Hi DMB 'God' as a word for the source of all possibilities is well covered in Sneddon's thesis on Whitehead & Pirsig, it's simple stuff really, I'm sure you can grasp it.
I think Whitehead's analysis of the distinction possible/actual is key to expanding what Pirsig says about static/dynamic. The physicist Shimon Malin thinks Whitehead's approach is the ideal one for making sense of quantum theory, the connections to Pirsig are obvious if you look at the chapters in this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0195161092/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-0430296-6025607#reader-link David M ----- Original Message ----- From: "david buchanan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 6:16 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Terry Eagleton's God Delusion > "ian glendinning" quoted Terry Eagleton and said: > Take it away, Eagleton fans. > > dmb says: > I'm not sure if I'm a fan but the topic interests me. One of the > remarkable > things about Eagleton is that he is both a Marxist and a devout Catholic. > I > think that is quite a trick. It seems to me that one would have to do some > pretty fancy contortions to make that work, which is probably why we find > him saying such bizzare things. I'd draw your attention to this section of > his article, for example, where he gives us his description of God... > > Terry Eagleton wrote: > ...For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore > arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or 'existent': in one sense > of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim > that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of > possibility > of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why > there > is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up to > two, > any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects. This, > not some super-manufacturing, is what is traditionally meant by the claim > that God is Creator. He is what sustains all things in being by his love; > and this would still be the case even if the universe had no beginning... > > dmb continues: > Perfectly coherent? I don't think so. If memory serves, I offered a > million > dollars to anyone who can explain what this is supposed to mean. God is > the > condition of possibility for any entity? What does that mean? What is "the > condition of possibility" and on what basis is this equated with God? What > reason is there to believe that "all things" are sustained by love? What > kind of love? In what sense does love sustain things? It sounds real > pretty > and nice but does it actually mean anything? As I see it, this is nonsense > piled on top of nonsense. > > I asked about this same notion a few moons ago and recieved only one short > reply from DM. It was too short to answer the question. Let me elaborate > so > you can see my problem, dear reader. As speakers of english, we all know > what "condition" and "possibility" mean. We all understand how to make > ice, > we all know that water and cold are among the "conditions of possibility" > for ice. Fire requires fuel and air, etc. So here we have Eagleton saying > that God is what makes all things possible. And this matches his assertion > that God and the universe are NOT two things. In other words, he's saying > God is identical to the universe, the whole framework of existence and the > things that are possible within that framework. > > In which case, God cannot be distinguished from anything else. This is my > problem with Eagleton's definition. A thing that cannot be distinguished > form anything else has no value, no meaning and does not exist. So what > kind > of definition is that? This is especially since our pal Terry is angryly > defending God even as he defines it out of existence. > > That's why I think his artlcle was NOT perfectly coherent. I suspect he's > taken Marx's dialectical materialism and added back some of that Hegelian > "Absolute Idea" spiritualism so that God becomes the material conditions > of > existence. > > But its too goofy to be believed. I mean, it seems awfully odd to make > "the > conditions of possibility" into any kind of thing or general category in > the > first place. I mean, logic would dictate that the existence of any thing > or > being proves that the conditions of possibility have been met even if we > have no idea what they are. And since these conditions can't really be > isolated so simply as the fire and ice examples. If we explored further, > we'd likely find that these conditions extent way beyond a few local > ingredients and would ultimately include every other thing or being. I > mean, > it seems to me that the phrase really has no meaning insofar as we can > never > know what it refers to in any specific way. Again, a thing that cannot be > distinguished from anything else does not exist. As Eagleton uses the > phrase, "the condition of possibility" is an empty concept. And so is > "God". > > Any takers? > > Thanks, > dmb > > _________________________________________________________________ > Find what you need at prices you'll love. Compare products and save at > MSN® > Shopping. > http://shopping.msn.com/default/shp/?ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24102&tcode=T001MSN20A0701 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/ 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/
