Hello Steve,dmb, et al.
Personally, I believe it is an argument that should not be made.
What I love about the MoQ is that, IMO, it points more so to the existence of
"God" than most anything I have ever read as it defines Dynamic Quality...
especially in Lila chpt 11. I know some MoQ folks don't see it that way, but I
see it that way (but I don't like the word "God" either). That is only to say
that if I were trying to prove the possibility for the existence of "God" to
rational thinking people, I would use the same arguments that Pirsig uses in
Lila. Btw, I don't consider myself to be a theist, atheist or anti-theist, but
a non-theist.(for another time)
That aside, theist trying to prove "God" is no different than an atheist
trying to prove "No-God". What is amazing to me is "we" cannot prove 99% of
life and life experiences. However, folks want to argue over something, which
cannot be proven or disproved. It is like trying to prove you smelled coffee
yesterday...or that there is love or isn't. Courts struggle to determine truth
or lies. Another twist to this is that even circumstantial evidence that would
"prove" the existence of "God" is not believed by naysayers. Example, if a
million people saw "God" as a bright light in the sky and heard the words,"I am
God and gays should not marry". Those who were not there (and even some who
were there) would say that these people were hallucinating because it was
determined that there was an over abundance of methane gas in the area.
That said, all this is fluff that clouds the issue... it is not about God and
never has been. IMO, the argument is flawed, because saying theist should
provide evidence of "God" is the same as theist demanding action on behalf of
"God". You have one social group wanting to control laws and another group
wanting to change them. The "theist" group wants to rally support by creating
an emotional response into the mix by making this about God. This is all about
control and not about "God", but it is about static social patterns. The key
to this is not to argue about God, but building the supports to have the law
changed. The more you argue about God, the more supports the theist will gain
whenever "God" is the argument. The belief in God is a strong and deeply
grounded static social patterns and to challenge it for laws only plays into
the hands of the theist.
Bruce
> Steve said to dmb:
>> In the thread on demanding evidence for religious bleiefs, I suggested that
>> "If religious claims are intended as some other sort of non-scientific
>> non-historical assertions then these assertions need not face such demands
>> for evidence on historical-scientific terms. If people making such
>> assertions do indeed intend something clearly different in purpose from
>> historical and scientific inquiry and can articulate in what other ways, if
>> not scientifically and historically, these claims may be regarded as true,
>> then perhaps it can indeed be made coherent to say as is so often claimed by
>> theists that there is indeed no conflict between science and religion. Such
>> does not seem possible for theists of the Fundamentalist or Orthodox
>> Catholic variety, but perhaps it is possible for more liberal theists to
>> distinguish religious truth from scientific-historical truth."
>>
>> I'm wonderring whether you have any thoughts on how a belief might be
>> thought of as true if not historically or scientifically true, and what the
>> criteria for such truth may be like. For example, would Joseph Campbell
>> assert in some way that a myth is true?
>
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> I take it you're not really changing the subject so much as moving the topic
> onto something more concrete.
> As I understand it, the basic empirical standards of truth do not change. In
> religion as well as science and history, truth (or falsity) is what happens
> to an idea in the course of experience. This is why I can take Campbell's
> side on the issue. He says that theists and atheists are both wrong. They
> both suffer from the same misconception, the only difference being that one
> affirms it and the other denies it. By taking symbolic language as literal
> they both have a mistaken idea about the sense in which myths are true. As
> far as his own religious experience goes, Campbell says he doesn't need faith
> because he has experience. And his stance on how myths should be read and
> understood is arrived at by through a survey and analysis of the relevant
> empirical data, namely the mythical art forms of the world as well as their
> relations to dreams, to religions and to the wider culture.
>
> If you take things literally in such a way that you believe the world was
> created, as so many do, then you have to find a way to dismiss the empirical
> evidence for the theory of evolution. In the abstract there seems to be no
> way to convince a believer in creationism but if that belief were really
> acted upon in practical reality it could literally kill them. See,
> creationists don't realize that common things like a flu shot are the one of
> the practical results of the theory of evolution. Now we're not talking about
> what happened billions of years ago (or 6,000 years ago). Now we're talking
> about whether or not your kid is going to die or at least get sick. Of course
> there are also lots of religious that can't be tested in experience at all
> because they have no apparent consequence one way or the other, no practical
> bearing on anything.
>
> Ironically, myths refer to inner experience, to psychological events and
> processes or to spiritual growth patterns if you like. They're derived from
> experience and that is where their truth is tested. That is to say, if you
> read them as a guide to such a thing it works out and if you read them as
> science it is a disaster.
>
> This is at least related to what Pirsig was talking about when he said
> Quality could be the uniter of art, science and religion. Experience serves
> as the basis for all them. There is primary and secondary experience and the
> various ways we can subdivide after that too. And of course experience in a
> science lab and experience in an art studio can't be treated as if they were
> the same kind of experience but they both involve actual engagement with the
> subject matter. We have to make certain adjustments so that our standards of
> truth are appropriate to kinds of claims being made, but its always on an
> empirical basis, on the basis of how well that idea functions when the rubber
> meets the road.
>
> This would probably be a good place to throw in a few complaints about the
> otherworldliness of religion in general. I know it's an old complaint but it
> covers just about every brand of christianity. To the extent that religion
> teaches us that this life is just a brief test for our eternal lives, it
> teaches us to take our eyes off the ball. Big time. What could be a more epic
> case of missing the point? Ironically, that was the original meaning of the
> word "sin", to miss the point. I believe the term comes from art of archery.
> Some say Zen is useful in the art of archery (and motorcycle maintenance).
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469228/direct/01/
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/
