Hi Steve, [Steve} > >> Do you consider yourself a Deist?
[Platt] > > I consider myself a Mysterian. But Deist will do. > Steve: > I had never heard of that term Wikipedia says: > "New Mysterianism is a philosophy proposing that certain problems will never > be explained or at the least cannot be explained by the human mind at its > current evolutionary stage. The problem most often referred to is the hard > problem of consciousness; i.e. how to explain sentience and qualia and their > interaction with consciousness." > > Is this what you believe? I wasn't aware of Wikipedia's definition but it describes what I believe up to a point. To the mystery of consciousness I add many others including the mysteries of energy, order, cause/effect, chance and DQ. > >> Steve: > >> In a liberal society, rationales can be criticized. Religious dogma we > >> are told is above criticism since it is a matter of faith. > > > > What is dogma to you is belief to others. I argue that all belief > > includes > > an element of faith. > > Steve: > We've been through this before. I think we agreed that the use of term faith > to say that it is a virtue to hold certain beliefs outside the realm of > rational questioning is bad. I agreed we use the term "faith" differently. I didn't agree that holding beliefs beyond reason is bad. To believe mind emerged from the mindless is beyond reason, but many believe it to be so. > >>> Steve: > >>>> The other point is that it is not only happiness but suffering that > >>>> Harris says we need to consider in judging morality. Certainly religion > >>>> continues to be a great source of suffering. > >> Platt: > >>> Compared to the state as a source of suffering, religion is heaven. > >>> Statists tend to forget that Communism and National Socialism were > >>> responsible for over 125 million deaths in the last century. > >> Steve: > >> I still see this as a non sequitur. It is certainly not an argument > >> that faith (as the idea that it is good to belief things without > >> reason or > >> evidence) really is a virtue. > > Not a non sequitur if suffering is your criterion of evil as it seems to > > be for Harris, not to mention Reagan.. > > Steve: > But Harris would agree that Communism and National Socialism are evil. Yes, but the major ax he grinds is the suffering caused by believers in God, not atheists. That's my problem with his view. > >> Steve: > >> I am not necessarily arguing that religion needs to be dispensed > >> with. I am > >> simply saying that beliefs must be evaluated based on intellectual > >> quality > >> rather than accepted on authority of magic books. If religion really is > >> wroth anything (and I think it is) then there will be something of value > >> left once dogma is rejected in favor if reason. > > Platt: > > Your faith in reason can be viewed as dogmatic as religious belief. > > Steve: > What have I said that suggests a dogmatic belief? You constant appeal to reason. You are aware, I'm sure, that reason cannot prove its validity. (Godel Theorem). > Platt: > > Speaking of John Locke, would you agree with what he wrote in "Civil > > Government?" > > > > "To understand political power aright, and derive it from its > > original, we > > must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and this is , a > > state > > of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their > > possessions > > and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, > > without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other." > > > > To me this sets out the fundamental battle between the intellectual and > > social levels as outlined in the MOQ. > > Steve: > Locke reasons based on SOM premises. According to Northrop, he reasons that > as mental substances we are completely free. So why would we want to > participate in a government that will necessarily be to give up some > liberty? Locke says that the only reason we do this is because we can't > defend our private property on our own. > > This thinking is completely at odds with the MOQ which says that the > "free" individual that Locke is talking about does not exist without > social patterns. Locke sees that man is subject to the law of Nature > (inorganic and biological patterns), but does not see the evolutionary roll > of social patterns. He sees social patterns as imposed and corrupting a > "free" man rather than man as being a product of social evolution as well. Yes, exactly. > Pirsig addresses this fallacy here: > "Is society good or is society evil? ...The idea that, "man is born > free but is everywhere in chains" was never true. There are no chains > more vicious than the chains of biological necessity into which every > child is born. Society exists primarily to free people from these > biological chains. It has done that job so stunningly well > intellectuals forget the fact and turn upon society with a shameful > ingratitude for what society has done." Yes, but society also can smother man's intellectual freedom as history of Communism and National Socialism clearly shows. It is against this tendency of society to control intellect that Locke and the Founding Fathers established individual rights "endowed by their Creator." Far from being "completely at odds with the MOQ, freedom is the highest moral value. "This last, the Dynamic-static code, says what's good in life isn't defined by society or intellect or biology. What's good is freedom from domination by any static pattern, but that freedom doesn't have to be obtained by the destruction of the patterns themselves." (Lila, 24) Regards, Platt 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/
