Re: MD religious content & necessity of necessity

From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Mar 23 2004 - 12:30:25 GMT

  • Next message: Matthew Poot: "Re: MD quality religion"

    Hi Don (Drose),

    P: (previously)
    Pirsig denies that one needs faith to explain the world. For quality, no
    faith is required because you cannot conceive or live in a world in which
    nothing is better than anything else.

    D:
    True enough. It would be possible to study the construction of a building
    without referncing the architect. You should be able to infer the
    existence
    of a designer based on the finished product. I suppose you could argue
    that
    a skyscraper could occur as a result of natural processes.

    P:
    Are you introducing the argument from design to prove the existence of
    God? If so, I'm in sympathy with the notion since the Darwinian
    explanation of evolution is full of holes. But, the MOQ explanation seems
    perfectly adequate without introducing a "designer."

    P: (previously)
    When you deny the necessity to postulate the existence of God, or deny
    that faith is a valid guide to truth, you're an atheist. "The tests of
    truth are logical consistency, agreement with experience, and economy of
    explanation." (Lila-8) Faith need not apply.
     
    D:
    False. Those criteria do not preclude the existence of God. "Faith" indeed
    can apply, and moreover should merit the same scrutiny as any other
    claimant to Truth.

    P:
    If I understand what you're saying, Tarot cards, palmistry, chicken bone
    readings, and other such occult practices can also apply for tests of
    truth. Further, you suggest that claimants to truth be scrutinized, but
    fail to specify what criteria would be appropriate for such 'scrutiny.'
    On what basis, for example would you eliminate determining truth by gazing
    into a crystal ball vs. watching a priest perform a mass?

    Just so we're on the same page, I'm using the Webster dictionary
    definition of faith as "firm belief in something for which there is no
    proof." My question boils down to: How can faith constitute proof?

    Regards,
    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 : Tue Mar 23 2004 - 12:28:46 GMT