Hi Steve, > Platt: > >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: > How is such a belief beyond reason? If such a belief is not considered to be > subject to rational questioning it is held on faith. If it is a belief that > is considered open to critique it is not. If you can imagine evidence that > could convince you to change your mind about a belief, it is not held on > faith.
What evidence can you imagine that mind emerged from the mindless? > >> Steve: > >> But Harris would agree that Communism and National Socialism are evil. > > Platt: > >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: > He is looking at suffering that is a direct result of dogmatic beliefs. I > can't understand why you would oppose such a critique. I don't. What I crticize is his emphasis on dogmatic religious belief while ignoring dogmatic belief of atheists. > >> Platt: > >> > Your faith in reason can be viewed as dogmatic as religious belief. > >> > >> Steve: > >> What have I said that suggests a dogmatic belief? > > Platt: > >You constant appeal to reason. You are aware, I'm sure, that reason cannot > >prove its validity. (Godel Theorem). > > Steve: > As I have said many times, by reason I am not referring to any system of > thought or method for uncovering truth, I'm just referring to intellectual > quality. My argument is that the word faith is used to say that it is good > to hold beliefs that you determine to be of low intellectual quality. There > is no dependence on proving validity of anything. I'm just saying that > people have standards for believing things in every other aspect of their > lives that they don't apply to a certain set of beliefs they call religious. > The idea of faith is one which says that it is a virtue to disregard these > standards for religious beliefs. > > I have no dogmatic faith in the truth of the immorality of faith that I can > see. I am unconvinced by the arguments that faith is a virtue and swayed by > the arguments that it is not. My sense of intellectual quality (reason) is > that faith is the opposite of virtue. But this belief is subject to debate > and I could be provided with evidence that would convince me that I am > wrong, while faith in such a belief would be to hold it in spite of > contradictory evidence. If I had the sort of faith in my belief that Harris > is railing against, I would probably say that this contradictory evidence > only made my faith stronger. As I read this I can't help but note that you have faith in intellectual quality (reason) even though reason cannot show by reason that it is reasonable. What am I missing? > >> 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. > Platt: > >Yes, exactly. > > Steve: > Really? you agree with that interpretation that Locke was arguing based on > premises completely at odds with the MOQ? I don't agree that Locke's premises are completely at odds with the MOQ. The "laws of nature" he refers to obviously includes other people, including an individual's parents without whose existence Locke wouldn't naturally be. > Steve: > >> 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." > > Platt: > >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) > > Steve: > I agree, I just don't think we have to take the "endowed by their Creator" > part in the way that religious folks take to mean the Christian God. This is > not teh Creator that the Deist Founding Fathers were talking about. > > I also think we can agree that it is important to set limits on government's > ability to smother man's intellectual freedom without appealing to any gods. "We can agree" presupposes that rights can be taken away by a majority of "we who agree." That's a real and present danger. Rights "endowed by their Creator" is a firewall (to use a popular current word) against loss of individual (intellectual) rights in the name of fairness, equality or other emotional appeal by politicians to a Utopian dream. I wonder, Steve, if the you see a battle between the intellect and society as Pirsig does, expressed in such ways as: "The one dominating question of this century has been, "Are the social patterns of our world going to run our intellectual life, or is our intellectual life going to run the social patterns?" And in that battle, the intellectual patterns have won." (Lila, 21) 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/
