> On Dec 18, 2014, at 2:17 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > > God is a concept that some find useful, and some do not. Whether or not > you find the conceptualization of God pragmatically useful, personally, > should not preclude the intellectual considerations of metaphysical stances > by thinkers who DO find such conceptualization useful. I should think this > would be obvious to any real student of W. James.
Ron comments: Some questions that need to be answered : Useful for what? Who's purposes? It also applies to the concept/ideal Of the Good. Who's Good? We can talk in generalities all day But when it comes to actual Meaning in particular circumstances Things stop being so neat for the Conceptions of "useful" and the "good". What it comes down to is our reasons When it comes to explanation. People have reasons for their beliefs. Whether or not those reasons are intellectual in nature seems to matter A great deal. What I gather is that you are saying Is that RMPs DQ is a great explanation for God, however does It give sufficient reason for a belief In God? I think this is where Pirsigs Explanation of the "undefined" Good Is lacking for a strong intellectual case for reason for belief in such A "un concept". DQ says absolutely nothing about The nature and quality of the Good There fore it can say nothing meaningful about God. The very same thing happened before With the doctrine of ideas. The explanation of the ineffable undefinable inconceivable "one" Or "prime mover" was taken as the Rational justification for the qualities And nature of God and the afterlife. Beware graven images John Carl! The living word can not be spoken! The very same criticism you level On pure experience may be leveled On DQ as God. It is wrought with Bias and prejudice forged from The past. Bad medicine. . 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
