The Return of God. (1913)

From the October 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

The materialism of a former generation of scientists is in the melting pot, and a reversion to the metaphysical idealism is becoming very popular and common. Philosophically we can understand and sympathise, though we may not agree with, the distinction, between the idea and the thing, and the logical processes between them. Scientifically, however, we can neither understand nor sympathise with the confusion between the matter of the thing and the force or energy it manifests.

Yet it seems to be the purpose of prominent scientists to restate the scientific proposition in terms of a very much qualified materialism. The outcome of the materialistic hypothesis is too revolutionary for our masters, and its disquietening effects have to be scotched at the fountain head.

The immortality of the soul having been shown to be incompatible with a materialistic and evolutionary explanation of life, the power of the Church as a soporific for the under dogs of this world has waned. That power can be revived only by a scientific sanction of the ideas on which the Church rests, even though the whole gamut of the Church’s creed is not included. So at the British Association, the President, Sir Oliver Lodge, promulgated the opinion that the individual consciousness survived death, and was able to communicate with the living.

The phenomena of spiritualism is thus homologated, and the materialist who has insisted that the mind was of the brain, which was a purely physical organ whose functions, however complicated and obscure, were no more incapable of being understood and explained than is the process of digestion, the circulation of the blood, or any other functions performed by the various organs or collections of organs, of the body.

We do not know whether the discarnate spirit still experiences, over yonder, the inconveniences of, say, a faulty stomach or a gouty toe ; neither does Sir Oliver say that the spirit persists for ever, and is therefore immortal in the theological sense.

But of even more importance than the question of survival after death is the reference to the transcendental god as the ruler of the universe. Thus the teleology of the early Victorian era is restated with all the authority of twentieth century science. We had thought God and the ghosts were laid long since, and our spirit that was ordained either to everlastingly burn, or to perpetually twang the celestial harp in the clouds, had passed into the limbo of forgotten puerilities along with our belief in these mythical places.

For science had laid bare the majestic sweep of evolution from the star-dust of the nebula, through the material earth stage, with its atmosphere and water complete, to the burnt out cinder stage, like the moon ; had traced animal life from the amoeba to man ; and generally unravelled the whole cosmic scheme. Evolution is accepted as a fact by all the scientists and most laymen, to such an extent that even the Church has adopted it and interpreted it to fit its own theories, while active opposition to the principles of evolution is practically extinct.

If evolution means anything ; if the data of paleontology and of embryology teach anything ; it is surely the unbroken succession of changes from the lower to the higher, culminating in man. There was a great dispute as to whether man was not a special edition by himself, equipped with something different—not in degree but in kind—from any other living being. That dispute was settled by Huxley by his brilliant and conclusive contribution, “Man’s Place in Nature,” in which the reasons for placing man in a group with the “Primates,” and not in a class alone, are given.

At what stage, then, does the immortal soul appear ? Does the personality of the gorilla survive death, or does the Tasmanian aborigine start the immortals ? Or is it something between these ? In any case, what a fearful—almost hellish—confusion must reign “over there” if the souls of the millions of men and women, for the hundreds of thousands of years men have been on this planet keep on accumulating !

The Ruler of the Universe who made all that therein is, who “shaped the suns and marked their ways upon the ancient deep,” and who finally “created man in His own image,” has hitherto found no justification in science. Rather on the contrary has it been found that man in his different stages of knowledge, has created for himself a god or gods in the image of his knowledge—or want of it. And so to-day, when Sir Oliver Lodge creates for himself a god, He will be in a somewhat different image naturally from that of the Hebrew wise men emerging from the later stage of barbarism, but will have all the indications of being the embodiment of what we do not yet know. For that is what “God” has invariably represented. Backward as far as we may push the limits of our knowledge, as much as we may discover, if the workings of nature, there ever remain the doubts and questionings of the enquiring mind, and that ignorance is covered by attributing the unknown to “God.” At, best it is a begging of the question.

The fact remains that we who are of the earth earthy, are satisfied that sufficient is known to make a vast difference to our life here—the life of which we are certain and which we know most about the life of which we have tried to picture, and make practicable the realisation of, the possibilities.

It is an attempt of our masters to divert our attention to an imaginary life elsewhere in order to cover up and minimise the shortcomings of our life here. We doubt whether at this time of day the eyes of the working class can again be directed heavenward. For centuries they looked that way, and nothing came of it. “No Saviour from on high delivers” us from our slavery here ; it is to ourselves and our fellow mortals we have to look for deliverance. Science has provided us with sufficient material to afford a solution, and it now requires but the co-operation of the workers in making use of that information to solve once and for ever the social problem, through the overthrow of capitalism, and the construction of a Socialist co­-operative commonwealth out of the materials collected by capitalism in its ruthless course.

D. K.

What is religion? - Part 2 (1953)

From the September 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1.

Belief in God

Of the five fundamentals of religion, belief in God is certainly the most important, because if there be no God, then miracles can’t happen, there being nobody to make them happen. After-life could not be considered, and prayer would be a waste of time, for there would be nobody to pray to. Inspired books would not exist for nobody could write them. Clearly then, if there be no God the whole fabric of religion falls to the ground.

All the arguments for God yet launched fall into five categories.

1. The Aristotelean argument of First Cause.
2. The Universality of belief in God.
3. The Teleological or design in Nature.
4. The Moral or Ethical Argument.
5. Arguments built on the gaps in science.

Those who affirm God on the grounds that there must be a beginning to the Universe, to Life and to Man, argue that there' must be or has been a prime mover who started it all, and who set the wheels of the universe working.

Of course there either was or was not a beginning. If there was a beginning then there was a beginning of everything including God. But those who hold this First Cause idea find it difficult to theorise or postulate the beginning of God. God they argue always existed, which contradicts their own argument. If one thing never had a beginning, and upon this everything else rests, then the whole argument is put out of joint Materialists have consistently claimed that matter always existed and always will exist because you can neither make nor destroy matter, so we have no problem to explain how something that always existed came into existence. Therefore we can dispense with God in the first cause idea.

The Universality argument postulates God on the supposed universality of belief in his existence. This appeared true in the Middle Ages when man’s knowledge of the world was limited and there were vast tracts of unexplored territory. When Australia was first discovered, it was found that the aborigines had no ideas about God or gods, and the same with the Tasmanian aborigines (now extinct). Then the first contacts with the Eskimos revealed that they had no God or gods. In other parts of the world where primitive people had lived in comparative isolation and not been contaminated by missionaries, many of them remained agnostic.

The teleological or design in nature argument is still very popular. Those who champion it find God in the marvels of nature, the human eye, the beauty of the rose, etc. They never find God in the tape-worm with its tiny hooks so that it can hook itself into the lining of the human intestine and so prevent one’s food from washing it through the system. The tape-worm also has glands along its body which secrete a strong alkaline fluid which neutralises the gastric juice, and so prevents it from being digested or killed. Did God think out all these marvellous things, so that his masterpiece—man—could have harmful parasites sucking his very life blood from within? Those who find God in the healthy child never find God in the child born blind, deaf, dumb or an imbecile; and yet if he made the one he made the other. Whoever made health, made disease, the diphtheria bacillus, the cancer tumour and the plague, etc. The planless nature of the universe puts the teleological argument right out of bounds.

Those who find God in the moral and ethical issues proclaim that because people on the whole strive to do good and to live a just life, that there must be a God regulating their conscience. But what happens when people do wrong or act against God? As Mark Twain observed the Devil rules about three-quarters of the world and has a much larger following than any God ever had. As Socialists we know that moral and ethical problems are largely the result of economic conditions. A Bishop faced with no alternative but to starve or to steal some food, would choose the latter. Most people have little more choice than this in what they do, and are far more influenced by economic factors than they appear to realise. All moral and ethical questions are conditioned by or even changed by their social environment, and the ideas of one country or epoch are frequently the opposite to those of another.

Lastly the gaps in science. Why the rainbow, the tides, the rising and setting of the sun and the phases of the moon? To-day we know the answer to all these phenomena but primitive man didn’t know, and many don’t know to-day because of their absence of elementary knowledge of science. Such questions got people guessing and they found their answer in “God made them,” or “ God does it,” or “God controls it,” all of which mean that the whole thing is beyond their comprehension.

