[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

However, I dont know if I would go along with the rest of what Russell is talking about  but whatever else one might think of this point oif view, one thing is certain –  I dont think you can can reasonably come away from it with the dismissive  notion that this is just  some sort of irrational mubo jumbo. It is a highly thoughtful attempt to make sense of reality whether in the end  you agree with it or not.

Well, having looked at his CV, his website and what others have said of him, I’m afraid I’m inclined to the opposite conclusion: that, as someone has put it, he’s just spouting “New Age nonsense pseudo- scientific babble”. One of many who have misconstrued quantum physics as a repudiation of materialism and a confirmation of idealism, mysticism and religion. Not our cup of tea.For an opposite view to “quantum mystics” like Russell see:http://www.csicop.org/si/show/quantum_quackery/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism

 It might not be your “cup of tea” but it does not mean the guy is not attempting to put forward a rational argument to support his thesis and that surely is the point.  His thesis may or may not be correct but that doesnt necessarily make it “irrational” I really dont know what to make of Russell’s argument.  I’m not a physicist, and neither, I think,  are you,  but I would be wary of just  dismissing someone as spouting ” New Age nonsense pseudo-scienttific babble” without fully understanding the arguments.  – though I note that the references you provide don’t make any mention of Russell and it is not clear  to whom you are attributing this quote.   Appealing to authority may well be a source of comfort and a means of reaffirming one’s prejudices but it is not a substititude for rational argument and only goes to show that you, like me – indeed like everyone else – has an irrational side. As a layperson I do find phenomena such as the Observer Effect,  which seems to be an established fact in quantum physics to be somewhat troubling.  How can the mere fact of a person observing a laboratory experiment actually affect the result – in this case when  a beam of electrons is emitted?  I can’t get my head around this one .  If this is indeed the case what does it imply?  .  Can you explain that to me in simple plain terms because it is precisely phenomena like this  that people like Russell see as providing providing scientific proof  for their theories of the universe

[robbo203]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

How can mind be anything other than matter? What is wrong with determinism? The case for socialism depends on it? Without ‘crude determinism’ there  is no science. In fact without ‘crude determinism’ we wouldn’t have the confidence  to move or get up out of bed. The attack on ‘determinism’ is a defence of capitalism. 

