From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Sun Oct 24 2004 - 19:39:18 BST
DMB,
You have missed my point entirely. My attittude toward religion is very
similar to yours. I agree that belief in miracles and the virgin birth and
so on are beliefs that should disappear. I agree that a belief in an
anthropomorphic God should disappear. What I have been trying to get across
in this thread is that *this is the direction in which Christianity is
moving*. It's going to take a long time before all the mythological stuff
gets completely dropped, but that's the nature of the battle between the
social and intellectual levels. What I am saying is that by ignoring this
movement, and demanding full allegiance to our way of thinking, and by
calling those who have a partial but not full allegiance "intellectually
dishonest", you are creating a wall between those with our attitude toward
religion and those who are moving toward it. That's bad politics, if
nothing else.
> dmb says:
> Sam, who is an Anglican priest, an educated and intelligent christian, has
> rejected the mystical interpretation and basically dismissed the mystical
> experience as unnecessary. It seems to me that christian mystics are a
very
> rare breed and while I do not doubt their existence, the question of
"faith"
> remains to the extent that our comtemporary religious instituions and the
> bulk of church goers have not yet jettsioned those beliefs for which there
> is no empirical evidence.
[Scott:] But Christian mystics do not reject faith. Faith itself is
considered by them to be a mystery, and is tied in with another mystery
called 'grace'. You and Pirsig are using the word 'faith' differently than
a Christian mystic or theologian does. For the latter, 'faith' is, in the
end, undefinable. (More on this below).
I think its pretty clear to anyone who reads a
> newspaper that fundamentalists are tearing things up pretty badly here in
> the United States and throughout the world. We don't need to re-visit the
> crusades or the inquisition to find examples of deadly faith or murderous
> believers. And as Pirsig explains, this is part of a larger battle between
> the social and intellectual levels.
[Scott:] Have I not made very clear that I am not talking about
fundamentalists? Liberal Christians find them just as odious as you and I
do. Modern, thinking Christians are much closer to our side in the battle
between the social and intellectual levels than on theirs.
>
> Scott said:
> Second. If you add to the meaning of "epistemological pluralism" the
> requirement that everything one says be based "on experience and evidence"
> (empiricism), then you would have to reject the MOQ. There is evidence, in
> Pirsig's expanded empiricism, for saying value is real, but there is none,
> as far as I can see, to say that value is not subjective, that value is
not
> something that only occurs in humans and some animals. I see no experience
> or evidence that can tell me that Quality can be meaningfully applied to
> the inorganic. I do think it is reasonable to assume these things (to
avoid
> dualism), but I haven't a clue how one could support it empirically. One
> should recall that when Pirsig shows SOM to be unreasonable, he is
> attacking the materialist version of SOM, which denies the reality of
> value. But just showing the reality of value does not in itself imply that
> a dualist or idealist version of SOM couldn't account for our experience.
>
>
> dmb says:
> I'm not really following you here. Evidence that value is not subjective?
> That's set up so that one has to prove a negative.
[Scott:] I am saying that evidence cannot prove it one way or another.
[DMB:] All Pirsig does is
> "prove" that value is a basic part of experience. What could be more
> empirical than that?
[Scott:] That's what I said: "There is evidence, in Pirsig's expanded
empiricism, for saying value is real,"
but then I added: "but there is none, as far as I can see, to say that
value is not subjective, that value is not something that only occurs in
humans and some animals." My point is that the MOQ says that DQ is
operative at all levels, even though one cannot point to any evidence that
this is so on the inorganic level.
[DMB:] And in describing causaton in terms of value, Pirsig
> quite readily points out that the experience, the settings on the dials
and
> the data extracted from the experiment, does not change. Both descriptions
> are consistent with experience, but Pirsig insists that the latter is
better
> as an explanation.
[Scott:] Correct, and I agree. I am only saying that choosing the latter is
not based on evidence. It is based on reason.
