. When challenged, a dogmatic theist retorts, "Go read your Bible," or "Go read your Koran." And here, in a forum that was meant by its founder to be a clear-thinking oasis, a dogmatic socialist has the nerve to say, "Go read your Marx." Hang the evidence. Hang reasoning and discussion. Just "Capitalism is destroying the world," and "Go read your Marx."

Fascinating.

Edutheria, at http://edutheria.com

Other Comments by Edutheria

33. Comment #14263 by MelM on December 21, 2006 at 6:59 pm

"On this dot, tiny lumps of impure carbon and water crawl about for a few years, until they are dissolved again into the elements of which they are compounded."

Judging man by his size compared to solar systems and galaxies--an impossible standard? I guess if people were the size of galactic clusters, maybe they'd get a little respect from Russell. What a cheap shot-and absurd--way of belittling human life! He couldn't even bring himself to acknowledge that we walk and don't "crawl about." This is no way to win the battle with the menace to civilization which is religion!

Anyway, I just bought the book today; I want to see if "the worlds most prominent atheist" has an effective argument. And, I read somewhere that he called religion "nonsense." That did it, I had to have the book right now!

Here's another view of a secular Christmas but without Russell's "little" nonsense thrown in.
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.asp
Why Christmas Should Be More Commercial by Dr. Leonard Peikoff "It is time to take the Christ out of Christmas, and turn the holiday into a guiltlessly egoistic, pro-reason, this-worldly, commercial celebration.
"

Other Comments by MelM

34. Comment #14264 by Cholmonedeley on December 21, 2006 at 7:00 pm

Jiten said:
" the long answer has been more than adequately provided by Marx and I wouldn't be able to match his eloquence.His critique of Capitalism is still very relevant today.The evidence is all around you."

I would say that Marx's predictions about Capitalism have fallen flat. In fact, a few of his criticisms of Capitalism may even have been projection: for instance, he once had an affair with, and impregnated, a woman who worked for him. He threw this woman out on the street when she became inconvenient. More broadly, his basic idea that Capitalism would just keep putting more and more people out of work, resulting in an inevitable revolution, has fallen flat, with even nominally capitalistic countries standing on their feet long after the failure of most Communist countries. To quote a joke used widely by Russian economists surrounding the collapse of the USSR, "Communism is the long road from Capitalism to Capitalism."

"Why do you assume that any alternative to Capitalist society will result in an erosion of economic freedom or for that matter the freedom of ideas? Is it because of what went on in the former USSR?"

Systems other than capitalism tend to breed uncertainty about property rights, thus requiring a central hegemonic force to maintain order. However, the decisions are inevitably arbitrary, limiting economic freedom, and of course very inefficient, leading to ever stricter measures (and thus more opportunities to abuse power, limiting freedom of ideas) to maintain the situation.

Other Comments by Cholmonedeley

35. Comment #14288 by kcjerith on December 22, 2006 at 12:19 am

Also, just to add a few more failings of marx's ideas, he classic divison of society falls apart in the modern world. There is not just the bouseguise and proleteriat (sorry about spelling, but it later, i swear i smarter than my speeling :)!. today there are wide wage of middle mangement that do not feat neatly into this system. another point, marx was quite sure that the road to socalism was inevitable, and that captilism was just a phase. Again not true, captilsim never collasped under its own "flaws"

I will say this, marx is an improtant writer, if you take a modern socialogy class, of the paradigms is one based largly on marx. It is similar (sort of) like the "holy book" you need to understand it to understand history and culture.

Other Comments by kcjerith

36. Comment #14325 by Jiten on December 22, 2006 at 3:09 am

 avatarEdutheria,if I had said to someone else the short answer is natural selection and the long answer has been more than adequately provided by Darwin (and later eloquently refined by Dawkins and others) what would have said? Would you have made the same spurious analogy? I think not as you would have rightly pointed out that theirs was a reasoned argument backed up by evidence.Do you then believe that Marx's arguments are not reasoned arguments backed up by evidence?

If I had regurgitated Marx in my own less elegant words would you have then taken my argument to be 'inteligent',one worthy to be in a 'clear thinking' forum?

kcjerith and cholmondeley there is a mighty,big elephant called the US Military following you.Have you not noticed it maintaining order in the world?

