[MD] False Messiah

[Scott Roberts]

DMB,

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.

Scott:
I agree with this except your sentence "So I think it makes sense to replace 
mechanistic laws with a better set of terms". If one wants to be 
uncontroversial, then one should just drop mechanistic terms without 
replacing them. By replacing mechanistic terms with 'value' and 'preference' 
you are saying something about the inorganic for which there is no empirical 
evidence.

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.

Scott:
What is this evidence? The only evidence mentioned in LILA is that value is 
a necessary part of human life (and one can perceive value in some animals). 
What greater adequacy results from assuming that there is value in the 
inorganic? What logical inconsistency results by not making that claim? That 
claim is simply non-empirical, which, by your definition, is faith.

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?

Scott:
No, the dictionary definition does not belittle the word. Pirsig sure does, 
though, when he calls it "a willingness to believe in falsehoods". Further, 
the Christian thinker goes a lot deeper into the question "what is faith" 
than a dictionary will, just as a philosopher of science, say, will not stop 
at a dictionary definition of science, or as a MOQist will not stop at a 
dictionary definition of 'quality'.

DMB continued:
 And don't you think the conflict between faith and
reason was something that developed much later than 200AD?

Scott:
No. The famous phrase "what has Athens to do with Jerusalem" (that is, the 
side that sees faith and reason as being in conflict) dates from the late 
2nd century. Most of the Greek and Latin Fathers (e.g., Clement of 
Alexandria, Origen, Augustine, Evagrius Ponticus, the Cappadocians) argued 
for reason, and won the argument.

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.

Scott:
Reason can show a particular belief to be wrong, and that is what I mean by 
faith not standing up to reason. This is why all but Biblical literalists 
have stopped believing that the world was created in six days. However, 
things like the Trinity, or the assumption that there is value in the 
inorganic cannot be demonstrated rationally, though of course, reason cannot 
prove them false either.

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.

Scott:
Do you recall that Sam preached a sermon saying that God does not exist? Yet 
he is a theist. My point is that what one can squeeze into a dictionary 
definition may not hold up as one goes more deeply into the matter. In fact, 
the dictionary authors clearly left out such thinkers about God as the 
Pseudo-Dionisius (c. 500) and others who said that God was beyond being --  
that one cannot apply the category 'existence' to God. In other words, your 
attack upon theism is based on accepting this definition literally.

DMB continued:
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.

Scott:
You are making my point. You are taking these descriptions of God literally, 
and oppose them. Thinking theists do not take these descriptions literally.

DMB said:
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.

Scott:
Dictionaries tell us what the static patterns are. To defy them is to think 
dynamically. Interesting that you consider the dynamic to be bullshit. Well, 
you did say "almost always". But of course the exceptions you will make are 
those that bolster your opinions, while those who question those opinions 
are not allowed to make exceptions. Very convenient.

- Scott