[DMB:] And to the last point, I'd simply say that Pirsing does
> NOT say "SOM couldn't account for our experience". He puts SOM into a
larger
> framework so that the limitations of SOM are overcome without throwing
away
> its usefulness. Why? Because it works to a certain extent, but fails to
> account for mystical experience, insanity and such.
[Scott:] And I agree with Pirsig on this. I am only pointing out that more
is needed to choose the MOQ over SOM than evidence and experience. It
requires reason. Now there is a difficult point here, and that is how to
treat mystical experience as evidence. The problem is that mystical
experience is all over the map, and it is not generally evident to all. So
there will be a tendency to select which experiences count as supporting
one's thesis and which not. For example, Christian mystics may say that
their experience was that of being "in the presence of God". Buddhists
won't. So does mysticism support theism or not? Depends on how one
interprets them. In any case, one can say there is support from mystical
accounts for abandoning SOM, but I think that should be thought of as
supporting a rational decision, rather than being the evidence for it.
Otherwise one is in danger of arguing from authority.
> dmb says:
> Pragmatic value because it feels good to believe? Still a dispute about
> belief in resurrection and the virgin birth? Yikes. This line of thinking
> reveals so much. I think its emotional and irrational and only serves to
> undermine your case. Its seems that the faithful among us, such as
yourself,
> have not yet been able to see the most important distinctions in this
> debate. I mean, how could any reasonable person even entertain the
> possibility of coming back from the dead or virgin mothers? Its not just
> that belief in such is contradicted by all our experiences with virgins
and
> the dead. Its not just that such a belief is utterly freakin' ridiculous,
> although that's true too. No, the real crime is that such interpretations
of
> myth destroy the meaning of the myth. The myth is a sign-post which is
> supposed to point toward DQ. To the extent that this interpretation is
still
> in dispute within christianity, christianity is lost and is entirely
missing
> the point.
[Scott:] The dispute is between those Christians who agree with you and
those who do not. The former are saying just what you are saying, that
these sorts of beliefs are a residue of a mythological past, and should be
jettisoned, or in some cases only treated symbolically.
[DMB:] The resurrection is one's own. The new kind of life in the world,
> not born in the usual, animal way is your own, not some historic figure
who
> defied the laws of nature like some comic book superhero. This is the
> problem with theism in the world today. It holds Christ up like some
> impossiblly perfect and wholly unatainable role model, when the message of
> the mystical core, of the perennial philosophy, of philosophical mysticism
> is to realize the Christ, the Buddha in one's self, and in fact to realize
> that ultimately you and DQ are One. That is the true seat of freedom and
> creativity. That's when we're following DQ, acting from the center of
one's
> being the way those indians did, that's when one becomes "as the wind".
[Scott:] Ditto, though there is a range among modern Christians. Some will
accept that "God became man so man can become God", but others still think
this goes too far.
> dmb says:
> If a working scientist also believes in the resurrection and/or the virgin
> birth of God's only begotten son, then his religious views have to be kept
> in a separate drawer, and he suffers from a kind of intellectual
dishonesty,
> a lack of integrity in his views and I believe he has plenty of company in
> that. For that reason we can't really call it bonkers, but I honestly
belive
> such a disjointed worldview is the problem, the conflict to be resoleved.
I
> have to say that your repearted resistence to this point leds me to
conclude
> that you also suffer from this same kind of cognitive dissonance. It seems
> that the faithful are willing to believe things that they know CAN'T be
so.
[Scott:] This is one kind of faith, the only one that you and Pirsig seem
to be aware of. Another is the "trust in divine guidance" kind, and that
does not need to be kept in a separate drawer.
[DMB:] > And yet there seems to be this indignant attitude about the level
of
> hostility that such assertions engender. I don't get why you don't get
that.
> Can't you imagine how frustrating is it to discuss philosophy and
> metaphysics with someone how is so ambivilent about the demands of
evidence
> and logical consistancy?
[Scott:] Sure. I wouldn't try to discuss philosophy with a fundamentalist
Christian. But it is possible with, say, theologians like Lonergan, Rahner,
Tillich, Tracy, Cupitt, and so forth. They know all about the demands of
evidence and logical consistency.
