The Religion word

[northern light]

gnome wrote:

Recently rediscovered this exquisite statement by Marx.  Pretty much draws a line under the discussion on this thread.

Hi Gnome, let me try and draw a line under this thread. Can any member give me the scientific proof of why there can not be a CreatorNo theoretical reasoning, just pure scientific fact..I have already told you what I believe in, and I have stated that I am probibly wrong ( I usually am), so come on, put me out of my misery !! 

[DJP]

northern light wrote:

Can any member give me the scientific proof of why there can not be a CreatorNo theoretical reasoning, just pure scientific fact..

It depends on what you mean by 'a Creator' and where and how you see it interacting in the universe.But this is such a lame question. Absence of proof of something not existing does not mean that it does exist.Can you give me any scientific proof that disproves the existence of the flying spaghetti monster?If not I suggest you should bow down to the truth faith.All hail to the lord pastafari!BTW. You'll be hard pressed to find a 'pure scientific fact' that doesn't rest on theoretical reasoning.

[northern light]

Hi DJP,I have already explained what I mean on an earlier thread, but I appreciate your reply, though not the scientific explanation I was seeking.

[Tom Rogers]

I am not a member of the SPGB (left for reasons unrelated to the subject-matter of this thread) and I have not read through the full thread.  Subject to those caveats, my comment would be that the SPGB has adopted what, in my view, is a perfectly reasonable position that since: (i). there probably is no god; and, (ii). a belief in religion is in any case not only inconsistent but wholly contradictory to a belief in socialism as enunciated in the Aims & Objectives, it is better not to let religious people join.It is not the only position that could be adopted.  You can be a socialist and at the same time believe in God, it's just that you wouldn't be a very consistent socialist, that's all.  So, religious people could be permitted to join, and in truth if the SPGB decided to drop the 'religion question' from the Form 'A' questionnaire, most likely it would make little practical difference.  Even Marx didn't place as high an importance on religion as the SPGB does.  What we are discussing here is a point of principle that is applied for better or worse, but in my view, for the better. 

[ALB]

northern light wrote:

Hi DJP,I have already explained what I mean on an earlier thread, but I appreciate your reply, though not the scientific explanation I was seeking.

Here the reply the Ftench mathematician and cosmologist Laplace is reputed to have said to Napoleon over 200 years ago:

Quote:

"[No, Sire,] I had no need of that hypothesis."Reputed reply to Emporer Napoleon I, who had asked why he hadn't mentioned God in his discourse on  secular variations of the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter ("Mais où est Dieu dans tout cela?"/'But where is God in all this?').The exchange is reported by Victor Hugo (who in turn was citing François Arago as:"Comment, vous faites tout le système du monde, vous donnez les lois de toute la création et dans tout votre livre vous ne parlez pas une seule fois de l'existence de Dieu !"Translation: "How can this be! You made the system of the world, you explain the laws of all creation, but in all your book you speak not once of the existence of God!"Alternate translation: "You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the author of the universe!"Alternate translation: "How is it that, although you say so much about the Universe, you say nothing about its Creator?""[Sire,] je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là."Translation: "I did not need to make such an assumption."

[northern light]

Hi Tom Rogers,                            Thankyou for your input on this topic. You did not address the question I asked, but that's ok. It is perhaps understandable, you not reading through the full debate, but if you care to go to the begining and read threads 1 and13, you will see that at no point do I ascribe to a belief in any God. The SPGB has been my party of choice for over 30 years, Tom, and I see myself as a socialist, and it grieves me to see the party in decline, at a time when the need for socialism is so pressing. I live in Seaham, an ex-mining town in the N.E. of England, and 31 years ago, there were at least 6 (possibly more) SPGB members living in Seaham, today (to my knowledge) Seaham boasts 2 SPGB members.Because of my belief, party rules deny me entry, yet if I were a capitalist, I might qualify, as long as I was an atheist. Tom, you say you are an ex-member. Would you consider applying to re-join ?

[northern light]

I apologize for posting the previous article twice. My computer is downloading very very slow, and sometimes I am losing the SPGB web-site.Are we being bugged ?

[northern light]

Hi ALB,            Thanks for the input, even though I almost fell of my chair, through laughing at what someone "reputedly" said, some 200years ago. Hardly the scientific evidence I am looking for. ALB,  I have come to expect much more from you. The truth of the matter is there is no scientific proof, to either prove, or disprove this question, and both sides of the debate have to rely on theoretical reasoning. I like to look to the reasoning of modern physicists, rather than going back in time for answers. Science is progressive, is it not ?I find the macro, and micro aspects of the universe fascinating, and what is more fascinating is that me, an ordinary working classbloke, who spent his working life in a coal mine, can understand even a little tiny bit of it all. I guess even Karl Marx may have had to think long and hard about a Creator ( not god ) [ did Marx ever mention a Creator ?] if hecould have spoken to Einstein. This is the first time I have taken part in any debate, and I have enjoyed it. You have all taught me a little something, which is whyI am here. I have not been offended by anyone, and I hope I have not caused any offence……… thankyou all. 

