Re: MD On Faith

From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Tue Oct 12 2004 - 19:59:27 BST

  • Next message: David Morey: "Re: MD DQ & Naturalism"

    Hi David,

    On 12 Oct 2004 at 18:03, David Morey wrote:
    Seems clear to me that if some aspects of experience
    are not suitable for scientific explanation this is very interesting
    it is also exactly what Pirsig says of DQ. Also without DQ we cannot
    explain how SQ has evolved.

    msh says:
    Yes, as my friend Platt likes to remind me, there's a lot more to
    life than what is dreamt of in science's valueless philosophy. Art
    is the most immediate example, especially, for me, music and
    literature. Beauty in general. Love. In fact, I think if life were
    nothing more than 70 plus years of running around with calculators
    and yardsticks, no one would stick around long enough to do any
    science anyway.

    That's why I love the MOQ. I think we need to get some T-Shirts
    printed up.

    Best,
    Mark

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Mark Steven Heyman" <markheyman@infoproconsulting.com>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 1:34 AM
    Subject: RE: MD On Faith

    > On 11 Oct 2004 at 18:02, Platt Holden wrote:
    > As Scott as pointed out several times, orthodox theology has
    evolved
    > over the years in light of new knowledge. But, it's faith in a
    > spiritual presence hasn't changed from the beginning. Similarly,
    > science has evolved in the light of new knowledge. But it's faith
    in
    > naturalism hasn't changed from the beginning. It will not allow an
    > unmeasurable creative power, like DQ, into it's explanations.
    >
    > msh says:
    > Science can't make room for anything unmeasurable or otherwise
    > physically undetectable; if it did it wouldn't be science. It's
    > simply wrong to say that science denies God; Science has nothing to
    > say about God except, insofar as the concept has any meaning at
    all,
    > there is no scientific basis for believing in a supreme being of
    any
    > kind. This doesn't mean that one, or more, doesn't exist.
    >
    > As long as religion insists that God is unmeasurable, the two
    realms
    > of thought will be concerned with mutually exclusive domains. The
    > only time religion and science come into conflict is when religious
    > people seek for their beliefs the imprimatur of science (or math or
    > logic). The interesting social and psychological question, at that
    > point, is why they desire this stamp of approval.
    >
    > Best,
    > msh

    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 : Tue Oct 12 2004 - 20:28:27 BST