[ALB]

robbo203 wrote:

Well, its more than an argument about what do we mean by knowledge; it is also an arguement about what we mean by  rationality. I hope that it is now clear and apparent to all that the notion that  you can call one group of people who hold religious beliefs as irrational  and another group who are socialists as rational is an utter absurdity.  . It is absurd not only because it is entirely possible for a religious person to want and understand socialism  and therefore be a socialist but also because there is no such thing as a person who is not both rational and irrational

This is a bit of a caricature of our position. I don’t think any member says that all religious people are irrational or that all socialists are entirely rational. What we are talking about is taking a rational attitude, i.e one based on tested and verified evidence, to the evolution of the Earth, of life, of humans and of society but, more importantly, about social change, ie accepting that humans make history and that gods don’t intervene in this.I don’t think even you would be in favour of admitting every religious person who agreed with socialism (and getting it through majority democratic political action) whatever their religious views, would you? Take this lot for instance:http://www.paradism.org/Some good stuff there about a world without money.Then there’s this, which is not bad either, which reveals who they are:http://www.raelpress.org/news.php?item.274.1And who are the Raelians? What do they stand for? According to the wikipedia entry on them:

Quote:

Raëlism, or the Raëlian Church, is a UFO religion that was founded in 1974 byClaude Vorilhon, now known as Raël. The Raëlian Movement teaches that life on Earth was scientifically created by a species of extraterrestrials, which they call the Elohim. Members of this species appeared human and when having personal contacts with the descendants of the humans they made, they previously misinformed (on purpose) early humanity that they were angels, cherubs or gods. Raëlians believe messengers, or prophets, of the Elohim include Buddha, Jesus, and others who informed humans of each era. The founder of Raëlism, members claim, received the final message of the Elohim and that its purpose is to inform the world about Elohim and that if humans become aware and peaceful enough, they wish to be welcomed by them. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C3%ABlism )

Over to you, Robbo. Rational or irrational? Acceptable or not?

[ALB]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Says Chomsky: Nobody knows what material is, or what physical is, let alone what mind is, or what else there might be or might not be. Modern science has expelled the machine, and left the ghost. Most of the discussion on here, by these standards, is pre-Newtonian!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5in5EdjhD0

Let’s not forget that what we are really discussing here is the most adequate way of describing observable events from the point of view of human survival. It doesn’t strike me that saying “nobody knows what material is, etc” is useful from this perspective. At the time of Newton Samuel Johnson already dismissed a similar idea put forward by Bishop Berkeley by simply kicking a stone.

[ALB]

I wasn’t appealing to authority, just referring people following this thread to the opposite point of view.But I don’t see what your problem is. Those studying sub-atomic particles observed that this part of the universe (of everything) moves in a different way from other parts and came up with a theory to explain this (quantum physics). I don’t see how the Observer Effect is a problem, it’s just another observation to be taken into account when formulating a theory (essentially describing the pattern observed). It doesn’t mean that the universe has a mind or is a mind. That’s a hypothesis of course just as is that a god created the universe in 5 or 6 days. Whether it’s worth testing any more than the Creationist view is a matter of debate, not that I can see how it could be tested. It doesn’t seem to be taken seriously by most people involved in this research and analysis.I’m not an expert in quantum or any other kind of physics, but this is an argument about what do we mean by knowledge. See this I wrote on the other thread discussing materialism, etc (the quote is from Anton Pannekoek, a noted astronomer as well as a socialist and a Marxist):

Quote:

Incidentally, just like the theory of relativity, the theory of quantum physics is also “only a mental abstraction, a set of formulas, better than the former, hence more true, because it represents more phenomena which the old law could not explain.”  It’s only a way of describing a part of the universe, how sub-atomic participles are observed to move. It doesn’t have relevance outside the field of sub-atomic particles, and in fact is not an accurate description of other parts of the universe. The fact that human behaviour could also be described as “uncertain” and “indeterminate” is just a co-incidence.