 Well no  – I would have thought it was exactly the other way round. It is the belief that our future is not  predetermined that give us hope that there can be an alternative to capitalism. Otherwise what you are advocating is teleology and this is specifically what Marx rejected.  Thus  he welcomed Darwin’s Origin of the Species  precisely because “it deals a death blow to teleology in the natural sciences” (Marx’s letter to Engels , January 16, 1861 Selected Correspondence Moscow 1975).  In The German Ideology he dismissed the notion that “later history is…the goal of earlier history” as a “speculative distortion”.Of course things are “determined” in the sense that something  happens because of something that happened before.  But “crude” determinism purports to explain the total picture and not just individual events. This is why I recommended Castoriadis’ text – because it has some rather useful things to say about determinism and its scope.  A rejection of teleology does not mean a rejection of causality as such and this is perhaps where the confusion arises. ThusContrary to what the idealist philosophers said , history is the area par excellence where causality makes sense to us for it assumes there at the very outset, the form of motivation.  We can  therefore understand the “causal concatenation” in it, something we can never do in the case of natural phenomena.  An electric current makes the bulb glow.  The law of gravity causes the moon to be in such and such a place in the sky at such and such a time.  These are, and for us, will always remain , external connexions: necessary, predictable , but incomprehensible.  But if A treads on B’s toes, B swears at him, and A responds with blows, we understand the necessity of the links even if we consider them contingent”  (History as Creation p.14-5)However when comes to consider history in general terms, unpredictability or indeterminacy expresses itself as  “an emergence or creation of which cannot be deduced  from what was there before, as a conclusion which exceeds the premisses or  positing of new premisses” (ibid p.17).  Hence , my  suggestion that we need to think instead in terms of emergence theory.  David Graeber, in summing up the broad outlines of Roy Bhaskar’s “critical realist” approach, alludes to emergence theory thus:Reality can be divided into emergent stratum: just as chemistry presupposes but cannot be reduced to physics so biology presupposes but cannot be reduced to chemistry, or the human sciences to biology.  Different sorts of mechanisms are operating on each. Each, furthermore, achieves a certain autonomy from those below: it would be impossible to even talk about human freedom were this not the case, since our actions would simply be determined by chemical and biological processes.(Graeber D, 2001,  Towards and Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of Our Own Dreams, Palgrave p.52-3)You might want to ask yourself – if our actions were simply determined by chemical  and biological processes what then would become of the Marxian claim that “men make their own history” albeit under conditions not of their own making.  Is it rather that chemical and biological processes make history and human beings are just means by which they do so?The point is not only that different sorts of mechanisms operate at each stratum of reality but  also most and especially in the case of society, within society.  There is not just one “master mechanism” that  determines how we think and pushes society in a given directionThere is a great quote from Carolyn Merchant  which kind of sums up rather well how I see the relationship between the ideas people hold and the nature of the society they live in.  Note that at the individual level the ideas are not strictly predetermined by society – “crude determinism”  – as a whole but rather it is that at the aggregate level that a “determined” pattern begins to emerge:An array of ideas exists available to a given age: some of these for unarticulated  or even unconscious reasons seem plausible to individuals or social groups; others do not.  Some ideas spread; others die out.  But the direction and accumulation of social changes begin to differentiate between among the spectrum of possibilities so that some ideas assume a more central role in the array, while others move to the periphery.  Out of this differential appeal of ideas that seem most plausible under particular social conditions, cultural transformations develop (The Death of Nature: Women , Ecology and the Scientific Revolution,  Harper and Row 1980 p.xviii)

[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Yeah but then you are only assuming what you need to prove – that there is only one kind of  “stuff”. I’m saying this with my devil’s advocate cap on but how would go about  proving that  ” mind is  matter” – as opposed to, say, mind is influenced by matter?

I don’t think you could solve the monism (there is one kind of stuff) / dualism (there are two kinds of stuff i.e.. mind and matter) debate empirically, it has to be done logically.If there are two completely separate realms that follow different laws how can these realms meet and interact with each other?If the realms do meet and interact with each other are they not one after all?This is the classic argument for accepting a monist viewpoint, probably stated quite badly.Once we accept everything is ‘one kind of stuff’ we can either take an idealist view, everything is mental. But this poses the problem of other minds…Or, we can take the materialist viewpoint, everything is matter and minds are at least an effect of matter…But then we have the problem of consciousness, the ‘Hard Problem’ as it is known to some.Perhaps ‘Panpsychism’ is not such a silly idea after all?Anyone read A.N Whitehead?

 Hhmmm  The problem is that again you are making assumptions that  appear to undercut your own argument.  (incidentally, I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your argument  but am just engaging in a bit of “devils advocacy” to try to get a bit closer to the truth, whatever that is). You say the monism/dualism debate cannot be solved empirically but only logically.  How so, logically? The classic argument for monism,you say, is that if the  the realms of mind and matter meet and interact they must be one and the same thing,  But why “must ” they be?  Logically if you think about it,  if they ” meet and interact” this presupposes their separateness to begin with,  not their oneness.  Something cannot meet itself and interact with itself.   So you cant exactly use the meet and interact argument  to make the case for monism .  Which means the logical argument for monism  does not seem to be anymore up to scratch ]than the empirical approach Also, going along with this line of argument could be said to make your argument vulnerable to the claims of idealism   You say idealism poses the problem of “other minds”..  However that is an empirical problem  and you’ve  just agreed that you cannot solve the monism/  dualism problem empirically.anwyay.  All of which means you are left with material or idealism (and nothing in between ) with no reliable means of choosing between them.  Each has to be considered just as legitimate as the other Personally I think the only way of out this dilemma is emergence theory  which is monist in the sense that  it takes mind to be dependent on matter  but at the same time does not seek to reduce mind  to matter.  In other words you can only hold on to a monist viewpoint  at the expense of a deterministic  viewpoint

