From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Mar 15 2003 - 14:59:07 GMT
Hi Sam:
> In other words, I think there is quite a bit of difference between talking
> about the resurrection of Jesus and talking about what happens to an
> individual Christian. Obviously they are linked, but it's possible to
> distinguish them - and necessary, sometimes. For the record, I think a
> belief in the resurrection is definitional for being a Christian, and I
> certainly don't think I could be a priest if I didn't accept it.
> What doesn't mean much to me is a promise of my own 'life everlasting'. As
> I said originally, I don't reject it, it just doesn't form a 'weight
> bearing' part of my faith.
I take it then that you do believe that Christ rose from the dead in both
body and spirit, but to answer the question of whether you will also have
life everlasting isn't important in supporting your Christian faith. I wonder
how widely your view is found among Christian believers, both past and
present. Have I been mistaken all these years in believing that the
impetus for the spread of Christianity throughout the world was the
promise to believers of life after death? A promise that no philosophy
has ever made?
> Now, you raised a much more interesting question than whether I'm a
> Christian or not (!) You said "My reason for bringing all this up is the
> broader question of religious belief vs. philosophical belief. The former
> has had broad appeal for humanity, the latter practically none. I wonder
> why? I'm very interested finding an answer to this question."
> Philosophy functions on the intellectual level, by definition. Yet there is
> more to us than our intellect - we are physical, bodily and social
> creatures as well. Philosophy can appeal to and satisfy those intellectual
> functions quite happily, but it is, by definition, something that relates
> poorly, if at all, to the other bits of us. Now if you - in Platonic
> fashion - identify yourself with the intellect, then some form of
> disembodied 'immortality of the soul' might have some appeal (or, in its
> modern guise, being reproduced as a computer program in some vast
> cyberspace). Yet if you do not identify yourself in that way - if, for
> example, there are things which you value about yourself or your life which
> don't fall under the heading of 'intellectual' - then no philosophy,
> strictly defined, will appeal. I happen to believe that religions - when
> healthy - allow for an acceptance and positive valuation of all the
> different bits of ourselves (including the intellect); they allow for an
> integrity of life, thought and action which is unavailable to a purely
> intellectual philosophy. Just as we need to maintain the physical and
> biological parts of ourselves (eg oxygen, food) so we also need to maintain
> the social level bits of ourselves (eg through ritual, which can mean
> eating meals with friends just as much as it might mean the Eucharist).
> Moreover the intellect is an elitist element in human life - and you can't
> expect an elitist understanding, which excludes most people and most of
> human life, to be popular.
>
> So that's why I think religions flourish more than philosophies. They just
> reach deeper. They also fit in rather more comfortably with something you
> said in your other post, "If I doubted virtually everything, I wouldn't be
> able to tie my shoelaces." Philosophy doesn't ultimately lead you anywhere
> - in the end you have to make choices (assert values) and get on with your
> life, and tie your shoelaces. As I see it, religions are rather better at
> assisting that process.
An excellent analysis. Thanks ver much.
Let me ask further if you think the MOQ with it's emphasis on morality
and its premise of an undefinable Dynamic Quality (which could be a
substitute for God) stands a chance of becoming more widely accepted
than other philosophies? What do you think is lacking in the MOQ that
prevents it from reaching as deep into the human psyche as religion? Is
it the lack of some ritual practice associated with the MOQ? Is it the
"elitist" aspect?
I think what keeps philosophy, including the MOQ, from attaining the
influence of religion is its refusal to acknowledge the presence of a
power in the universe that cares a wit about the human condition. Pirsig
found no solace from the pain of losing his son until later when he,
rather weakly I think, tried to rationalize a renewal of his son's pattern in
his newborn daughter. Had he been a Christian, he could have alleviated
his pain with belief in a caring God who "took" his son for reasons of His
own. When tragedies occur, philosophy brings no solace . Religion
does.
Does that make sense?
Platt
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 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 15:00:03 GMT