Hi Platt,
Steve:
The idea is to break the taboo in the US of "questioning
someone's beliefs." All we are talking about is applying the same
conversational pressures to religious beliefs as we would to
someone's
beliefs about leprechauns, government bailouts, the best laundry
detergent, and whether or not the Holocaust actually happened.
Platt:
Conversational pressures? LIke what? Ad hominem attacks?
Steve:
No, like simply asking, "why do you believe that?"
Platt:
OK. So I simply ask, "Why do you believe it's good to pressure someone
to
answer that question?" I can understand if the motive is to learn.
But, in
many cases the motive is to ridicule the response and trash the
responder.
Steve:
The motivation is to learn and to persuade. In the MOQ, bad ideas are
less moral than good ideas. It is moral to challenge bad ideas wherever
you find them.
I seemed to have touched a nerve with saying we should ask such simple
questions. I suppose it is scary for those buying into a social
pattern
which says such obvious questions are in bad taste. The problem is
that
not asking those questions has become dangerous to society as we saw
on
9/11 when otherwise well-educated middle class men believed that they
could buy their way into heaven and be serviced by black-eyed virgins
if they became mass murderers.
My hope is that intellectual patterns which include a taste for
evidence in support of all of our beliefs will trump the social
patterns which hold such intellectual patterns to be in bad taste when
applied to religion. Religious beliefs should no longer be in a
special
class of socially protected unquestionable beliefs like believing your
wife is beautiful and your children are unusually talented. We can no
longer afford to extend such nod-and-smile social courtesy when
religious beliefs have become a threat to civilization itself.
Platt:
OK. But, what about nonreligious beliefs that have become a threat to
civilization -- like secular socialism with its "absence of a concept
of
indefinite Dynamic Quality?" (Lila, 17)
Steve:
Certainly some beliefs are better than others and some are greater
threats than others Communism is no longer as of the essence as Islam.
I also don't want to lump all beliefs as equally dangerous. Islam is
much more of a threat to civilization than the Amish for example.
Steve:
BTW, for someone who opposes relativism, claiming that no belief is
better or worse than any other is a strange thing to say, but it
does
seem to be typical of conservatives to complain about moral
relativism
while promoting intellectual relativism.
Platt:
I believe some beliefs are certainly better than others. My point was
that
I am not so arrogant as to believe I couldn't possibly be wrong. Nor
do I
believe others should believe they are like gods and thus privileged
to
force their beliefs on others.
Steve:
Who believes that they can never be wrong?
Al Gore, for one. Hamas for another.
Steve:
Al Gore?
Steve:
And what do you mean when you keep saying that someone is trying to
force beliefs on another?
Personal ad hominem attacks are such an attempt -- like calling those
who
question global warming "holocaust deniers."
Steve:
How did we get onto global warming? I don't have the scientific
knowledge to take a side on that one. It does concern me that the
scientific community is concerned.
Steve:
I'm just saying that we need to have conversations about religion even
if it makes some people uncomfortable. That's it. I think that's all
any of us are saying. No one is suggesting that we need to tie people
up and have them renounce their gods at gun point. We just want
religious beliefs to enter the marketplace of ideas.
Platt:
My impression is that religious beliefs are based less on intellectual
persuasion than on responses to ineffable experiences, like paintings
in a
gallery. But, if someone wants to engage in a discussion about
religion,
fine with me so long as ad hominem attacks, overt or subtle, are
avoided.
Steve:
Pirsig says that intellectual patterns are exactly these sorts of
experiences and introduced the "paintings in a gallery" metaphor to
talk about them.
Platt:
As for moral relativism -- that all behavior is equally moral -- I
believe
that's wrong. My moral beliefs follow the MOQ.
Do you think morality applies to beliefs?
Steve:
Of course. Aren't intellectual patterns also patterns of value?
Platt:
So your beliefs may be immoral?
Steve:
I thought the MOQ says everything is all about morals.
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/