[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

 I think it may be easier if I rephrase: “If there is only one kind of stuff and this kind of stuff follows deterministic laws then minds must follow these laws as well. Therefore ‘free will’ as traditionally concieved cannot exist.”Maybe that answers some of your other points?

 Yeah but then you are only assuming what you need to prove – that there is only one kind of  “stuff”. Im saying this with my devil’s advocate cap on but how would go about  proving that  ” mind is  matter” – as opposed to, say, mind is influenced by matter?Incidentally, would the converse be true  – is matter , mind?    This seems to be the position held by Peter Russell who I mentioned on the religion thread and who holds that consciousness is immanent in the universe (see the “Observer Effect” proof) and is not dependent on the brain but is , rather  “amplified”  by the brain

[robbo203]

ALB I dont have to accept Castoriadis’s political ideas  – some of which I think were bollocks   –   in order to recognise that History as Creation is a brilliant demolition job – say what you like  – of  the crude  reductionism  and determinism of some  people who call themselves “scientific materialists” which even you must recognise is the case and indeed seem to implicitly acceptStop being so hyper-sensitive about things.  You suggested I come over to this thread . Well,  here I am

[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

 If matter is deterministic and the mind is matter then we cannot have free will since the mind must also run on deterministic methods.

 Can you please explain  how “the mind is matter”?  How is the thought that I am thinking right now that I fancy a cold beer and a pizza , “material”?  For sure it might be influenced by  material considerations – I am hungry , I am thirsty,  the weather is hot etc etc  – but does that make my thought , “matter” as such? What, for that matter,  is “matter”?   Surely, even being hungry and thirsty does not necessarily have to result in  me  desiring a pizza and a cold beer? .  Or does it in your view?  Do you consider that I have no choice but to desire this and  not , say,  a plate of ravioli  and a glass of red wine and that everything has been “predetemined” beforehand?BTW Any observations on Heisenberg’s “Uncertainty Principle ( http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08.htm)  It might be relevant to this debate  but Im not exactly certain

[robbo203]

steve colborn wrote:

If you can get hold of a copy of Vin Marattys dissertation “Is Marxism a determinist ideology” do so. Its a good read.

 Is there a link to this Steve? I would be interested in reading this.  Who is Vin Marratty BTW?

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

PS.

robbo203 wrote:

The observer effect in quantum physics mentioned above has also given fuel to the idea  that the universe is essentially “conscious” at some deep level and this is the point made by  Peter Russell, a physicist,  in his book “From  Science to God”. In a sense what he is saying is quite ” rational” and to deny it would be “irrational”.

Just looked up who this Peter Russell is and see that he is a mystic and believer in a god. So maybe this discussion does belong here after all!From here:  http://www.peterrussell.com/SG/index.php

Quote:

From Science to God is the story of Peter Russell’s lifelong exploration into the nature of consciousness. Blending physics, psychology, and philosophy, he leads us to a new worldview in which consciousness is a fundamental quality of creation. He shows how all the ingredients for this worldview are in place; nothing new needs to be discovered. We have only to put the pieces together and explore the new picture of reality that emerges.Integrating a deep knowledge of science with his own experiences of meditation, Russell arrives at a universe similar to that described by many mystics — one in which science and spirit no longer conflict. The bridge between them, he shows, is light. From Science to God invites us to cross that bridge to a radically different, and ultimately healing, view of ourselves and the universe — one in which God takes on new meaning, and spiritual practice a deeper significance.

I haven’t read the book myself, but what is the “new meaning” he says “God takes on”? Is he a pantheist or what?

