Hi Ham, It doesn't sound like you understood anything much that I said. You are irked that I haven't defined essence or defended anti-essentialism, but that is a whole other conversation.
Ham:As this website includes messages from other MD participants, I assume you are speaking for Pirsig and the MoQ, Steve: No, not generally. Ham: Why an MoQer should be obsessed with anti-theism and the need to condemn religion is a mystery to me, since a "pragmatist" (if that's what a Pirsigian really is) has no more "evidence" of Quality than the believer has of God. But your opening statement contains so many inconsistencies that I felt compelled to comment. You categorize pragmatists as "anti-essentialists" and say they "don't want to think of religion as the sort of thing that has an essence." Yet, you don't define "essence" or offer any justification for denying essentiality, even as it applies to the pragmatists's worldview. The inference is that religion is wedded to essentialism, which is an unfounded assumption. Steve: No I don't think that religion is wedded to essentialism. I think one can be religious and also an anti-essentialist. Ham: You assert that "there is no particular way that religion must be in order for it to be true its own essence." But that is precisely what religious sectarianism is Religion is a spiritualistic practice founded on a particular dogma or faith-based belief. Indeed, it's the "practice" of religion which enables the believer to "be true to the essence" of his or her belief system. Steve: You are conflating the notion of religion as a whole with specific religions. My point is that there is no particular way to practice religion. Specific religions on the other hand are often thought of as having essences. People frequently claim that so-and-so who says he is a Christian is not REALLY a Christian because of X or Y or Z. Ham: You say "There is no critique that we should offer about religion as a whole," yet that is the thrust of your entire essay. Steve: I think you've missed the thrust. Ham: You fault faith-based beliefs and "duty to Truth, Reason, or Moral Law", and stress the pragmatist's (Rorty's) concern about "the extent to which the actions of religious believers frustrate the needs of other human beings." Steve: I thought I was defending certain beliefs from the obligation for evidence. I must not have read my own essay carefully enough. Ham: Later on, you say "the point of holding beliefs is not to seek Truth but to gratify particular desires," that "we need to try to get our beliefs to cohere with [others'] beliefs." Steve: Yes I did. Do you disagree? Ham: Man has an innate need for spirituality which each of us expresses as a set of personal beliefs. If the aim of the "pragmatist atheist" is the uniformity of beliefs without essence, evidence, truth, or faith, my guess would be that 'Atheistic Hope' is a delusion. Steve: I don't know where you got the idea that the aim of pragmatism is uniformity of beliefs. 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/
