Steve said: People will often disagree as to what has quality and that includes intellectual patterns. But the issue of faith isn't about disagreements about what has intellectual quality. People appeal to faith when they themselves recognize that what they are saying does not hold up to their own ideas of what is rational (what has intellectual quality).
dmb says: Right, there is an ongoing debate about the limits and nature of reason. The MOQ has more than a few things to say on that topic. But that's not relevant to the issue of faith, which is a belief held outside of intellectual standards in general. Scientific data are still data in the MOQ, which differs chiefly in being even more empirical than science generally is. SOMers and MOQers can agree that intellectual quality demands both logic and coherence. I mean, evidence and reason are the general standards of intellectual respectability and that works for a MOQer or any reasonable person. Platt said: Finally, do we accept MOQ terms on faith? I would say, "Yes." It's basic premise -- the world is a moral order -- is hardly rational or empirical, i.e., subject to scientific confirmation. dmb says: I don't think the MOQ makes any claims beyond the limits of its own empiricism. It is itself based on experience and says that its bogus to go beyond experience. That's a heck of a thing to take as a matter of faith. I think that's a variation of the performative contradiction. Or maybe its just a plain old contradiction. A guy would have to be pretty mixed up to see it that way, if you ask me. Intellectual value can't be determined with a microscope, of course, but we can examine the MOQ and see how well it works. Happens all the time around here. Its a philosophy, not a religion. It is anti-theistic and takes a dim view of faith because of their lack of intellectual quality. Both tend to assert themselves over intellect or at least in defiance of it. That's how 9th century theology and 21st century technology exist side by side in a single, shattered worldview. Kaboom. Steve replied likewise to Platt: The MOQ seems rational to me. I suspect it seems rational to you as well or you wouldn't be such a proponent of the MOQ. If I met someone else who didn't think the MOQ made sense I certainly wouldn't advise, "well, you just need to have faith." dmb says: How about the classic reply of moderates, "but my belief in the MOQ gives my life a sense of meaning". As Sam Harris tells it, this is a very common sentiment. To expose the goofiness of this form of reasoning, he replaces belief in God with the belief that there is a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in his back yard. When challenged about the unreasonable nature of this belief he replies, "I just wouldn't want to live in a world where there was no giant diamond in my yard". Let's say you persist and ask for some kind of reason or evidence of this priceless miracle. He says he just knows for sure that his belief in it has improved the quality of his life and that alone proves the belief worthy. If you then dug up the yard and showed him there was no giant diamond, he'd sue you for malicious destruction of private property. But at least you would have proven him wrong about the diamond. You will have also destroyed his claim that belief leads to an improved quality of life. Cause now his yard is a wreck and he has to hire a lawyer. _________________________________________________________________ Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008 Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
