Hi Plat,
>> >> Steve: >> >> What are the bad results of not believing in God? >> >> Platt: >> >National Socialism, Fascism, Communism. >> >> Steve: >> How are these the result of not believing in God? >> >> I'm sure that you can follow the logic that if one believes that Americans >> are infidels and that God will reward him in Heaven for participating in >> sacred bombings to kill infidels, then such belief would constitute >> motivation for "bad results." Perhaps you can explain how not believing >> inGod results in Fascism? Platt: >By substituting belief in the supreme value of God to belief in the supreme >value of the state, e.g., "Deutschland uber alles." Steve: Okay, but belief in the supreme value of the state isn't atheism. Atheism is just not believing in God. >> >> > Platt: >> >> > I don't quite follow. How can someone believe what she doubts? >> >> > Those who >> >> > believe in God don't have doubts, do they? >> >> >> >> Steve: >> >> It sounds absurd to me too, but religious people will often tell you >> >> that faith requires doubt. If you didn't have doubt, no faith would be >> >> needed, so doubt is viewed as a gift from God. It's an opportunity to >> >> have faith. This is why I interpreted this sort of faith as claiming >> >> that it is a virtue to believe that which is bad to believe. This "faith >> >> requires doubt" idea is just dishonest. >> >> Platt: >> >Another view: God is the certainty behind the doubt of God's existence. >> >> Steve: >> I don't understand what this means especially coming from someone who >> doesn't believe in God. Platt: >It comes from someone who does believe in God. Steve: I still don't know what it means to say that "God is the certainty behind the doubt of God's existence." This is an usual way of saying what God is. Can you unpack it for me? >> >> > Platt: >> >> > >> >> > Personally I like Pirsig's solution as to what to believe -- choose >> >> > what for you has value like paintings in a gallery and leave the rest. >> >> >> >> Steve: >> >> Faith in the paintings analogy is to claim that it is a virtue to say >> >> you like the religious paintings even if you don't like them. >> >> Platt: >> >Nothing in the paintings analogy suggests it's good to lie about what you >> >like. >> >> Steve: >> Exactly. It's not good. There is no justification for religious faith in >> Pirsig's writing about the MOQ. Platt: >Right. But Pirsig doesn't require that you like the same paintings he >likes. Steve: Are you saying that atheists do that? >> >> > Platt: >> >> > Good point. But if we don't agree what rights are "endowed by their >> >> > Creator," then it's a free-for-all where anything goes depending on >> >> > the biggest mob or the group with the most potent weapons. >> >> >> >> Steve: >> >> I guess that's the situation we are in until God tells us what our >> >> rights are. >> >> Platt: >> >It seems to be the situation we are in with amoral SOM intellect. >> >> Steve: >> Do you think Quality-based intellect can settle the issue of what rights are >> valid? Platt: >Yes. A morality based on the MOQ can go a long way in determining the >validity of individual rights. The problem, as the discussions on this site >so amply illustrate, is interpreting the MOQ. So the issue remains >unsettled. Steve: But to the extent that MOQ interpretation is ever settled it will happen through rational discourse. Don't you think? I mean, it won't be a recognition that rights come from God then all of the sudden we all agree on what those rights are. 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/
