The Religion word

[ALB]

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. " And for believing this, party rules prevent me from being a member !!

But that makes you a pantheist ! And, insofar as (I assume) you don't see what you call "the Creator" as a person who intervenes from outside (the rest of) the universe (= everything) and who requires worshipping, you would be a "naturalistic pantheist".This is a respectable philosophical tradition which, according to the wikipedia entry, included the Taoists of Ancient China, Spinoza, Ernst Haeckel (whose 1901 popular science book The Riddle of the Universe was once immensely popular amongst materialists) and maybe even Einstein.In fact you are in advance of some of these in that you don't use the word "God". The German Socialist and dialectical materialist philosopher Josef Dietzgen started from the position that the world of reality is a never-ending, everchanging stream of observable phenomena, and it exists only as a whole (which I personally think is a good basis from which to start understanding the world). He used various words to describle this single unit: Reality, Existence, the Universe, the Cosmos, the Totality, Nature, and, drawn from previous philosophical discussions, the Absolute, the Good, Truth, even God.As I said earlier on in this thread, if that is your position then I don't see it is as being necessarily incompatible with membership of the Party. The only objection might be to the word "Creator" but then Zundap has suggested an alternative in "impersonal creative force". I invited you to apply to join and see what happens, but you declined. So we will never know.Incidentally, continuing the discussion, if you identify "the Creator" with the "Big Bang" then your challenge to disprove the existence of "the Creator" is a challenge to disprove the existence of the "Big Bang". Why would we want to do that since, at the moment, this is the theory accepted by most cosmologists (see: http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang.html)? Some go on to theorise that the universe "created" by the Big Bang will end in the Big Crunch, which will then be followed by another Big Bang. In which case, something will have existed before the present Big Bang …. Interesting, but a PhD in astrophysics is not a requirement to join the Party.

[ALB]

Just read this in today's paper: "Einstein's 'God letter' goes on eBay":http://www.livescience.com/23758-einstein-god-letter-auction.htmlhttp://daily.bhaskar.com/article/WOR-TOP-einstein-god-letter-to-sell-on-ebay-bidding-to-start-at-3-million-3882868-NOR.htmlSeems he'd pass the test to join …

[northern light]

ALB wrote:

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".

Hi ALB,             Yes you have invited me to apply to join the party, and at one stage, I was on the verge, till I read what you said in thread 137. It quite knocked my end in. I am not used to this play on words

[Anonymous]

Hi  Northern Light,did you ever apply for membership of the North East Branch?

[Ed]

northern light wrote:

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.

Firstly it was a joke so it was meant to be silly But there would be more than one answer, a creator carelessly leaving a teapot floating in space would not be the most likely scenario. Not least because the space station jettisons it's rubbish into space. But here's one for yaIs the universe infinite?If it isn't what's on the other side?If it is then that has some rather bizarre consequences. Since there is a finite number of molecules in the universe the possibilities of what is out there is infact endless. If you put a finite quantity into an infinite space eventually the same sequence will start to repeat. Meaning that somewhere in the universe there is another version of earth there is another version of the SPGB there is even another version of me and you having this exact same conversation. And then there would also be another version of me and you having the exact same conversation in reverse it would be completely endless.That's if the universe is an infinite space. Now that may seem impossible and it actually makes my brain hurt to think about for too long. But the point is it's backed by physics and mathematics as a possibility. Where as the existence of god isn't.I also think it's funny that the thread has come back around to the question I asked which you refused to answer which is why must the creator have a religous, supernatural answer to it instead of a scientific one?

[Anonymous]

Ed wrote:

northern light wrote:

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.

Firstly it was a joke so it was meant to be silly But there would be more than one answer, a creator carelessly leaving a teapot floating in space would not be the most likely scenario.

Yeah, but Russell's observation about the teapot was analogous and seems to have been missed; here it is again:-"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."(emphasis mine)

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

did you ever apply for membership of the North East Branch?

Here's a little known fact.  Currently almost 5% of the party's total membership resides in the North East and yet there has not, to the best of my knowledge, been any collective socialist activity in the area for years.  I wonder why?

