The Religion word
- This topic has 527 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote: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 or Religion pamphlet is a classic, not just within the SPGB, that was reprinted by others too.
ALB as usual has completely lost the plot. If I really thought the SPGB was an organisation that “deserves to die because it opposes religion”, believe me, I wouldn’t be here arguing the case for a saner , more modern and more dynamic SPGB than the stuffy old , utterly complacent, utterly conservative organisation it has become. There are good socialists in the SPGB but there are also blinkered bigots who are dragging the organisation down to its probable doom at this rate. If ALB cannot see where I am coming from then he is a complete fool. For an intelligent bloke he comes out with some utterly stupid comments at times. It actually pains me to see the SPGB go the way it is going . It is out of a sense of EXASPERATION above all that I criticise. If I really wanted the SPGB to die, I would simply sit back and do nothing. It is an organization that bears all the signs of terminal decline and still we have the complacent attitude among members that nothing really needs to be fundamentally changed It is because I recognise the revolutionary socialist potential of the SPGB – more than any other political organisation I know of – that I care what happens to it and If Mr Buick cannot see that then he is an idiot As for the Socialism or Religion pamphlet, in fairness, I haven’t read it but I would say simply on the basis of the two passages quoted by Gnome that it is a very poorly constructed argument against religion. Which reminds me – no ALB, I am not a “defender of the faiths”. The question of religion is a matter of indifference to me. It is the SPGB that is making such a big issue of it by insisting that applicants for membership should renounce all religious belief. It is the SPGB that has made a rod for its own back by absurdly adopting a philosophical position of metaphysical materialism which is utterly irrelevant to the purpose of a practical revolutionary movement It is the SPGB that has forgotten Marx’s own aphorism – “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to CHANGE it”
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 materialismI’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?
The reason the Party is so small is evident on it’s own forum. This thread was started by someone who wants to join the Party and I send him fraternal greetings and hope we can both work to end this horrible, vile system.Instead of using the intellectual power of the party to derail his thread, can we address the question ‘Does Northern Light’s position constitute a religious position? Is he socialist enought for us to accept his Form A?’ Other workers who have contacted the SPGB asking us to strike for a socialist world have been ridiculed and humiliated on another thread. The reason the party is so small is blatently obvious and perhaps members who have had time out may see this more clearly
TheOldGreyWhistle, I could kiss you brother. You are coming across loud and clear……. IS ANYONE OUT THERE LISTENING TO THIS MAN ??
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:This thread was started by someone who wants to join the PartyYes, 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 wrote: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.I could have fooled you? Surely you jest? Its quite the other way round, actually. It almost laughable what you are attempting to do here. The purpose of asking people whether they are religious – “almost as an afterthought” – is not so much to “exclude religious people” but to ensure that those who join are ..ahem…”rational”. Why don’t you just come straight out with it instead of employing weasel words? Its not an afterthought at all and the question of religion is explicitly raised in the membership questionnaire precisely becuase it is so central to the SPGB position 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?. What is rationality.? Some relgious views are ingeniously “rational” but that doesnt makle them sound. There is no such thing as a person who is completely irrational or completely rational . There is no such thing as an institution that is completely rational or irrational. We are all a mixture of both and that includes the SPGB . Try to understand this point- the very idea that you can somehow exorcise irrationality from the outlook of an organisation like the SPGB or any other organisation is itself a fruitless and irrational hope. The very process of scientific discovery by which you set so much store is shaped and conditioned not just by rational but also by irrational impulses. Read Kuhn on the process by which “paradigm shifts” occur 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. A few posts ago I ,mentioned something about this in relation to Bill’s post. I suggested that what Bill was putting forward was a compromise proposal that would allow people into the party who held religious views but did not believe in a god that intervened in human affairs. 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? If that were to happen I would be the first to acknowledge that this would be a real breakthrough in Party thinking
ALB wrote: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?Of course I’m not opposed to the scientific method but am opposed to what is called “scientism”. There a big difference, you know You might not called your position one of metaphysical materialism but thats is what it is. Look up metaphysics in a dictionary . Its about the ultimate nature of reality, of being. Metaphysical materialism is monist in character: reality consists only in matter. Depending on how you want to define “matter”, this lends itself to varying interpretations.I am quite sympathetic to the point of view known as “emergence theory” which can be called “non reductive physicalism” and which made itself felt in the “cognitive revolution”of the 1960s in the field of neuroscience. This overthrew the old paradigm of reductive physicalism which equate minds states with brain states – so called “identity theory” on the mind-brain relation. Emergence theory holds that mind depends on physical matter but is not reducible to the latter – hence nonreductive physicalism. Emergence theory as a model has potential applications elsewhere. So for example society consists of empirical individuals but is not reducible to the latter. This is what Durkheim was getting at with his talk of “social facts” . Social facts he contended, were sui generis, had a reality which was not explicable in terms of psychological facts 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. But all this is by-the-by. The point is that whether or not metaphysical materialism is a valid proposition compared to, say, a dualistic metaphysic is utterly irrelevant as far as I am concerned , to the practical task of organising a socialist movement to overthrow capitalism. I’m not decrying the fact that people hold a materialist metaphysical viewpoint – I hold that myself in the form of non reductive physicalism – I am only asserting that it should,d be no part of the requirements for membership of the SPGB. We can have a philosophical discussion in a pub about the merits of metaphysical materialism but it has got sod all to do with establishing socialism
robbo203 wrote:What you are saying, in other words, is that only individuals who entertain a theistic conception of god/Bob as something that intervenes actively in human affairs in contradiction to a historical materialist approach (“human beings make their own history” blah blah) should be barred membership of the SPGB . Yes?What that means, if I read you correctly, is that , according to you, people who hold a deistic notion of god ( a non interventionist freemarket kinda god) or who hold pantheistic or Buddhist views or who believe in an afterlife or even so called paranormal events (which our Mr Buick seems to be so obsessed with) should be allowed entry.No, I’m saying conscious materialists should be allowed entry. People who might believe in a creator that buggered off (and had no pre-ordained plan for its creation, no established set of values embued in its creation) and has no practical effect or value are practical materialists. Buddhists believe in reincarnation and a value laden universe. They also believe in a pre-ordained order. As I’ve said, the religious often self exclude themselves because they are unwilling to sign up to materialism.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:The reason the Party is so small is evident on it’s own forum. This thread was started by someone who wants to join the Party and I send him fraternal greetings and hope we can both work to end this horrible, vile system.Instead of using the intellectual power of the party to derail his thread, can we address the question ‘Does Northern Light’s position constitute a religious position? Is he socialist enought for us to accept his Form A?’ Other workers who have contacted the SPGB asking us to strike for a socialist world have been ridiculed and humiliated on another thread. The reason the party is so small is blatently obvious and perhaps members who have had time out may see this more clearlyNorthern Light has admitted that she has no intention of joining the party and lied about her views in order to test our reaction. She then goes on to criticise us for not campaigning for reforms. I think that closes the case on whether a form A is required.
