Mitres and Miracles
We have received a further letter from Lord Amwell. The letter and our contributor’s reply are set out below. The original article was published in February, and Lord Amwell’s first criticism in June.— Ed. COMM.
The Editor, SOCIALIST STANDARD.
Dear Sir,—I must thank you for the generous amount of space you were good enough to allow me. If I am entitled to a short come-back I would make the following one or two comments on F.F.’s reply.
F.F. says that the only statement in his original article which corresponded to the postulate that matter is force was in quotes and was made by Dr. Blunt. On the contrary. The sentence “Matter and force are merely two names for one and the same thong” was two paragraphs away from the quotation from Dr. Blunt and was not in quotes. In any event, it is modern physics, and if it doesn’t fit in with the stern and unbending prejudices of (be S.P.G.B., that’s just too bad.
Again, F.F. says that it was I and not he who gave the details about atoms and electrons. Wrong again; I took them word for word from the SOCIALIST STANDARD. Why this anxiety to hedge in face of printed evidence?
Next; “It is an elementary principle of correct thinking that ‘all knowledge begins with the senses’.” Quite so. That’s what the senses are for. Presumably in order to show how incapable Christians are of thinking correctly, F.F. calls to the witness-box if you please the greatest Catholic theologian of all time, Thomas Aquinas, to prove just that! As I have said, F.F. doesn’t know what educated Christians believe. He really doesn’t!
The picture of scientists deliriously seeking to abstract force from matter so as to leave a residue, or to “draw oft energy and bottle it,” is hardly up to Heath Robinson’s level, but is of that category. It exposes the limitation of F.F.’s mind on scientific matters or else his idee fixe on the subject of what Engels said in 1848.
Finally, ” . . . if we know the qualities of a thing, we know the thing in itself,” so Kant (dear me !) is ignored by serious thinkers. That verbal quibble was disposed of by serious thinkers in the 90’s. If by the word “of” is meant “belong to” it is palpably incorrect, since nothing can “belong to” nothing. If what is meant is that when we know all about a thing we know all about it, the formula is a piece of redundant verbiage. “Take away all the qualities and you’ve nothing left” goes without saying if by “qualities” we define all that can be said about anything. But, “who’s a denying of it, Betsy?” Not an Atheneum full of Bishops, believe me. The trouble is that only the cheapest public forum atheist knows all about anything.
If I had more space than I could have the face to ask for I could convict F.F. of contradictions enough to hang him—intellectually, of course. My main contention stands. It is bad enough to clutter up Socialism with metaphysical logic-chopping on either side; it is worse to attempt to do so without the requisite philosophical and scientific training. I apply that to myself too; but I am not the original culprit.
On the other band, if Socialists have all got to think alike on all matters, exchange some of those dog-eared pamphlets of a past age for up-to-date stuff, if only to know what, the present state of affairs looks like.
Yours sincerely,
AMWELL.
In hs previous letter Lord Amwell asserted that I defined matter as force. I pointed out to him that it was Dr. Blunt who raised the question of the non-existence of matter. He now quotes my actual words, “matter and force are merely two names for one and the same thing,” but in fact this was intended as a paraphrase of what Dr. Blunt said.
Regarding Amwell’s charge of hedging. He could hardly have thought I was referring to him as the scientist responsible for all the information on atoms and electrons that I used in my original article. In using his name I was addressing him personally. He is hereby absolved from any imputation on my part that be is the source of any scientific knowledge I may possess.
His reference to Aquinas is rather unfortunate for him. He jeeringly suggested in his first reply that “Tommy Aquinas and Karl Marx would make an interesting combination.” I countered with one thing on which they might be in agreement. Though Aquinas was an idealist and Marx a materialist, Amwell failed to see the connection because it was not specifically pointed out to him. Aquinas’ dictum on the senses seems a small matter to-day; until we remember that the trustworthiness of the senses had been disputed by philosophers and theologians since 300 years B.C. During an age of metaphysical speculation this constituted a decided step towards clear thinking, in spite of the dualistic beliefs of its originator.
But why the “educated” Christians? Are their beliefs different from those of their congregations? There is no evidence to induce anyone to think so. On the contrary, the constant repetition throughout a long life of the crude dogmas they learned in their Bible classes become firmly embedded in the grey matter of their brains, and what is good enough for the sheep is good enough for the shepherd. The feeble efforts of Dr. Blunt to put up a case for miracles is not only evidence that there is no case, but also of the stultifying effects that religious dogma has on the mind. Dr. Barnes, on the other hand, realising the growing indifference and decreasing credulity of the masses, does his best to preserve Church and jobs by discarding the miracles while retaining God. Well, it’s for Christians, educated and uneducated, to decide. Gods only exist in the mind, and the individual is free to believe, but he does so with no single shred of evidence. He pays the parson and takes his choice.