[DMB:] Brother, I'm telling you this sort of intellectual
> dishonesty is some knock-down, pull-yer-hair-out, crazy-making,
contemptable
> shit. That's why people react badly. Pirsig talks about this in no
uncertain
> terms. Faith is low quality stuff.
[Scott:] Some faith is, some faith isn't.
[DMB:] Its morally wrong to subvert intellect to
> the icons of religion. Ritualistic religions and dogmas tend to block DQ,
> rather than portray it.
[Scott:] Agree, and I've said as much, for example when I agreed with Chuck
that the phrase "just believe" is very immoral. But that is a slogan of the
fundamentalists and evangelicals.
[DMB:] When we indentify DQ with religious mysticism "it
> produces an avalanche of information as to what DQ is". There is a lot of
> low-grade yelping about God, but if we listen carefully and see through
the
> non-sense. Etc., etc.. Pirsig is virtually unmistakable on the issues of
> faith and theism. He's against it. He's against it for damn good reasons.
> And the attempt to insert such a thing where it is so plainly unwelcome,
> where it has already been defeated and replaced, is a bit hard to swallow.
> But the faithful just don't seem to get that. "Why should we rule out
faith
> and theism just because Pirsig rules out faith and theism?" How does one
> talk to a person who would ask that kind of question?
[Scott:] Because Pirsig has reduced faith and theism to their bad sides. As
have many, if not most, non-thinking fideists and theists. and that is
something to deplore. But Christian mystics start from a basis of faith and
theism, and end with them as well. This should indicate that there is more
to faith and theism than Pirsig is aware of.
>
> Scott:
> By the way, I am not claiming that faith is necessary, or even desirable
on
> the intellectual level. I don't have faith, unless it is faith in Reason,
> but I've read enough of those who do to see that one can have faith and
not
> be anti-intellectual.
>
> dmb:
> You've already asserted that science and relgiion are really just two
rival
> forms of fundamentalism and now you're saying that one can have faith in
> reason.
[Scott:] I didn't say that science and religion are two rival forms of
fundamentalism. I said that scientific materialism is fundamentalism, and I
have been careful to distinguish between fundamentalist religion and
modern, thinking, religion.
As to saying I have "faith in Reason", to be honest, I am not sure what I
mean by that. I do know that I consider reason to be trustworthy.
[DMB:] > Over and over again, you use the word in a very confusing way.
[Scott:] That's because there is no single, unambiguous definition of what
faith is. For a thinking Christian it is a mystery. My recommendation to
you and Pirsig is that you avoid the term, and use the term 'belief'
instead for things like belief in the virgin birth and other nonsense.
[DMB:] > I mean is the question about the empirical basis for our views or
not? Science
> and reason are NOT based on faith, whereas belief in miracles is not only
> based on faith, but actually DEFIES our empirically based views. And
again,
> I find the constant attempt to undermine such distinctions to be
> intellecually dishonest and self-serving.
[Scott:] I am not trying to undermine them. I am trying to distinguish
between belief in nonsense and faith in a non-anthropomorphic and mystical
God, so that one can have dialog with those who have rejected the nonsense
but still have faith in such a God, even if you or I don't have a need for
the term 'God'.
[DMB:] > Please understand that the anger
> provoked by such tactics is NOT predicated on your unwillingness to
jettison
> your dogma for mine or anything like that.
[Scott:] As I said, our dogmas are pretty similar. It is our attitude
toward other dogmas that is in dispute.
[DMB:] The anger is more like a sense of
> moral outrage. Its not about me or my beliefs so much as a disrespect for
> logical integrity in general. And if that's not anti-intellectual, then
> nothing is. No, I'm sorry. Psycholgical needs, emotional desires and
> personal satisfaction are decidedly NOT good tests for the truth, validity
> or moral status of a propsition. (I suppose we'd have to call that
> narcissistic pragmatism.)
[Scott:] I agree, but you won't get rid of it by oversimplifying the issues
involved.
- 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 25 2004 - 00:47:59 BST