Banjo Paterson wrote:
“Back on page 65 of this thread I noted that in your excellent text on freedom of expression you indicate:

"We must differentiate between mere advocacy of actions and actual planning and carrying out of actions".

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10725&page=8

And I asked: "Does this principle not apply to Karl Marx ?"

Dear Banjo,

I apologise for not responding to you before this. Of course it applies to Karl Marx. I wrote we must allow loathsome ideas and meant it. Karl Marx had to flee both Prussia and France because of his ideas. He found refuge in London. He had to flee Prussia and France because they recognised his talent as a polemicist and feared that their citizens would follow his ideas. England did not have the fear of ideas that both Prussia and France had. Marx was a scholar and intellectual whose ideas resulted in the movement in company with others on the left called the International Workingman’s Association later developing into the First International. These activities are not crimes in a democratic society. The First International broke up when Bakhunin recognised the authoritarian nature of Marxism and challenged Marx. The Second International organised in 1889 after Marx’s death broke up as nationalism dominated socialism with the outbreak of WW1 in 1914.

Loathsome ideas with appeal cannot be suppressed. In an open society they can be openly challenged. In a non-democratic society they fester and ripen.

It is significant that Marxism actually first managed to take power in authoritarian czarist Russia. Marx in his earlier writings opined that more advanced industrial countries would become Marxist. Although there was a noticeable Marxist movement in Great Britain it never was as strong as in more authoritarian countries.

Marx opposed individual rights emphasised in the American and French Revolutions as the reduction of man to an egocentric and independent individual. He regarded “true emancipation” as the individual as part of society. The Marxist tyrannies were no accident.

The capitalist democracies of Scandinavia are the best we have yet. They have combined individual freedom and social justice. It can be done.

Hi Oliver,

>>I have evolved some of my thinking from our exchanges.<<
Again, I can only reciprocate this.

I cannot find anything in your post that I would strongly disagree with. Of course, my claim that there is no “absolute evidence”, or “absolute rational argument” applies only to the Sagan/no-Sagan alternatives, not to the PHENOMENON of religion (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496#174292). You are right, that there are statements from within these specialist fields, that are correct or incorrect, full stop.

>>A willingness to test and see where the results take one.<<
I agree in principle, though even a scientist (physicist) knows at least three ways of testing his/her theory - by looking at its intrinsic mathematical correctness, by checking whether its conclusions do not contradict observations, and by seeing if this theory can make verifiable predictions that a simpler/earlier theory cannot make.

Outside of science it is even more complicated: you have the biblical “Thus you will recognize them by their fruits” (Mt 7:20), or the Marxist "practice alone constitutes the criterion of truth", which, I suppose, can be applied also to world-views. The problem here is with the essential involvement of the subject in this “testing” or rather “self-testing” of world-views.

I can see your arguments that tilt the scales in favour of the Sagan alternative, however I think there are other arguments that will tilt it the other way.

Many a Christian will enthusiastically endorse Ortega y Gasset’s

“Truth descends only on him who tries for it, who yearns for it, who carries within himself, pre-formed, a mental space where the truth may evetually lodge”.

But maybe so might some holders of atheist world-views, whether they understand their “truth” (preference for the Sagan alternative) in absolute/objective or relative/subjective terms.

>>measure the claims of say Hartle-Hawking (weak theory) to a (diminutive theory). the former wins.<<
I am not sure over what does Hartle-Hawking win. You are apparently comparing two physical theories. I think the adjudication should be left to knowledgeable physicists.

Dear George,

"measure the claims of say Hartle-Hawking (weak theory) to a (diminutive theory). the former wins" - Oliver

Should have read:

"measure the claims of say Hartle-Hawking (weak theory) to a religious constructs(diminutive theory).

What I was saying is I acknowledge beyond classical theory there are weak (a Penrose term) term theories, yet, religion is even less substantive in explaining non-classical realities.

You made have made some interesting comments, I will reflect on these before I reply.

A.j/phylips/quote..<<..I think/..the difference..'faith’..is a state/of mind..where one/mistakes..hope/and..desire/for knowledge,>>..

a scientist/having faith..when adding..an acid/to water..instead of water..to acid...has faith/..as well as..knowledge...

this/..definition/thing..can get..too complex...
we all..got..faith/..wether/..we ac-knowledge..it..or not

<<Why do we/..need/to..differentiate..between/them>>?...cause/..we all got/..faith...in/..something...

the/other..has faith..in god..loves/grace./mercy...faith in a life/herafter

then/..there is the/religious-faith/of the..zealot..
where un-thinking following/espousing..of a creed/spin.faulse belief..religiously..zealiously..

[like evolving/species/creating..a new*genus..
or fish..turning..into chickens]..believing such/..deception seems incredious..to those..who demand..proof/replication/do-overs

<<evidence>>is seeing../it..then believing it..like a magition/sawing a woman..in half...