To-day we know full well that the rainbow has nothing to do with God once having flooded the world and put the sign in the sky to show that he was sorry for having done such a wicked thing. The rainbow is purely a physical phenomenon not needing the help of a supernatural to explain it.

There are a lot of things about Nature which we do not know, but there is no need to postulate God because of our ignorance. To primitive man storms at sea and pestilence were signs that the gods were angry with him, but as mankind's knowledge has improved, God has disappeared from the cosmos. With the growth of intelligence God has retreated. God, who could reveal himself at any moment, has now to be searched for.

We have examined the arguments for the existence of God and found that none of them will hold water, and must therefore conclude in the absence of being able to prove a negative, that no God or gods exist. There is perhaps a little difference between what has come to be the critical atheist’s argument against God, as outlined above and what could be called the materialist’s approach. The latter is content with the fact (or rests on the basis) that one can neither make nor destroy matter, so therefore has no need to look into the pros or cons about God, but lets him sleep undisturbed except for the enquiries of the secularists, freethinkers, rationalists and the like.

Horace Jarvis

(To be continued.)

Letter: Mitres and Miracles (1948)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received a further letter from Lord Amwell. The letter and our contributor’s reply are set out below. The original article was published in February, and Lord Amwell’s first criticism in June.— Ed. Comm.

The Editor, Socialist Standard.

Dear Sir,—I must thank you for the generous amount of space you were good enough to allow me. If I am entitled to a short come-back I would make the following one or two comments on F.F.’s reply.

F.F. says that the only statement in his original article which corresponded to the postulate that matter is force was in quotes and was made by Dr. Blunt. On the contrary. The sentence “Matter and force are merely two names for one and the same thing” was two paragraphs away from the quotation from Dr. Blunt and was not in quotes. In any event, it is modern physics, and if it doesn’t fit in with the stern and unbending prejudices of the S.P.G.B., that’s just too bad.

Again, F.F. says that it was I and not he who gave the details about atoms and electrons. Wrong again; I took them word for word from the Socialist Standard. Why this anxiety to hedge in face of printed evidence?

Next; “It is an elementary principle of correct thinking that ‘all knowledge begins with the senses’.” Quite so. That’s what the senses are for. Presumably in order to show how incapable Christians are of thinking correctly, F.F. calls to the witness-box if you please the greatest Catholic theologian of all time, Thomas Aquinas, to prove just that! As I have said, F.F. doesn’t know what educated Christians believe. He really doesn’t!

The picture of scientists deliriously seeking to abstract force from matter so as to leave a residue, or to “draw oft energy and bottle it,” is hardly up to Heath Robinson’s level, but is of that category. It exposes the limitation of F.F.’s mind on scientific matters or else his idee fixe on the subject of what Engels said in 1848.

Finally, ” . . . if we know the qualities of a thing, we know the thing in itself,” so Kant (dear me !) is ignored by serious thinkers. That verbal quibble was disposed of by serious thinkers in the 90’s. If by the word “of” is meant “belong to” it is palpably incorrect, since nothing can “belong to” nothing. If what is meant is that when we know all about a thing we know all about it, the formula is a piece of redundant verbiage. “Take away all the qualities and you’ve nothing left” goes without saying if by “qualities” we define all that can be said about anything. But, “who’s a denying of it, Betsy?” Not an Atheneum full of Bishops, believe me. The trouble is that only the cheapest public forum atheist knows all about anything.

If I had more space than I could have the face to ask for I could convict F.F. of contradictions enough to hang him—intellectually, of course. My main contention stands. It is bad enough to clutter up Socialism with metaphysical logic-chopping on either side; it is worse to attempt to do so without the requisite philosophical and scientific training. I apply that to myself too; but I am not the original culprit.

On the other band, if Socialists have all got to think alike on all matters, exchange some of those dog-eared pamphlets of a past age for up-to-date stuff, if only to know what, the present state of affairs looks like.

Yours sincerely,

Amwell.

Reply:

In his previous letter Lord Amwell asserted that I defined matter as force. I pointed out to him that it was Dr. Blunt who raised the question of the non-existence of matter. He now quotes my actual words, “matter and force are merely two names for one and the same thing,” but in fact this was intended as a paraphrase of what Dr. Blunt said.

Regarding Amwell’s charge of hedging. He could hardly have thought I was referring to him as the scientist responsible for all the information on atoms and electrons that I used in my original article. In using his name I was addressing him personally. He is hereby absolved from any imputation on my part that be is the source of any scientific knowledge I may possess.

His reference to Aquinas is rather unfortunate for him. He jeeringly suggested in his first reply that “Tommy Aquinas and Karl Marx would make an interesting combination.” I countered with one thing on which they might be in agreement. Though Aquinas was an idealist and Marx a materialist, Amwell failed to see the connection because it was not specifically pointed out to him. Aquinas’ dictum on the senses seems a small matter to-day; until we remember that the trustworthiness of the senses had been disputed by philosophers and theologians since 300 years B.C. During an age of metaphysical speculation this constituted a decided step towards clear thinking, in spite of the dualistic beliefs of its originator.

But why the “educated” Christians? Are their beliefs different from those of their congregations? There is no evidence to induce anyone to think so. On the contrary, the constant repetition throughout a long life of the crude dogmas they learned in their Bible classes become firmly embedded in the grey matter of their brains, and what is good enough for the sheep is good enough for the shepherd. The feeble efforts of Dr. Blunt to put up a case for miracles is not only evidence that there is no case, but also of the stultifying effects that religious dogma has on the mind. Dr. Barnes, on the other hand, realising the growing indifference and decreasing credulity of the masses, does his best to preserve Church and jobs by discarding the miracles while retaining God. Well, it’s for Christians, educated and uneducated, to decide. Gods only exist in the mind, and the individual is free to believe, but he does so with no single shred of evidence. He pays the parson and takes his choice.

Lord Amwell seems incapable of dealing with any argument in a straightforward manner. He suggests that I pictured scientists deliriously trying to separate matter and force. There was no suggestion on my part that scientists, deliriously or otherwise, were trying to do so; I am tempted to suggest he must have seen that picture in one of those mediumistic trances of which he boasted in the House of Lords on the 17th of June of this year. The plain fact is that matter and force have never been separated. And that goes for the living organism, with all its organs and functions. Thinking is not the brain, it is a function of that organ; just as digestion is a function of the abdominal organs. The mind consists of thoughts, the result of impressions received through the senses. Does Lord Amwell deny that mind is a function? No, he simply expresses his intense dislike of the thought. Anyway, why eternal life for mind and not for digestion? Sheep’s brains and tripe are equally messy things when exposed for sale on a butcher’s slab.

Still more misrepresentation. It was not Kant, but one of his ideas that had been ignored. Lord Amwell has become so muddled over this question that he is uncertain whether he is on the side of the bishops or the materialists. Kant’s assertion was: “When we know all the qualities of a thing we still don’t know the thing in itself.” My statement that we do not know is a direct negative. Further if we eliminate all the qualities there is nothing left does make sense. Which is more than can he said for his meaningless transformation. Pity he is unable to tell us how it was disposed of in the 90’s.

What are the implications of Kant’s doctrine? Our senses and reason fail to give us a true picture of the world. Underlying all phenomena—like the modern theologian’s idea of God, present in every smallest particle, is the thing in. itself—”noumenon.” The idea is a fantastic speculation on what is called the ultimate nature of existence. Of course serious thinkers ignored it. They were too busy with observation, theory and experiment, adding to the fund of general knowledge that deals with realities. They were slowly but surely adding to the sciences that explain how the universe works. How all living things have evolved, and, what is perhaps the most important discovery of all: the fact that human society itself is subject to evolution. Its laws can be ascertained and man himself can take a hand in that evolution for his own well-being.

The S.P.G.B. is always willing to accord space or platform time to opponents. It is a pity, however, that Amwell did not frame his objections in a straightforward manner that could have been easily understood, instead of cloaking them under literary attempts to be facetious.

