[MD] False Messiah

[david buchanan]

Scott and all MOQers:

Before I get into it, I want to thank Scott for taking the time and spending 
the energy....

Scott said to dmb:
...you are hell-bent on treating as enemies those who should be your allies 
in this struggle, namely theists who support intellectual freedom and social 
justice -- and their name is legion. Apparently, anyone who says they have 
"faith in God" has -- for you -- no redeeming social or intellectual role. I 
would call that prejudice, based, like all prejuduce, on severely static 
thinking.

dmb replies:
Those who support intellectual freedom and social justice aren't the 
problem. Like I already said to you, there is plenty of room for some 
interesting religious thinkers here. Bring them. But post-modern 
philosophers of religion are not the problem and if the names you've dropped 
so far are any indication, its a bit of a stretch to call them theists. And 
as I understand the terms "Faith" and "God", its hard to reconcile "faith in 
God" with intellectual freedom and intellectual values. To make that work, 
you'd have to alter the meaning of those terms to the extent that they are 
no longer relevant to my criticisms of theism and faith. I would describe 
Ken Wilber and Joseph Cambpell as non-theistic philosophers of religion, for 
example. I have quoted both of them favorably many, many times. Obviously, I 
think the MOQ takes on the issue from an intellectual perspective too. My 
purpose here is certainly not to rule out such a possibility. Quite the 
opposite. I would even go so far as to say that you're trying to make that 
same distinction. We just disagree about where certain lines are drawn. As I 
understand the term, one can't be a theist without being a literalist.

dmb quoted the dictionary:
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 doctrines 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 replied:
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 says:
I'm not saying we should STOP with the dictionary. I'm just saying its a 
good place to START and that defying the dictionary is sloppy. And let me 
remind you that I was quoting the dictionary against your charge that Pirsig 
and I are using some unusual and prejudiced definition. I don't think there 
is any important difference between Pirsig's "willingness to believe 
falsehoods" and the dictionary's "firm belief in something for which there 
is no proof".  Twain's view that "Faith is believing what you know ain't so" 
differs from these only in the level of funniness. In any case, I quoted the 
dictionary as a relatiy check against your bizarre definition of faith as 
something that can stand up to reason, which is approximately the opposite 
of what it means in normal, common sense reality.

Scott said to dmb:
No. (Scott doesn't "think the conflict between faith and reason was 
something that developed much later than 200AD?") 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.

dmb says:
Well, I'd point out that this thread started out as a discussion of the 
neo-Victorian moral decline in the present period, but I'd like to take this 
as an opportunity to get at what I was saying about the false messiah as it 
relates to theism and literalism in the history of the church. You may 
recall that I had said a few things about that central heresy in this 
thread's opening post. As I understand it, Augustine, for all his 
intellectuality, still supported the idea of Christ as a unique historical 
figure and supported the laws against saying otherwise. As I understand it. 
Origen, like Eckhart and others, is one of the figures who were condemned 
for this heresy, the heresy of the non-literalist and the non-theists. As 
Ken Wilber puts it,..

"For all of Augustine's undoubted brilliance - for all of that, he cannot 
shake his dualistic dogma that this world is merely a preparation for the 
next world; he is locked into the myth of the FUTURE resurrection of the 
body, not its present divinization by a change in percepton; and thus even 
such an ardent devotee of Augustine as Paul Tillich can summarize his view 
as: 'On the one hand, there is the city of God, on the other the city of 
earth or the devil.' This is no spiritual ontology; this is mythic 
disscocitation.    I do not mean to pin this dualism soley on Augustine; it 
is a mythic dissociation inherent in the worldview which, for other reasons, 
he felt compelled to embrace. Augustine, I am tempted to say, is actually 
the very best one can possibly do with the Plotinian system if it must be 
strained into a mythic worldview. But both Augustine's fans and detractors 
have pointed to this unstable dualism in this system, and to his 
'otherworldly' bent, the stamp of frustrated Ascent. And if 'Augustine is 
the foundation of everything the West had to say,' well then, everything the 
West had to say was; frustrated Ascent, spiritus interruptus. And thus no 
true Descent, no true divinization of this Earth, of this body of this 
life."

See, even this is a kind of literalism. Despite the fact that Christian 
mystics tend to love Augustine, he was stil advocating a transcendent God, a 
supernatural God. And it only gets worse from here.

I would also point to the fusion of Christian theology and Aristotle's 
physics. (Aquinas and the age of scholasticism.) There is a literalistic 
assumption in the very attempt to fuse spiritual and physical truth in such 
a way. And, as far as the conflict between faith and reason, the big 
problems really began when physics changed and the spiritual truths did not. 
They were no longer in sync once guys like Copernicus came along. This is 
what I mean in suggesting that the problems began much later than 200AD. But 
more to the point, no matter how subtle or sever the level of literalism, 
the problem comes in treating spiritual achievers as a threat to religion 
rather than the point of religion. Again, Ken Wilber. The emphasis and 
parenthetical info is his...

