Steve,
Thanks for the welcome. Yes, I'm new here, long (life long) story on how I got
here, the short is I found the link in the 25th Anniv. edition of ZMM I
recently
read and figured I'd lurk a while and decided I'd dip in on this thread.
Steve Peterson wrote:
> First of all, the blog I am working on is not aimed directly at
> convincing theists that they have a bunch of wacky beliefs that we'd
> all be better off if they dropped. That is indirectly part of my
> goal,
> but the blog is not to attract theists to the discussion. I want to
> converse with other non believers in an ongoing strategy session
> that
> would include the sort of suggestion you made.
I guess I'm a little troubled by the "strategy" aspect. Strategy for what?
The implication is conflict, and by process of elimination I suspect it is
conflict
with theists. To what end? You can't prove God does not exist any more than a
theist can prove He does. Even if you can prove a myth is false, it would
continue. Only an alternative myth can replace a myth.
Wouldn't a "better future", ("better" defined in MoQ terms) be more likely
found
through an approach that doesn't involve any of the theisms (including "a-")?
Another way to ask the same question; could there be a wholly atheistic world?
A world in which there were only atheists? Atheism, by definition is the belief
that there is no "God", but as such it MUST exist in a context where the
existence of "God" is contemplated as possible in some manner, that is; in a
theistic context. And while that theistic context exists, the context always
remains a theistic one, and as such any strategy to eliminate theism through
atheism fails.
Any atheism "strategy" fails categorically because you cannot by definition
ever
get past theism through atheism.
btw: In the MoQ context, isn't the goal of eliminating theism a lot like saying
we
should get rid of cells because our bodies are more evolved than them? Or to
get rid of culture because we have society? Or to get rid of society because we
have intellect? There may be more "Quality" evolutions than theism, but if so
it
does not follow that theism needs to be eliminated. Theism in the MoQ context
is not "bad", its more like its just not "necessary" for Dynamic quality shifts
in
society because its lower than society in MoQ evolutionary terms. It may not be
able to help society acheive a Dynamic quality, but it does not follow that it
is
unnecessary in society. What holds back Dynamic quality is not theism, but the
resistance to the evolution of static quality. Stasis in theism is what causes
the
"bad" aspects of theism, not theism itself.
If it becomes vestigal, or irrelevant, it no longer matters if you get rid of
it or not,
so why bother. If it isn't irrelevant or vestigal, then it does matter and you
should
not get rid of it. Just let it go where it goes, and work on the alternative
higher
quality Dynamic or static modes.
I happen to be "theistic" and while I can appreciate the status Pirsig
evolutionary hierarchy leaves it on a lower rung, I can also appreciate that
the
same hierarchy nonetheless leaves a place for it. Its a static "latch" for a
Dynamic quality it achieved. Take it away, and you can lose the Quality it
achieved, which enabled subsequent Dynamic Quality.
I also happen to think that "theism"'s God is not all that much different from
Pirsig's Quality. Its just understood, expressed and appreciated on an earlier
MoQ evolutionary level. Its an appreciation of one and the same thing, just in
a
much older, and gradually more and more archaic evolutionary language. The
conceptual parallels between theistic concepts and, for instance those of
quantum physics are remarkable at times.
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/