 Well, bearing in mind my  previous comments about the  “observer effect”   (see this link for further info:  http://theobservereffect.wordpress.com/the-most-beautiful-experiment/ ) and how the mere fact of observing can have a measurable, if infintesemal effect, on a  beam of electrons, Russell deduces from this, if I remember correctly that the universe  in a certain sense , is conscious or sentiient  inasmuch as its “responds”  to the mere fact that we obserrve it.  Or to put it differently, we are part of the very thing we observe and if that is so then the fact that we are conscious means it too  is “conscious.” at least in this special sense .  There is more to Russell’s argument than this and he goes into some detail about the significance of light in Physics and how this relates to his  argument about religion .  My  take on him is that he is some sort of neoplatonist – or “panpsychist” – with a kind of religious materialist  -or materialistic religious – perspective,  if I can put it like that. Its a while since I read the book so I cannot remember all the details but I have it in  front of me  and here is a rather relevant passage from the book  (p.34) “The underlying assumption of the current  metaparadigm is that matter is insentient. The alternative is that the faculty of consciousness is a fundamental quality of nature.  Conscousness does not arise from some particular arrangement  of nerve cells or processes going on between them, , or from any other physical feautures, it is always presentIf the faculty of consciousness is always present , then the relationship between consciousness  and nervous systems needs to be rethought. Rather than creating consciousness. nervous system  may be amplifiers  of consciousness, increasing the richness and quality of  experience. In the analogy of a film projector , having a nervous system is like having  a lens in the projector.  Without the lens  there is still light on the screen , but the images are much less sharp” Russell goes on to talk about the fruitless attempt to try to link mind states to brain states – that is, to trace thoughts to the biochemistry of the brain  – and as someone who supports “emergence theory”  or “non-reductive physicalism” I have some sympathy for this part of his extended argument.  There is now a huge amount of evidence that in my view flatly contradicts the old fashioned crude materialism that went under the name of so called “identity theory” – identifying mind states with brain states. However, I dont know if I would go along with the rest of what Russell is talking about  but whatever else one might think of this point oif view, one thing is certain –  I dont think you can can reasonably come away from it with the dismissive  notion that this is just  some sort of irrational mubo jumbo. It is a highly thoughtful attempt to make sense of reality whether in the end  you agree with it or not.  Which kind of illustrates my basic point   – to dismiss religious people or bar them entry to the SPGB on the grounds that they are ” irrational”  is a gross caricature. We are all both irrational and rational  whether we are religious or not.

[robbo203]

I suggest people here read Cornelius  Castoriadis’ brilliant demolition job  on the crude reductionist materialism of some Marxists  in his short work History as Creation.  Its enough to give our so called “scientific materialists” pause to hopefully rethink …. Check it out here (it comes in 3 parts)http://eagainst.com/articles/cornelius-castoriadis-history-as-creation-part-i/ Ive got the original pamphlet  but the translation above is a bit iffy  so make allowances for that

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

No, but that’s not what I said. I said have a rational approach to things, ie history, society, solving problems, etc. You’re just making a cheap debating point by playing on words. .

