[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[ian glendinning]

Hi DMB,

I'll need to find time to consider the whole of that.
"religious fanatics" are tearing the world apart you say.
Agreed, and I'm no less concerned than you are. I simply do not equate
"theism" with "religious fanaticism" - dogmatic application of
theistic doctrines to the physical (real human) world.

Our difference is simply in approach, as we've agreed many times.
I prefer not to join in the "tearing apart", but to find ground on
which to build, educate and learn.

Inside the metaphysical hole ?
MoQ has the same problem as "god" .... infinite regress, to use
Jonathan Miller's term in the reference ... where did the first cause
come from ... why is there something rather than nothing ? Not a
question that concerns me, hence my glib acceptance of any answer in a
metaphysical debate. Choosing MoQ gives me the best explanation
everywhere outside the hole ... in the real world .... no doubt, no
lack of clarity (and I agree it is atheistic, and anti-dogmatic, like
any good science, .... in the real world, where theism must not be
mis-applied.) I'll consider your core MoQ "metaphysical" points
further - but remember I don't buy metaphysics.

I want it all ways, but not everywhere, at the same time.
On earth g is 9.81 m/s2, On the moon it is not.
It IS both ways. Horses for courses.

Ian

On 9/19/06, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> 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/
>