[MD] Dawkins quotes RMP on religion.

[Ham Priday]

Ian --


> Ham, I agree with the point of Craig's questions and
> with Krim's answer. And that is not nihilist at all.
> It's realist, practical, pragmatic...choose a better word if you like.

Well, insofar as 'Mu' is an expression of non-concern with philosophy, I 
suppose one could call it a  pragmatic response to a valid philosophical 
question.  I call it a copout.

> It's "the hole in my metaphysics". First cause - the thing that
> comes before the first thing you can explain.
> It can only ever be a theory (as you yourself keep saying).
> So why make some absolute fight to the death issue out of it.
> It can only ever be a matter of convenience.

Causation is the hole in everybody's metaphysics.  But if a theory offers an 
answer to the mystery of creation, it can be far more than "a matter of 
convenience".  For intellectuals in a philosophy forum, you people seem to 
have a phobia against new ideas, even when they might possibly strengthen 
the MoQ by giving it a proper metaphysical foundation.

> If pushed - I'm for the "always existed" answer -
> no beginnings, no ends idea, which makes "causation"
> a pretty weird concept to deal with. Which is why "Mu"
> is just as good an answer. It makes the point,
> you're asking the wrong question, and formulating the
> wrong kind of answer if you are looking for a fundamentally
> definite cause, pre-existing thing - beyond a convenient
> metaphor, to avoid wasting time on further debate.

Causation is, in fact, so weird a concept that Pirsig has avoided it, I 
believe to the detriment of his philosophical thesis.  Yet, he doesn't 
hesitate to divide reality into four discrete levels and posit Quality as 
its nature.  Why is introducing causation to this thesis "asking the wrong 
question"?  I should think a philosopher would expect his readers to ask 
where Quality comes from, rather than have to assume "it's just there" and 
grows like Topsy.

Actually, causation (like probability and numeration) is a relational term 
that works well for biological evolution and chemical or mechanical 
processes, but not for the primary differentiation.  I generally avoid the 
word because of its serial connotation, (eg., A causes B causes C, etc.). 
But what's really weird to me is for an author to title his philosophy the 
Metaphysics of Quality, only to reject metaphysics in his exposition. 
Indeed, it astonishes me that no one seems to have questioned this curious 
anomaly.

> Allah Akhbar. God is good (enough !) said the atheist.

If God is good enough for an atheist who is without belief, imagine the 
value of God to a believer!

I know you mean well, Ian; but I don't think your complaint is realistic in 
this context.

Essentially yours,
Ham