[MD] Metaphysics

[Mary]

Hello Arlo,

You know my real problem is not with the religion at all.  Anybody should be
free to believe whatever they choose as long as it doesn't cause harm to
anyone else.  My problem started the day I discovered a whole section on
Creationism in my son's 9th grade Biology book.  I did some research on this
and learned that fundamentalists are using Creationism (or "Intelligent
Design") as a way to circumvent the 1964 Supreme Court ruling against
teaching religion in public schools.  As I said earlier, by affording
Creationism a place in Biology textbooks, the implicit message is that the
scientific method is only useful if it supports your belief system.  This is
a truly dangerous idea that, if left unchecked, will subvert a generation of
scientists.

Why is this such a problem?  I don't know anyone who makes a habit of
disrupting congregations on Sunday with treaties on the Theory of Evolution.
We are talking about a Science class for heaven sakes!  Does anyone else
find this rude and presumptuous?  I personally know lots of religious people
who manage to maintain their faith yet believe in the theory of evolution at
the same time.  Believe me, it can be done.  Darwin did not dream this up as
an attack.  He went to seminary college at Cambridge as I recall.  The whole
subject has struck a nerve.  It just wears me out to be a resident of the
American south sometimes. :)

God save us from the Social Level.

Mary
 
-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of ARLO J BENSINGER
JR
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 12:08 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Metaphysics

[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.


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/