[Anonymous]

DJP wrote:

But this is such a lame question. Absence of proof of something not existing does not mean that it does exist.Can you give me any scientific proof that disproves the existence of the flying spaghetti monster?

In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Bertrand Russell wrote:-"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."The point of Russell's teapot is that there is no burden on anyone to disprove assertions. Occam's razor suggests that the simpler theory with fewer assertions (e.g. a universe with no supernatural entity) should be the starting point in the discussion rather than a more complex theory.  This argument does not appeal to those who believe in a creator because, unlike scientific evidence, 'religious evidence' is said to be experienced through personal revelation which cannot be conveyed or objectively verified.In his books A Devil's Chaplain (2003) and The God Delusion (2006), Richard Dawkins used the teapot as an analogy of an argument against what he termed "agnostic conciliation", a policy of intellectual appeasement that allows for philosophical domains that concern exclusively religious matters.  Science has no way of establishing the existence or non-existence of a creator.  Therefore, according to the agnostic conciliator, because it is a matter of individual taste, belief and disbelief in a supreme being are deserving of equal respect and attention.  Dawkins presents the teapot as a reductio ad absurdum of this position; if agnosticism demands giving equal respect to the belief and disbelief in a supreme being, then it must also give equal respect to belief in an orbiting teapot, since the existence of an orbiting teapot is just as plausible scientifically as the existence of a supreme being or creator.

[northern light]

Hi Gnome,                    My mate Bob used to come into my house, swearing blind, he had a little green monkey on his shoulder, which, of course, I could not see. I kind of liked Bob's arguement. Of course, I could argue that you can not be an atheist, for to be an atheist, one must have proof of the non-existence of a Creator, and so we go on and on, with claim, and counter-claim. But I have never refered to anywhere to a supreme being. I will remind you again what I said ( if you want the whole lot, it is on thread 13) " I believe the Creator is the sum total of all the Universe, the Sun, you, me, your mother-in-law, everything that came from the singularity that caused the Big Bang.  That is my belief in a nut-shell. I am probably wrong, but at this time in my life, the jigsaw pieces fit. " And for believing this, party rules prevent me from being a member !!

[Ed]

gnome wrote:

In his books A Devil's Chaplain (2003) and The God Delusion (2006), Richard Dawkins used the teapot as an analogy of an argument against what he termed "agnostic conciliation", a policy of intellectual appeasement that allows for philosophical domains that concern exclusively religious matters.  Science has no way of establishing the existence or non-existence of a creator.  Therefore, according to the agnostic conciliator, because it is a matter of individual taste, belief and disbelief in a supreme being are deserving of equal respect and attention.  Dawkins presents the teapot as a reductio ad absurdum of this position; if agnosticism demands giving equal respect to the belief and disbelief in a supreme being, then it must also give equal respect to belief in an orbiting teapot, since the existence of an orbiting teapot is just as plausible scientifically as the existence of a supreme being or creator.

Or more so since we can confirm the existence of teapots and of objects which are in orbit

[northern light]

Ed,  I have just been outside, and I swear I saw a cow jumping over the moon. I have just run a full security scan on my computer, and the SPGB site is still crashing.     

[northern light]

Hi Ed,  I just want to put a different slant on the teapot reasoning.As mankind has never been in this region of our solar-system, the tea pot can not be of man's making, but because the teapot is a manufactured, and not a natural object it must belong to the Creator.      Silly isn't it.

[zundap]

northern light wrote:

But I have never refered to anywhere to a supreme being. I will remind you again what I said ( if you want the whole lot, it is on thread 13) " I believe the Creator is the sum total of all the Universe, the Sun, you, me, your mother-in-law, everything that came from the singularity that caused the Big Bang.  That is my belief in a nut-shell. I am probably wrong, but at this time in my life, the jigsaw pieces fit. "

The universe is obviously a creation, so perhaps instead of referring to a "creator" how about an impersonal creative force?

[Anonymous]

northern light wrote:

As mankind has never been in this region of our solar-system, the tea pot cannot be of man's making, but because the teapot is a manufactured and not a natural object, it must belong to the Creator.    

According to your reasoning the teapot is a part of the creator.  So why don't you just call your "Creator" the 'Big Bang'?  Then everyone's happy.

[Author]

Posts