[MD] Are theists irrational?

[Bruce Underwood]

Marsha,et al.

It surprises me that Pirsig would say that MoQ is anti-theist.  At first glance it appears to be the same as atheist, but I do see a subtle difference that connotes an attack on theism. That is so far from Zen and a concept of balance that it surprises me that it would be part of MoQ.  

Faith, IMO, is to believe in something that cannot be proven, but is accepted into ones belief anyway.  An atheist has accepted that there is "No God" even in the absence of proof, which is the same as theist's belief that there is a "God". Therefore, both have "faith".  I see the agnostic as one who would accept theism if it could be proven and perhaps atheism as well.  I would assume that MoQ would be equally anti-atheist as it would be anti-theist.  IMO, my journey,and that of the MoQ is a search for "truth", knowlegde and understanding. It appears to me that, at least through the eleventh chapter of Lila, that Pirsig's aurguments are that of the MoQ's acceptance of the "mystical" side of existance, where as the latter chapters pertain more to building levels of "reality".  This is a beautiful concept to me in that it acknowledges there can be more than just "stuff" and death.  It also apears to me that it would fly into the face of atheists who hold on too strongly to science and evolution.

I find myself in the middle and more agnostic, but do see myself leaning towards "theist", but not in the sense of there being a "God" that sits on a thrown with a big book, but more that we are all interconnected in static patterns of energy led and directed by dynamic quality towards ultimate organization and perfection.

Bruce

>
>>
>> John,
>>
>> My definition? Why should I have such a definition? It's from the
>> Copleston annotations. An online dictionary states the definition
>> as: A disbeliever in the existence of God.
>>
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anti+theist
>>
>> Why do you ask?
>>
>>
>> Marsha
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2010, at 11:28 AM, John Carl wrote:
>>
>>> Marsha,
>>>
>>> What's your definition of an anti-theist?
>>>
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:08 AM, MarshaV  wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mark (Bruce mentioned),
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems for you, Mark, that the loss of God is low value, although I
>> might
>>>> question how much discomfort is 'some discomfort'. My definition of an
>>>> atheist is: Atheists are people who believe that god or gods (or other
>>>> supernatural beings) are man-made constructs, myths and legends or
>>>> who believe that these concepts are not meaningful. I do not find the
>>>> disappointment that Bruce suggested was mandatory for atheists.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marsha
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 20, 2010, at 11:35 PM, markhsmit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For me Quality equals God, so I can't drop the term without some
>>>> discomfort.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark
>>>>>
>>>>> "The MOQ would add a fourth stage where the term "God" is completely
>>>> dropped as a relic of an evil social suppression of intellectual and
>> Dynamic
>>>> freedom. The MOQ is not just atheistic in this regard. It is
>> anti-theistic."
>>>>> (Pirsig, Copleston Annotations)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 20, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Bruce Underwood wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello all, I hope that you don't mind me jumping in on this thread,
>> but
>>>> here it goes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Science: Science, in my opinion, ask a separate question than
>> religion.
>>>> Science asks,"how" and religion asks "why". However,one thing that folks
>>>> want to do is to make science into a belief. IMO, science in merely a
>> method
>>>> devised at the intellectual level to ask "how" things are made, work,
>>>> operate, etc. Science is not something to believe in, but a set of tool
>> to
>>>> explore. That said,it has become the "church of science",as Pirsig puts
>> it,
>>>> and has become something that people worship.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Religion: Religion, on the other hand, firstly, attempts to look
>> beyond
>>>> the now into unknown world of "why", but where its rudderless obsessions
>> of
>>>> control, combined with ignorance, along with the thought "that man can
>> know
>>>> the mind of God" has placed it in categories of distrust and hypocrisy.
>>>> Regardless of the fairy tales that have been created over the
>> millennium,
>>>> there exists the unknown that moves and organize things against the laws
>> of
>>>> nature. In MoQ we call it Dynamic Quality. The thing is, MoQ, at least,
>>>> provides the possibilty, with argument, for "God" to exist by whatever
>> name
>>>> you want to give it. The purpose of religion should be to move life
>> forward
>>>> and to give man hope. Where faith comes in is in the hope that there is
>> more
>>>> to life than existance; I believe MoQ does that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The section below is from chapter 11 of Lila.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Thermodynamics states that all energy systems "run down" like a clock
>>>> and
>>>>>> never rewind themselves. But life not only "runs up," converting low
>>>>>> energy sea-water, sunlight and air into high-energy chemicals, it
>> keeps
>>>>>> multiplying itself into more and better clocks that keep "running up"
>>>>>> faster and faster.
>>>>>> Why, for example, should a group of simple, stable compounds of
>> carbon,
>>>>>> hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen struggle for billions of years to
>> organize
>>>>>> themselves into a professor of chemistry? What's the motive?...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The question is: Then why does nature reverse this process? What on
>>>> earth
>>>>>> causes the inorganic compounds to go the other way? It isn't the sun's
>>>>>> energy. We just saw what the sun's energy did. It has to be something
>>>>>> else. What is it?... Dynamic Quality"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Theist, Agnostic, Atheist: IMO, the only person without faith is the
>>>> agnostic that does not search for the "truth". However, the one who
>> searches
>>>> for truth will always be disappointed as a theist or atheist unless he
>>>> accepts the lies in either camp. The truth is somewhere in the middle
>> and is
>>>> found in the journey itself. MoQ is the closet thing that points to the
>>>> truth that I have found.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My graphical representation of this found on slide 20 of the ppt deck
>>>> that I provided a couple of weeks back. Here is the link:
>>>>>> http://www.thinnerself.com/files/MoQ/lila-6a.ppt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bruce
>>>>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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/
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390709/direct/01/