From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Wed Mar 26 2003 - 12:06:56 GMT
Hi there,
DMB said:
> Show me how theology is intellectual. I've been trying to explain exactly
> how and why it isn't, but that is really much harder, to show or prove
what
> something isn't. Its like trying to prove that you don't beat your wife or
> have weapons of mass destruction. ;-)
Pirsig states, when describing the MoQ, "The block at the top contains such
static intellectual patterns as theology, science, philosophy, mathematics.
The placement of the intellect in this position makes it superior to
society, biology and inorganic patterns but still inferior to Dynamic
Quality."
That is in the SODV paper, and I am grateful to Rick for mentioning it in
another thread. It is always refreshing to re-read Pirsig's own views,
rather than what people claim for his perspective.
I would second Scott's request to DMB: "Please note that I am not trying to
convince you or anyone that the doctrine of the trinity is true. Only to
argue that theology is an intellectual activity. On this question, just to
be sure we are on the same page, can I assume that you have read some modern
mainstream theologians (say, Bernard Lonergan, Karl Rahner, Paul Tillich --
whoever), and have decided that their work is not a set of intellectual
patterns?"
DMB thinks that theology is not intellectual. Pirsig, Scott, Rick, Johnny, I
and others in the forum, along with pretty much the entirety of the world's
intellectual community think that it is. (Richard Dawkins is the most
prominent exception to that consensus in England. A wholly SOM thinker - so
a strange bedfellow for DMB!) So to claim that theology is not intellectual
is not akin to proving that you do not beat your wife, ie to prove a
negative. To claim that theology is not intellectual is to make a positive
point against a prevailing consensus (outside and - I would guess - inside
the MoQ forum). It is to say that the Emperor has no clothes. To make that
point requires recourse to argument and evidence, not simply repetition of a
point of view - especially when that point of view is engaged with, debated
and denied by others. DMB has not provided such evidence, nor indeed any
evidence that he has studied theology at all (as opposed to comparative
mythology or philosophy of religion). Moreover, there seems to be a
strategic inconsistency in DMB's position (to be pursued in another thread)
which undermines his claim.
For what it is worth, I agree with what Scott has said about comparing the
MoQ and the Trinity. I suspect it can't be done in any simple fashion,
primarily because of the Platonism embedded in the MoQ (but that gets us
back to that topic, which has been addressed enough for a while).
A minor personal point. When I first studied theology I was an atheist. I
understood the Christian doctrine of the Fall intellectually, before I
agreed with it as a 'believer'. Doubtless the first had some influence on
the second, but the point remains.
Sam
"Although scientists have great problems in their work with the use of the
everyday language of literature and the arts, they cannot do without it."
(Pirsig, SODV paper, p5)
"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 : Wed Mar 26 2003 - 12:52:34 GMT