From: Matt Kundert (pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue May 03 2005 - 03:27:20 BST
Scott said:
Some theologians used to make pseudo-scientific arguments (of the God of the
gaps sort), but most have learned not to. There are still many theists
around who continue to do so, but the higher quality theology does not. I
am, in fact doing precisely the opposite of offering a scientific argument,
or seeking the imprimatur of science. I am, instead, saying that science
does one thing, and theology another, and there is no conflict between them.
Matt:
Ya' know, this is kinda' why I've found this whole thread very bizarre for
this discussion group (as I think Sam and Scott have found it). Isn't a
Pirsigian supposed to be some kind Jamesian? It seems to me that if people
follow Pirsig's usurpation of James' pragmatist theory of truth, the "Will
to Believe" is all we need, or else you'll have to start rebutting and
qualifying Pirsig's use of James, which means having to break away from such
heavily favored passages as the rectangular/polar coordinates section.
To me, the importance of this (aging) thread has been as a kind of litmus
test for finding out what kind of Pirsigians we have around here.
Matt
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
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 May 03 2005 - 04:05:29 BST