[MD] Dawkins a Materialist

[david buchanan]

dmb said:
... What sense does it make to criticize one kind faith from the standpoint 
of a different sort of faith?

Case replied:
Isn't that what you strive to do with mysticism? I don't see mysticism, 
philosophical or otherwise, as anything more than another brand of faith.

dmb says:
Brand of faith? That way of using the word makes "faith" synonymous with 
religion. I'm talking beliefs held in the absense of evidence not an area of 
human interest. In that sense, philosophical mysticism requires no faith. As 
Joe Campbell used to say, "I don't need faith because I have experience". Or 
something like that. Wilber suggests something like a scienctific method for 
studying such states. Not only is the MOQ's brand of mysticism not 
faith-based, it's tied in with the MOQ's Radical Empiricism which takes 
experience to be the beginning and end of reality.

Case said:
Just for old times sake let me once again point out there are no beliefs 
that are not rooted in faith. But I warn you that is a boring topic and I 
really don't care to beat around that bush again.

dmb says:
Yes, it's boring. And you're wrong. We have good reasons to believe the sun 
will rise in the morning. There are no good reasons to believe that a 
supernatural entity created the sunrise. When people refuse to acknowledge 
this distinction it does not make me doubt the distinction but the people. 
Sorry Case, but you're gonna have to do some work to convince me that your 
assertion isn't just weasle word nonsense of the jerry falwell variety.

dmb said:
...When it comes to rejecting faith-based theism, I'm really not that picky. 
I'd reject them all in favor of a religous worldview based on experience and 
knowledge, one that respects rationality and evidence, philosophy and 
science.

Case replied:
There are incarnations of Christianity and I suspect Islam, Buddhism and 
certainly Taoism that meet this test. One can quibble about whether belief 
in a higher consciousness is belief in God or whether say pantheism 
qualifies as theism. But for example Whitehead's philosophy was taken up by 
theologians who developed process theology. To suggest that theologians do 
not favor these things is simply to be ignorant about theology.

dmb says:
Um, I believe I was the one who told you about process theology. In any 
case, all the world's great religions have an esoteric core and this is 
where they are in agreement with philosophical mysticism. This is known as 
the perennial philosophy. As Huxley explained it, this is what you get when 
the mystical core is extracted and presented in its chemically pure state, 
so to speak. I mean, there are no churches or practicioners. The perennial 
philosophy is more like something we observe when looking at religions side 
by side. Like I said, my attack is not upon religion but upon 
anti-intellectual, faith-based religion. The theologians that have been 
presented here as intelligent and philosophical, I've found, aren't really 
theists at all. But they don't really interest me as thinkers. I've always 
thought of theology as a kind of polluted philosophy, philosophy with lots 
of baggage. And the very meaning of the word assumes theism. Its awfully 
strange to construct an entire field around an entity for which there is no 
evidence. The study of God ends of being the study of the study of God. I 
always invite people to lay some on me and so far theology has only made me 
yawn. But feel free to surprise me. Anyway,...

I don't think its a matter of quibbling or semantics, but clarity and 
meaning. If you believe in an abstact God rather than the childish 
anthropomorphic version, congratulations for being a grown up. But you're 
still a theist. It doesn't matter if you're a real smart guy who can quote 
Aristotle and Aquinas as you're warming up to Whitehead. If you believe 
Whitehead's process is God, then you are a theist. This is not rocket 
surgery, man. Theism means the belief in God. The details of how that God is 
described is irrelevant to whether or not such a belief constitutes theism.

dmb said:
I want a religion that makes sense and requires no faith whatsoever. Don't 
you? I'm not talking about perfect answers or eternal truth, just something 
that's not built on wishes or bullshit.

Case replied:
Whether in religion, philosophy or science, you have to start somewhere. To 
argue back to "first principles" is an exercise in infinite regress. You 
have to start somewhere. You have to make assumptions. You have to accept 
certain things as given. I regard this act of starting somewhere as an act 
of faith. We have been through this before and if you don't like the term 
pick another but the idea that some form of reason will give you 
justification all the way down is more like blind faith than reason.

dmb says:
You think there is such a thing as justification all the way down? How would 
that work? Assumptions and starting points are "an act of faith"? I don't. I 
think "faith" and "assumption" are two different words with two different 
meanings. This view is based on my perfectly ordinary dictionary. The 
relative validity a any given philosophical starting point is open to 
debate, of course, but a faith-based starting point wouldn't even be allowed 
in to watch the debate. A faith-based starting point for any kind of science 
should get its ass kicked in the parking lot before he even gets near the 
door. If your starting point is based on faith, then you're not a 
philosopher at all. You're a theologian. Or so it seems to me.

Case said:
Not all theists are anti-intellectual or reactionary. The problem is that 
the denominations that have attempted to be intellectually honest have not 
been terribly successful because most people do not go to church to think. 
One can certainly fault the religious left for incompetence but not for 
being anti-intellectual.

dmb replies:
Yea, Liberation Theology and all that. Jim Wallace. I know. Yawn! I'm not 
very interesting in that kind of hair splitting because I think that the 
whole of Western civilization is in a transition period that very much 
centers around the death of God, the end of theism. In the larger framework 
even the religious left is on the wrong side of evolution, despite whatever 
political agreements we might have. The anti-intellectualism and reactionary 
movements, in this larger framework, are seen as part and parcel of the same 
historical struggle. Yes, I know you can find thinker who want to assert a 
God that doesn't require a believer to deny the scientific age of the 
universe or man's evolutionary origins, but that has very little to do with 
the millions of believers, like the one's who donated to the creationism 
museum fund or who rest easy in the knowledge that eternity in heaven is 
their's. For the vast, vast, vast majority of Christians, they have to deny 
certain scientific beliefs in order to maintain their religious beliefs. 
This clinging to theism causes an anti-intellectual attitude. Many even hate 
the beliefs that threaten their faith and some of them are fond of saying 
that science is faith-based too or that evolution is "just a theory". But 
surely you know this already. You already know that Jesus is George's 
favorite philosopher and that his wars are faith-based too. You do know 
what's going on in the world right now, right. We live in a time when the 
authorities don't give a shit about facts or science. We're up to it in our 
eyeballs right now and so if I seem a little sensitive about the attempts to 
blur the distinction between science and faith here it's only because that 
same move is doing quite a lot of damage in conventional reality at present. 
Religion and reaction are powerful and dangerous forces right now and I 
think the bluring of these distinctions only helps the bad guys. They'd be 
cheering you on.

Case said:
As I have said many times, I am not pro-theism. I just do not distinguish 
between theism and "philosophical mysticism" in the way you do. When it 
comes to all of this anti-intellectual this and that, as far as I am 
concerned theism and mysticism are on equal footing.

dmb says:
You say that as if the distinction comes from Pirsig or from my own demented 
mind, but it comes from places like the Oxford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 
and the dictionary. You're intitled to your own opinions, Case, but you're 
not entitled to your own language. We don't get to decide what words mean. 
All we can do is use them rightly or not. I insist that you do not take my 
word for it. Look it up. Ask Mr Google or whatever.

Jeez. Its like the new dance move. When in doubt, deny the distinction, blur 
the differences, mash the meaning. YuK! Any fool can break a window or tie a 
knot. I mean, its just not very impressive, you know? Its too easy. Making 
something clear and well-framed or untangling a knot is something to marvel 
at, but I got no respect for intellectual vandalism.

_________________________________________________________________
Dave vs. Carl: The Insignificant Championship Series.  Who will win? 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://davevscarl.spaces.live.com/?icid=T001MSN38C07001