[MD] Dawkins a Materialist

[Case]

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]
I don't recall anything in Campbell that is critical of faith. Seems you put
up some bogus quotes last time around maybe you could resurrect them so we
could shoot them down again. Wilbur? Mr. New Age says we could study
mystical states scientifically. I think they have been and continue to be
studied. You could do us all a service by reviewing the literature.

dmb says (about this topic):
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.

[Case]
Here is a post midpoint or near the end of this nonsense from July:

http://www.opensubscriber.com/message/moq_discuss@moqtalk.org/4550581.html

I am sure it was not the first time around and while I doubt this will be
last, here are some of the basic assumptions of science from somewhere off
the net (Nachmias and Nachmias 1996, pp. 5-7):


1. Nature is orderly, i.e., regularity, pattern, and structure. Laws of
nature describe order.

2. We can know nature. Individuals are part of nature. Individuals and
social exhibit order; may be studied same as nature.

3. All phenomena have natural causes. Scientific explanation of human
behavior opposes religious, spiritualistic, and magical explanations.

4. Nothing is self evident. Truth claims must be demonstrated objectively.

5. Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience. Empirically. Thru
senses directly or indirectly. 

6. Knowledge is superior to ignorance.

These assumptions are matters of faith or trust if you prefer.

dmb says:
Um, I believe I was the one who told you about process theology. 

[Case]
You mentioned it but that does not mean it was the first time I heard it. It
wasn't.

[dmb]
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. 

[Case]
So what are the tenants of this? I found these feel free to add or subtract:

 From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy

"1. The physical or phenomenal world is not the only reality; another
non-physical reality exists. The material world is the shadow of a higher
reality which cannot be grasped by the senses, but the human spirit and
intellect bear testimony to it in their essence. 

2. Humans mirror the nature of this two-sided reality: while the material
body is subject to the physical laws of birth and death, the other aspect of
human existence is not subject to decay or loss, and is identical to the
intellect or spirit, which is the sine qua non of the human soul. In the
modern West, this second or other reality has been frequently discounted or
ignored. 

3. All humans possess a capacity, however unused and thus atrophied, for
intuitive perceptions of ultimate or absolute truth, and the nature of
reality. This perception is the final goal of human beings, and its pursuit
and flourishing are the purpose of their existence."

All three of these make reference to the supernatural. This is dualistic at
its core and acceptance of any part of it can be nothing more than a matter
of faith. 

[dmb]
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.

[Case]
Theism is almost never about God. It is about man's relationship to the
unknown. Rather than pretending to use a lot of high flown language the
theist just talks about each individual's relationship to the unknown. The
Bible is an excellent example of the evolution of a peoples' understanding
of their God and their relationship to Him. 

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]
Then why do you continue to cling to mysticism? It is hard to imagine a set
of ideas more demanding of faith and more shot through and through with
bullshit. Next time you are in the book store shopping for some Wilbur look
at the crap sitting on the shelf on either side of him.

dmb says:
You think there is such a thing as justification all the way down? How would
that work?

[Case]
No, it is much the same as the infinite regress of cause and effect, so it
wouldn't work.

[dmb]
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. 

[Case]
Faith: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
- American Heritage Dictionary

I think you are just confused, Dave.

dmb replies:
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.

[snip Dave's rant on stupid people]

[Case]
Again the story recorded in the Bible is one of a people's changing beliefs
about God. That story continues in the present. If God is dead or dieing his
death throes are likely to last a few more reels. You seem to think that
some society of philosophers snapped their collective fingers and poof he's
gone. All the brou-ha-ha you mention in your rant is backlash against the
Death of God nonsense. As Campbell should have taught you, God is a
metaphor. Metaphors don't die, they morph into something else.

In fact the anti-intellectual strain in American thought transcends
religion. We as a people have rarely trusted in our brightest and best. Look
at Platt's rants on academia. Look at the trashing of Jimmy Carter. The high
points of the American intelligentsia were at our founding and in the age of
FDR. It is pretty much a wasteland outside of those periods.

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.

[Case]
If this is to be another round of quibbling about the dictionary, then in
this dance the chicken has indeed gotten funky. One accepts the initial
assumptions of ones belief system for reasons that are not reasonable. There
is no justification all the way down. I maintain that the dictionary
definition of the word Faith captures this act of acceptance of intitial
assumptions. If you don't, that might explain why you keep stepping on your
own feet.

You have made it clear that you are not a fan of theology. (Anyone who
thinks Dave is a closet theologian, please raise your hand.) But I would be
interested in a better explanation of your brand of "philosophical
mysticism," just what is it? Zen? Buddhism? Hindu? Wayne Dwyer? Chopra, the
Dali Lama?