“Mitres and Miracles” was an effort, subject to limitations of space to present the Socialist attitude towards both religion and science. With every opportunity afforded him, Amwell has failed to show a single contradiction or unsound reasoning.

His objection to cluttering up Socialism with metaphysical logic-chopping, and his plea that he was not the original culprit, shows, on his side, a failing memory or ignorance of metaphysics. When he wrote that ”attraction and response were the questions begged,” he was postulating a mystical something beyond experience. If he did not realise it he is ignorant of metaphysics. If he did he is the first culprit, and further is self-convicted of a deliberate attempt to throw a spanner into the works.

Regarding philosophical and scientific training before voicing opinions on those subjects, a general knowledge of science can be acquired without special training—which is only needed by specialists making a career such as chemists, etc. Reliable works are available on all the sciences. There is a constant flow of articles in magazines and press, together with radio talks that are highly informative. Any man of average intelligence having once acquired this general knowledge, and most socialists have done so, is qualified to speak on any subject of general interest.

About “those dog-eared pamphlets of a past age.” They at any rate accurately forecast what the present state of affairs would be like. They told of increasing-competition for a limited world market, world crises, unemployment and war, and much else that is rotten. S.P.G.B. pamphlets to-day deal with phases of political and economic conditions as they affect the working-class of the world. If the old ones were dog-eared these have a thousand tongues and speak earnestly of the urgent need for all workers to learn the cause of their wretchedness and fear of the future.

Finally we only expect socialists to think alike on the principles governing their organisation. Socialist principles and action are based on the facts of social life. There is no mystery about the relationship of capitalist and wage-worker.

“Society as at present constituted is based on the ownership of the means of living (i.e., land, factories, railways, etc.) by the capitalist or master-class, and the consequent enslavement of the working-class, by whose labour alone wealth is produced.”

There is only one solution to this enslavement: The establishment of Socialism by the working-class, consciously organized for that purpose alone.

F. F.

Letter: Mitres and miracles (1948)

Letter to the Editors from the June 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

We publish below a letter from Lord Amwell criticising the article published in the February issue. A reply by the writer of the article follows the letter.

“Mitres and Miracles” in the February number of The Socialist Standard presents itself to me as a contradictory hotch-potch of old and new in quasi-scientific jargon. I hold no brief on behalf of either mitres or miracles but I am interested in the desirability of keeping socialist education free of meta-physical entanglements. Your correspondent, F.F., seems to think that scientific “explanation” consists in giving commonplace happenings ponderous names. He reminds me of famous humourist’s account of why cooks love policemen and of Pavlov’s cutting a dog’s throat, for the insertion of an instrument to prove the canine equivalent of our dressing for dinner (if we do) when we hear the first gong.

Thus: kissing is not a spiritual impulse causing physical effects, but physical attraction evoking emotional response. The writer issues a form of words which entirely begs the question with an air (I beg pardon, a response!) of devastating finality. Spiritualists do the same kind of thing I know, but F.F. is not thereby excused. Attraction and response are, of course, the questions begged.

Call kissing an emotional response and licking one’s chops a conditioned reflex and there you are ! It follows then that material nature “makes” a man wear a hat to keep his head warm even if he isn’t a miller and the hat isn’t white. This, despite the fact that a few paragraphs ahead “material nature” becomes only a “supposed reality” which no philosopher or scientist has yet discovered. We are told in the language of the black-cat-in-a-dark-room merchants, and as if it were a new proletarian truth, that reality is “behind” phenomena, for all the world as if if were a bishop telling us that God is “behind ” material nature. How a “supposed” reality “makes” or “evokes” anything at all is a puzzle, but perhaps F.F. means that phenomena is sufficient to do the trick and reality isn’t really behind nature at all and wouldn’t be wanted if it were.

When bishops talk stuff of this feeble order they are supposed to be after four-figure salaries for their doping the proletariat and I should have thought that rotundity of words to hide a bellyful of ignorance would be no appropriate recourse of a class-conscious prophet even though so desperately anxious to show that man makes his own history by allowing material nature to make it for him, the said man not appearing to belong to material nature after all!

Matter and Force, says F.F., are one and the same thing. Hardness is no longer due to solidity. Electrons are points of force moving at incredible speeds. All of which, if said a hundred years ago, would have given Engels a perfectly Victorian fit, The “older materialistic theory,” just as dogmatically acclaimed, has been given the new look, but although according to F.F. we know nothing about reality we do know that mind is “merely” the function of a physical organ just as digestion is a function of the stomach, though the famous liver and its bile is given the go-by. Bishops are “driven back” on the mind because they cannot establish that spirit is anything but matter. Yet matter is nothing but force (meaning, I suppose, energy) and bishops are therefore supposed to believe, that force, qua spirit, is a separate entity waiting round the corner to give force, qua matter, one in the eye.

Doesn’t F.F. know that it is a cardinal principle of episcopal mythology that God is a spirit that exists in totality at every point in space including that occupied by the “force” which is “matter.” What it means I don’t know, but I also don’t know what F.F. means. I know only that F.F. is quite at sea about what educated Christians believe. They don’t believe, for instance, that mind is necessarily independent of matter, though they believe with Freud that mind is not necessarily dependent upon brain. F.F. has defined matter as force; it is he alone who segregates physical force in a completely unscientific way, having to invent “thinking” matter by making the assumption that molecules of carbon and phosphorous, take on a special nature for psychic purposes. It is the materialist who “separates” matter and mind into cause and product, not the opposite metaphysician. And if this is too abstract it isn’t my fault.

As an example of the lamest of limping logic take F.F.’s dictum that before the clergy talk of mind influencing matter they must establish it as a fact that mind is different from matter and independent of it. Turn this the other way round. Is a bishop entitled to argue that before a materialist talks about matter not merely influencing but creating mind he must first establish it as a fact that matter is different from mind and independent of it? If not, why not? The fact is that F.F. is quite unfamiliar with the ontological issues involved or he would not have fallen into such an inept pit.

In calling J. B. S. Haldane to his aid F.F. is on dangerous ground, for Haldane is a “new” materialist sans bustle or side-whiskers. He no more believes that mind is comparable to colly-wobbles or that thinking is a kind of cranial atomic jitterbugging than I do. Haldane even advances the theory that a future life, or “something hardly to be distinguished from it,” is a logical necessity of modern materialism.

The fact is, as F.F. hints, that the whole question has been, as they say, reorientated. It is useless to ignore this. It is deplorable to admit it, as F.F. does, and then drag in all the old clichés as it nothing had happened. Of course materialism stands—backside foremost—but who’s afraid? The one-time big black wolf frightens no bishop. Once identify matter with force, and the old-fashioned logic-chopping about “interaction” and what not is well and truly snookered. There cannot be varieties of “force.” F.F. should brush up his physics. If matter is force, so is mind, and no bishop could say more.

When F.F. tells me as a revolutionary and emancipating truth that I am something like my viscera, I can only remark that if this is true even the most scientific individual of us must think as his belly guides him. What exact reliance can be placed on the ratiocination of livers and lights or even cortex and thalomus I don’t know and hate to think of for the sake of my respect for scientists if not for the sake of my respect for bishops. And don’t give me the guff that brotherly love flowers exclusively on the secular fig tree. Brotherly love, my hat !

F.F. should also brush up his theology before venturing again in furrin parts. Tommy Aquinas and Karl Marx would make an interesting combination.

Reply:

Lord Amwell professes to be concerned about a question begged. Has he ever done anything else but beg that particular question? He wants to keep socialist education free of metaphysical entanglements, then sets a metaphysical conundrum that everybody bye-passes, including himself. It is set in many forms: what is attraction? What is life? To push it farther back, what, is universal existence? What are these things in reality?

Some of the greatest thinkers of the past have wasted many of the best years of their lives puzzling over that question, with no result except idle speculations on imaginary things, or happenings beyond experience. The socialist accepts the world as he finds it, including the knowledge that comes to him through the senses. Aquinas, in the thirteenth century, laid it down that all knowledge begins with the senses, an elementary principle for correct thinking.

