Ah, as you can see, I'm not writing the essay at the moment, so I'll try and be
brief. I think I've unfortunately hyped the damn thing up too much. Now I
have to deliver.
So, in that vein, I shall be brief to the point of excrutiating frustration.
>
> What about sharing (religious/DQ) experience (instead of "discussing" in the
> sense of exchanging opinions) as I suggested?
Sharing experience is great. All we have are our experiences of Quality and
the sharing of them is the only way expand comprehension. Gaining perspective
and insight and all that jazz. (Don't take offence at my brevity, I do take
all these things seriously.)
>
> Do you agree with my (9/6 23:54 +0200) definition of religion as the
> essentially human pursuit of re-experiencing DQ?
Not so sure on that one. Um, if I had to stake a claim, I would say no. But
that's mainly because, by definition, you don't re-experience DQ. So as not to
stop at the nit-pick, if you meant "pursuit of experiencing DQ" I would still
say no for two reasons. One, that implies religion as the only way to
experience DQ. It's like saying "Science is the human pursuit of knowledge."
That implies that science is the only way to knowledge, which we know/agree to
be false. Two, I think a lot of Western religion is tied to static,
bureaucratic chains. Just because you believe in God or meditate on the
Nothingness doesn't mean you are part of a religion. Being part of a religion
means being part of a whole set of static social patterns. Now, what each of
these religions is pointing at (the moon, as it goes) or trying to experience,
well, that may be DQ.
>
> You identify yourself as an atheist, someone who thinks God doesn't exist.
> Why not as a agnostic, who does not believe in God?
Believe me, I've gone the gamut on this one. (Oh, and as clarification, I
believe the correct definition of agnostic is one who does not know if God
exists or not. The knowing part is important.) I've gone the range of atheist
to agnostic to apatheist (I made that one up; it means, and I quote, "one who
does not care if God exists or not.") and everything in between. Where I stand
now, I guess, would be that it doesn't matter if God exists or not. I haven't
coined a word for this one yet, and it's just easier to say that I'm an
atheist.
The reason I say it doesn't matter is because the Western conception of God is
always as a seperate being alongside the universe. As far as I've been able to
tell, He doesn't do anything. He's just baggage. Something that needs to be
explained. Or doesn't need to be explained, whatever. The point is, I just
whip out my trusty razor (well, not mine, but Ockham's) and cut him out. My
life doesn't change a bit. However, I am extremely intrigued by pantheism
which (essentially) says that God is the Universe. I haven't explored this one
enough to personally say that I'm a pantheist, so I don't. Maybe I'll have
time when I hit middle-age and have a spiritual crisis.
>
> Which God does not exist for you? Whatever you write, I will probably agree
> with you.
> What does "believing in God" mean for you? I will probable agree that I don't
> do that either.
Suffice to say, I believe in the Universe. I believe what I experience. So,
"believing in God" to me implies believing in something in addition to your
experience. Something "out there". (And now I'm going to put my foot in my
mouth.) It means having faith in something's existence.
Now I need to clarify. People get pissed off when others bad mouth faith. I,
in fact, am one of those who get pissed off. For instance, Richard Dawkins has
a lot of bad things to say about faith. I think he's ignorant. About faith at
least. One of Pirsig's biggest insights was that we have faith in science. We
have faith in the Church of Reason. But that's just it. The Church of Reason
exists. And we have faith in its use. I have a lot of faith. I just don't
have any faith in the existence of anything. Except, perhaps, faith in my
experience, implying I have faith that the Universe exists. But I don't
experience God, so....
>
> Do you think DQ exists? Would you "believe" in it, if "believing" were to
> mean just "trusting"? It would amount to something like trusting that static
> patterns migrate towards Dynamic Quality...
Of course. I experience it. Let me say, that I was very disgruntled
intellectually until I read ZAMM and more particularly Lila. I felt like I
regained something I had lost. I gained a renewed vigor academically. More
importantly, I came to terms with my atheism. I remember as a freshman in
college I would write on how sad I was spiritually. I had a friend, at the
time, who lived in Indiana (for those who don't live in the States, that's
quite a ways away from where I was) and we e-mailed back and forth (and she had
the coolest last name: Swartzendruber). She was a devout Christian and we had
a bit of a tiff. I can't quite remember what it was, but it was about God. I
remember writing a very long, very sincere, and very sad letter back to her.
It, more or less, said how sad I was to have all of my closest friends exclude
me on a fundamental level because I was an atheist. (They didn't literally
exclude me. It had something to do with love and unconditonality.) It wasn't
their fault. Nor was it mine. Like I've said before, all of my closest
friends were (and are) very religious. But I wasn't quite comfortable with my
atheism at the time. Now I am.
And now I must get back to Michael Behe and my essay.
Sanguine,
Matt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:21 BST