Other Comments by Jiten

37. Comment #14330 by Logicel on December 22, 2006 at 4:06 am

 avatarEdutheria, a thread on Kids self education has just been started here:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=57997#57997

You are most welcome to contribute, as is anyone else.

Other Comments by Logicel

38. Comment #14408 by Edutheria on December 22, 2006 at 9:56 am

(Sorry for the crosspost)

If anyone here is the least bit curious about the power of freedom and individual choice, please watch Free to Choose, a wonderful PBS documentary by the late, great Milton Friedman. It's streaming for free (perhaps only temporarily) in honor of his recent death at http://www.ideachannel.tv . It just might change your life. (The video streaming is excellent btw, with absolutely no buffering, at least in my experience.)

-Edutheria, http://edutheria.com

Other Comments by Edutheria

39. Comment #14420 by Sailnsouth on December 22, 2006 at 11:28 am

An enjoyable article

Although off topic, when he mentions Lucretius, he states he was "just before Christ". That should be the "alleged" life of Christ.

Just like there are new and old earth creationists there are those of us who do not see Christ as a true figure of history.

Other Comments by Sailnsouth

40. Comment #14435 by Edutheria on December 22, 2006 at 12:36 pm

Jiten,
Edutheria,if I had said to someone else the short answer is natural selection and the long answer has been more than adequately provided by Darwin (and later eloquently refined by Dawkins and others) what would have said? Would you have made the same spurious analogy? I think not as you would have rightly pointed out that theirs was a reasoned argument backed up by evidence.Do you then believe that Marx's arguments are not reasoned arguments backed up by evidence?

If I had regurgitated Marx in my own less elegant words would you have then taken my argument to be 'inteligent',one worthy to be in a 'clear thinking' forum?


If you were to just say, "Go read your Darwin," to a creationist, then I would say, yes, you are being dogmatic. Darwin happens to have been right, but that doesn't change the fact that you were appealing to ideological authority instead of reasoning and evidence. And I would say that, as such, you were doing a disservice to Darwinism. The Origin of the Species isn't a holy book. It's the first presentation of a beautifully true notion. Its beautiful truth deserves being told and retold, not pedantically invoked.

As for the ideological merits of Marx...
Science is rooted in philosophy. Philo=love, Sophia=wisdom, so I think of philosophy as the rigorous love of truth. If you really love truth, you will be very demanding of any pretensions to truth. The most rigorous tests of truth are twofold: reason and evidence. That is why there are two chief schools of philosophy: rationalism and empiricism. But you can't have one without the other. Marx is just one in a long line of philosophers who relied too much on rationalism and not enough on empiricism: who got caught up in spinning elegant ideas, without being skeptical enough to make sure those ideas have a firm bearing in the real world. That line goes all the way back to Pythagoras, the ancient Greek who was so enamored by the elegance of whole numbers, that he fabricated an intricate mysticism, under which you could go to heaven if you thought about math enough! The elegance of this ideology was so compelling to deep thinkers that it engendered a huge following, which included Plato himself, who loved the elegance of regular geometric solids so much that he insisted the universe was made out of them. These schools of thought scoffed at the work of contemporaries who based their theories on both reason AND the real world: contemporaries like Anaximander, who postulated that life spontaneously arose and that humans were descended from animals, and like Democritus who proposed that everything in the world must be made up of tiny invisible particles he called atoms. These ideas were too earthly, not elegant enough for people like Plato. Plato thought Democritus' works should be burned. (He eventually got his way. Democritus was prolific, but hardly anything he wrote survives today.)

In the same way, Marxists are too caught up in the elegance of their ideas. They too have constructed an elaborate mysticism around that elegance which purports to know all, and to even foretell the future. And just like Pythagoreanism, Marxism has produced a dogma that is impervious to evidence. The fact that every single attempt at Marxism has produced famine and misery doesn't bother them overmuch, because they care so much more about the elegance of their reasoning than the demonstrations of the empirical real world. That is wholly unrigorous, unskeptical, and unphilosophical. It does not connote a love of truth.

-Edutheria, http://edutheria.com

Other Comments by Edutheria

41. Comment #14701 by Fouad Boussetta on December 24, 2006 at 2:22 pm

 avatar*We wish you a Godless Christmas,
*We wish you a Merry Solstice,
*We wish you a Merry Christmas,
*And a Happy New Year! :)

(Sung by myself, my wife, and our atheist cat.)

Other Comments by Fouad Boussetta
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: