[MD] Dawkins quotes RMP on religion

[Christoffer Ivarsson]

>> [Magnus]
>> Right! DQ is given way too much credit in these events. Attributing it
>> to DQ makes it too easy to transform DQ into something religious.
>
> DM: If we do not allow DQ some divine qualities, is there not a danger
> that others will be driven to create something else to attach these
> qualities to?
> Can divine/transcendental/sacred qualities and values be excluded from
> MOQ? Would that notbe bad and a reduction of human experience for
> awful & presumably ideological reasons?
>
> [Krimel]
> I don't think it makes sense to talk about DQ like this at all. DQ is not 
> a
> thing or a force. It is a property of Quality. It has descriptive value 
> not
> causal efficacy.

I'd just like to jump in and give this another perspective: in a presumed 
future where the MOQ has replaced the SOM (well, you know what I mean) the 
important thing here is that if some people would choose to call Quality or, 
perhaps, see Dynamic Quality as something divine, that wouldn't really hurt 
the MOQ. I mean, in philosophy you always come back to the causation God, 
and even in the MOQ we may ask: where did Quality come from? You don't have 
to ask that question, because it really doesn't matter, but my point is, 
that just as today where a scientist may believe that he is studying the 
intricacies of Gods Creation, if people choose to think of Quality as 
something Divine that doesn't matter, as long as everybody recognizes that 
Quality is a real thing. Like today people say that matter and thoughts are 
real things. It doesn't matter if they think God is behind it, not in the 
big picture.

Feel free to shoot me down if you disagree

Regards

Chris