[MD] Metaphysics

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Mary to Mark]
The argument goes something like this.  I believe in a god I have never seen or
heard, and because I do, I attack you for believing in scientific theories you
have never seen or heard personally because they somehow threaten my belief. 
Upon what basis do you make such attacks? 

[Arlo]
The basis is a need for validation. As Krimel and I both pointed out, when the
movement to turn "religion" into a "science" failed, theists simply turned the
table and began the atrocious rhetoric of turning "science" into a "religion".
This is nothing new, and the list gets its perennial theist who feels slighted
by Pirsig's remarks and begins yet another attempt to turn "Quality" into a
"god", and the "MOQ" into "just another religion". 

[Mary to Mark]
Can you explain what you hope to accomplish by this?   Would it not be more
truthful to just come out and say, I reject your scientific theory because it
invalidates my religious belief? 

[Arlo]
It would most certainly be more truthful, but I suspect it would be less
fulfilling. Again, the "goal" is to validate "religion" by turning the MOQ into
just another theism. 

What's funny is that the halftime report would read something like this: Your
stance that science is not theism is evidence of your theism. How one counters
such twisted "thinking" is apparently beyond me.