From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun May 30 2004 - 11:19:21 BST
Hi Mark
Mark said: Whether or not religious beliefs are organized is irrelevant,
IMO.
> In your view, is it rational to believe that quality/DQ is a power
> with a personality, that takes an active and caring (yes, paternal)
> interest in human affairs, with an extra loving interest in those
> humans who worship and appease DQ?
DM: NO, not really too keen on god word, but I am happy to use
it or drop it, not keen on idea of god having a personality, but I would
not say it was impossible, I see no special role for human beings
in evolution other than perhaps we are the only organism to reach the
intellectual
level so far, and are therefore more open to a higher level of freedom and
consciousness, and that we can conasciously partake of the activity of the
cosmos. Worship is a word I dislike, because there is a bit of DQ in
everyone
so we should bow to no one, yet feel awe for the universe as a whole, mind
you it is not entirely wrong to fear it too. Appease -bad word, no use for
it.
Love. Well there is something high about love, and perjaps love and value
are inseparable, and perhaps without love we would not be potentially free,
or existing at all.
Mark:
> If so, then our understandings of the word "rational" and of DQ are
> so far apart that using them in conversation will result only in
> confusion.
DM: I doubt it, we can try to discuss it. I see knowledge as
dependent on creative human language/metaphor creation that
we then apply to the world in a feedback loop and we try to understand
that world. For me the experience-reality of the world contains aspects
that are dynamic/transcendent and this can be referred to/described in terms
that are familiar to the best religious thought. This possibility is
acknowledged
by many scientists. Rational for me means plausible beliefs in the context
of what we know about the world. After 20 years as a student of philosophy
and the history of science I see secular-rationalism as being a conceptual
framework too limited to grasp the world I find myself living in, that world
being more constructed from an interest in science and philosophy than any
traditional religious thought/practice. I am suggesting a rational and
experienced
based road to a post-secular perspective.
> msh says:
> Thanks. But, as you imply, RC is not the only way to sustain a moral
> approach to life.
DM: Agreed, but it has been the only one with mass-appeal.
DM: Let's trust in the testament of the world rather than the book as
> Galileo suggested.
>
> msh asks:
> Why one or the other, and not both?
DM: Well, my main example is the Bible which can be understood
in many ways, in fact has almost no interest for me, and given
evidence versus authority I suggest we go with the evidence.
As per Galileo vs Church. Hope that clarifies a few things.
I was born and raised a secular-atheist but have currently
believe it to be shakily founded and inadequate despite
the many gains brought to us by the Enlightenment. I hope
there is a more coherent, peaceful post-secular hope/possibility
for the human race, but that does not mean that we will embrace
it, our choice.
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 : Sun May 30 2004 - 11:58:03 BST