[ALB]

Here’s Anton Pannekoek’s take on this, on the basis of the view that all that exists is the ever-changing universe and that knowledge and science consists in describing and analysing parts of this and detecting patterns in it, with a view to predicting what will happen in similar circumstances and using this knowledge to improve human life:

Quote:

Modern science, in an analogous way, in the theory of relativity renders the motions in space not by gravitational force, but by prescribing the shortest road (the “geodesic”) in the distorted four-dimensional space-time. Now again physicists came to consider this warped space as a “reality” behind the phenomena. And again it must be stated that, like Newton’s gravitation, it is only a mental abstraction, a set of formulas, better than the former, hence more true, because it represents more phenomena which the old law could not explain.What is called “causality” in nature, the reign of natural laws-sometimes one even speaks of the “law of causality,” i.e. in nature the law holds that laws hold – simply comes down to the fact that the regularities we find in the phenomena are expressed in the form of prescripts absolutely valid. If there are limitations, exceptions, conditions, they are expressly stated as such, and we try to represent them by correcting the law; this shows that its character is meant to be absolute. We are confident that it holds for future use; and if it fails, as often happens, or does not hold precisely, we represent this by additional “causes.”We often speak of the inexorable course of events, or of the necessity in nature; or we speak of “determinism,” as if this course had been determined and fixed by somebody in advance. All these human names chosen to express the antithesis to the arbitrariness and free choice in human actions, denoting a kind of compulsion, are a source of much confusion and cannot render exactly the character of nature. Rather we say that the entire nature at this moment depends entirely on what it was a moment before. Or perhaps better still: that nature in its totality and history is a unity, remaining identically itself in all its variations. All parts are interrelated as parts of one whole, and the laws of nature are the humanly imperfect expressions of these interrelations. Necessity can be ascribed to them solely in a partial imperfect degree; absolute necessity may be affirmed for the entirety of nature only. Phenomena may be imperfectly rendered by our laws; but we are convinced that they go on in a way which can be ultimately reduced to simple description, and could not be otherwise than they are. (from Lenin as Philosopher — http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1938/lenin/ch03.htm)

In other words, “causality” and “determinism” are concepts we use to describe parts of “nature” (the whole universe of changing phenomena), of which we ourselves are part. They are in nature itself, but are only of our description of it  So, when we are discussing “free will” and “determinism” we are discussing the best way to describe patterns of individual human behaviour. Since these cannot be predicted with anything like complete precision, the word “determined” in their respect would seem to be out of place. Whether or  not “free will” is the appropriate word, in view of how it has been used by some in the past, is another matter. “Indeterminate” perhaps?”Determinism” is still appropriate to describe the patterns in other parts of nature, including human societies and their evolution, than the behaviour of an individual human. Incidentally, just like the theory of relativity, the theory of quantum physics is also “only a mental abstraction, a set of formulas, better than the former, hence more true, because it represents more phenomena which the old law could not explain.”  It’s only a way of describing a part of the universe, how sub-atomic participles are observed to move. It doesn’t have relevance outside the field of sub-atomic particles, and in fact is not an accurate description of other parts of the universe. The fact that human behaviour could also be described as “uncertain” and “indeterminate” is just a co-incidence.

[ALB]

“One World. One People” was a slogan we used quite a lot in the 1960s and 1970s, even as the title of the election manifesto for our candidates in the 1966 general election and in the 1967 GLC elections. It was meant to convey that we stood for a world solution and also that we rejected nationalism and racism. We also used “Socialism One World” and “Socialism: A World of Abundance”.It wasn’t “One World One People” that got us mistaken as rightwingers but our full name of “The Socialist Party of Great Britain”. In fact during that election of 1966 a rightwing group did offer to send us leaflets on the assumption that we were a “National Socialist Party”. Which was one reason why some members want to change our name to “World Socialist Party” and others to call ourselves in practice just “The Socialist Party”.

[ALB]

robbo203 wrote:

However, I dont know if I would go along with the rest of what Russell is talking about but whatever else one might think of this point of view, one thing is certain –  I dont think you can can reasonably come away from it with the dismissive notion that this is just some sort of irrational mumbo jumbo. It is a highly thoughtful attempt to make sense of reality whether in the end you agree with it or not.

Well, having looked at his CV, his website and what others have said of him, I’m afraid I’m inclined to the opposite conclusion: that, as someone has put it, he’s just spouting “New Age nonsense pseudo-scientific babble”. One of many who have misconstrued quantum physics as a repudiation of materialism and a confirmation of idealism, mysticism and religion. Not our cup of tea.For an opposite view to “quantum mystics” like Russell see:http://www.csicop.org/si/show/quantum_quackery/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism

[ALB]

robbo203 wrote:

I suggest people here read Cornelius  Castoriadis’ brilliant demolition job  on the crude reductionist materialism of some Marxists  in his short work History as Creation.  Its enough to give our so called “scientific materialists” pause to hopefully rethink … Check it out here (it comes in 3 parts)http://eagainst.com/articles/cornelius-castoriadis-history-as-creation-part-i/