It was in the eighteenth century that Emanuel Kant contended that we only know the appearances, or phenomena, of a thing; never the thing in itself. Lord Amwell pours ridicule on the notion in the mistaken belief that he is crushing an opponent of his friends, the bishops. Kant’s famous speculation has got no farther. It is ignored by serious thinkers because it suggests something beyond experience, and because in everyday life, if we know the qualities of a thing, we know the thing in itself.

“Man makes his own history by allowing material nature to make it for him.” This statement gives a wrong conception of the position. Man acquaints himself with natural laws and their operation and then uses those natural laws to suit his purposes. The atom bomb is an example of this. As a part of universal existence man is compelled to observe natural laws. This also applies to the social forms that develop and has a particular significance for the socialist. At certain epochs the social arrangements develop to a point where they cause internal disruption. Today the means of production and distribution are socially operated by the working class but they are capitalist owned, and there is a conflict of interest set up between owners and dispossessed. The working out of social laws based upon private property has brought about this disharmony. Class antagonism within society operates against the well-being of mankind. The longer it continues the worse become the penalties for ignoring the law.

It is the scientist, Lord Amwell, who tells us all those details about atoms and electrons, not F.F. The information was passed on to the readers with the comment that the alleged discovery had made no difference to our previous conception of matter. Scientists and chemists still carried on with the table of elements and their relative weights just as they did before the discovery.

Again, Lord Amwell attributes to me the ridiculous statement that matter is force, not once but several times; whereas the only passage that justifies it is in quotes and was by Dr. Blunt. The fact remains we can only separate matter and force in the understanding, never in the laboratory or anywhere else. No scientist has ever abstracted the force, or if he prefers it the energy, from any substance, solid, liquid or gaseous, and left a residue of matter only. Nor could the reverse be accomplished, that is draw off the energy and bottle it.

Lord Amwell admits his inability to understand what educated Christians believe, or the cardinal principle of episcopal mythology, that God is a spirit existing in totality at every point in space. It means that the history of religion, in its essence, is traversing its final chapter. It has not yet discarded its spiritual God, but in the esoteric circles of educated Christians God is identical with the physical universe.

All the bishops, together with Lord Amwell, use the words mind and spirit alternatively as meaning the same thing. The word spirit, with its implications of a future life, independent of matter, must be merged into mind clothed with so-called spiritual qualities.

If spirit is only another name for mind the bishops have nothing to prove, but if they insist on the generally accepted meaning, a spiritual power independent of flesh and blood, the onus for proof is on them ; because it is their assertion.

Up-to-date physics will not answer his lordship’s question. But the knowledge as to how men do their thinking may. For instance, in the understanding they visualise a purpose in nature, and deduce a power controlling its fulfilment; after the same manner as man designs and carries through a work of art. But what purpose can there be other than infinite change? The world is in constant process of becoming something else. Its only purpose is existence. To say that the purpose of existence is existence may seem tautology, but not so in conjunction with infinite change.

If we know all the qualities of a thing we know the thing in itself. If we know how the universe works, we know the universe.

Amwell says next that “educated Christians don’t believe that mind is necessarily independent of matter. Though they believe that mind is not necessarily dependent on brain.” It’s a bit of a mix-up. Let us try and straighten it out, using the socialist method of approach. How does the brain work? Impressions are received and classified in the memory according to their association with previous conceptions. Throughout life the number of these impressions multiply enormously, and constitute a collection of memories on which we can. draw at will, though concentration is sometimes rendered difficult because much of this association goes on without conscious effort. Now, all our ideas come to us through the senses, therefore our apparent freedom of choice can only be exercised within the realms of experience. So we draw the conclusion that mind is dependent on brain, plus all the other parts of nature of which we have experience, for the materials on which it functions. If that is what educated Christians mean when they say “mind is not necessarily dependent on brain,” we can only ask: what has happened to the spirit? Their only answer is that it, “exists in totality at every point in space.” In other words; it is just universal existence.

One other point for our critic. We are only secularists in the sense that the materialist, explanation of the history of religion is part of the materialist conception of history as a whole. The greater includes the less. If the secularist accepts evolution in the physical world, he has failed to apply it to social science. He has not always recognised the conflicting interests and class antagonism in society. He only sees the confusion that is wrought in men’s minds by superstition. We are not blind to its stultifying effects. That is why we accept its challenge whenever it attempts to use science to bolster up its lies.

F. Foan

The Ruin of Christ. (1916)

From the October 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

A note on a newspaper's wish for a United Church.

For nearly two thousand years people have been told that Jesus Christ came to the earth for the well-being of humanity, left a stock of immortal truths and after great sorrows returned to his Heavenly Father. From the Scriptures we read that The Man of Sorrows worked miracles, put beautiful parables into his public speeches, and was superior to the powers of Death and the Sea. In history we learn that his parentage was so obscure, the evidence of either his existence or his work so debatable, that opinion drift between two extremes, Renan believing him to be a humble, considerate man and Shelley an ambitious man who aspired to the throne of Judea.

Interest was centred on Christ until quite recently because of the nature of the claims on his behalf ; the divine power with which his name was invested, the singularity of his birth, the lowliness of his habits, his nobility and his patience. If, when we consider Jesus in the most favourable light, we find his parables not entirely uninstructive, we also see that under the care of the Church they have become either wretched or villainous. Jesus, like King Lear, gave his property into cruel hands. By popes and archbishops his ethics have been falsified ; by philosophers he has been stript of his divinity ; his Godliness has become the faith of the fool and the target of Historians. In the future, interest will centre on Christ chiefly in consequence of some articles and letters which lately appeared in the “Daily Chronicle.”

The editor of that newspaper is urging the adherents of the two-and-seventy jarring sects to unite into a common brotherhood. He thinks that with a little trimming of faiths, a modification of the gospel to meet the advancements of science, and sundry other things, that Christianity might still be a power in the land. Alas ! why do not your friends tell you, poor ”Chronicle” Editor, that a writer on such a theme may nowadays wear out a mine of nibs and use a sea of ink before a sceptic will even smile. Am I alone to tell you that you should close the lid of your pot and pack up your pens ? Your God has made another error in judgment ; you are born too late in the day. Somewhere in the sixteenth century your kith and kin in Spain did not use pens. I learn on good authority that the founder of the Spanish Inquisition, Torquemada, was never the editor of a newspaper.

But as I do not wish to be thought inconsiderate, or in any unworthy way to gloat over the downfall of Christ and his Church, I would like to openly consider some of the reasons for your proposals. Although I am an Atheist I see something infinitely pathetic in the fact that a people once so prosperous and proud, with abilities, as they once had, to construct their old giant crusades, with energy to war, with cunning enough to arrest the growth of science and art, should at last lose the power of their science-riddled Jesus and become dependent upon London newspapers.

In your columns you hint, as we have been told so often before, that religion is a necessity of national life : that God’s hand is in the work of the scholar and his influence felt in the life of the savage. With the latter half of your contention I am in complete agreement. Knowing something of the history of Christianity, and a little of the life of savages, it is difficult to see how they would lose anything by exchanging a crucifix of Christ for the images of wood and hobgoblins of stone to which they are devoted. But whatever loss they sustained, or whatever hostility the substitution aroused among the base Indians or the cannibals of Tierra del Fuego, the proposal should be insisted on English manufacturers would thus be able to export a large number of ivory Christs which are lying stagnant in the workshops. The other of your contentions I cannot so easily endorse. Voltaire, Tom Paine, Marx, Spencer, Darwin, were all great men ; so if it is true that the scholar cannot work without God’s help, then God alone is responsible for some of the deadliest arguments against his own existence and some of the wittiest satires on his own son.

We learn also that the Christian has worked and does work in the service of God. As a little pamphlet which we issue, entitled “Socialism and Religion,” deals with the birth, life, and death of the Idea of God, it will not be necessary for me to speak of it here ; I will alone consider the world’s work of his servants.