 No, you don’t get it at all. Everybody has a “rational approach to things” but equally everybody  is subject to irrational impulses – you , me, members of the SPGB and religious applicants to the SPGB.  Your whole argument is based on a completely false premiss.  You don’t – you can’t!!!  – ensure that people have only  a “rational approach ” to things in the Party by blocking entry to  supposedly irrational  religious applicants.  This kind of “trojan horse” argument against the case for reforming the entry requirements is manifestly false because1) you cannot say a religious person is not “rational”. Period2) you cannot say that you and other members of the SPGB are not “irrational”. PeriodI repeat – – we are all an admixture of both these things You emphasise the need for a “rational approach” to things like  history, society , solving problems etc.  But how we view history, for example,  is very much bound up with our value system.  What we call history is not some kind of objective process which simply goes on “out there” to which we supposedly relate as “objective”observers.  It necessarily involves a process of subjective interpretation – for example in the very selection of the historical facts that we deem significant.  We select these facts in accordance with our values and preconceptions which – inevitably –  we mostly take for granted and in doing so behave “irrationally”Its one reason why I am very ambivalent about the use of the term “scientific materialism” because it is potentially highly misleading.  It  ignores what is called the problem of “reflexivity “in sociology/ anthropology.  We are part of the very thing that we are supposedly “observing” – society.  Its not comparable to a situation where we have group of white coated scientists hanging around monitoring some laboratory experiment.Actually, as a matter of fact, the Observer Effect  is  even evident in the realm of the natural sciences.  Perhaps you with your obsession with paranormal phenomena might want to explain something even  wackier  which developments in quantum physics have brought to light.  See for example this http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm.  To me as a non-physicist this is just simply bizarre beyond words and yet one must trust the scientists that such a thing actually happens. There – another example of me being  irrational perhaps!  But in that case so is everybody else  

ALB wrote:

. But what is religion without the idea of a god that intervenes in the lives of human beings? The Epicureans didn’t contest that the gods existed somewhere in the ether but denied that they had any influence on human affairs and so didn’t need worshipping or placating. Were they religious?

 Yes of course they were religious.  The fact that you don’t  have the gods intervening does not mean they are not accorded a supernatural existence.  There is also the troubling phenomenon of pantheism too  in which the idea of intervention does not really make much sense since it implies a separation of god and his/her/its creation in the first place.  The observer effect in quantum physics mentioned above has also given fuel to the idea  that the universe is essentially “conscious” at some deep level and this is the point made by  Peter Russell, a physicist,  in his book “From  Science to God”. In a sense what he is saying is quite ” rational” and to deny it would be “irrational”.  The fact that a beam of electrons is actually affected by. or seems to respond to,  the mere act of observing it , would seem to imply a very crude kind of sentience of some sort.  How else do you explain it? .  For myself, I couldn’t begin to comment because I am  simply not familiar with   the detailed arguments but it does suggest the world may be a far more weird and wacky place  than your old-fashioned pre-Einsteinian “scientific materialists” could ever have imagined. Hence the need to keep an open mind –  always  

ALB wrote:

 I don’t think a Conference resolution would be required to admit Lucretius to the party.  His reputation as a metaphysical materialist precedes him.

 This is not really the point is it.  You said Northern Light was twice welcomed to apply for membership of the Party. You said this knowing full well that Northern light had expressed a belief in the idea of a creator.  So unless you are playing some kind of cynical game  here,  this can only mean that you think belief in a creator is compatible with membership of the SPGB.  I am asking you  -is it ? If it is not  why then did you suggest Northern Light apply for membership  when that would require a conference resolution to change the entry requirements to the Party?

ALB wrote:

That’s what they say, but “scientism” is a perjorative term which nobody would claim for themselves. Looking it up I see it’s said to reject all “metaphysical” claims. You can’t have it both ways: we can’t be metaphysical materialists and scientists. And, since we’re having a pub debate (at the moment still inside it), what other sources of knowledge do you think there is apart from empirically-based science? Religion perhaps?

 No this is sheer bunkum .  “Scientism” might be loosely described as the over-reliance or  overemphasis on science and the scientific method  as a means to knowledge.  Where did you get the idea  that  this is “said to reject all metaphysical claims”  (a link would be appreciated). Metaphysics is conventionally defined as that branch of philosophy to do with the ultimate nature of reality.  Everyone has a metaphysical standpoint  – a taken for granted framework within which they view the world around them . Metaphysical materialism is one such kind of framework, dualism is another and philosophical idealism is yet another. You cannot avoid having a metaphysical point of view and in that sense it is  fully compatible with scientism

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Even on a single thread on religion over the past week on this forum  you lot  have managed to disillusion one or two potential members and one or two existing members.

