Ron,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Ron Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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? > Jc: The purpose of life - Orienting oneself toward one's existence. If the idea of God gives a person the gumption to do good and face troubles, then that idea is useful for that person. Ron: > > It also applies to the concept/ideal > Of the Good. Who's Good? > Jc: Yes, exactly. A wise man once said that the roots of the word God and Good are the same. Ron: > 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. > > I take your point. However the bible story of a self-annihilating God is interesting to me, for that very reason. Liberation from the past means freedom now and without present freedom there is no Good. For some people, the concept of God equals slavery. I get that. But knee-jerk avoidance can be another kind of control. John 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
