Hi Platt,
>> 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. > Platt: > What evidence can you imagine that mind emerged from the mindless? Steve: I'm not sure what you mean by that. I don't know if I have this belief or not. If what you mean by mind is intellectual patterns, then doesn't the MOQ say that it emerged from the mindless since we imagine that there was a time when intellectual patterns didn't exist? I'm not sure what you are getting at. I'm just saying that if someone holds a belief but cannot imagine any way that this belief could be called into question, this belief is probably one held on faith. So if I believe that mind emerged from the mindless, it is not held on faith if I can imagine being presented with evidence that mind was created by some higher intelligence. It is not hard to imagine how God or aliens or whatever could provide evidence that they exists. >>>> 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. Platt: > I don't. What I crticize is his emphasis on dogmatic religious belief > while > ignoring dogmatic belief of atheists. Steve: There are countless other things that he doesn't talk about. It seems a strange way to criticize someone's writings. Is it not legitimate just to write a book critical of religious faith without pointing out every other bad intellectual pattern? >>>> 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. Platt: > 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? Steve: I think what it may be is that I keep trying to explain that the faith that is problematic is not trust or fidelity or other uses of the term faith but simply faith as it is applied to belief. Believing something that isn't proven beyond all doubt is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the so-called virtue of believing things when all you have are doubts. >>>> 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? > Platt: > 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: "Completely at odds" is hyperbole of course. I mean it's not like Locke is saying the exact opposite of the MOQ whatever that means. But the premise he starts with is that reality is composed of subjects and objects. Your quote says that man's natural state is "perfect freedom" where Pirsig says that 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." 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. > Platt: > "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. Steve: I don't see how this gets us out of the "we can agree" problem. Don't we still have to agree on what rights are "endowed by their Creator"? It's not like God is going to step in a settle it for us. Not even religious people believe that. Would you really rather that politician's talked about what God wants us to do instead of "fairness, equality or other emotional appeal"? > PLatt: > 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) Steve: Pirsig said the intellectual patterns have already won this battle. I think we both agree that this battle is ongoing. 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/
