[MD] New Model Army, Mystic(DQ) Experience, and Religion (SQ) as Power

[David M]

Hi Ian

I pretty much agree with that, problem is of course
that science is great for making sense of things
that can be repeated, yet all things were virgin
new at some point and came out of nothing as
the patterns thatthey go on to repeat. In a way
SQ is a greater mystery than DQ. Why do things
repeat and not just demonstrate continuous change
(that would be chaos of course)? I suspect the answer
is that some patterns are worth repeating. Why might
that be? They had a certain quality perhaps?

Regards
David M


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] New Model Army, Mystic(DQ) Experience,and Religion (SQ) as 
Power


> Good reference David,
> Somewhat lost by the MD the thread since, but Arlo's point below is a
> good summary.
>
> The argument in the Turner / Miller discussion seems incomplete.
> OK, so the point at which natural science breaks down is in the
> existence of anything at all ... as a given, a gift from God. That's
> the "hole" in any metaphysics that cannot be viewed from the other
> side, no one (with any sense) can presume to make strong argument for
> or against anything in that hole. A theistic metaphor is as good as
> any, in that context, even a sentient, intentional being. But in the
> real world we're concerned mainly with doings rather than beings.
>
> So, it is not adequate to plug any other holes in natural science in
> general with this kind of  convenient "god"... "science" is all
> contingent anyway, and has plenty of debatable holes of incomplete /
> uncertain knowledge. The core metaphysical hole can never be plugged
> by rational science, by defintion. Other holes are merely
> circumstantial and any god vs science debate in these cases is
> meaningless.
>
> In the sphere where natural science does not hold, I'm indifferent /
> agnostic. In the sphere of natural science I'm atheist, but that's
> practically a trusim, a tautology.
>
> Ian
>
> On 9/17/06, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
>> With my morning coffee this morning, I found a short quote from the 
>> former
>> Republican Senator and Episcopalian Priest John Danforth that sums up 
>> what I
>> was trying to say last night (from his upcoming book "Faith & Politics".
>>
>> "Real faith is about searching for answers, not presuming to know them."
>>
>> In this one sentence is the split between considering metaphor as a path 
>> to
>> understand something about our existence, and the literalization that
>> obliterates the metaphor in favor of "my God is the only God" and 
>> subservience
>> to a social power structure. In this one sentence one can also see the 
>> DQ/SQ
>> split, as "searching for answers" is active and dynamic, while "presuming 
>> to
>> know them" is not only static, but subsitutes egoism for spirituality.
>>
>> And it is there that the problems begin.
>> moq_discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>