Re: MD quality religion (Christianity)

From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sun May 30 2004 - 14:18:23 BST

  • Next message: Ian Glendinning: "Re: MD MOQ and The Moral Evolution of Society."

    Hi DavidM,

    Thanks for your helpful reply.

    I think we may be closer together on these issues than either of us
    at first believed. I'm not sure how, but somewhere along the way you
    got the idea that I am firmly stuck in the secular world of ideas,
    and that that just about encapsulates my conceptual framework. It's
    probably because my messages in this forum have been mostly about
    politics and terrorism, and my attempts to explain their interaction
    in a non-religious way, including references to non-rational belief
    systems.

    dm said:
    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.

    msh says:
    For me as well. As a poet and musician, this dynamic/transcendent
    aspect is for me undeniable. I note with interest, however, your use
    of the phrase "BEST religious thought." (Emphasis added.)

    Anyway, I tend to agree with your definition of "rational belief"
    as "plausible beliefs in the context of what we know about the
    world," as long as we recognize that this just shifts the burden of
    establishing a preponderance of evidence to the word "plausible."

    Thanks again.

    Looking forward to moving forward,
    Mark Steven Heyman 

    -- 
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is everything."  -- Henri Poincare'
On 30 May 2004 at 11:19, David Morey wrote:
> 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 - 14:15:19 BST