[MD] False Messiah

[david buchanan]

Scott and all MOQers:

Scott said:
Yes, to say that there are "preferences" rather than, say, valueless 
mechanism is an alternative explanation. What is the basis for adopting that 
alternative explanation given that it is undetectable? How do you 
demonstrate that the inorganic is or is not valueless mechanism? What is 
this empirical data that tells you to use the words 'value' and 'preference' 
in describing inorganic static patterns rather than not using those 
terms?...

dmb says:
I'm certainly not a physicist but as I understand it causality is taking a 
real beating in the sub-atomic realm, where events may or may not occur, 
where events may or may not occur in one of several ways. I mean, there is 
real data to support the idea that the so-called laws of nature are not 
strictly followed, the data coming from quantum mechanics and such reveals a 
certain inadequacy in that model. So I think it makes sense to replace 
mechanistic laws with a better set of terms. I don't think this requires 
faith in any sense of the word. I don't think this is particularly mystical. 
I don't even think its controversial.

Scoot continued:
...The very same laboratory data would hold if I claimed that what electrons 
are "really" doing is dancing to the music of the spheres. But of course to 
claim that is absurd. Yet the MOQ claims that there is value involved in 
what electrons do. It does so because it has faith in the idea that Quality 
is omnipresent -- and so do I. But I recognize this as faith, that is, it is 
consistent with what mystics say, even though I have no empirical evidence 
for it. There is empirical evidence for Quality, but only in humans and 
higher animals. Not for the inorganic.

dmb says:
That's ridiculous. Everybody knows and that electrons won't even tap their 
feet without getting drunk first. They're so uptight. Besides, the music of 
the spheres has no beat. Its more like a steady rubbing sound, like a wet 
finger on a crystal wine glass only smoother.

But seriously, as I just tried to explain, the "patterns of preferences" 
model is based on empirical evidence, not faith or mysticism. Its about a 
more adequate explanation. I think its incorrect to see this as a 
faith-based assertion of Quality's omnipresence. I think its just that the 
MOQ is designed to be a logically consistent description. The "patterns of 
perferences" model works to make the system of thought coherent and it fits 
the data. Its neat and it works.

Scotch said:
Like I said, Christianity has been using the word 'faith' in this way for 
about 1800 years, with the exception of some Protestants. It is you (and 
Pirsig) who are defining 'faith' in a way to belittle it -- as if it were 
nothing but giving assent to propositions.

dmb says:
Oh, please. That's pure bullshit, my friend. You can defy the english 
language to make your point if you like, but I think that makes your point a 
very, very weak one. As Merriam-Webster Online says, "Faith" is defined as 
1. allegiance to duty or a person: LOYALTY: fidelity to one's promises: 
sincerity of intentions. 2. belief and trust in and loyalty to God: belief 
in the traditional dontrines of a religion: firm belief in something for 
which there is no proof: complete trust. 3. something that is believed 
especially with strong conviction. - in faith: without doubt or question: 
VERILY. Now I suppose you're gonna say the standard dictionary definition 
"belittles" the term? Who is being absurd here? And do I dare make the 
obvious point that people of faith might tend to prefer a more self-serving 
definition of the word? And don't you think the conflict between faith and 
reason was something that developed much later than 200AD?

Scootch said:
That's why faith requires reason. If faith can't stand up to reason, it is 
unjustified.

dmb says:
Again, I think this is absurd. It defies the definition of faith. I mean, if 
a particular belief CAN stand up to reason, then it is simply incorrrect to 
call it faith. If a belief stands up to reason and is grounded in 
experience, then trust in it is justified. If faith has the required reason, 
then its not faith. Its reason.

Scat said:
...No need to insult those who find value, including intellectual value, in 
faith, though, especially when your understanding of faith is based on 
secular myth. Like God, you want to take faith as
something understandable, which makes it easier to reject. But faith, like 
God to someone with faith in God, is a mystery. In other words, you treat 
faith-talk, like God-talk, literally, in order to justify your anti-theism.

dmb says:
I think you have me confused with somebody else. My objections to "theism" 
and "faith" are based on what those terms mean in the dictionary. And the 
reason I'm "insulting" your case for the "intellectual value" of faith is 
because faith, by definition, is a belief without intellectual value. But 
what's more, my objection to faith-based theism is predicated precisely on 
the problem of literalism. Again, you can write a nasty letter to the 
dictionary companies if you like, but Merriam Webster OnLine says "theism" 
is defined as "belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically: 
belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and 
the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world." As you can see, 
theism does not assert a mystery, it asserts the existence of a transcendent 
creator god. The objection to faith and theism and literalism does NOT just 
apply to fundamentalists. And so those who would assert that God is a 
metaphor for a mystery are NOT the problem and that's exactly what my 
criticism are aimed at. I'm opposed to the notion of a supernatural creator, 
of a unique historical incarnation of that God, of the idea of God as an all 
powerful agent who intervenes in human history and the notion of God as 
other.

If I merely wanted to insult you I'd say your momma was fat. But I'm not 
saying that. I'm saying your assertions don't make much sense. And yes, I 
think assertions made in defiance of english dictionaries will almost always 
be pure "bullshit". Sorry, but sometimes that's the right word for it.

dmb

_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to 
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement