[MD] Are theists irrational?

[markhsmit]

On Jan 21, 2010, at 12:59:48 PM, "Bruce Underwood" <bruce.underwood at hotmail.com> wrote:
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
Yes, Bruce, that makes sense to me.  It may be an attitude, we are speaking of.  I believe that if one 
employs critical thinking and questions everything, employs reductionist science and philosophy
as well as expansionist, and then concludes that there must be an overriding force (if you will),
which is benevolent and in our favor, this could be considered to be the act of a positivist.  On the
other hand, if one believes in an impersonal universe (to use Camus term) which is governed
by random events and has no real meaning outside of personal entertainment, then perhaps
that outcome is more on the negative side.  He who believes that evolution is based on 
cooperation rather than competition, who believes that there is an overarching truth to 
morality rather than a subjective selfish point to it, who believes that an act of good is for
the greater good rather than to get what one wants, travels the world with a greater purpose.

If our beliefs are meant to provide us with the most positive awareness, a belief that all
is good certainly helps.  In the end, we will never know.  Many of the great thinkers have
come to the conclusion of a benevolent force.  The present age of science dictates that if
we understand something, this negates a god of some sort.  I do not see the logic there,
many great physicists negate this negation.

To believe that Quality exists is no different.  Quality could be considered a God, not in
the negative sense that many in this forum associate it with, but as a positive force
for good.  If I wake up to a world where Quality exists, events that I thought were
trivial, or negative, become life affirming.  The glass is half full.  The anti-theist view is
against theists.  It needs to diminish the position of theism to elevate itself.  The theist
does not need to diminish the position of science or existentialism to feel good.  In my
view God has no human attributes what-so-ever, there is no throne, only an underlying
current.  If I catch that current, I am free to watch the world go by.

Mark