"...the mythic-military Christian empire put tolerance - never a strong 
point in mythic structures - virtually out of the question. Any outspoken 
person who evidenced a structure of consciousness higher than the 
mythic-rational was, correctly enough, viewed as a POLITICAL threat and 
condmned, in effect, for treason.    The condemnation was often pandemic; 
the structure of Reason (and science) were condemned because they demanded 
EVIDENCE (reason was therefore allowed only in service of Dogma). The 
psychic level of nature-nation mysticism was condemned because it brought 
God 'too much into' this world, it 'dragged God down' from His celestial 
throne and the Heavenly City above. Subtle-level mysticism was condemned, or 
at best barely tolerated, because it brought the sould UP TOO CLOSE to God. 
And the Church becam absolutely apoplectic if anybody expressed a 
causal'level intuion of supreme identity with Godhead - the Inquistion would 
burn Giordano Bruno at the stake and condemn the theses of Meister Dckhart 
on such grounds.    But that was on old story for causal-level Realizers at 
the hands of mythic believers, stanrting with Jesus of Nazareth, whose own 
causal-level realizaton (I and the Father are One) wold not be treated 
kindly... His reply that 'we all ALL sons (and daughters) of God' was lost 
on the crowd, and that realization led him, as it would al-Hallaj and Bruno 
and Origen and a long line of subsequestn Realkizers, to a grisly death for 
both political and religious reasons..."

Scott said to dmb:
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 says:
Yes, my attack on "theism" uses the standard definition of that term. I 
think this is a good thing and that perhaps some people would be easier to 
understand if they did the same. Sam's not here to defend himself, but since 
you mentioned it, I have to object. A theist that doesn't believe in God? At 
the very best, this is a sloppy and confusing way to describe one's 
position. I could describe myself as an atheist who believes in God, but 
wouldn't that be a rather stupid way to put it even if it were true? I think 
so. Besides, you've probably noticed that I disgree with Sam about most 
things, especially in this area. As far as psuedo-Dionysius goes, well of 
course he's not in the dictionary. I think your efforts to deny the meaning 
of these basic concepts only makes your argument look wierd and silly. I'm 
definately not impressed that move, Mr. Roberts.

dmb said to Scott:
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 replied:
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 says:
No, I'm not taking them literally. I'm criticizing those who do. Those who 
don't take it literally are not the targets of my criticism. Again, this is 
the distinction I've been trying to make - for years. As I tried to show in 
this post, via Wilber, thinking theists certainly do take it literally, even 
the brilliant thinkers who founded the West's theistic Christianity. As I 
understand it, non-literal, non-dual, non-theists are relatively rare in the 
West because it went wrong so long ago, pretty much from the start. This is 
the heroic blasphemy I've been getting at all along. Again Ken Wilber...

"The Church would produce MANY great philosophers (reason), and MANY great 
psychic and subtle mystics, but no matter how much these realizers tried to 
downplay the myths, but no matter how much they allegorized them or as-iffed 
them or interpreted them AWAY, there was always the one fundamental dogma 
that hung like a weight around their attempts to transcend, that crashed 
down on their sholders and pinned them to the ground and never but never 
budged an inch; THE UTTERLY UNIQUE AND NONREPRODUCIBLE REALIZATION OF 
JESUS."

Scott said to dmb:
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.

dmb says:
Defying the dictionary is dynamic? Oh, please. You're not creatively bending 
the rules. You're just being sloppy, confusing and a bit scatterbrained too. 
(Did you notice that I've deleted your irrelevant tangets on neo-Darwinism 
and the preferences of particles.) If you will recall, this thread began by 
making a case IN FAVOR of those who would creatively break the rules, IN 
FAVOR of those who would defy static dogma of the theists. As in the case of 
the theist who doesn't believe in God, I'm not rejecting these exceptions, 
I'm just rejecting that sort of non-sense and other contradictions. You've 
all but ignored my central point about the dynamic contrarians and seem 
quite willing to avoid any discussion about the neo-Victorians. You've 
ignored my central point about the "preferences of particles", which I made 
despite the fact that it is outside the scope of this thread. You've taken 
my criticisms of the current Republican administration as if they were 
directed at psuedo-Dionysius and Origen. You've defied common sense and 
dictionary definitions in order to make your points and have otherwise 
ignored, evaded, confused or obfuscated the issues at hand. That, my friend, 
is very far away from being a work of art.

Thanks again,
dmb

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