[MD] The End of Faith

[Ham Priday]

Akshay --


The reason I responded to your 1/20 post is that one so logical and 
articulate in his analysis of other matters could toss off the existence of 
God as an irrelevant issue.  It seems to me that there is no single belief 
in the annals of philosophy that is more paramount to man's understanding of 
meaning and purpose in existence.

Your assertion that "We only have to define God and then find out if such an 
entity exists," is ludicrous for several reasons.  First of all, a 
definition is a statement designed to express the meaning of a word or term 
in common usage.  To define something that is unknown and not experienced, 
let alone believed in, is a fabrication out of whole cloth.  One might as 
well define the tooth fairy or the Easter bunny.

So the logical process of definition begins with naming what we know or 
experience, then narrowing down that name to express its essence or nature. 
Since, unless we've had a mystical experience, we don't know God as an 
entity, and are therefore unable to define it.  But the fact that God is not 
accessible to man does not mean that God doesn't exist.

You now say:
> [I]t is very obvious that there is a highest power
> governing this universe, who is to the universe what a
> dreamer is to the dream. I believe that atheists only
> nominally abandon.

You see, that's my point.  How is this obvious?  Do atheists acknowledge the 
existence of that which they cannot see?  Do they accept the existence of a 
divinity as a logical principle?  Some may, but I don't think the majority 
do, or they wouldn't call themselves atheists.  I don't think the MOQists 
here understand DQ as "a power governing the universe".  In fact, I don't 
define God as a either a governing power or an existent.  What "exists" is 
what appears to conscious experience in time and space, what has "universal 
reality".  My idea of a primary source does not have such a description.

[Akshay]:
> I do not deny that they seem ludicrous, however, if you
> really attempt to ponder over the question, "does God exist?",
> at some point you have to define the word "God".

I agree.  And that's of critical importance to any philosophy.

> Whether such an entity exists or not does not truly make a
> difference to us (coupled with the agnostic opinion), unless
> of course it is an entity that answers all our wishes provided
> we pray to him enough.

If we cannot be certain that such an entity exists, how certain can we be 
that it doesn't make a difference to us?  Do you refute the fact that what 
you've defined as "obvious" -- "a highest power governing this universe" --  
has some consequence
for man?  On what basis do you say that it doesn't make a difference to us? 
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to conclude that your believe in a primary 
source that creates and supports the universe makes you "different" from 
someone who does not share your belief?

> You could add many more layers of power and end up
> with an uninteresting hierarchy, what difference would it
> make about the question of existence of a higher power?
> This is what I meant by my first statement.

Frankly, I think Mr. Pirsig has done precisely what you describe.  His 
philosophy adds layers of patterns to an arbitrarily-defined four-level 
hierarchy that makes the existence of a higher power uninteresting and 
inconsequential.  It offers no cosmic role for human beings, suggests no 
entelechy or purpose for individual consciousness, and even relegates 
morality to an evolving universe rather than to man himself.

Someone here quoted the philosopher-historian Joseph Margolis as musing that 
if  "...we use "exist" and "existence" of things which offer brute 
resistance, while keeping 'the real' or 'reality' for numbers, and such 
entities which lack corporeal substance, we may escape many a philosophical 
headache."  If God is a primary reality, like the number '1' or '0', it does 
not exist; it simply IS.  As one who believes in Essence as the primary 
source, I suggest that this concept is worth looking into.

Thanks for clarifying your points, Akshay.  I hope I've clarified my 
criticisms, as well.
Regards,
Ham