What has the Christian done in the world which the Atheist has not ? Point to an achievement of a saint who has the advantage of intimacy with the Almighty and I will counterbalance it with an important work of a Freethinker who is on no friendly footing with a divinity. Against the literary value of the Bible I place Shakespeare ; against “Genesis” and the “Book of Job” I place “King Lear” and “The Tempest.” We are told that St. Francis of Assisi held conversation with the sparrows and by the sea-side lectured the fishes. In contrast to these second-hand records of this laughable saint I place the beautiful lament of Burns over the field-mouse, written in subtle sweetness, not for the instruction of the simple creature which lost its nest under the ploughshare, but for the enjoyment of humanity. In the Psalms God gets praised in choice language, but no more tremendous melody of praise and sorrow has been penned than Shelley’s elegy on the Death of Keats—”Adonais.” Blake was intimate with the Almighty and kept in touch with the events of Paradise. Blake saw Eden and Hell. Blake had God as a model in his studio. Blake, so Blake claimed and many believed, passed through all the celestial and infernal valleys. He claimed that he had a special invitation, but I am inclined to think that it was just the result of an unsettled disposition. In any case his work has little artistic value or topographical importance. They are neither pictures nor maps of hell, so we must conclude that Blake was utterly foolish and could not learn, or that his divine instructor was out of touch with the modern French artists. I incline to the latter view after having read a biography of Blake by G. K. Chesterton. You may now agree with me, nearly-forgotten editor, that in works of beauty the saints are not supreme. But still the question remains—what have the religionists done which the sceptics have not ? For an answer we must look slightly at the noble work of the world.

Look to the early days of astronomy and you will find religion there as a worm in the bud. The slightest slip from the ritual of the Church, the publication of the feeblest heresy or the mightiest truth, was followed by hellish punishment. From the time when the priests first got power until the time when they lost it they struck right and left in a mad, blind fury. Up till the time when Voltaire lived eight million people had perished in Holy Crusades. There is no doubt the biblical God made priests in his own image.

Bruno suffered after Copernicus ; homes were ruined, arts and sciences enslaved ; authors, reformers, philosophers were blinded, branded, tortured, poisoned, or burned. Blind with the love of Christ, the Inquisitors did not know their own kith and kin. The friend of superstition died with its enemy. The poet was exiled and the astronomer murdered. Not a soul must breathe a syllable of any fresh thought. Those among our friends who know the joy of listening to or uttering fresh truths will understand the deep gloom of this enslavement. It is not alone to those rare and lonely martyrs of the cause of progress that we must always feel grateful, but also to those nameless thousands who have gone to their graves with the fire of truth in their hearts, with wonderful thoughts unpublished. Well we may remember the intellect and honesty of those olden mortals who braved the smiles, bribes, and fury of Christ’s ministers and dealt the first mortal blow to superstition, but we shall never know the details of the unhappy lives of those who were forced to let their poetry wither away—not so much as whispered—hide their yearnings, stifle their young dreams, as a mother the child she loves and yet fears to keep. We shall never be able to count the lost lives of the people, nor measure the infamies of the Church during those miserable years. The Church may do good by stealth, the rest of its work is on record,

Yet I am not of a spiteful nature, so I will offer Christians a few words of advice on how they may, if they will, become united. Do not write books, do not distribute crusts of bread, do not wage wars, for the love of God ; but sow and gather corn, weave clothes, build houses, on communal principles, for the love of humanity. Study the poets, historians, scientists, and architects, then in the music of their sentiments you will forget old hells, conjurors, and tricky heavens. In the knowledge of architecture and the love of nature which follow you will burn all the churches that have corrugated iron roofs ; in the strength of character which follows you will possess the foundations of future happiness.

No doubt you will often be told that an Atheist’s life is black and vacant. The men who repeat this stale nonsense are all men of less brain than Bacon, who says in his “Moral Essays” that “Atheism leaves to man reason, philosophy, natural piety, laws, reputation, and everything that can serve to conduct him to virtue ; but superstition destroys all these and erects itself into a tyranny over the understanding of men.” Irreligion certainly accompanies an understanding of Socialism, but we Socialists can enjoy the picturesque parts of all religions, from the beautiful mythology of old Greece to that of the “Daily Chronicle.” We may enjoy the beauties of the country, the wonders of the cities, the solitude of the sea, or its commerce. The riddle of the universe is still with us to test our wits and keep them keen. Books, music, and art are now strongly established as the elements. It is not much that we lose when we lose a Christ, a priest, and an iron chapel. We are progressing. The Bible can no longer be used as a weapon against us. It is rapidly becoming an entertaining book in our hands. With our complete freedom from superstition, political and industrial as well as religious, we shall have reached the time when the Chapters of Genesis may be raised to the superb dignity of the “Midsummer Night’s Dream.”

The religion of Christ was no more fit for the guidance of the world’s workers than the fishing boat of Peter was fit for the circumnavigation of the world or the sandals of Joseph fit for a journey from Bethlehem to the North Pole.

But the old Church, the old slave-ship of Christ, last century was sinking fast and the wish to sail in solitary triumph was gone. Truth has been treated by their flinty clerics as a wolf with a small belly and a moderate appetite whose pursuit may be delayed with morsels of flesh. But Truth, instead, is like the sea on which no unprincipled ship can sail for long in security. The billows have been hammering at the old hulk of the Church for some ages now. Starting a voyage from Galilee, Christianity sailed smoothly for a thousand years or so, gathering up the slaves, stealing the treasures of free thought ; its blight was terrible, absolute, and swift. Thus astronomy rose like a whirlwind ; geology was as lightning. The surrounding sea beat harder and faster. The crumbling ship’s sails were ruined, its masts were snapped at the roots. The passengers and slaves rebelled and after much turmoil managed to get some kind of a Reformation. No one cared what was tossed to the sea so long as the crippled ship was saved. Year after year the storm grew worse and Christ’s compass led it astray. When their provisions were gone they turned cannibals : sect devoured sect. Last century the “Origin of Species” and the Socialist Philosophy were published and fell like thunderbolts in the old, rotten, rat-riddled, shattered ship. Amid the howling billows and gusts of wind the vessel sunk. In the wilderness of the waves it was lost with all its pretensions, tyrants, conundrums of Heaven, spectres of Hell, and the rest of its ghastly cargo.

I am afraid you cut a miserable figure, London Editor, as you stand on the shores of Fleet Street crying pitifully to the tempest: “Peace, be still !” Yet it will be interesting to see for how long an editor may sit by a grave trying to restore a corpse to health and strength, and remain free from pity and contempt.

H. M. M.

Whose thoughts are you thinking? (2006)

From the December 2006 issue of the Socialist Standard

Richard Dawkins, the biologist, has become something of a celebrity through his outspoken advocacy of atheism as in his new book “The God Delusion”. But his approach to religion is still an idealist one.

The Dawkins approach to the question of religion is, like religion itself, an idealist one: religion is false, rationally unsustainable; morally enfeebling and a basis for hatred and division. Presumably Dawkins sees the death or meaningful diminution of religion by means of secularist persuasion just as religion hopes to resist secularisation by what it sees as ethical persuasion.

Dawkins looks into the biological evolution of homo sapiens for the origin and growth of the multiplicity of religious faiths. He is speculative rather than dogmatic on the issue but much more convincing when showing how the stringency of faith-based social morality has been softened over time by an intellectual response to the social development of society. He recognises this but, unlike Marx and Engels on the question of religion, simply reports it as a phenomenon under the label of moral Zeitgeist.

Unlike Dawkins, the pioneers of scientific socialism sought to show religion as a reflex of the social organisation of society. Marx, in the Introduction to his Critique of Hegel’s of Philosophy of Right, wrote:

“This state, this society, produces religion, a reversed world consciousness, because they are a reversed world. Religion is the general theory of that world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritualistic point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction. The struggle against religion is therefore immediately the fight against the other world of which religion is the spiritual aroma. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.” (original italics)

It wasn’t simply a question of religion being false, or brutal or divisive; it was a weapon of the ruling class, a bulwark in the way of the emancipation of the working class, a hurdle to be overcome in the progress to socialism nor could it be overcome while the conditions that nourished it continued to exist. Thus, the socialist sees religion as an integral part of the class struggle while the secularist sees it simply as a harmful, false premise on which to base a system of moral rectitude. As far as capitalism’s subject class is concerned, whether those who govern it or those who exploit it reject or accept faith is irrelevant; the morality of capitalism is not governed either by humanistic or religious considerations but by the constraints and compulsions of the marketplace.