<<and..’proof’,>>is..knowing/how..it is..really done..+..[replicating it]...without/..destroying..the woe-man

<<years ago,..god spoke..directly/to people,..now he’s..apparently..so mysterious/and undefinable,>>people are able to be decieved/even today

there are..some/who..hear voices..but the thing/is..today..we know..its those..some call demons/..lost souls..who cant find..the light..

or..dont realise/..they/have..'died'..
or dont dare..repent..their vile/ways..
or miss-beliefs..in/after-life

ie..simply..lost-spirits..refusing to/acknowledge..they..have/..a soul/..that survives..*death...that/dead..only means/born-*again..!

<<..Why..should we/have to..‘believe’..in..the most/significant/and powerful being..in existence..anyway?>>

just realise...one-day..it might be...that you are in a dark/place...
faint wispers..faint shadows...it is then/..you will know..how much value/..there can be..in a sincere/prayer..to him

<<Shouldn’t/we..just know?>>>yes..we could..but..gifts arnt appriciated....we..need-to..validate..these things/for ourself...

god allows..us all/..free-choice...then..the joy*..of discovery

<<Don’t-we/..have..the right-to..know?>>>
if..you knew...100 percent...you/..would be afraid..to not do..that everyone-else..is doing...how/boring..is that.

see/that..knowing..has an unfair-burden...
god cannot/..ever be..unfair...each/..in our own*time...when you want/or..YOU..are ready/to know...then ask...and he/will..give you reply...beyond faith

<<The mere/fact..that/..one must..‘believe’..should/...ring..alarm-bells.>>>yes..i agree...god has/..no..must...!

<<why/did..god/make..everything/appear..as though/..it evolved..and formed over time.>>>

these are/..the stages..god went through..[what/we are..is the leftovers..of gods-search..for himself...bodies..he used..he did the rib-thing..EVERYTIME..god/has..long sought..an equal

<<If god exists,..then why/is it..that..the more/we learn/about the universe,..the quieter..he gets>>lol

i would/hardly..see..the amasing..uni-verse...
and/think-it..in anyway...<<'quiet'..>>lol

see how/amasing..it all is/*

just in..the variaties decendant/from gods..self-evolving steps...then..the unseen of the deep/the waters..where god stepped too..

then the universe...
why..look at simply a bubble of water..
how amasing thou art lord

<<and the more impossible/it becomes..to define him?>>or make spurilous claim/about him...

we are made..in gods-image...
how amasing is that...

think of all..the evolving..he has done/..
in the time/since he gave up making rules..
in the so called unseen realms...

everything you see/hear/feel/think...links you to him

that we do/..to the least..
we DO to/..for/..with..by/through..him

Dan S wrote: What about truth? If I've heard you correctly, you've said before that theologians (whom you don't prefer) can't find it, while scientists (whom you do prefer) are not looking for it.

Dear Dan,

The above statement is ambiguous. You could mean that the theologians who I don’t prefer can’t find while the theologians that I do prefer might find it? You could mean that the scientists who I do prefer are not looking for it while the scientists I do prefer are looking for it.

Possibly, you mean I prefer scientists to theologians. That is not true. It depends on the scientist and on the theologian. I prefer Bishop Spong, a theologian, to Otto Hahn, a scientist.

Actually, you didn’t hear me correctly. I think I said nothing which corresponds to either meaning of your statement. Please rephrase your question so I know what you are asking.

Dear George,

I didn’t claim you "labeled atheism as a form of (religious) belief”. I claimed that there is a tendency among people to say the equivalent of, “You’re really like us.” Labelling atheism as a form of religious belief is often used as a tactic by religious people. I didn’t claim you did it.

I inferred, possibly falsely, that you were saying that atheists used the word, evidence, in the same way that religious people used the word, truth. That would be a variant of the above.

That is what I was arguing about. Some religious people use the word truth to mean belief. That usage appears in the New Testament. Jesus said, “You shall know the truth...” In context that meant that people will accept belief in him. What Jesus called ‘truth’ in the New Testament is not a meaning I give to the word, truth. I do not see religious belief as truth.

Atheists ask for evidence. When they use the word, evidence, they do not mean something other than evidence.

When religious people use the word, truth, they may mean belief.

Dear George,

Further clarification:

With non-classical explanations we have scientific explanations someone like Penrose would call "weak", it is new frontier stuff. However, the new frontier stuff is an experiment in progress. Herein, I hope CERN will have fixed the problems with the magnets and it is speed (ahem) ahead in October. Here, like with religion, I (and other skeptics/) are prepared to look at sub-atomic and non-realms like relionists. So the field of endeavour does recognise the likes of Hiensburg and friends. Hartle-Hawking is tentative but does have some substance. Likewise. the Higgs boson probably would not have come about were it not from work going back to say Rutherford. In some for external causation weak -yet progressing consilidating theories in competition. Some will be dropped, if disproved.

If we put humanity's world-views of the religions aside owing to the discuplines I have cited making confirmation problematic, we ask, is God an explanation for existence? (God as Its on construct). We can then ask is there a better case from the weak theories of pioneer physics to explain Causation or for a divine agency. The latter does have Faith. On the other hand, if the universe were shown to be self-creating (because both time & causation have more roles than we experience), the credibility of a scientific answer is enhanced, unless the goal posts are moved: god allowed the self-creating universe.

Still reflecting :-).