I wish you wouldn’t throw out these jibes. It risks poisoning the atmosphere on this thread as happened on the other one. Everybody participating in this discussion, including yourself, will be a “materialist” in one sense or another and also adopt a scientific approach to things however defined. Ok, if you don’t like the word “materialism”, try “non-idealist”. Members of the SPGB are not committed to any particular kind of materialism. In other words, there is no “Party line” on this, to be attacked and demolished. Just a discussion amongst socialists with possibly differing approaches.This said, Castoriadis’s criticism of Marx’s theory of history (not of “matter”) which you recommend, which was translated and published by the ex-Trotskyist group Solidarity in the 1960s under his then pseudonym of “Paul Cardan”, didn’t cause us to rethink at the time. In fact, we saw it as a criticism of something we didn’t recognise as “the materialist conception of history”. He accused Marx of being a technological determinist, of implicitly assuming a fixed human nature, of holding that classes are a reflection of economic forces, of explaining past societies in terms of bourgeois categories, of not relying on empirical evidence and research, etc, etc (the usual stuff). Maybe this was a valid criticism of what passed for the MCH in the Leninist and Trotskyist circles from which he came.What we said at the time about Castoriadis’s and Solidarity’s views on Marx and Socialism can be found in this article in the archive section of our website:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1960s/1969/no-774-february-1969/%E2%80%98solidarity%E2%80%99-group-not-so-solidIt was written by David Steele. Ironically, both him and Castoriadis ended up accepting the market economy.Another of Casroriadis’s claims that proved to be wrong was the view expressed in another article that Solidarity translated and published as a pamphlet, Modern Capitalism and Revolution, was that, contrary to what Marx analysed, capitalism had found a way of avoiding booms and slumps and of maintaining more or less full employment.

[ALB]

The Economic Argument against the Paranormal (from http://xkcd.com/808/ )   

[ALB]

PS.

robbo203 wrote:

The observer effect in quantum physics mentioned above has also given fuel to the idea  that the universe is essentially “conscious” at some deep level and this is the point made by  Peter Russell, a physicist,  in his book “From  Science to God”. In a sense what he is saying is quite ” rational” and to deny it would be “irrational”.

Just looked up who this Peter Russell is and see that he is a mystic and believer in a god. So maybe this discussion does belong here after all!From here:  http://www.peterrussell.com/SG/index.php

Quote:

From Science to God is the story of Peter Russell’s lifelong exploration into the nature of consciousness. Blending physics, psychology, and philosophy, he leads us to a new worldview in which consciousness is a fundamental quality of creation. He shows how all the ingredients for this worldview are in place; nothing new needs to be discovered. We have only to put the pieces together and explore the new picture of reality that emerges.Integrating a deep knowledge of science with his own experiences of meditation, Russell arrives at a universe similar to that described by many mystics — one in which science and spirit no longer conflict. The bridge between them, he shows, is light. From Science to God invites us to cross that bridge to a radically different, and ultimately healing, view of ourselves and the universe — one in which God takes on new meaning, and spiritual practice a deeper significance.

I haven’t read the book myself, but what is the “new meaning” he says “God takes on”? Is he a pantheist or what?

[ALB]

robbo203 wrote:

Actually, as a matter of fact, the Observer Effect  is  even evident in the realm of the natural sciences.  Perhaps you with your obsession with paranormal phenomena might want to explain something even  wackier  which developments in quantum physics have brought to light.  See for example this http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm.  To me as a non-physicist this is just simply bizarre beyond words and yet one must trust the scientists that such a thing actually happens.(….)The observer effect in quantum physics mentioned above has also given fuel to the idea  that the universe is essentially "conscious" at some deep level and this is the point made by  Peter Russell, a physicist,  in his book "From  Science to God". In a sense what he is saying is quite " rational" and to deny it would be "irrational".  The fact that a beam of electrons is actually affected by. or seems to respond to,  the mere act of observing it , would seem to imply a very crude kind of sentience of some sort.  How else do you explain it? .

I think we should transfer this to the new thread on materialism DJP has started, if that's ok by you.

robbo203 wrote:

You said northern light was twice welcomed to apply for membership of the Party. You said this knowing full well that northern light had expressed a belief in the idea of a creator.  So unless you are playing some kind of cynical game here,  this can only mean that you think belief in a creator is compatible with membership of the SPGB.  I am asking you  -is it ? If it is not why then did you suggest northern light apply for membership  when that would require a conference resolution to change the entry requirements to the Party?