Inculcating religion

Dawkins deals well, even poignantly, with the religious indoctrination of children pointing, for example, to the absurd practice of labelling young children with the faith identity of their parents or guardians. Even very young children, as young as three or four are referred to as, for example, ‘Catholic’, ‘Protestant’ or ‘Muslim’ children because society accepts the legitimacy of parents or guardians or clerics or teachers hijacking the innocence of children for the inculcation of beliefs more likely to be resisted if they were offered initially to an older person. Dawkins rightly calls it child abuse with ramifications sometimes even more devastating than the sexual abuse of children.

Obviously socialists agree that the indoctrination of children is a contemptible invasion of the rights of a child but, grave as it is, it is less socially heinous than the ruthless inculcation of the appalling precepts and values of capitalism – accompanied usually by the notion of a ubiquitous Divine Policeman – to which both children and adults of all ages are remorselessly exposed.

Science and the system

Indoctrination makes a nonsense of the claim that we live in a democracy. Democracy is about choice and choice is based on information and knowledge. But nowhere in the world of capitalism are the people offered the slightest hint that there could be a way of running our society that might free us from the appalling problems that are built-in, inevitable aspects of global capitalism. Instead we have intense conditioning and thought control to the extent were we look on the utterly absurd, like war and world hunger, as natural and as inevitable as the seasons.

Capitalism and its institutions rape our consciousness and rob us of the ability to think independently. Every situation must be reasoned within the paradigm of a world in which we are beholden to a class of owners not only for our daily bread but for every aspect of our life-functions from the cradle to the grave and unless our needs are consistent with the profit needs of the owning class they will not be met.

Richard Dawkins sings the praises of science and in a general sense socialists join in the chorus. But science, possibly more than most other disciplines, is a prisoner of capitalism. The scientists have to beg at the table of the system for funding to pursue their projects; their sponsors are usually largely mammoth capitalist enterprises bent on discerning means of further enriching their directors and shareholders or capitalist governments dedicated to the overall concerns of national capitalism.

Just like the rest of us, the scientist is a prisoner of the crazy logic of the system and just  like the rest of us if his or her dedicated function does not hold promise of profit for those who directly or indirectly employ them, irrespective of the potential social benefits of their work, it will be denied funding.

The first phase in the struggle to end the political and economic exploitation of our class is to learn to question the thoughts we inherit from well-intentioned parents and teachers; to challenge the strictures of the priests, parsons, rabbis and mullahs and to question why in a world of potential abundance, where a parasite class of non-productive money shufflers and profit-takers are rich beyond measure, and the working class that produces all real wealth endure mere want or dire poverty.

Richard Montague

Is anybody up there? (1982)

From the November 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

Last year the American government published the proceedings of a conference in California in June 1979 whose ostensible purpose was to explore the prospects for research into the nature and distribution of life in the universe (Life in the Universe, NASA Conference Publication 2156. US Government Printing Office). While the case for the establishment of a sane and harmonious society here on earth is obviously not dependent on such findings, the papers do contain much of interest to socialists.

The conference considered the origin of life, life supporting environments, the evolution of complex life, the detectability of technically advanced civilisations and the problem of locating extraterrestrial intelligence. Two different though complementary approaches are encompassed here. The first seeks to develop an understanding of life and the environments necessary to support it. Such research cannot, of course, uniquely determine the existence of life outside the planet earth, but will enable attention to be focused on the more promising candidates among the heavenly bodies. The second approach has already been christened SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), and involves listening for potential radio transmissions from intelligent life, and an examination of suitable stars for target. A research programme has been established to pursue these aims.

The advance in thinking in this branch of science since Darwin wrote The Origin of Species is as immense as that made in the same period in the design of weapons of war. The two are in fact linked, as illustrated by the development of nuclear bombs and the use of space-craft for reconnaissance and, potentially at least, for other military purposes. It is a mistake to think of this advance of science in terms of increasing the number of solved problems (with a corresponding reduction of those unsolved), although there is a sense in which this is a valid viewpoint. Attempts to attack one particular problem often lead to unexpected results which themselves cause new questions to be posed and fresh problems identified as requiring solutions. An example of this was the bringing back to earth for analysis of samples from the moon. The results have been somewhat misleadingly reported as having caused confusion among scientists. In fact the longterm result is an enlargement of horizons and an enrichment of understanding.

Certainly this aspect of scientific research can be irritating. It requires the modification of theories in the face of new evidence, often the abandonment of what had appeared to be promising lines of enquiry. Thus the appearance can easily be given that no progress is being made. It is here that the sniping movement calling itself Creation Science has found its opportunity. There have surely been few organisations to which the word reactionary can be more appropriately applied. Claiming that science has failed to provide the answers, it advocates a return to the old creation theories of religion. Its adherents focus on biological evolution and Darwin's work and pose the question, “Was Darwin right?”, as though they were continuing the famous debate between Bishop Wilberforce and T.H. Huxley. Their claim that the fossil record does not support Darwin is technically correct although rather impertinent. Darwin as was understandable in his time, saw evolution as proceeding at a much more constant rate than present-day evidence will support. In fact, as presented by Valentine [1], what now appears to have happened is lengthy periods of relative stability with small changes (microevolution) interspersed with intervals where more revolutionary events happened (macroevolution). Valentine writes: "A large mutation can produce a descendant which is infertile with members of its parental species, including its parents. If it can fertilise itself, however, it may propagate and thrive”. In the human species mutations are produced which differ considerably from their parents. This occurred with much greater frequency immediately following the atomic bombardment of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Like most mutations these were tragic, one-off cases and where they survived they did so only because human society can now prevent natural selection operating. The point is, however, that it was the normal human reproductive process which brought forth these ‘children’, and to claim that a ‘creator’ is at work here is worse than ridiculous.

The concept of concurrent micro and macroevolution appears to be well supported by the fossil record. Indeed in the last 20 years one of the main arguments used by “creationists' has disappeared. As reported by Margolis and Havelock [2], it used to be thought that the Precambrian rocks of the Ediacaran period (700 million to 570 million years ago approximately) did not contain a fossil record. The pioneering work of Elso Barghoorn and Stanley Tyler of Harvard University has shown that this is not the case, the difficulty having been related to detection techniques and scientific expectation. Margolis and Havelock put it thus: “These investigators realised that the conspicuous fossil record of large organisms must have been preceded by something smaller. Such ideas led them to microscopic studies of thin sections of unaltered sedimentary rocks”. Far from supporting biblical or neo-biblical viewpoint, modern science is dealing it ever more crushing blows. This message is forcefully conveyed in nearly all the papers presented at the conference. ‘Creation science', incorporating as it does a complete misunderstanding of modern scientific method, must be largely motivated by its own deadly fear of the consequences of driving God out of the heavens. The complexity of the universe, as it is now understood, shows more clearly than ever before that the idea that we can ‘know all the answers' is a religious and not a scientific one. How could the inert matter which preceded life on earth have left sign-points to show us how it came to be where it was?

When talking about the possibility of detecting the existence of life outside our own planet, we of course mean life as we know it’; that is. life that has evolved in much the same way from much the same material conditions and resources as has life here on earth. We cannot, of course, even begin to discuss any other possible method of life evolution as it would be totally outside our experience and knowledge. All that can be said is that while this possibility cannot be entirely ruled out, the chances do seem to be extremely small. The phrase ‘conditions which will support life’ must also be taken to mean ‘conditions similar to those on earth’.

