RE: MD MOQ and The Problem Of Evil

From: Chuck Roghair (ctr@pacificpartssales.com)
Date: Mon Aug 23 2004 - 20:31:54 BST

  • Next message: Mark Steven Heyman: "RE: MD MOQ and Logic/Science"

    Hello Scott, All,

    Scott said:
    "That is one definition, and the most common one. The other is what might be
    called Buddhist atheism, not believing in a personal God the way most
    monotheists do, and this is the sort of atheist that Pirsig appears to be."

    Chuck says:
    Wow. A glimmer of comprehension for me (I hope). I disagree only with your
    diction. What I believe in and I think Pirsig and possibly the Buddhists
    and you, Scott (maybe), it isn't a "personal God." Were all together so far
    as that goes.

    For argument's sake, imagine you and Pirsig and I and an enlightened
    Buddhist were together on a basketball court. There's an official there as
    well, to divide us into teams, as he sees fit, and call the game.

    As a way of making teams, the official arbitrarily decrees:

    "Atheists versus Christians."

    No offense, but I think Pirsig, Buddhist-guy and I would clean your clock.

    Buddhists describe themselves as atheistic, as I imagine does Pirsig, while
    simultaneously coalescing into reality's esoteric underpinnings. Why call
    that coalescing process, God? "God" has so much baggage and heavy
    connotation (especially christianity's God, which I know isn't necessarily
    yours) and is doggedly stalked by the creepy idolatry of which you so
    eloquently speak.

    Again, language is the cause and, I suppose, the solution, to all of our
    problems.

    I'm off to Mend Derrida! Thank you for the recommendations.

    Best regards,

    Chuck

    A good traveler has no fixed plans and is not intent upon arriving. A good
    artist lets his intuition lead him wherever it wants.
    -Lao Zi

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]
    On Behalf Of Scott Roberts
    Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 9:05 AM
    To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    Subject: Re: MD MOQ and The Problem Of Evil

    Chuck,

    > Secondly, I define atheism as having no belief in any god or god(s).

    That is one definition, and the most common one. The other is what might be
    called Buddhist atheism, not believing in a personal God the way most
    monotheists do, and this is the sort of atheist that Pirsig appears to be.

    >
    > Having ruminated on this P.O.E. thread for the past 48 hours or so, not
    > in an effort to strengthen my position, but trying to pinpoint the
    > moment I became so agitated, Id like to just say this:
    >
    > I was angry. My sleep pattern was disrupted. Why was I so affected?
    > If Im not mistaken, folks in my camp are relieved the burden of proof.

    People of faith did not come to their faith through proofs. Most, of
    course, had whatever faith they have thrust on them by their family and
    society, and never gave it up. But now there are those like you who have
    dropped it, or me who dropped it but then came back to it for some reason
    or other. I have never actually come across anyone who came back to faith
    because of a proof. My view is that "proof" only works in mathematics. In
    religion and philosophy there is only arm-waving, which is not to say that
    some arm-waving isn't better than other.

    > After all, Im defending the non-existence of a being for whom there
    > is arguably no evidence (I understand that the P.O.E. is merely a
    > component of a vast and convoluted existence of God debate, but the
    > P.O.E. thread evolved into more than just P.O.E., an evolution I did as
    > much if not more than anyone here to encourage, I know).
    >
    > Boiled down and the way I understand things:
    >
    > Evil exists, which should be impossible if God exists, because:
    >
    > 1.If God is unaware of Evil in the world, he is not omniscient.
    > 2.If God is aware of Evil, but can do nothing to prevent it, he is not
    > omnipotent.
    > 3.If God is aware of Evil, is able to prevent it and chooses not to, he
    > is not
    > omni-benevolent.
    >
    > Wheres the flaw? After all, is this not the God of
    > Judeo-Christianity? Is this not the God of Vatican II? Is this not
    > Americas God?

    The flaw is to think that words like omniscient and omnibenevolent, and of
    course God and Evil, have clear meaning, and thus can be used in logical
    formulas. Whatever God might be, He is not a He, a being who does things
    the way people do but perfectly.

    The argument here should tell the theist that he or she is working with
    idols, not God. Idols are concepts (or percepts) that one worships as God
    in place of God, but God cannot be conceived (or perceived). As I said to
    Mark SH, most Christians are idolators or heretics of some sort or other.
    They think that they understand what is meant by "God is omniscient" and
    so fall into error, the most egregious of which is to think that God is the
    sort of being that can be thought to be on our side.

    As a side note, the Vatican is between a rock and a hard place. On the one
    hand, its theologians are well aware of these problems, but woe unto the
    preacher who tries to tell the laity that they are actually idolators and
    heretics. Religion as practiced is still mainly a social deal, and the
    Vatican is mainly a social/political institution.. (This shouldn't be taken
    as if I thought that the theologians have "got it right". I have many
    disagreements with most of them.)

    > According to Scott, theres such a thing as a modern, intellectual
    > religion going on out there of which my knowledge is lacking. Is it
    > possible that modern intellectual religion does not necessitate
    > theism? Any books or websites you care to recommend on modern
    > intellectual religion, Scott? Id appreciate it.

    Some intellectual religionists are theist, some are not. It is all subject
    to debate.

    You might look at "Why Religion Matters" by Huston Smith. Or "Lost
    Christianity" by Jacob Needleman, or "The Heretical Imperative" by Peter
    Berger. For an example of what I think is really interesting religious
    thinking, I recommend "Derrida on the Mend" by Robert Magliola, who is a
    Catholic attempting to show how the Buddhist Nargajuna "mends" Derridean
    deconstruction, and then applies this to the doctrine of the Trinity. And I
    always recommend anything by Owen Barfield, but his books are hard to find.

    I have not been able to find an interesting website. Most Christian
    websites are, not surprisingly, of the in-your-face conservative type. You
    might look at shipoffools.com, not that it is all that intellectual, but it
    at least allows one to question, and not take things too seriously. For
    Barfield, there is www.owenbarfield.com.

    - Scott

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    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 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 23 2004 - 22:34:26 BST