[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[david buchanan]

Ian said to dmb:
I have no doubt about my commitment to atheism ... everywhere in the real 
world ... how dare you suggest otherwise. It just doesn't stop me wanting to 
understand what a theist is saying. (My guard drops only in the metaphysical 
core, where any metaphor will do, even flying spaghetti monsters.)

dmb says:
I really don't understand this qualification. It seems you just want to have 
it both ways all the time. And I thought we were talking about metaphysics 
here. How can you limit your atheism to the real world when atheism is 
itself a metaphysical positon? And what does it mean to say that any 
metaphor will do and the theist metaphor is just as good as any when the MOQ 
is explicitly anti-theistic and the problem with theism is that it does NOT 
take God as a metaphor. Isn't it simply a contradiction to be an atheist 
"everywhere in the real world" AND then drop your guard when it comes to 
metaphysics? And don't we have "to understand what a theist is saying" if we 
are to be properly anti-theistic? Did I suggest that we ought not understand 
what we are rejecting? The whole mess just strikes me as being quite absurd, 
as absurd as a flying spagetti monster. Although that would be a good name 
for a pop music band, kinda like the Flying Burrito Brothers.

In any case, I think you have to keep at least two of the MOQ's descriptions 
in mind when we're talking about the conflict between science and religion. 
In terms of the "real world", as you put it, this conflict is explained in 
terms of the evolutionary struggle between social and intellectual values. 
And secondly, when it comes to the "metaphysical core" or "hole", as you put 
it, it makes sense to keep the MOQ's philosophical mysticism in mind. As I 
understand it, theism can be examined in terms of static patterns ("real 
world", if you like) and from the DQ side. I mean, that is what I've had in 
mind during these debates. As I understand it, that's what were talking 
about here.

Ian said:
Eagleton is tilting at windmills for his own political agendas (I'd  guess). 
How can anyone be so crass as to suggest anyone would posit no significant 
difference between democracy and fascism, between religion and science. Doh!

dmb says:
Well, that's exactly what the NeoConservative say about him. Eagleton's book 
begins by saying that the field of literary criticism has been "overtly 
ideological" for the last 200 years. I checked other sources on this point 
and found nothing that disagreed. The example he used, McCarthyism vs civil 
rights, was a real life example. If its any consolation Eagleton and I both 
think its pretty damn crass too, but there it is. And if you say you are a 
committed atheists when it comes to this and then say theism is just fine 
when it comes to that, then you are employing the same tactics as the New 
Critics. They thought it was ok to hold such contradictions in a kind of 
tension of opposites within a larger picture, rather than, say, trying to 
truly integrate them. As you noticed, they came up with some pretty 
indefensible positions. Likewise, I think its indefensible to be atheistic 
on the one hand and then say theism is just as good as anything on the 
other. That's how I dare suggest it. What else can I think of such an 
equivocation? It at least implies that there is no significant difference 
between the two. And saying any metaphor will do could be taken as an 
explicit endorsement of that sentiment, even if it doesn't use the exact 
same terms. I mean, its pretty clear that I'm responding to specific 
comments you made. I fail to see how I misinterpreted it so wildly as to 
cause outrage.

Ian said:
I have recommended Mary Parker-Follett to you "Just so far as people think 
that the basis of working together is compromise and concession, just so far 
do they not understand the first principles.

dmb says:
Okay, I did a google search with "mary parker-follett" and "excluded middle" 
as my terms. Only two items popped up; your website and an academic paper 
that examines "organizatonal communications"  from the perspective of 
"social semiotics". Sorry, but I really don't see what this has to do with 
the MOQ or anti-theism. Also, I really don't know what reason you have to 
believe that I'd be interested in business management theories. And without 
any context or explanation for this quote from Mary, I don't know what 
you're trying to say about "working together" nor how techniques for 
"working together" has any bearing on the truth or falsity of metaphysical 
claims such as are made by theism and atheism.

See, Ian, we live in a "real world" where the head of the Catholic Church, 
just the other day, inspired riots throughout the Islamic world, where just 
the other day the President of the USA told the nation that "it is 
unacceptable the think" a certain thought, who casts American foreign policy 
in terms of good and evil and who thinks freedom is from God and God is on 
our side - and not on the other guy's side. I mean, if you really wanna 
complain about excluded middles and black and white thinking, you should be 
joining me in my anti-theism. I mean, this doesn't just hurt people's 
feelings or offend their sensibilities, its getting lots of people killed, 
you know? Have you looked around lately? Religious fanatics are tearing this 
world apart at the moment, you know?

I think there are many very good, but less bloody, reasons to reject theism 
on the metaphysical level too, not least of all because its is a form of 
dualism, a kind of theological version of SOM. But either way, you've not 
really grappled with this debate in terms of the MOQ. I don't think 
managment theories will help much here. I don't think it helps to be so 
wishy washy about when and where you're "committed" to this or that. In 
fact, that would pretty much be the description of someone who was not 
genuinely committed to anything. Which is what the New Critics were all 
about, because ambiguity has a way of creating "political inertia", which 
supports the status quo. And for some of these New Critics this was just a 
matter of putting on the breaks before starting to back up. Lots of them 
longed for the old American South, for a pre-industrial society in England. 
Some of them were supporters of fascism, but the were all reactionaries. And 
their cause was served by creating ambiguities about things even as 
impactful as McCarthyism and civil rights, not just poems. And the 
conservatives on TV and in the "think-tanks" employ this same tactic at 
present. The global warming debate is the most conspicuous example. They've 
tried to do this with everything from Darwinism to War intelligence. I mean, 
on a practical level you are, unintensionally or not, playing the same game 
as the politicians and propagandists, where a lack of clarity serves people 
who don't really give a shit what's true.

Thanks for your time,
dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Share your special moments by uploading 500 photos per month to Windows Live 
Spaces  
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.get.live.com/spaces/features