Hi Platt, Platt: >The whole scientific enterprise is accepted on faith.
Steve: I don't accept science on faith. I apply the same standards for scientific claims as to claims made by anyone about anything. Religious faith is the idea that we should not use our usual standards when evaluating claims made by The Church. These claims must just be accpeted on faith. Now you'll want to say, where do you get these standards? But the only standards I'm talking about is each person's valuation in terms of intellectual. All I'm saying is that if someone would evaluate a claim based on logical cohesion or evidence or what ever standards he may have normally have for intellectual quality, he should apply the same standards to claims made about, say, the virgin birth of Jesus or Mohammed flying to heaven on a winged horse. Platt: >Science believes the >scientific method is the only reliable method of establishing truth and >material entities are the most fundamental things that exist. These are >philosophical assumptions. They are not provable by the scientific method. Steve: This is true of the SOM scientist. But it is irrelevent to whether faith in the sense of believing things that run against one's own sense of intellectual quality is good or bad. >> Platt: >> > Patterns of thought are often social patterns as Pirsig explains: >> > "And, as >> > anthropologists know so well, what a mind thinks is as dominated by >> > social patterns as social patterns are dominated by biological patterns >> > and as biological patterns are dominated by inorganic patterns." (Lila, >> > 12) >> >> Steve: >> Pirsig is not saying that some thoughts are social patterns any more >> than he is saying that some animals are inorganic patterns. He is >> saying that ALL thoughts are based on social patterns as all social >> patterns are based on biological patterns and so on. > Platt: >Exactly. You cannot separate thought patterns and consider them independent >of social patterns as you seem to suggest. Steve: Thought (intellectual) patterns are not independent of social patterns. I have never suggested that. I only corrected your statement that "patterns of thought are often social patterns." Patterns of thought are intellectual patterns regardless of who holds the idea. Ideas may support some social patterns or be antagonistic to some social patterns but they are still ideas, not social pattern themselves. Claims that religions make and say must be accepted on faith are intellectual patterns and must be considered in terms of intellectual quality. >> >> Steve: >> >> My point is just that religions do make claims for intellectual >> >> quality and an example is the Catholic claim that there is no >> >> conflict between faith and reason. Platt: >I think theology legitimately claims intellectual quality. You seem to >limit and isolate intellectual quality to the standards of science. Steve: As I've been saying again and again, I don't isolate intellectual quality to any particular standards. My point has been that when people appeal to faith they are giving themselves permission to disregard their own standards whatever they may be. Theologians will make a lot of arguments that make a lot of sense (intellectual quality), but will always fall back on faith when they run into trouble with their own arguments based on their own standards. >> >> Steve: >> >> There is no level (type of pattern of value) above intellectual. His Code >> >> of Art is "a code that isn't a code" and certainly isn't to be taken as a >> >> static level. > Platt: > > It's not static, but it's a level called "Dynamic morality" and > > it's the > > most important level of all. It's where revealed Truth, such as > > that which > > motivated the brujo, resides. >> Steve: >> Where does he say "it's a level"? He is talking about DQ (experience) which >> reveals truth and motivated the brujo. Platt: >The context suggests a level. Steve: Pirsig said that everything fits into the four levels plus DQ. He explicity talks about four static levels a countless number of times. Then you find one instance where you think the "context suggests a level" to argue that there are actually five levels in Pirisig's MOQ? Platt: >Are you admitting to truth by revelation such >as some religions claim? Steve: I'm not sure what you mean. In religion, "revelation" means revealed by God. Is that what you mean? I have never claimed that truth is revealed by God. Truths in the MOQ are static patterns of value. DQ is where truth is revealed means that DQ leaves static patterns in its wake. Platt, you seem to be frequently using a different definition of faith than the use of the term that I want to criticize. Faith is an attempt to make certain beliefs immune to criticism through the religions teaching that it is a virtue to believe certain things uncritically. I am surprised to find you championing uncritical belief. Regards, Steve 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/