Lord Amwell seems incapable of dealing with any argument in a straightforward manner. He suggests that I pictured scientists deliriously trying to separate matter and force. There was no suggestion on my part that scientists, deliriously or otherwise, were trying to do so; I am tempted to suggest he must have seen that picture in one of those mediumistic trances of which he boasted in the House of Lords on the 17th of June of this year. The plain fact is that matter and force have never been separated. And that goes for the living organism, with all its organs and functions. Thinking is not the brain, it is a function of that organ; just as digestion is a function of the abdominal organs. The mind consists of thoughts, the result of impressions received through the senses. Does Lord Amwell deny that mind is a function? No, he simply expresses his intense dislike of the thought. Anyway, why eternal life for mind and not for digestion? Sheep’s brains and tripe are equally messy things when exposed for sale on a butcher’s slab.
Still more misrepresentation. It was not Kant, but one of his ideas that had been ignored. Lord Amwell has become so muddled over this question that he is uncertain whether he is on the side of the bishops or the materialists. Kant’s assertion was: “When we know all the qualities of a thing we still don’t know the thing in itself.” My statement that we do not know is a direct negative. Further if we eliminate all the qualities there is nothing left does make sense. Which is more than can he said for his meaningless transformation. Pity he is unable to tell us how it was disposed of in the 90’s.
What are the implications of Kant’s doctrine? Our senses and reason fail to give us a true picture of the world. Underlying all phenomena—like the modern theologian’s idea of God, present in every smallest particle, is the thing in. itself—”noumenon.” The idea is a fantastic speculation on what is called the ultimate nature of existence. Of course serious thinkers ignored it. They were too busy with observation, theory and experiment, adding to the fund of general knowledge that deals with realities. They were slowly but surely adding to the sciences that explain how the universe works. How all living things have evolved, and, what is perhaps the most important discovery of all: the fact that human society itself is subject to evolution. Its laws can be ascertained and man himself can take a hand in that evolution for his own well-being.
The S.P.G.B. is always willing to accord space or platform time to opponents. It is a pity, however, that Amwell did not frame his objections in a straightforward manner that could have been easily understood, instead of cloaking them under literary attempts to be facetious.
“Mitres and Miracles” was an effort, subject to limitations of space to present the Socialist attitude towards both religion and science. With every opportunity afforded him, Amwell has failed to show a single contradiction or unsound reasoning.
His objection to cluttering up Socialism with metaphysical logic-chopping, and his plea that he was not the original culprit, shows, on his side, a failing memory or ignorance of metaphysics. When he wrote that ” attraction and response were the questions begged,” he was postulating a mystical something beyond experience. If he did not realise it he is ignorant of metaphysics. If he did he is the first culprit, and further is self-convicted of a deliberate attempt to throw a spanner into the works.
Regarding philosophical and scientific training before voicing opinions on those subjects, a general knowledge of science can be acquired without special training—which is only needed by specialists making a career such as chemists, etc. Reliable works are available on all the sciences. There is a constant flow of articles in magazines and press, together with radio talks that are highly informative. Any man of average intelligence having once acquired this general knowledge, and most socialists have done so, is qualified to speak on any subject of general interest.
About “those dog-eared pamphlets of a past age.” They at any rate accurately forecast what the present state of affairs would be like. They told of increasing-competition for a limited world market, world crises, unemployment and war, and much else that is rotten. S.P.G.B. pamphlets to-day deal with phases of political and economic conditions as they affect the working-class of the world. If the old ones were dog-eared these have a thousand tongues and speak earnestly of the urgent need for all workers to learn the cause of their wretchedness and fear of the future.
Finally we only expect socialists to think alike on the principles governing their organisation. Socialist principles and action are based on the facts of social life. There is no mystery about the relationship of capitalist and wage-worker.
“Society as at present constituted is based on the ownership of the means of living (i.e., land, factories, railways, etc.) by the capitalist or master-class, and the consequent enslavement of the working-class, by whose labour alone wealth is produced.”
There is only one solution to this enslavement: The establishment of Socialism by the working-class, consciously organized for that purpose alone.
F. F.