MP,
MP:
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:
Though we disagree on much, I appreciate your thoughtful remarks.
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.
MP:
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.
Steve:
I don't think the question is ever really about proof but rather about
what we have good reason to believe. Is there good reason to believe
that any of the world's varied religions have it right given that they
all say that all the other religions has it wrong? Even if we assume
that one of them is true, as a matter of probability, we should expect
to be damned under Pascal's Wager because we are unlikely to have have
managed to pick the right one through the accidents of our births.
I agree that only a story can replace a story. Science, our best
attempts at intellectual honesty and distinguishing what we have good
reason to believe from what we wish were true, tells a different story
from Christianity. The question is, which one is the better story? We
may disagree, but I can't see why we shouldn't be able to argue for our
favorite story.
MP:
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.
Steve:
I completely agree here. I wrote about this issue in my blog here,
http://www.atheistichope.com/2009/01/end-of-atheism.html , in a post
called "The End of Atheism" concerned with the liabilities of
self-applying the label, "atheist."
excerpt:
"I've also thought for some time that there is some subtle
question-begging going on in the atheist/theist issue. "Do you believe
in God?" is a question that pretty much presupposes that there is a God
that can either be believed in or not. An end of theism would mean that
this "God/no gods" game is one that we are no longer even interested in
playing. In other words, could we reasonably hope for a world where
there were only atheists? As a lack of belief in gods, atheism only
comes up within a context where people are interested in gods--within a
"theistic" context. A strategy of ending theism by means of atheism
will necessarily fail because atheism helps perpetuate this fundamental
theistic context.
I think it is this "theistic context" that Sam Harris, author of The
End of Faith, was talking about when he asked, "Why should we fall into
this trap? Why should we stand obediently...in the space carved out by
the conceptual scheme of theistic religion? It’s as though, before the
debate even begins, our opponents draw the chalk-outline of a dead man
on the sidewalk, and we just walk up and lie down in it.""
MP:
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?
Steve:
I don't think so. I don't see how religion is at all necessary for the
evolution of the intellectual level and in fact I think that it often
hinders evolution towards dynamic quality.
MP:
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.
Steve:
Even if it is true that religion was important for evolution in the
past, why carry the boat on your shoulders when it has already taken
you across the river?
MP:
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.
Steve
If you view Quality as the same as God, then you may have a different
view of God than is typical for those who claim to be theists. I think
the main difference is that Quality is not a person. It has no favorite
color, ego to be bruised, only begotten son, or sense of humor. If all
you mean when you use the word God is the ground of being, the creative
aspect of the universe, emptyness, etc., then you have no quarrel with
me other than that I would suggest that you are likely to be
misunderstood in using the word God.
Best,
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/
