[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.

[ALB]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

This thread was started by someone who wants to join the Party

Yes, but he’s been invited twice to apply to join. So, once again, Northern Light, go on, do it, either to the North East branch or to the famous Membership Committee.

[ALB]

Actually, we normally are positive in our approach to others who talk about a moneyfree world, eg the Zeitgeist Movement and the Free World Charter, but when we discussed WorldStrike2012 in detail in 2010 on the WSM forum doubts were expressed (not just by us) about the link between those behind this strike call and a millenarianist idea that the world was suddenly going to change as a result of this strike. See:http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/message/44601http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/message/44895Having said that, the publicity around it will probably have created interest in the idea of a moneyfree world amongst people who wouldn’t agree with the perspective of those behind the strikecall and who we should try to contact.If you haven’t already contacted them, OGW, the Free World Charter has produced an excellent short video:http://www.freeworldcharter.org/en

[ALB]

robbo203 wrote:

The question of religion is a matter of indifference to me.

You could have fooled me! But I see you’ve calmed down a bit. Good. Actually, we take a more relaxed attitude to religion than you think. When someone applies to join we ask them about capitalism, socialism, war, reforms, elections, other parties, etc and then, almost as an overthought, ask “you’re not religious, are you?” If they answer “no”, that’s it.The purpose of asking this is not so much to exclude religious people as to ensure that those who join have a rational approach to things and think that humans can control their own destiny (after all, we are against all leaders, including gods). We’ve actually discussed many times how to rephrase the question to bring this out, but have not been able to find the right formulation. It would have to be something along the lines of “do you think that the evolution of nature and society has taken place without the intervention of some spiritual being?” or “do you think some spiritual being intervenes in our lives or that humans control their lives and can change society without the intervention of such a being”.  Neither very satisfactory.

robbo203 wrote:

absurdly adopting a philosophical position of metaphysical materialism

I’m not quite sure what you are attacking here. Is it what you call “metaphysical materialism” as such or is it a socialist political party adopting this? I take it that you yourself think that the only world that exists is what we can experience through our senses and that knowledge can only be derived through a rational analysis of empirical evidence, even if you are not prepared to call yourself a “materialist”.  That would be understandable to some extent in view of what the word “materialist” can mean. And of course there are materialisms and materialisms.You accuse us of “metaphysical materialism”. That’s not a term we use, preferring “historical materialism” or “dialectical materialism” or “scientific materialism”.  If you don’t like the word “materialism” there are other words such as “empiricism”, “positivism”, “realism” or even “the scientific method” to convey the same approach.If your objection to materialism is not just a question of terminology, what is it? Or are you indifferent to the scientific method too?And why should a socialist political party not proclaim that it accepts the scientific method?

[ALB]

Is it really a surprise that our critic here and defender of the faiths hasn’t actually read the basic SPGB pamphlet on the subject he takes us to task on on every occasion that he can (this discussion has taken place regularly on the World Socialist Movement  forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/ and, each time, he has lost his rag and launched into a bitter attack on the SPGB as a dying organisation that deserves to die because it opposes religion).The Socialism and Religion pamphlet is a classic, not just within the SPGB, that was reprinted by others too.Here’s what Robert Barltrop says about it in his collection of anecdotes about the Party The Monument:

Quote:

In 1910 a wide new field for debate was opened by the publication of Socialism and Religion. Here for the first line, a socialist organization declared itself an atheist one. True, there was a widespread feeling that the churches, in particular the Church of England, were in the pockets of the capitalist class; but that was a different thing from unqualified opposition to all religious belief and practices. The influence of Christian Socialism was a strong one in the Labour movement, and the principle ‘Religion is a private affair’ had general acceptance.Socialism and Religion was a thin, grey-covered pamphlet of no more than fourteen thousand words. It was written by F.C.Watts but, like all the pamphlets the Party produced, it was signed in the name of the Executive Committee: the argument was the Party’s, not Watts’s. Its opening section was headed THE NEED FOR FRANKNESS, and accused radical parties of suppressing the case against religion for fear of alienating supporters. Applying the Marxist principle, Watts analyzed religious belief as a social product — ‘the reflex of tribal life’. In fact, the theory of the origin of religion was taken from Herbert Spencer’s Principles of Sociology, which was highly esteemed in the SPGB.But the more important matter was in the parts of the pamphlet headed THE SOCIALIST PHILOSOPHY. ‘Under its multifarious forms’, wrote Watts, ‘the modern mission of religion is to cloak the hideousness and injustice of social conditions and keep the exploited meek and submissive.’ He revealed that the SPGB would allow nobody in its ranks with a religious belief. ‘No man can be consistently both a Socialist and a Christian. It must be either the Socialist or the religious principle that is supreme, for the attempt to couple them equally betrays charlatanism or lack of thought.’ Finally, in the world of common ownership there would be no religion: ‘Socialism, both as a philosophy and as a form of society, is the antithesis of religion.’Socialism and Religion was a best-seller among political pamphlets for nearly twenty years. While the irreligionists and freethinkers delighted in it, churchmen held up and quoted it as living proof of the terrors of socialism. In 1914 a Roman Catholic Congress in Belfast heard a paper based on the iniquity displayed in it. ‘The poisoned breath of Socialism’ was the lecturer’s phrase, and he could hardly have needed to appeal ‘that it shall never be allowed to establish a foothold within the fair hills of holy Ireland’. And a few years later an American bishop named William Montgomery Brown, DD, a convert to the Russian Revolution, reprinted and expanded it in a booklet, Communism and Christianism; he was tried for heresy by an ecclesiastical court, and described himself afterwards as ‘Episcopus in Partibus Bolshevikium et Infidelium’.So clergymen and Christian Socialists were added to the list of debating opponents.