This is all part of the Great Misunderstanding on this thread of which you've been a victim like the rest of us. I had assumed northern light to have said that he held the same views on religion as Einstein and, as to me at least, Einstein's views (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein) on this seemed to be acceptable, invited northern light to apply. It now seems that he doesn't hold the same views as Einstein as, unlike Einstein, he believes in a personal "Creator".

robbo203 wrote:

"Scientism" might be loosely described as the over-reliance or  overemphasis on science and the scientific method  as a means to knowledge.  Where did you get the idea  that  this is "said to reject all metaphysical claims"  (a link would be appreciated).

Fair enough. The wikipedia definition of scientism says that the word is frequently applied in a perjorative sense to the arguments to "the more extreme expressions of logical positivism". AJ Ayer's Language, Truth and Logic, which introduced logical positivism to the English philosophers in 1936, is a conscious attack on all "metaphysics". He wrote:

Quote:

We may accordingly define a metaphysical sentence as a sentence which purports to express a genuine proposition, but does, in fact, express neither a tautology nor an empirical hypothesis. And as tautologies and empirical hypotheses form the entire class of significant propositions, we are justified in concluding that all metaphysical assertions are nonsensical.

This probably belongs to the discussion in the new materialism thread, but it does have some significance here, as the late Comrade Les Cox (no relation, a member of the old Fulham branch some of whose members were influenced by logical positivism. Ken Smith was another) when he spoke at Hyde Park used to refuse to pronounce the word "god" on the grounds that it was meaningless as it referred to nothing. He used to pronounce instead the letters "G-O-D".It is also perhaps significant that religionists also say that "scientism" repudiates all "metaphysical" claims (of which of course religion is one). See: http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html

[ALB]

Surely, the obvious way to settle this is for Northern Light to say something.

[ALB]

DJP wrote:

Patronising crap

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

Moron

DJP wrote:

Ha ha, I’m sure if you met me we’d best of friends !)

I think you’re right (at least I hope so). The discussion on this forum over the past few days — the liveliest we’ve had so far, which is good — has I suspect been between men in the 50s and 60s (apart from you and Ed) who wouldn’t dare speak to each other like we have if we were meeting face to face in a pub. After all, people of this age don’t normally get involved in pub brawls. There seems to be something about the internet ….

[ALB]

Ed wrote:

Hey guys did you know that apparently we’re a part of the New World Order? Personally I had no idea (that our secret was out.)In this article our publishing of the pamphlet Socialism and Religion is noted as a major step in the establishment of the NWO.scroll down to 1911http://metaexistence.org/nwo.htmAny publicity is good publicity right?

Now perhaps Robbo will read it !

[ALB]

robbo203 wrote:

Even on a single thread on religion over the past week on this forum  you lot  have managed to disillusion one or two potential members and one or two existing members.

I always assumed that this was your intention in continually stirring up such debates.

[ALB]

robbo203 wrote:

And the reason for doing so according to you?  To ensure that those who join are  “!rational” .  Give us a break.  Are you 100% rational?   Is anyone 100% rational?.

No, but that’s not what I said. I said have a rational approach to things, ie history, society, solving problems, etc. You’re just making a cheap debating point by playing on words. 

Quote:

You say something needs to be asked along the lines of whether an applicant believes in some spiritual  being intervening in the lives of human beings.  From this I gather that your particular gripe with religion is not with religion per se but with a  particular kind of religion called theism.

But what is religion without the idea of a god that intervenes in the lives of human beings? The Epicureans didn’t contest that the gods existed somewhere in the ether but denied that they had any influence on human affairs and so didn’t need worshipping or placating. Were they religious?

Quote:

Do I take it then that you accept this suggestion  and we can reasonably expect your branch to put forward a conference resolution to that effect?

I don’t think a Conference resolution would be required to admit Lucretius to the party.  His reputation as a metaphysical materialist precedes him.

Quote:

Of course I’m not opposed to the scientific method but am opposed to what is called “scientism”. There a big difference, you know

That’s what they say, but “scientism” is a perjorative term which nobody would claim for themselves. Looking it up I see it’s said to reject all “metaphysical” claims. You can’t have it both ways: we can’t be metaphysical materialists and scientists. And, since we’re having a pub debate (at the moment still inside it), what other sources of knowledge do you think there is apart from empirically-based science? Religion perhaps?

Quote:

My impression is that the materialism touted by the SPGB is still very much  trapped  within the old way of thinking represented by  identity theory in the cognitive sciences.

Don’t know where you get that from. I imagine that SPGB members comprise a wide variety of non-theistic views. Maybe there even some “nonreductive physicalists”.  Even some “metaphysical materialists”. Personally, apart from Joseph Dietzgen,  I’ve always liked AJ Ayer’s Language, Truth and Logic.

[Author]

Posts