[MD] Are theists irrational?

[markhsmit]

Hi Arlo,

It does not do you justice to blame Pirsig for all your beliefs.  This is the same
trap that many Christians fall into.  These are not Pirsig's beliefs, they are your
own.  Quoting Lila, does nothing for me, it's like quoting the bible.  If you claim 
that an intellectual pattern is more moral, use a moral argument to show
this.  You are ducking the question by saying it is pointless, at least a
priest will take the time.  Raise your morality, son.
[Mark] 
OK, I am a scientist, and I can tell you that my colleagues and I accept a lot 
on faith.   

[Arlo] 
If you were a halfway decent scientist, you would realize that the premises you 
accept are done so conditionally, and always under constant revision as they 
are tested against experience. If you are saying you just blindly accept stuff, 
then it sounds to me like you are a poor "scientist". 

[Mark] 
I still do not understand your problem with faith and theism.   

[Arlo] 
I do not have a "problem" with them. I have a problem with the absurd 
"everything is a faith-based theism, no better and no worse". I have a problem 
with the notion that plate-tectonics and "angry god smacking voodoo worshipers 
around" are both "equal" and simply competing "theisms". 

[Mark] 
They are extremely high level thoughts.   

[Arlo] 
Not often. Granted some of the metaphors deployed by Gnostic and esoteric 
thinking has been very high quality analogies for pointing towards the 
unseeable Void. In these cases, the narratives are artistic metaphors, and when 
considered as such I feel they have great value. 

[Mark] 
And yes, I still do not understand the moral distinction between using plate 
tectonics to explain something, or a benevolent god.  You still have not 
explained this. 

[Arlo] 
Geology is an intellectual pattern. Theism social. In the MOQ, intellectual 
patterns are a higher evolution or morality. This distinction rests in part, as 
I've said countless times over many emails, in the contingent and adaptive 
nature, and their ability to predict and ameliorate actual experience. But, 
honestly, asking me to explain this is like saying "I've never read LILA". I'd 
say start there. Pirsig explains it better than I could. 

[Mark] 
So, call me stupid, explain it to me in moral terms.  Otherwise I have to 
assume that you have no idea. 

[Arlo] 
You can assume whatever you wish. But asking me to explain a basic premise of 
the metaphysics you claim to be familiar with is either disingenuous or 
demonstrative that, like Ham, you are arguing from a wholly different 
metaphysical perspective, in which case the dialogue is pointless. 

If you can honestly tell me you've read LILA and have no idea why intellectual 
patterns are placed morally superior to social patterns, then I really don't 
know what I could say that would explain it to you better. 



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/