[Ed]

gnome wrote:

Yeah, but Russell's observation about the teapot was analogous and seems to have been missed; here it is again:-

nah don't worry I got it the first time

[northern light]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

Hi  Northern Light,did you ever apply for membership of the North East Branch?

Hello TheOldGreyWhistle,No, I never did. Bob never suggested that I try. He kept bringing his little green monkey, on his shoullder, (the monkey that was not there). We argued and debated, agreed and disagreed, laughed and sighed. I just assumed that I could not join.I got the impression that if Bobby thought the time was right, he would have told me. I'll tell you what, TheOldGreyWhistle, if Bobby could see me now, talking on this forum, there would be a tear in his eye, just as there is in mine. 

[northern light]

Ed wrote:

Now I appreciate humor is incredibly difficult in conversation over the internet. So much of being able to tell when someone is joking or not is down to facial expression, tone of voice and body language. That's why in this medium I always find it better to answer a straight question with a straight answer. Otherwise you end up with a breakdown in communication and misunderstanding like the one we have now.

Hi Ed, I thought you frowned on joking , on a serious political forum, such as this. Ok, cheap shot, I just couldn't resist it………. no need to explain, it's just light banter.

[Anonymous]

gnome wrote:

Here's a little known fact.  Currently almost 5% of the party's total membership resides in the North East and yet there has not, to the best of my knowledge, been any collective socialist activity in the area for years.  I wonder why?

 In my own defence, when I was a member in the late 70s and 80s there was a lot of activity and a thriving branch. We had printing facilities and regularly printed our own leaflets and posters advertising meetings for door to door delivery.I am probably thinking of the Seaham branch. At one point we may have had 50 members, about 20 from a small mining village (Seaham). We debated with priests, the Labour Party, Militant Tendency, SWP,  the Tories etc . Although leaflets and meetings helped the branch to develop in those days, I am not convinced such activities would work now. I suspect that some members reach a point when they feel that they have done their best to tell fellow workers about socialism but they have not listened. The methods have failed.I don't blame present members but I am all in favour of new suggestions

[northern light]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

gnome wrote:

Here's a little known fact.  Currently almost 5% of the party's total membership resides in the North East and yet there has not, to the best of my knowledge, been any collective socialist activity in the area for years.  I wonder why?

Once, when I was listening to Bobby Gleghorn taking on all comers, at the pit head, I overheard a Labour party councillor saying to his friend, " he's right, but they have no power."

I guess that might sum up the feelings of a lot of thinking people. But I believe Socialist Punk is trying to address this problem on another discussion. 

[northern light]

TheOldGreyWhistle, never knew the local branch was so big, you must have put some work in there. What the hell went wrong!!

[Anonymous]

northern light wrote:

TheOldGreyWhistle, never knew the local branch was so big, you must have put some work in there. What the hell went wrong!!

I may have the figures wrong, but my point is the branch WAS a growing concern and very active. but then the party had about 600-700 members at the time and many other active branches; for example Islington was a large active branch. Nothing went wrong as such. Membership goes up and down throughout the country. 

[Ed]

northern light wrote:

Ed wrote:

Now I appreciate humor is incredibly difficult in conversation over the internet. So much of being able to tell when someone is joking or not is down to facial expression, tone of voice and body language. That's why in this medium I always find it better to answer a straight question with a straight answer. Otherwise you end up with a breakdown in communication and misunderstanding like the one we have now.

Hi Ed, I thought you frowned on joking , on a serious political forum, such as this. Ok, cheap shot, I just couldn't resist it………. no need to explain, it's just light banter.

Except you fail to have noticed that I wasn't answering a straight question with a completely unrelated surreal joke, whereas you were.So for the 4th or 5th time nowWhy do you consider that the creation of the universe is a religious question rather than a scientific one?

[northern light]

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

Ed wrote:

So for the 4th or 5th time nowWhy do you consider that the creation of the universe is a religious question rather than a scientific one?

 Hi ED, Just love your sence of humour. I don't think I have ever considered the creation of the Universe to be a religious question, although I have been in the "dock" solong, I may have.The whole point of "The Religion Word" was to bring to the attention of the party, that there are people out there, potential party members, who have a belief which should not bar them from membership. Do I believe the creation of the Universe is a scientific question ? You bet your bottom dollar I do, 100%

[Author]

Posts