From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Mon Jan 03 2005 - 13:03:26 GMT
Thanks Ham - I didn't respond to Chin, since as you say it went off in other
directions, before I was sure where we were starting from.
On your defintions I'm not actively anti-theist - not yet anyway :-)
You inclusion of the word "refusal" in your defintion of athesist is one of
"intent"
I don't believe in a trascendent being, because I see no need to, and so far
see that anywhere he does get called in to play as just a lazy cop out. If
any evidence led me to the existence of a god as the least far-fetched
explanation of anything, I would not refuse to believe though.
The only thing I am "anti" (because of my "lazy cop out" opinion above) is
people who start with an a-priori god in debates about real world situations
where god was not the original subject under discussion. I see no reason to
believe. My doubt concerning the existence of a god is so great that it is
not a useful / meaningful / pragmatic starting point (for me) beyond a
thought experiment on the subject of god .
Does that make me an "active agnostic" or "passive atheist" perhaps, but not
an "anti-theist".
(Atheist for short - like Marsha - if you drop "refuse" from your
definition.)
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: <hampday@earthlink.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 2:09 AM
Subject: Re: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?
> Hello Ian (you, too, Chin) --
>
> Happy New Year to you both.
>
>
> > Ham, before I agree with Marsha,
> > Could you clarify in two or three sentences each, your precise
distinction
> > between Atheist and Anti-Theist ?
> >
> > (Your distinction, not dictionary definitions.)
>
> I see that Chin got to your question before I did and has a twist of his
own
> that I find interesting. Apparently he feels that Atheism "is a denial of
> the dualistic distinction of self and other". I don't see dualism as a
> necessary to the Theist's belief system, nor do I see how Atheism avoids
it.
>
> Since you specifically asked me not to offer standard 'dictionary'
> definitions, I assume you want to know my personal usage of these terms.
> Let me preface my response by stating that, while I may be considered a
> "Deistic Absolutist", I do not consider myself a Theist, even though I am
> neither an Atheist nor anti-theistic.
>
> To me, Theism (often prefixed by mono-, poly-. or pan-) is belief in the
> existence of one or more supernatural entities which have "beingness" in
> common. In my lexicon, that makes God an 'existent', which I deny. In
the
> case of Pantheism, the believer subscribes to the idea that God is
literally
> the beingness (existence or totality) of 'everything". While proponents
of
> the MoQ disguise "beingness" under the more ephemeral term Quality, I
submit
> that Pantheism is actually their metaphysical position. Chin states: "The
> word Quality is not totally interchangeable with Nothingness, The One,
> Creator, Source, Being, or Absolute". Despite that minor equivocation,
> however, several here have offered me the "Quality=Everything" equation
> (initially formulated, I believe, by Mr. Pirsig) in attempting to
postulate
> the (non-existent) MoQ ontology.
>
> Incidentally, I think that Chin may be on to something by relating Theism
to
> duality; but it is a duality whose contingencies are God and man, rather
> than self and other. Such a concept is, of course, closed to Pantheism
> which holds man (or 'self') to be integrated with Being. The problem with
> Pantheism, both in Eastern philosophy and the MoQ, is that there is no
> accounting for differentiation in the world. (The MoQers apparently think
> they can resolve this problem by drawing concentric circles, labeling each
> one with a particular kind of being and/or value, and telling us that
their
> diagram is but an illusion, and that all the circles are really only one
> (Dynamic Quality). To me, that's a 'smoke and mirrors"' ontology. (The
> cardinal principle of my Philosophy of Essence is that the Absolute is
> immutable; that is, there is a "clean break" between the Oneness of
Essence
> and the differentiated world of existence. The value, meaning and purpose
> of life is locked up in that principle.)
>
> As for "atheism" and "anti-theism", that's easy. Atheism is the refusal
to
> believe in a supernatural or transcendant Being of any kind. Anti-theism
is
> opposition to any individual or organizational belief in a god, including
> any devotional practice, symbol, or expression of such a belief. I see
this
> mainly as a furtherance of the nihilistic movement of the 20th century,
with
> numerous political ramifications that I won't go into, as I've far
exceeded
> my 3-sentence limit.
>
> Essentially yours,
> Ham
>
>
>
> 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 Jan 03 2005 - 15:55:09 GMT