[MD] The End of Faith

[Steve Peterson]

>
Hi Ham,

>
> [Steve]:
>> Have you considered accepting the MOQ premise that experience
>> is Quality for the sake of argument and seeing where that leads you?
>> This is a discussion group on the MOQ after all.


Ham:
> I have not only considered it, I believe it.  Only, I state it in  
> different
> terms (as you should know), which suggests an ontology that the MOQ
> overlooks: Value sensibility BECOMES experience when it is  
> interpreted by
> the cognizant subject.  Is that concept incompatible with the MOQ?

Steve:
I don't pay a whole lot of attention to your writings on the  
philosophy of essence. Am I right to say in your philosophy subjects  
are aware of other subjects, objects, and values?

In the MOQ, subjects and objects are inferred from value. They are  
aesthetic creations of the intellect rather than inherent to an  
objective universe.


> [Ham, previously]:
>> The MOQ takes the elitist position that only its belief system
>> is reasonable, and thus capable of defining morality.
>
> [Steve]:
>> I don't think that has been said by Pirsig or anyone else
>> in support of the MOQ.
>
> You said (to Platt):
>> In MOQ terms reason is just a synonym for intellectual quality.

Steve:
The MOQ does not assume that the MOQ itself is the most reasonable  
philosophical system. In fact it explicitly supports multiple truths.

Steve previously:
>> In evaluating whether faith is a good or bad thing we don't need
>> to define what intellectual quality is or prove the "validity of  
>> reason."
>> We only need to say that it is bad to believe things that are of low
>> intellectual quality which in MOQ terms is obvious.
>

Ham:
> I take this assertion (by a supporter of the MOQ) to mean that  
> whatever the
> MOQ defines as "intellectual quality" is reasonable, and that  
> anything else
> is either less reasonable or "bad faith" (to use Sartre's term).   
> In other
> words, the MOQ sets the criteria for what is "good" and "bad" to  
> believe in.
> Why is it not an elitist position to make MOQ the authority on what  
> one
> should believe?

Steve:
In saying "in MOQ terms [this] is obvious" I was assuming that people  
familiar with the MOQ would equate "intellectual quality" with "what  
is good to believe." So since faith means believing things that are  
of low intellectual quality (allowing for everyone to be their own  
judge of what has intellectual quality), then faith is the idea that  
it is good to believe things that are bad to believe. Obviously that  
is bad.


> [Steve]:
>> I'm not talking about expressing values. I'm talking about
>> claiming that Jesus is God sent by God to save mankind,
>> that Jesus was born of a virgin, that you will go to hell if
>> you don't believe the above.


Ham:
> That's the mythology of Christendom, the Greco-Roman symbolism that  
> made the
> teachings of an enlightened rabbi consistent with messianic prophecy.
> Surely you are not limiting faith to the mystical aspects of biblical
> prophecy.

Steve:
I'm not talking about the mystical aspects of any religion. The  
mystic doesn't say "have faith." She says, "see for yourself."

These aren't mystical claims at all. They are claims like all others  
that need to be subject to the tests we would apply to any other  
scientific or historical claims. My issue is with faith used as  
permission for a person of faith to disregard the tests for truth  
that he would use in any other aspect of his life. I don't need to  
say what these tests are or should be to say that it is dishonest to  
do so.

(I recognize that I only gave examples of claims made by  
Christianity. Of course all dogmatic religions make claims like these  
that are inconsistent with our best understanding of the universe.  
Mohammed and winged horses and dark-eyed virgins and all that.)


Ham:
> Belief in God goes beyond canonic scripture.  What we call faith
> encompasses belief in evolution, logic, morality, and empirical truth.

Steve:
You are extending the use of "faith" to the point that it has no  
specific meaning. Every time someone says "I thing that it is true  
that..." doesn't mean he is basing a belief on faith. All beliefs are  
not based on faith.


> [Steve]:
>> I think it is reasonable to say that claiming that certain
>> statements must be accepted and affirmed as true "on faith"
>> as in without reason or evidence or even with evidence to
>> the contrary is immoral in MOQ terms. It is akin to saying
>> you know something that you don't know, in other words,
>> a lie. Worse, faith includes the idea that this sort of lieing is
>> commendable.

Ham:
> Like saying that it is bad to believe things that are of low  
> intellectual
> quality which in MOQ terms is obvious?

Steve:
I think I dealt with this above. If you still think I am making any  
claims that I expect you to take on faith please let me know.

Regards,
Steve