The space exploration which has already taken place certainly appears to have ruled out any chance of life at the present time anywhere else in the solar system. No attempt was made by sensate beings to intercept or communicate with the spacecraft, and nowhere was a life supporting environment detected. However Chang [3] suggests that Venus and Mars may have supported some form of life in the past. As for the chances of life further afield, this appears to boil down to which is the greater of two very large numbers. The odds against all the requirements of organic life appearing on another plant, or perhaps a satellite, in much the same proportions as on earth, are obviously very great. Equally vast however is the number of heavenly bodies in the universe. The biblical writer who compared their abundance to that of sand on the seashore was considerably more right than he knew. He probably did not believe what he wrote, but he has proved not to be far out. There has even been speculation that the planet earth may not be unique — that is to say. there may be another bloke called Edge writing at this instant about life in the universe for another journal called Socialist Standard on an identical planet many light years away! Opinion at the conference was divided on this issue. Drake [4] states: “The current consensus concerning extraterrestrial life is that it exists in abundance in the universe". However in the present state of knowledge the opinion of Lovejoy [5] seems more realistic: “I think it quite reasonable to suppose that despite the immensity of the known universe, the specificity in the physiostructure of any organism is so great and its immensely complex pathway of progression so ancient that the probability of re-expression is simply infinitesimal". This, needless to say. has nothing in common with the religious view of man as the special creation of God. Lovejoy’s comments are the product of more than a century of dedicated scientific observation.

What is the real purpose of this conference? In his introductory remarks Frosch [6] said: "The ‘golden fleece' idea that searches, gropings for knowledge whose purpose we do not understand are silly and some kind of rip off, results from sheer lack of understanding, lack of imagination and lack of perception of the meaning of the history of the human race". As far as it went, this was very well said. However, it would be naive indeed to accept that the gathering was concerned with pure research for the long-term benefit of humanity. Under the present social system funds are not provided for such studies. Certain capitalist interests, of course, stand to benefit in the short term from the construction of the high technology instruments required to scan the universe for life. Spacecraft travelling up to the speed of light have been envisaged. Generally speaking, however, such interests, despite all their lobbying, are unlikely by themselves to generate enough pressure to force governments, considering the interests of the capitalist class as a whole, to provide them with the necessary finance. Not surprisingly, “earth politics" is ignored in all of the papers. This is an indication, however, that the participants implicitly accepted not only that there is no feasible alternative to the capitalist system here on earth, but that the advanced civilisations which they hope to find elsewhere will be capitalist in character also.

In discussing how such advanced civilisations may be detected, Braccwell [7] unwittingly and grimly admits this when he says, "incidental signals offer more interesting grounds for speculation. There is of course the possibility of emission from bomb explosions. Sustained nuclear reactions for the purpose of power generation do not seem a likely source because leakage would represent waste”. Unlike CND, it would appear that this author holds justifiably pessimistic views of the possibility of removing the threat of nuclear war while retaining the system that causes it. It can reasonably be assumed that the conference would have been no more optimistic about the prospect of tackling the problems of pollution and depletion of natural resources. These are also insoluble within capitalism, and are seriously worrying the more thinking among our rulers.

There are perhaps two obvious ways in which such people may see communication with other life-supporting planets as offering a way out. First, there is the hope that some "super intelligence” may be contacted who could point to solutions which have escaped dumb earthlings. However socialists see this as another form of the "great man" idea, and thus doomed to failure. Secondly, and perhaps the speculation on long-distance space travel is indicative, there is the possibility of transplanting earth capitalism to another site (and eventually wrecking this place in the way the earth is now being wrecked). This may prove to be a more practical proposition than trying to establish life support systems on other members of the solar system which are at present inimical to life. Such a migration could involve war. not only with existing inhabitants, but fierce conflict between the rival capitalist groups on earth as they try to extend their space colonies at each other's expense, just as happened here. This scepticism over motives however does not detract from the value of this publication as an abundant source of information and valuable insight into current scientific thinking.

E. C. Edge

References

(All references are taken from NASA Conference Publication 2156)

1. Emergence and Radiation of Multicellular Organisms; James W. Valentine (University of California)

2. Atmosphere and Evolution; Lynn Margolis (Boston University) and James E. Lovelock (Reading University, UK)

3. Organic Chemical Evolution; Sherwood Chang (Ames Research Centre. NASA)

4. Comments by Frank D. Drake (Professor of Astronomy. Cornell University) as session chairman for session 5.

5. Evolution of Man and its Implications for General Principles of the Evolution of Intelligent Life; C. Owen Lovejoy (Kent State University, Ohio)

6. Introductory remarks by Robert A. Frosch (President of the American Association of Engineering Societies)

7. Manifestations of Advanced Civilisations; Ronald N. Braccwell (Stanford University, California)

Halo, Halo! (2024)

The Halo Halo Column from the May 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

Social media shorthand SMH means ‘shakes my head’. When the German Hindenburg airship caught fire landing in New Jersey in 1937 the radio commentator cried out, ‘oh, the humanity!’ The current seventh-century rulers of Afghanistan cause both of those reactions. The Telegraph, 25 March, reports that a Mullah there has declared, ‘we will soon implement the punishment for adultery. We will flog women in public. We will stone them to death in public.’ Words fail.

*****

Fulcrum7.com in a book review says the author posits the ridiculous theory that Noah carried dinosaurs onto the Ark as juveniles or even as eggs. Because obviously think of the space a pair of eighty-foot dinosaurs would take up! The reviewer says, rubbish! Well of course. That’s like the old comedy routine where someone claims to have two lions, a giraffe and an elephant in a shoebox they’re carrying. The reviewer then says, ‘I believe the dinosaurs were among the “confused species”, which were the result of genetic engineering and one of the reasons for the Flood was to destroy those animals’. Words fail.

*****

In June 1812 Napoleon Bonaparte and his French army invaded Russia. In 1812 Mary Anning and, initially, her brother dug the skeleton of an unknown seventeen-foot-long creature from the cliffs of Lyme Regis. Now it’s known that it was the skeleton of an ichthyosaur from the Jurassic period. Mary Anning was aged twelve when she discovered this.

With hindsight, which of those two events was the most important? It’s not known if this is one of the animals that the Flood failed to destroy.

Mary Anning and her family were avid fossil harvesters selling their finds to tourists. Oxford professor William Buckland teamed up with Mary. Peal writes that Buckland was a committed Christian who had difficulty in reconciling Mary’s finds with Bible stories. To maintain his delusion Buckland said that the skeleton must have come there as a result of the Flood.

Mary also discovered a plesiosaur and a pterodactyl. She is quoted as saying that, ‘great men of learning had taken advantage of her.’ ‘They ‘sucked her brains’ of her knowledge, and stole the glory of her discoveries for themselves’ (Meet the Georgians, Robert Peal, 2021,).

*****

The protagonist sees a group of flagellants in St James’s Park. He converses about it with his chauffeur who says; ‘I find it ridiculous. If God exists and He’s decided He’s had enough of us, He isn’t going to change his mind because a rabble of no-hopers dress up in yellow and go wailing through the park.’

‘Do you believe He exists?

‘Perhaps His experiment went spectacularly wrong. Perhaps He’s just baffled. Seeing the mess, not knowing how to put it right. Perhaps not wanting to put it right. Perhaps He only had enough power for one intervention. So He made it. Whoever he is, whatever He is, I hope He burns in His own Hell’ (The Children of Men, P.D. James, 1992).

DC

Mitres and Miracles (1948)

From the February 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

On October 15th, 1947, at the Convocation of Bishops, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Lang, mildly rebuked the Bishop of Birmingham, Dr. Barnes, for the views he expressed on miracles in his book “The Rise of Christianity.” The Sunday Pictorial published extracts from the book, and at the end of the series the archbishop appointed Dr. Blunt, Bishop of Bradford, to reply. Both bishops confined themselves to the authenticity of the gospels and the miracles.

This side of the religious question is of little interest to the Socialist, who ignores them for the same reason that he ignores so-called Lourdes cures and Mons angels. They are contrary to nature, and he cannot know all the circumstances of the happening and the telling. In particular the telling.

Nevertheless, miracles are of vital importance to the ecclesiastic. Dr. Lang admitted as much in his first protest.

While Dr. Garbett said “Acceptance of modern and scientific theories with regard to religion would leave the church only with the memory of a ‘good and courageous man,' who failed in his mission and whose body remained within the tomb.” Other bishops joined in the general condemnation, and Dr. Barnes was left in a minority of one. Needless to say they were all concerned, with or without miracles, in making religion acceptable to the credulous.

