Keith, > -----Platt, Thursday, July 12, 2007 16:54----- > It will be interesting to see how the courts treat the question of > allowing Muslim religious practices to take place during school hours on > school property. I understand this is being permitted in some cities. In > any event, I don't see the harm in allowing "Intelligent Design" to be > introduced as a separate evolutionary theory. I don't think it threatens an > establishment of religion as conceived by the Founding Fathers. Further, > it teaches what science itself preaches -- knowledge is not absolute. > -----
[Keith] > Intellectual knowledge is never absolute and, as Pirsig says, the power of > science lies in its Dynamic eraser, its willingness to change as new > evidence is considered and its avoidance of dogmatism. If "Intelligent > Design" were a theory accepted by scientists, I would have no problem with > it being taught along side Darwinian natural selection in science classes > just as I would have no problem with M theory being taught alongside > Superstring theory in science classes. However, these competing speculative > theories in cosmology have testable hypotheses that would allow one of them > to be disproved. "Intelligent Design" does not appear to have any testable > hypotheses and does not qualify as a scientific theory. If one wants to > have it taught in Social Studies or World Cultures or Comparative Religion, > I offer my endorsement. Just don't try to teach it in a science classroom, > as that puts science right back in the lap of religious dogma, a clear case > of Society subverting Intellect. Given that, teaching "Intelligent Design" > as science in a public school does violate the Establishment clause of the > U.S. Constitution, as Judge Jones found. In a science classroom do you think it's proper to raise the question Pirsig asked, "Why survive?" In a science classroom do you think it's proper to point out that many scientists are religious and initiate a discussion around the following quote from Paul Davies, a physicist? "I belong to the group of scientists who do not subscribe to a conventional religion but nevertheless deny the universe is a purposeless accident. Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact." Pirsig has a value-centered explanation of evolution. Should it be taught in a science class? There is much to discuss about "testability," "proof," and "truth," but that's for another day perhaps. > -----Platt, Thursday, July 12, 2007 16:54----- > I have no problem with gays getting "married" without a formal contract > recognized by the state. But "married" as recognized by the state means a > union of a man and women to procreate and raise children within a family > setting, long recognized by societies throughout the world and over eons of > time as the best arrangement for insuring long term social viability. Thus, > I don't feel maintaining the status quo regarding marriage is "anti- gay." > ----- [Keith] > "Married" as *currently* recognized by most states means a union of a man > and a woman, whether or not they procreate and raise children. I am legally > married to a woman with no intention of fathering children. If some states > want to recognize legally the same social pair-bond between same-sex > couples, why interfere other than to advance a prejudice against gays? What > effect on long-term social viability would allowing that legal recognition > have? Do you think heterosexuals will suddenly stop getting married to each > other & procreating if they knew that they could instead get married to > someone of their own sex instead? Do you think gay couples shouldn't raise > children? I know committed gay couples who adopt children now even without > the benefit of legally recognized marriage. That's become quite common. Is > that dynamic of loving, committed couples adopting unwanted children > undermining our social viability? Your appeal to tradition makes no sense > to me in this context. My appeal is more to what's necessary to maintain a viable society than an appeal to tradition, although there is reason for the tradition. But I agree this is a matter of state law and would not raise an objection to your voting to legalize gay marriage in your state if that's what you want. I would vote otherwise in mine. I don't think the issue rises to the national level as some social conservatives believe. But, if you were to ask if I though English should be the official national language, I would say "Yes." > -----Platt, Thursday, July 12, 2007 16:54----- > It's not so much my line of reasoning as Pirsig's which is spelled out in > detail in Lila. Basically the scientific subject-object mindset prevalent > today considers morality, if it considers it at all, as completely > subjective, a matter of personal whim. Pirsig explains: > > "From the perspective of a subject-object science, the world is a > completely purposeless, valueless place. There is no point in anything. > Nothing is right and nothing is wrong. Everything just functions, like > machinery. There is nothing morally wrong with being lazy, nothing morally > wrong with lying, with theft, with suicide, with murder, with genocide. > There is nothing morally wrong because there are no morals, just functions. > Now that intellect was in command of society for the first time in history, > was this the intellectual pattern it was going to run society with?" (Lila, > 22) ----- > > Yes, I'm familiar with that quotation. My confusion on this stems from your > reference to this point in context of saying that socialism & communism > were intellectual patterns trying to control society. I don't understand > the connection. I think socialism & communism both make strong moral > judgments, coming down in favor of human equality, against class > distinctions, etc. I don't see either socialism or communism as sciences, > however, and don't see how they are devoid of values. Sorry I'm still > missing it. The question is: What is the basis for making a moral judgment that equality is more desirable than variety, or that a classless society is preferable to a meritocracy? Pirsig's claim is that subject-object intellect has no basis for making moral judgements. In fact, he says, to subject-object intellect, moral judgments don't exist because they can't be detected scientifically. What is fair? What is just? Science hasn't a clue. Marx and his friends where simply making personal judgments about right and wrong. Is that what morality comes down to, personal whim? The MOQ attempts to put moral questions on a rational, if not scientific, basis. Specifically regarding the morality of socialism, Pirsig said, "But what the socialists left out and what has all but killed their whole undertaking is an absence of a concept of indefinite Dynamic Quality." (Lila, 17) What this all boils down to is, "How does intellect determine the Good?" Good question. :-) And while we're at it, we might ask, "How does intellect determine the Beautiful?" [Keith] > I realize in looking over this thread that since I keep cutting out the > text where we agree to keep my posts of manageable length, that it seems > from the text that we only disagree, but in fact despite these divergences > we have significant common ground. Indeed we do. And I much appreciate the civility in our conversation. Platt 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/