Young Master Smeet wrote:robbo203 wrote:What you are saying, in other words, is that only individuals who entertain a theistic conception of god/Bob as something that intervenes actively in human affairs in contradiction to a historical materialist approach (“human beings make their own history” blah blah) should be barred membership of the SPGB . Yes?What that means, if I read you correctly, is that , according to you, people who hold a deistic notion of god ( a non interventionist freemarket kinda god) or who hold pantheistic or Buddhist views or who believe in an afterlife or even so called paranormal events (which our Mr Buick seems to be so obsessed with) should be allowed entry.No, I’m saying conscious materialists should be allowed entry. People who might believe in a creator that buggered off (and had no pre-ordained plan for its creation, no established set of values embued in its creation) and has no practical effect or value are practical materialists. Buddhists believe in reincarnation and a value laden universe. They also believe in a pre-ordained order. As I’ve said, the religious often self exclude themselves because they are unwilling to sign up to materialism.
Well then what you are saying is not quite what I thought it was. Still, it seems you think that people who hold deistic religious beliefs and maybe also those who believe in afterlife should be allowed in because they are, to all intents and purposes, “practical materialists”. I would say though this applies in practice to most religious individuals – even theists and even though they might belong to organised religions that in theory uphold the idea of an intervening god. which the main thing that seems to worry you since it calls into question, historical materialism.If the religious” often self exclude themselves”, as you put it , this is because the “materialism” they are asked to sign up to is not just the materialist conception of history but, crucially, the metaphysical materialism to which the Party adheres. And it is the latter that is precisely the problem we are talking about. It is a totally unnecessary requirement for Party membership though it might come in handy for a philosophical debating society
ALB wrote:TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:This thread was started by someone who wants to join the PartyYes, 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.
What is the point in asking Northern Light to join when we all know that, as the rules stand, you cannot believe in the idea of a creator and be a party member. This is just a cynical attempt to save face – “Oooo look how tolerant and liberal-minded we are” – when, in effect, the decision has already been in advance: rejection. If the Party really wants to invite people like Northern Light to join – and it would be dammed stupid if it did not ! – then it needs to rescind its crackpot policy on religion or at least relax it in a way that would allow this to happen by means of some compromise or half-way-house solution . And it needs to do this explicitly and above board, by means of a clearly worded conference resolution or party poll
Ed wrote:Northern Light has admitted that she has no intention of joining the party and lied about her views in order to test our reaction. She then goes on to criticise us for not campaigning for reforms. I think that closes the case on whether a form A is required.As some of us had suspected from the outset. But here’s the sting in the tail………
northern light wrote:If the SPGB wants to take part in the emancipation of the Working Class, membership has to increase, or as ALB said, “we’re so small, we are essentially a debating group…….” and that is the way you will stay. Surely members must see, that after 108 years, with only 332 members to show, there has to be something amiss.How you come by new members is your business, but it seems to me, that with most organisations, the more members you have, the more you can attract.For the sake of Humanity (and we may not have much time left) you need to increase the membership.Something is amiss alright; could it remotely have something to do with her reluctance and that of millions of other workers to abandon the reformist road? No prizes for quessing that one. We “need to increase the membership” but they’re buggered if they’ll do anything to assist the process.
To those who accuse Northern Light of being a liar and a reformist. Well done! But I would appreciate a reference! Save me reading the whole thread.
Ed wrote:Northern Light has admitted that she has no intention of joining the party and lied about her views in order to test our reaction. She then goes on to criticise us for not campaigning for reforms. I think that closes the case on whether a form A is required.You are jumping to conclusions. All Northern Light said was and I quoteThese are a sample of issues in the public domain, and the Working Class, is looking for answers, and not finding them in main-stream politics.You cannot infer from this that he or she is “campaigning for reforms”. It would be more prudent to withhold judgement until Northen Light clarifies the situation, I suggest. It is also pretty much below the belt to claim s/he lied about her/.his views “in order to test our reaction”. “Lied” is a strong word. It is complertely out of order in my view and really warrants an apology from you.
If there are are all these commited religious socialists out there, why have they not formed their own organisation, or organisations to allow for their differing belief systems?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.