In spite of his objections to the literal acceptance of miracles, Dr. Barnes still believes in the greatest of all miracles: the creation of the world, universe or cosmos by a personal god. His explanation of the manner in which miracles came to be believed is probably true. But in retaining the creation miracle and a spiritual domain he gave away his case to Dr. Blunt. He says: “In the discussion of alleged miracles, much nonsense would be avoided by the ardent controversialists if they remembered the first rule of experimental religious psychology: spiritual truths must be spiritually discerned.” Which in plain English is a confession that religion is just a world of make-believe.

After Dr. Barnes’ concessions to spiritual power, miracles, like casting out devils, or turning water into wine, are only small fry, comparable with the spiritualist manifestations of today. And a god who could create the cosmos would take them in his stride. But Dr. Blunt said this in a round-about way. He says that man can modify the rigid working out of cause and effect, and then asks if God cannot do as much? He quotes Dr. Barnes’ statement, “That spiritual qualities do not use material media,” and then declares "This statement is falsified every time that a boy kisses his girl, or a friend grasps a friend’s hand.” 

Kissing a girl and shaking a friend’s hand, according to Dr. Blunt, are spiritual impulses causing physical effects. They are actually physical attractions evoking emotional responses; something not confined to man, but common to the whole biological world. Dr. Barnes’ second point: “Spiritual causes do not produce material effects,” is, he says, "falsified whenever a cricketer catches a falling ball, and so interferes with the law of gravity.” But the law of gravity persists whether the ball rests on the player’s hand, his head, or the ground. The player himself stays on the ground in accordance with the law; and when he catches the ball its weight is added to his own, and player and ball remain under the earth’s power of attraction. Even in its flight the ball was subject to that power. Had the ball rendered the player unconscious by falling on his head, it would have been just as true to say that the law of gravity had interfered with the life force.

Next, Dr. Blunt appealed to science, in the person of Sir Oliver Lodge, who for some years had been engrossed with psychical research under the guidance of spiritualist mediums. He is introduced with a flourish: “So it was that so eminent a scientist as Sir Oliver Lodge, lecturing to a body of clergy warned them ’not to give up the idea of miracle, just when science is preparing to concede it ’.”

On the strength of this, Dr. Blunt makes a more general statement, for which he supplies no evidence: “For fifty years science has been more and more conceding the limited scope of merely physical causation, and has been more and more admitting the power of spiritual forces in the processes of the Universe. Indeed the scientific question nowadays is not whether matter is absolute, but whether there is such a thing as ‘matter’ at all.”

When scientists popularise their ideas, especially among the clergy, they should explain what they mean by matter. As it is stated above it may mean any one of three things: an essential matter underlying all phenomena—the philosophers’ bugbear; matter in the form of atoms in motion; or just matter.

Matter and force are merely two names for one and the same thing. And this, in spite of the claim by a scientist, that a recent experiment could only be explained on the assumption that a minute quantity of matter had been converted into energy and lost. Which, in the telling, proves nothing except that it is just as easy to lose things in a laboratory as anywhere else.

The older materialistic theory was that matter in the shape of atoms in motion was responsible for everything in nature. It held the field until some hundred years ago. Its adherents were unsatisfied, they wanted to know of what did the atom consist, if force or energy was only motion of the atoms. A question that has intrigued philosophers and even scientists, and still confuses the ecclesiastical mind; as instanced by all the bishops in this controversy who insist on the influence of mind over matter. So this alleged disappearance of matter from the scene is of no help to either side in the controversy.

Throughout the middle ages philosophers thought of matter as the substance of the universe: the reality behind its manifold appearances. But neither the modern philosopher, nor the scientist has yet discovered this supposed reality, because however deeply they penetrate they still find only phenomena.

The atom idea was put forward in Ancient Greece. It served as the basis for theories and experiments throughout the middle ages. And eventually all modern chemistry was based on it. Yet the modern scientist found that its hardness was not due to solidity. That it was in fact made up of electrons, which he described as mere points of force moving at incredible speeds. He tried to separate these points of force with a process called "splitting the atom.” The measure of success achieved was plainly revealed to the world at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

What a tribute to the wages system ! It drags the best efforts out of men in the service of the ruling-class. The scientist will give of his utmost to get into the four-figure wage class. All his discoveries add wealth and power to the ruling-class on the one hand, and on the other, greater insecurity and more highly concentrated labour for the rest of his class. The clergy, too, are wage workers. Badly paid in the lower ranks, but always striving for one of the high-up jobs; where they can juggle with spiritual metaphysics like “experimental religious psychology ”; and get big money by means of dignified eulogies on the sacred rights of private property, the essence of capitalist ethics, and a vital necessity for himself and the class he serves.

In spite of all the recent discoveries on the nature and structure of the atom, industrial scientists carry on with their table of elements, with its relative atomic weights, and it still works. They are continually discovering laws of substance of which man can take advantage in the struggle for existence. Most scientists, however, turn away from investigations into the nature of existence. It doesn’t pay. While labour-saving processes and atom bombs do.

The tendency on the part of the clergy to merge what they call the spiritual into human thought and mental work is the result of their inability to show, even the probability of a separate spiritual existence, so they are driven back on the mind, and some day they will discover that the mind is merely the function of a physical organ. An instance of this tendency occurred during a broadcast debate on “Belief and Unbelief,” when a prominent churchman made the absurd contention that it was an "example of the influence of mind over matter whenever he took off his hat.” Quite forgetting, in his innocence, that it was material nature, in the shape of rain, cold, etc., that made him wear a hat at all; while over-exertion on a warm day would necessitate its removal to mop his perspiring brow.

Before the clergy talk of mind influencing matter, they must first establish it as a fact that mind is something different from matter, and secondly, that it is independent of matter. It needs no scientist to tell us that there is nothing in nature that is anything in and by itself. Everything within our knowledge is a combination of many things, each of them parts of the universe, and all interdependent, related, and subject to incessant change by that relationship. In that respect the mind is no different from anything else.

Some light on this subject of "mind versus matter” was reported in the Daily Worker (8/4/47). Bertrand Russell had said "that modern physics make materialism very unplausible.” In reply to him J. B. S. Haldane said: "To my mind modern physics makes materialism far more probable than it seemed a generation ago. If the smallest bits of matter are not mere inert particles, but buzzing with activity, it is much easier to suppose that life and mind could arise from what we call dead matter. Materialists think that the gap between non-living matter and human beings is not absolute, and has in fact been bridged by evolution.”

There are, of course, no gaps in evolution; only in our knowledge of it. But the closing of the gap in our knowledge of evolution has broken down one of the main defences of the Church: the mystery of the ego, or soul, has been solved by the discovery that this is nothing but the primary sense of feeling; a quality possessed by the lowest and simplest organisms. In man this primary sense is reinforced by the development of the other four senses, as a result of the hereditary genes, and emerges as a persistent awareness of self early in life.

Mind is merely a function of the brain, just as digestion is a function of the stomach. A condition appertaining to certain dispositions of a special kind of matter evolved in the universal processes of infinite change and, therefore, like everything else, short of the universe itself, limited in its duration. Moreover, it has been scientifically established that man, during his embryonic stage, passes through all forms that have characterised his own evolution from nature’s "culture” upwards.

If spiritual merely means love, friendship or the higher feelings between men in social life, the clergy have indeed abandoned all their defences. Doctors Lang and Blunt are the diehards of a fantastic belief that a spiritual god of infinite power, who created an infinite universe and a class-divided human society, expects men to stifle the greed, hatred and conflict that such a system breeds, in order that they may inherit a state of eternal spiritual bliss. Many people, besides socialists, have already jettisoned these absurd notions. The clergy, under the pressure of scientific knowledge, the indifference of the vast majority, and a growing sense of their weakness, are being steadily forced to abandon these superstitions. They may be well-intentioned, they certainly preach charitableness and brotherly love; but the evil results that flow naturally from the conflict of interests in a class-ridden social system overwhelm their ever weakening efforts.

Brotherly feelings are only possible among those who, having discarded all forms of superstition, realise and affirm that the means of life are the common inheritance of the human race as a whole. Real comradeship is only possible with those who organise consciously to abolish this class-dominated system of capitalism, and to establish a system in which the wellbeing of the people as a whole, is the chief concern of the whole of the people.

F. Foan