The Religion word
- This topic has 527 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Yes, very interesting, thanks. But I guess that the most immediate question, which I reiterate, is:I simply do not have a wealth of knowledge for the argument of evolution. Is my present point of view really not in line with what is need to join the SPGB? Because if it isn't, I may have made a mistake.
The SPGB is a materialist organisation, we don't require members to have an in depth understanding of evolutionary theory, but we do expect materialism, the basic principle that the world is explicable in terms of observable phenomena, and that we don't need to ascribe events to supernatural forces. The account of evolution (more accurately speciation through the modification of inherited characteristics by natural selection) works without preying in aid any transcendent entity (nor aliens). It enjoys the consensual support of biologists, and there is no serious scientific challenger to that model.The point of materialism is that we understand human agency can change the world. If a nebulous transcendent entity could interfere and turn off gravity tomorrow, then we needn't bother, we can just pray to it.
If you've got a claim that we were created, and another claim that we evolved, unless you think they are both correct, then how would you assess these claims? What's creation got going for it? Scripture? There are plenty of works of fiction in bookshops.
Mike McDade wrote:Yes, very interesting, thanks. But I guess that the most immediate question, which I reiterate, is:I simply do not have a wealth of knowledge for the argument of evolution. Is my present point of view really not in line with what is need to join the SPGB? Because if it isn't, I may have made a mistake.So, Mike, are we to suppose that you have a wealth of knowledge for the argument of creation?
Young Master Smeet wrote:…materialism, the basic principle that the world is explicable in terms of observable phenomena…Surely this is pre-Marx 'materialism'?The notion of 'theory and practice' would suggest that Marx would, on the contrary, have stressed "idealism-materialism, the basic principle that the world is explicable in terms of theory and practice".This is a long way from 'observable phenomena'.Bhaskar, for example, stresses three domains of the Real, the Actual and the Empirical. Of these, only the Empirical is directly 'observable'. The Real and Actual require theory to understand them, if Bhaskar is to be believed.Ref: Roy Bhaskar (2008; orig. 1975) A Realist Theory of Science Verso, London
LBird,It's materialism simplified to one sentence for the benefit of simpification. I'd suggest in contains/encapsulates the extrapolations you note (If necesary). It would be as much to assert that the laws of nature are invariant with regards to location. Same thing said with other words.Anyway, I appeal to authority:
Wikipedia wrote:In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that all things are composed of material, and that all emergent phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material properties and interactions. In other words, the theory claims that our reality consists entirely of physical matter that is the sole cause of every possible occurrence, including human thought, feeling, and action.Que j'ai dit.
Young master Smeet wrote:It's materialism simplified to one sentence for the benefit of simpification.Why not 'simplify' it to "idealism-materialism"?
YMS wrote:It would be as much to assert that the laws of nature are invariant with regards to location.According to Pannekoek, the 'laws of nature' are a human construct, and so would 'vary' with the society that constructs them.The ideological belief that 'science produces the Truth', which is eternal, is Positivism.As to wikipedia, what is 'matter'? I thought that that particular social construct has been rejected, and replaced by the concept of the 'real'. And 'thought' is 'real'.
“So, Mike, are we to suppose that you have a wealth of knowledge for the argument of creation?”
gnome, this is a great question. I would answer no. However, a large part of my life was taken up with study of the Bible in the past, therefore viewing the wonder of the world up until now has always been coloured by my past acceptance of what it taught. I am struggling to let go of the possibility of the existence of a creator.
I acknowledge that a better understanding of materialism will help. Coming across the idea of socialism has certainly helped! I guess I am just concerned that I am not well enough informed to be counted among the members..
LBird wrote:Why not 'simplify' it to "idealism-materialism"?I dunno, I suppose because in the 30 seconds I took to type the post, those were the words that occurred to me.
LBird wrote:According to Pannekoek, the 'laws of nature' are a human construct, and so would 'vary' with the society that constructs them.Light in Andromeda travels at 299,792,458kps, we know this because if it doesn't our constructed models don't work.Anyway, i appologise for saying "laws of nature" I meant "buckets of cod".
Young Master Smeet wrote:Anyway, i appologise for saying "laws of nature" I meant "buckets of cod".Odd, isn't it, that when people are asked questions which they can't answer, instead of saying that they don't understand, they turn to sarcasm.You must employ a very good scientific method, YMS, if it doesn't even need explaining to humans. And 'models' tell you the Truth, do they, YMS? How quaintly 19th century!I suppose GOD gave you this Truth on tablets of stone? Strange that, isn't it, given the thread and your supposed rejection of 'religion'? You must be a priest of this scientific religion, who knows more than we mere laity."Buckets of god" would be more apt, as to what you 'meant'.
Lbird,not sarcasm: an expression of irritation of having to treat every five second sentence on an internet discussion as having the precision of a carefully thought out essay. I used word that, if I'd put more effort in, I wouldn't have, but they were good enough, and I appologise for "Bucket of Cod" "Ha'peth of tobacco" would have been more apposite.
Mike McDade wrote:I guess I am just concerned that I am not well enough informed to be counted among the members..Please don't be that concerned, Mike; we all have varying degrees of knowledge and information but the one thing that unites us is our understanding of the world in which we live and our desire for socialism.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Lbird,not sarcasm: an expression of irritation of having to treat every five second sentence on an internet discussion as having the precision of a carefully thought out essay. I used word that, if I'd put more effort in, I wouldn't have, but they were good enough, and I appologise for "Bucket of Cod" "Ha'peth of tobacco" would have been more apposite.I understand, YMS! Accuracy causes 'irritation', too!Well, in the future, I presume you'll use the phrase 'idealism-materialism', rather than the misleading term 'materialism', eh? No need for 'carefully thought out essays' then?And if this "Ha'peth of tobacco" is 'not sarcasm', as you insist, could you explain why you find adding 'idealism' to the front of 'materialism' so time-consuming and irritating, and yet have time for a complex scientific term like "Ha'peth of tobacco", which, I admit, I've never heard used for scientific explanation?Wow, who'd have thought 'science' could be so complex?
LBird wrote:And if this "Ha'peth of tobacco" is 'not sarcasm', as you insist, could you explain why you find adding 'idealism' to the front of 'materialism' so time-consuming and irritating, and yet have time for a complex scientific term like "Ha'peth of tobacco", which, I admit, I've never heard used for scientific explanation?According to my stop watch it just took me 1.5 seconds to type idealism. By using the commonly understood term "Fishcakes" without typing idealism, I could save myself upwards of a minute of my life before I die. Likewise, i shall henceforth compound truth/knowling/believing/understanding into the single word "Flap". So, I flap the speed of light, and that'll do pig.
Mike McDade wrote:I acknowledge that a better understanding of materialism will help.I think you might be lead astray, Mike, if you think Marx was concerned with 'materialism'.You need an understanding of 'idealism-materialism' (or 'theory and practice'), if you need a 'better understanding' of anything. Furthermore, this viewpoint might give you more insight into your views about the possibility of a creator.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.