I always assumed that this was your intention in continually stirring up such debates.

 Yeah , go on,  deflect the blame on poor  Robocox (LOL) as you and Mr Copy-n-Paste Gnome have been doing all along.  Its not me who has been the cause of their disillusionment.. My motives  have been obvious from the start: I would love nothing more than for the SPGB to flourish and grow but it aint gonna happen unless it gets off  its complacent arse and makes some pretty radical changes..  Thats what I and others who have left the Party would hope for  but perhaps I am more naive  than them  in thinking such change is possible in the face of the such entrenched conservatism as we have seen here.  Those who defend the organisation, come hell or high water,  will do everything possible to avert their eyes from the pretty obvious shortcomings of the organisation rather than face up to the plain truth.  Why the SPGB is in steady decline had got nothing to do with the SPGB, in their view ;  its all the fault of troublemakers outside or whatever.  As if But quite seriously – why do you think the SPGB is an organisation in decline?  I know it is about half the size it was when I was a member (and, no, I’m  not imputing any causal connection between these two things  – LOL).  I would love to hear a genuine up front explanation from a die-hard member.   I don’t think, for example, pointing to the general malaise on the Left is an adequate answer since you would have thought this would have been excellent opportunity to recruit from the Left.  Yet  go the Revleft  where,  irony of ironies, I have have often been stoutly defending the  SPGB against Leftist criticism while people like ALB and Gnome whinge pathetically about bad boy Robocox but couldn’t be arsed to participate in the debates in  Revleft themselves, and you wont find much sympathy for the SPGB.   I wonder why?

[robbo203]

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. 

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

 I realise now it was a waste of time because other members were busy humiliating them. 

You’re being ridiculous OGW; some of us have has long reasoned discussions with people like Nick Tapping and others but they didn’t like the arguments.  And talking of PR exercises, here’s one such response Mr know-it-all Cox gave to the same Nick Tapping back on the good ole WSM Forum when the “Strike for a Moneyless World” was first getting under way.”If it is a literal attempt to implement a moneyless alternative to capitalism in 2012, then forget about it. It simply aint gonna happen that way and to even attempt it as this point would rebound disastrously on the movement for a moneyless world and discredit it. It would only serve to convey the message that trying to get rid of money is futile. “Keep it real” like Ali G sez.”Leaving aside the woolley-headed notion that it could ever have been successful it seems that the underlying assumption shared by critics like Robocox and yourself is that as the SPGB has not been successful after 108 years and doesn’t have more members, then that must be because it is doing something wrong or failing to do something right.  In my opinion that is a totally fallacious and unhelpful outlook.  There is. I regret to say, no shortcut to Socialism.

 I have no problem with the idea of robustly and honestly critiquing Worldstrike 2012.  It clearly was not going to suceed and it is perfectly legitimate to say that.  But that was not the point, was it? .  The point was about the ridiculing of individuals involved .  THAT is where you need to brush up on your PR skills. Even on a single thread on religion over the past week on this forum  you lot  have managed to disillusion one or two potential members and one or two existing members.  But you never learn,  do you? You just cannot afford to behave in this arrogantly dismissive manner that you do and you still dont seem to realise this. Then there’s this priceless little gem from the Gnome: if “the SPGB has not been successful after 108 years and doesn’t have more members, then that must be because it is doing something wrong or failing to do something right”  Er… yes… and why not?  It must  share at least  part of the blame for its very conspicuous non-success Or do you seriously think the SPGB has done absolutely nothing wrong at all and everything it has done to date  has been perfectly right.?   In which case – why has it got only 332  members (and steadly falling ) after 108 years and despite the generous transfusions of  legacy money  to keep it going?  Now where have I heard that expression before – ” its all the fault of everyone else, its got nuffin to do with me, guv”

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

This thread was started by someone who wants to join the Party

Yes, 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

[robbo203]

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

[Author]

Posts