[MD] Faith

[david buchanan]

Case replied to Pirsig's annotations on Copleston:
So are we now the Church of the SubGenious? This is what Bob says... Sheesh, 
cut me some SLACK.

dmb says:
SubGenious? I'll have you know that Bob's I.Q. is 170, which puts him well 
beyond the range of genius. But its not really about dogmatism or hero 
worship, is it? I think this is just your way of avoiding the quotes I 
dished up. Ha! As if it was out of bounds to quote the author we are here to 
discuss. Ridiculous!

Case continued:
Pirsig seems to be reacting, as you suggest, to the dogmatic connotations of 
"faith." I have tried to make it clear that this is not the sense I have 
used the term. BUT since it is the word itself that bothers you I have 
offered up "Trust" to make you happy. Faith and Trust are closely related 
terms that describe attitudes towards uncertainty.

dmb says:
Pirsig's use of the word "faith" is in accordance with the dictionary and 
common sense. Your use of the word "faith" defies all three AND my repeated 
complaints as well. At this point in the game I'm troubled by this stubborn 
defiance more than the way you use the word "faith". But its not about 
making me happy. Its about making sense.

Case said:
I like the word Faith because using it in the sense I have tried to use it 
pisses of the "faithful" even more than it has pissed off you...

dmb says:
How does it anger the faithful? You're contradicting my point, which was 
that your use of the word "faith" undermines the validity of science, that 
it undermines the distinction between scientific truths and beliefs held on 
the basis of "faith" and that the religious right uses this same tactic in 
their war on the theory of evolution and other anti-intellectual crusades. 
So how do you figure that the opposite is true. How do you deny that this 
helps the faithful and what case can you make that it angers them?

Case continued:
...It acknowledges the underlying uncertain, read illusory, nature of 
existence. It points to the common origin of both religious and scientific 
attitudes. When you admit that you have taken a leap of faith you can 
discuss how far one should be willing to jump. You can compare the 
'betterness' of one over the other in terms of how much irrationality you 
can tolerate.

dmb says:
Here you are simply re-asserting the idea to which I've already objected, 
but you're doing so without addressing any of the objections. To repeat my 
most basic objection again, if scientific assertions are based on evidence, 
then what does it mean to say that it requires a leap of faith?

Case said:
But this argument, at least from my end, has been reduced to analysis of the 
connotation of meaning. I am ready to move along.

dmb says:
Well, if you're not getting anything out of the exchange feel free to move 
along. But from my end, you haven't really responded at all yet.

Case asked:
Isn't throwing out theism and retaining mysticism a bit like trying to be a 
little bit pregnant?

dmb says:
No. That's what I was getting at by saying that the MOQ is an 
empirically-based form of mysticism, of philosophical, non-theistic 
mysticism. You see, the beleif in a supernatural creator (theism) is based 
on faith, whereas philosophical mysticism is based in experience. And of 
course, Pirsig is not the only one who makes a distinction like this. The 
Oxford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes this distinction under the heading 
of "mysticism". Ken Wilber, Joseph Campbell, Paul Tillich and many other 
thinkers have developed this line of thinking too. See, I think "faith" is 
very low quality stuff and that it can do a lot to damage religion as much 
as science and intellect. As Pirsig says, these smart-talking theists 
destroy religion. As Ken Wilber says, theistic religion is the killing jar 
of genuine spirituality. As Campbell says, I don't need faith, I have 
experience. As Jung says, theistic religion not only fails in leading us to 
a mystical experience, it actually forestalls them. (I'm just paraphrasing 
off the top of my head here.) Anyway, this is one of my favorite topics and 
rather than blather, I'll refer you to the conference paper I delivered last 
Summer in Liverpool. Its called "Fun with Blasphemy" and can be found, along 
with the other papers, at robertpirisg.org.

Case asked:
...Aren't theism, mysticism and science all in responses to uncertainty? 
They are attempts to contain it; to minimize its negative effects or 
maximize its positive effects. Mysticism urges acceptance of uncertainty 
either through elimination of desire or identification with the infinite. 
Theism urges acceptance of the will of God. Science urges reduction of 
uncertainty through improvement of our powers to predict and control.

dmb says:
I really don't understand this obsession with certainty and uncertainty. I 
don't think religion, mysticism and science can be united as a response to 
certainty or the lack thereof.

Case said:
We can argue about which is most effective but would you agree that this is 
what is happening?

dmb says:
No. You seem to be eching an idea I heard long ago; that Humanity's cultural 
activities are all about prediction and control. (I believe its a Freudian 
idea, but I've always preferred the Jungians, like Campbell, who edited "The 
Portable Jung".) Viewed in this way, myth and religion are seen as a kind of 
primitive science, as a pre-scientific means of explaining and controlling 
things. You know, as if the move from rain-dancing to hydrotechnology is 
merely a better way to stay wet. But I think this view only leads to a 
profound misunderstanding of the nature of myth and religion, where water 
might be a symbolic reference to a spiritual reality rather than just a 
literal thirst quencher. This view is part of the reason there is an 
apparent conflict between science and religion today.

I've deleted your references to B.F. Skinner and his ritualistic pigeons 
because I'm no fan of Skinner's and I fail to see how Behavoirist theories 
are relevant to our discussion. But if you feel that it is an important 
point, feel free to re-introduce it with an explantion as to its bearing on 
"faith".

thanks.

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/