You can buy a copy of the edition produced by the Socialist Education Society of New York here:http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Socialism_and_Religion.html?id=fsa6QAAACAAJ&redir_esc=yOr of the 1925 edition here (for $17.50)http://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Religion-Socialist-Party-Britain/dp/B007YOXRNMIn 1997 it was republished in New Zealand. Some copies of this as still available from our Head Office. Order it now while stocks last.The whole text is also online on this site here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/socialism-and-religion

[ALB]

This discussion as to whether or not religion and socialism are compatible is parallelled by a discussion amongst scientists as to whether or not religion and science are compatible. On the one side are the late Stephen Jay Gould and Carl Sagan (both good blokes) who say that religion and science are not necessarily incompatible. On the other side are Daniel Dennett and (of course) Richard Dawkins (even if not such a good bloke). See, for instance:http://darwinsteapot.blogspot.co.uk/2008/12/dennetts-problem-with-goulds-non.htmlhttp://issues.control.com.au/issues2008/82extra.shtmlWe are by no means alone in taking a hard line on religion.

[ALB]

Pity you didn’t have the September issue on you with the article on him. Anyway he knows about it because when sent to him, he replied:

Quote:

“Billy Bragg “I’m not a Marxist” shock. This isn’t an article, it’s a tweet.”

[ALB]

Just been listening to news about fanatical muslims causing mayhem about some film. Can’t see how anybody can see anything positive in religion. Confirms we should keep our distance from it.  In fact should oppose and denounce it.

[ALB]

Good point, Ed. There’s also the fact that under capitalism there’s money to be made out of exploiting stories of the “paranormal”. For example, the  film “When the Light Went Out” about a supposed poltergeist story that’s just been released this week:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19541877http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Monk_of_PontefractNote one explanation in the wiki entry, the most plausible unless you believe in ghosts, that the teenage boy involved faked it:

Quote:

The Doncaster Research Group also looked into the disturbances, and concluded that Philip faked the entire haunting.

Proving that he faked it is another matter but presumably he is still alive and somebody could go and ask him. He might confess. But he must be under enormous pressure not to, as the film might flop ( the film-maker is one of his relatives) and those organising paid ghost trips to the house would lose out.For those who say this is off topic, the reason why the lights go out in 1974 is because of the miners’ strike that year. So there is a class-struggle angle to this.

[ALB]

robbo203 wrote:

ALB wrote:

I don’t know why Robbo thinks that people who believe in the paranormal or who have New Age spiritual views are more likely to be receptive to the socialist case than humanists and secularists. But he seems to, obsessively so.

I failed to spot  this – another peice of tripe  from ALB.  How on earth did he arrive at this dotty conclusion? I dont think anything of the sort.  To me, whether one holds religious views or whether one is an atheist has litle if any relevance to the question of one’s receptivility to socialist ideas.99% of atheists are non -socialists and some atheists are avidly pro-capitalist.  If the Party were consistent in its logic, it should ban atheists from joining as well!  LOL

Ex-comrade Robbo is missing the point. It is a question of which group of people we should direct our appeal to: the New Agers or the Rationalists? We can’t appeal to both as we are likely to upset the other. For historical as well as intellectual reasons, we are in the latter camp and get some respect from them for this. Our best selling pamphlet is John Keracher’s How The Gods Were Made and one of the most popular columns in the Standard is “Halo, Halo”. That must mean something.In passing, actually there are formal bans dating back to the 40s, 50s and 60s on members joining the Rationalist Press Association and the Humanist Association (because they advocate reforms, eg the disestablishment of the Church of England), but they have become outdated and are not enforced.In any event, we are scientific materialists rather than atheists as such, even if some members, as a result of what religion did to them, are god-killers and priest-eaters.

robbo203 wrote:

These are precisely the kind of people Im talking about  who the Party keep out with its ridiculous rule on religion. They believe in a god but effectively live godless lives

So ex-comrade Robbo would exclude those who go to church! His crackpot idea of trying to make a distinction between those who are part of an organised religion and those who merely have personal religious views would turn the Membership Dept into the Spanish Inquisition he has denounced it as being. It would have to go into detail about a person’s religious views and ask such questions as: do you go to church? do you eat pork? why are you wearing a turban? etc.In any event, it wouldn’t solve what he sees as the problem: turning down people who are socialists. It is true that quite a number of applicants are turned down because they are religious, but many of these will be members of an organised religion. In fact I myself was on a committee which examined an applicant who was an Anglican priest who had met the party as a conscientious objector in the last (world) war and who was the follower of some Swiss theologian (Karl Barth, I think) who preached that god didn’t exist in the skies but down here on Earth in some vague sort of way. We had an interesting theological discussion but had to turn him down. And the sympathiser who helps out with our Kent branch is, I believe, a Roman Catholic and as such would still be banned under the Robbo formula.Best stick to our clear-cut position than commit ourselves to having  to deal with theological questions.

[Author]

Posts