[MD] new blog

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Platt,


>>> Steve:
>>>> The idea is to break the taboo in the US of "questioning
>>>> someone's beliefs." All we are talking about is applying the same
>>>> conversational pressures to religious beliefs as we would to
>> someone's
>>>> beliefs about leprechauns, government bailouts, the best laundry
>>>> detergent, and whether or not the Holocaust actually happened.
>>>
>> Platt:
>>> Conversational pressures? LIke what? Ad hominem attacks?
>>
>> Steve:
>> No, like simply asking, "why do you believe that?"
>
Platt:
> OK. So I simply ask, "Why do you believe it's good to pressure someone 
> to
> answer that question?" I can understand if the motive is to learn. 
> But, in
> many cases the motive is to ridicule the response and trash the 
> responder.
>

Steve:
The motivation is to learn and to persuade. In the MOQ, bad ideas are 
less moral than good ideas. It is moral to challenge bad ideas wherever 
you find them.


>> I seemed to have touched a nerve with saying we should ask such simple
>> questions. I suppose it is scary for those buying into a social 
>> pattern
>> which says such obvious questions are in bad taste. The problem is 
>> that
>> not asking those questions has become dangerous to society as we saw 
>> on
>> 9/11 when otherwise well-educated middle class men believed that they
>> could buy their way into heaven and be serviced by black-eyed virgins
>> if they became mass murderers.
>>
>> My hope is that intellectual patterns which include a taste for
>> evidence in support of all of our beliefs will trump the social
>> patterns which hold such intellectual patterns to be in bad taste when
>> applied to religion. Religious beliefs should no longer be in a 
>> special
>> class of socially protected unquestionable beliefs like believing your
>> wife is beautiful and your children are unusually talented. We can no
>> longer afford to extend such nod-and-smile social courtesy when
>> religious beliefs have become a threat to civilization itself.
>

Platt:
> OK. But, what about nonreligious beliefs that have become a threat to
> civilization -- like secular socialism with its "absence of a concept 
> of
> indefinite Dynamic Quality?" (Lila, 17)

Steve:
Certainly some beliefs are better than others and some are greater 
threats than others Communism is no longer as of the essence as Islam. 
I also don't want to lump all beliefs as equally dangerous. Islam is 
much more of a threat to civilization than the Amish for example.



>
>> Steve:
>>>> BTW, for someone who opposes relativism, claiming that no belief is
>>>> better or worse than any other is a strange thing to say, but it 
>>>> does
>>>> seem to be typical of conservatives to complain about moral
>> relativism
>>>> while promoting intellectual relativism.
>>>
>> Platt:
>>> I believe some beliefs are certainly better than others. My point was
>>> that
>>> I am not so arrogant as to believe I couldn't possibly be wrong. Nor
>>> do I
>>> believe others should believe they are like gods and thus privileged
>> to
>>> force their beliefs on others.
>>
>> Steve:
>> Who believes that they can never be wrong?
>
> Al Gore, for one. Hamas for another.

Steve:
Al Gore?

Steve:
>
>> And what do you mean when you keep saying that someone is trying to
>> force beliefs on another?
>
> Personal ad hominem attacks are such an attempt -- like calling those 
> who
> question global warming "holocaust deniers."

Steve:
How did we get onto global warming? I don't have the scientific 
knowledge to take a side on that one. It does concern me that the 
scientific community is concerned.

> Steve:
>> I'm just saying that we need to have conversations about religion even
>> if it makes some people uncomfortable. That's it. I think that's all
>> any of us are saying. No one is suggesting that we need to tie people
>> up and have them renounce their gods at gun point. We just want
>> religious beliefs to enter the marketplace of ideas.
>
Platt:
> My impression is that religious beliefs are based less on intellectual
> persuasion than on responses to ineffable experiences, like paintings 
> in a
> gallery. But, if someone wants to engage in a discussion about 
> religion,
> fine with me so long as ad hominem attacks, overt or subtle, are 
> avoided.

Steve:
Pirsig says that intellectual patterns are exactly these sorts of 
experiences and introduced the "paintings in a gallery" metaphor to 
talk about them.

>
>>> Platt:
>>> As for moral relativism -- that all behavior is equally moral -- I
>>> believe
>>> that's wrong. My moral beliefs follow the MOQ.
>>>
>>> Do you think morality applies to beliefs?
>>>
>> Steve:
>> Of course. Aren't intellectual patterns also patterns of value?
>
Platt:
> So your beliefs may be immoral?

Steve:
I thought the MOQ says everything is all about morals.

Best,
Steve