Hi Platt,
> Steve: > It's not meant to be true by definition. It's true because life G is > better than life B. The basis of morality for Harris is that same as > that of Pirsig: some things are better than others. > > Platt > Yes, but as you know, Pirsig applies that basic premise beyond human affairs. > Big difference. Steve: I understand that there is a difference, but does it matter in this discussion? Perhaps you can explain why it is important that Harris extends his conception of morality to include inanimate objects. > Steve > As for whether or not studying the conditions that best foster > well-being, if such a study happens to confirm some Christian values > as worth valuing so much the better for Christian values, but it is > the rational inquiry into values that stands in judgment of > Christianity rather than the other way around. The MOQ sees the > situation in the same way. > > Platt > Except the MOQ acknowledges religious experience in a way that I doubt Harris > ever dreamed of: Steve: Why do you keep pretending to know things a bout Harris that you don't know? As usual, you are wrong about him. Please see the New York Post article "Selfless Consciousness Without Faith" http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/sam_harris/2007/01/consciousness_without_faith_1.html 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/md/archives.html
