Re: MD Life after death?

From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Sat Mar 15 2003 - 16:45:16 GMT

  • Next message: Steve Peterson: "Re: MD Heroes, ethnocentrism, Qualtiy, and War"

    Hi Platt,

    You said:
    > 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 would quibble about what 'in both body and spirit' meant, but yes. I
    believe in the resurrection of Jesus, but I don't think a conclusive answer
    can be given to 'what happened?' It's a mystery - pure DQ!

    > 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?

    To some extent, yes, I think it is a (partial) mistake. I don't think
    Christianity spreads primarily through offering a posthumous carrot - it's
    much too demanding for that. Not many people would be prepared to go to the
    lions on the basis of a 'belief', without lots of other supporting factors,
    which I would say were more important. I would say that it spread most due
    to the quality of the fellowship engendered amongst the Christian community,
    hence "see how those Christians love each other". The belief is an
    abstraction from the life, not the cause of the life.

    > 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?

    Yes. I think the MoQ is very fertile.

    > 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 Pirsig's conception of the intellect is a problem. Yet I'm also
    dubious about how far intellect can 'create' rituals by _fiat_. I would
    expect that, in so far as the MoQ flourishes, it would combine with various
    different pre-existing religions, in the way that Aristotle's philosophy
    combined with Christianity and Islam. You could say that it is already doing
    that in my own understanding (I really should write that paper!)

    > 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.

    What about Stoicism? Or Buddhism, for that matter.

    > 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?

    I don't think religion eases the pain very much in practice. That's
    certainly been my experience, both in my own bereavements and when taking
    funerals for other families. What it does is preserve the possibility of
    meaning (ie value). We experience pain in the world, it's an inevitable part
    of the human condition. The question - if you go down the path of thinking
    about it, which you don't have to - is whether life still 'makes sense' in
    the face of that pain, ie is it worth carrying on? Religions are all built
    around a positive answer to that question. (As are some contemporary
    philosophies, eg Camus's variety of existentialism).

    I think you're depending too much on the view, originally presented in
    Feuerbach, mediated by Freud, that religions are for those who lack the
    strength to deal with life as it actually is. I suspect that the truth is
    closer to the reverse.

    Cheers
    Sam

    "When we speak of God we do not know what we are talking about. We are
    simply using language from the familiar context in which we understand it
    and using it to point, beyond what we understand, into the mystery that
    surrounds and sustains the world we do partially understand" (Herbert
    McCabe)

    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 - 17:17:43 GMT