[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu>:

> [Platt]
> Looking forward to your description of Tao ethics.
> 
> [Arlo]
> ZMM. It should be in your bookstore. Its a good place to start.

What pages are you referring to? For example, where does he describe the 8-fold
path?
 
> [Arlo previously]
> Can you refer me to where Pirsig proposes the existence of a "transcendent
> consciousness"?
> 
> [Platt]
> I never claimed he does.
> 
> [Arlo]
> You said "I answer as possibilities the existence of Consciousness and Quality
> as creative forces. I gather you disagree with Pirsig on that score". This
> implies Consciousness and Quality agree with Pirsig. 

Sorry for the confusion. I meant the "and" to apply to "creative forces." To
rephrase, do you disagree with Pirsig about Quality being a creative force?

> [Platt]
> I don't dismiss the possibility of God as Pirsig does, nor do I "pander" to
> Christianity. That's just another example of your effort to distort what I say.
> 
> [Arlo]
> In the entire time we've talked, Platt, you have said NOTHING in favor of ANY
> OTHER religious tradition. You've repeatedly, even yesterday, maintained that
> "Judeo-Christian ethics" are the sole ethical system on which our laws should
> be based. You have never posited, for example, that the Eightfold Path should
> be a basis for our social law. (I am not arguing that it should, only that you
> exclusively pander to Christianity). You dismiss the entirety of Pirsig's
> comments on Native Americans in favor of one quote, and yet you dismiss all the
> atrocities perpetuated by the Christian religion. This is pandering to
> Christians.

If I pander to Christians, you pander to Indians.

> [Platt]
> Anyway, I see much value in Christian ethics as do many here, including
> yourself.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Of course. But I don't see it as an "exclusive" system. Nor do I think it is a
> literal system. Nor do I think social law should be based on its literalized
> doctrines. Indeed, I think the Eightfold Path, and Buddhism in general, comes
> closest to a ethical system that represents Quality, and so did Pirsig. 

Since the Founding Fathers believed in God and the Judeo-Christian ethic, creating
a nation the envy of world, I really don't see the problem in following their
lead. The "problem" as Pirsig describes it is not with the Judeo-Christian ethics
but with SOM intellect.  

> [Platt previously]
> No. I consider Consciousness and Quality to be "natural processes."
> 
> [Arlo then]
> Not if they are "transcendent".
>  
> [Platt]
> Transcendent means "beyond comprehension," as are many natural processes.
> 
> [Arlo]
> In that case, making sticky buns appears to be transcendent for me. 

Even I give you more credit for intelligence than that. :-) Check your dictionary.


> [Platt previously]
> And the rest is just a fabrication of my views to meet your own desperate need
> to demean others to build up your own ego.
> 
> [Arlo then]
> Got a mirror handy, Platt?
> 
> [Platt]
> I take that as acceptance of my assessment.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Perhaps for us both.

Perhaps.

 
> [Platt]
> You've admitted to "oops" i.e., "luck" as an explanation a number of times.
> Check the archives.
> 
> [Arlo]
> "Oops" is simply meant to demean. The question is, do you believe that a "plan"
> for everything existed before everything? If so, where? In some "transcendent
> mind"? I don't ascribe a plan to the unfolding of the cosmos. It does so
> because of Quality, and as particulars collectivize into more and more complex
> patterns, yes, there are moments of "AHA!", where complexity takes off in a
> whole new direction. The question is, 100 trillion years ago, was there a
> design for "people"? Where?
> 
> And then all my other questions come back into play. 300 billion years of life
> on this planet. 150 million years of dinosaurs, with primates occupying only a
> blip in the biosphere. Only after major, random, climate and environmental
> events were primates able to flourish, and only then after 65 million years of
> evolution, with increasing complexity and thousands and thousands of species,
> was anything resembling primative man able to exist. And only then, due to a
> biological part of his brain, was man able to build social patterns (or social
> patterns were able to emerge out of biological co-activity). Was all this
> "planned" before it happened? 

All based we are told on natural laws which somehow respond to mathematical
formulations. Please explain. Coincidence? Luck? Oops?




-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/