Re: MD Theism, Non-Theism, Anti-Theism, Nihilism

From: Michael Hamilton (thethemichael@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Jul 14 2005 - 13:52:54 BST

  • Next message: Mark Steven Heyman: "Re: MD MOQ and The Moral Society"

    Hi everyone,

    > Scott Quotes:
    > >" The MOQ would add a fourth stage where the term "God" is completely
    > >dropped as a relic of an evil social suppression of intellectual and Dynamic
    > >freedom. The MOQ is not just atheistic in this regard. It is
    > >anti-theistic. "

    This just strikes me as a ridiculously simplistic appraisal of Western
    religion. Copleston is absolutely right that religion *has* been used
    by the proponents of social value to suppress intellectual enquiry.
    But isn't it very unwise to judge religion in general by this fact?
    I'm happy to drop the term "God" where it alludes to some "guy in the
    sky" who literally made the world in 7 days and has the power to judge
    you when you die. But to reduce every idea of God to that, is to
    destroy any understanding of that way Westerners experienced reality
    before the scientific revolution - you know, before the taking-hold of
    SOM that most of us want to escape. Also, a thoroughgoing
    anti-theistic attitude goes directly against one of main thrusts of
    Lila - that intellect should not be trying to obliterate social value,
    but to improve it.

    From Wikipedia:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Theism is the belief in one or more gods or goddesses. More
    specifically, it may also mean the belief in God, a god, or gods, who
    is/are actively involved in maintaining the Universe. This secondary
    meaning is shown in context to other beliefs concerning the divine
    below.

    The term is attested in English from 1678, and was probably coined to
    contrast with atheism attested from ca. 1587 (see the etymology
    section of atheism for details).

    The primary meaning sees four major views of the role of the divine in
    the world in this context:

    1. deism, the view that God created the world but does not interact
    with it; emphasis on deities' transcendence
    2. theism, (second definition), the view that God is immanent in the
    world, yet transcends it;
    3. panentheism, the view that the world is entirely contained within
    God, while at the same time God is something greater than just the
    world.
    4. pantheism, the view that the world is identical to God; emphasis on
    deities' immanence
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reading 2 and 4, can you really tell me that the idea of Quality
    (as reality) doesn't have at least a flavour of theism?

    I firmly believe that the MOQ should respect the value of theism,
    while being vigilant as to how its influence is used.

    Reinier asked:
    > 'What's the attitude of members of the MOQ-discussion group towards the beginning, source and/or end of experience/existence?'
    >
    > Dynamic Quality can be one answer.
    > One could then address things like purpose, evolution, etc. from that perspective.

    Yes, Quality/value is the answer. Things exist because they prefer to.
    I'm going to keep that vague for now, and see where this leads.

    Regards,
    Mike

    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 : Thu Jul 14 2005 - 13:58:04 BST