[MD] Are theists irrational?

[MarshaV]

Hello Bruce,

On Jan 21, 2010, at 3:59 PM, Bruce Underwood wrote:
>  
> Bruce:
> 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.  

Are you a Zen Buddhist?   


> Bruce:
> 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". 

Copleston:
After all, it is the mind itself which has to perform the reduction. In an analogous manner he argues 
that the agnostic who says that God is unknowable betrays by his very statement the fact that he 
has an implicit awareness of God. 'Even in maintaining that the human mind is incapable of absolute
 knowledge the sceptic presupposes in his own mind an ideal of absolute knowledge in comparison 
with which human knowledge is pronounced defective. The very denial of an absolute intelligence i
n us could have no meaning but for a tacit appeal to its presence. An implicit knowledge of God in 
this sense is proved by the very attempt to deny it.' 

RMP:
This is casuistry.  If you deny knowing anything about rutabagas in Russia, does the fact that you 
are denying it prove that you really do know something about rutabagas in Russia?


> Bruce:
> 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.


Marsha:
I am an atheist, and my definition of atheist is '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.'   But I am not trying to convince you to believe anything, merely stating
that the concept of God is not meaningful to me and not necessary.  I may be presumptuous, but
I believe that is what RMP states of the MoQ in the Copleston quote that I supplied.  



Marsha






>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "The MOQ would add a fourth stage where the term "God" is completely
>>>>> dropped as a relic of an evil social suppression of intellectual andDynamic
>>>>> freedom. The MOQ is not just atheistic in this regard. It isanti-theistic."
>>>>>> (Pirsig, Copleston Annotations)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>