[MD] Theism/epistemology [re-mail]

[Ham Priday]

Ron --


> It simply comes down to a matter of opinion. You and Michael
> need a god in your lives, pure and simple. That's fine, I respect that.
> I however do not.  And that's pretty much the end of it.

It's not quite that simple.  Michael and I recognize a need in our lives, 
which may or may not be "a god".  Speaking for myself, I do not believe in a 
personal deity that creates the world at a point in time and then sits back 
to judge human behavior.  This is my understanding of theism.  I DO believe 
in a "first cause", an uncreated source that transcends existential reality 
while constituting its ground or essence.  Does that make me a "theist"? 
Frankly, I don't really care.

What concerns me, and I suspect Michael as well, is that the MoQ is a belief 
system founded on Quality which its author equates with Value.  Yet he 
posits this value in a realm of its own, independent of man, in effect 
making Value (Quality) the fundamental reality.  I continue to maintain that 
this is epistemologically unsustainable.  There is no such thing as 
"unrealized value".  Realization is psycho-emotional, which means that value 
presupposes a cognizant agent.  I do not accept the view that atoms, stones, 
and planets are cognizant agents, or that the universe evolves to betterness 
as a Quality teleology.  The universe and its experienced components are the 
appearance of Value actualized by the finite mind of man.  None of this 
happens without a primary source.

> Conceptual extention beyond immediate experience is wishful thinking
> in my opinion.
>
> Put together a decent argument and we'll talk.

The most "decent" argument I can offer was put forth by the Roman 
philosopher Lucretius (99-55 B.C.) in his epic poem "De rerum naturahis": Ex 
nihil nihilo est (Nothing can come from nothingness).  And we have talked 
before, Ron, only to prove that it is fruitless to argue about one's 
beliefs.  I'm convinced that what we believe is a choice to be made freely 
by each individual, and I don't want to be accused of imposing my beliefs on 
those who do not find them acceptable.

> Why is the belief in God better than not having a belief in God?
> Show me some practicle benefits, I'm open to it, really.

Again, personal beliefs do not necessarily have "practical" use, unless they 
are of the pragmatic kind derived from scientific principles.  However, it 
gives me satisfaction to understand existential reality as a valuistic 
system in which man is the choice-maker, as opposed to a chance occurrence 
or "accident of nature" that begins and ends with conscious awareness.

> ...Theism was my problem.  It had paralysed me and made me
> powerless.  I hold my own destiny now, I hold my own power
> and my own life.  I control this reality of mine not God.
>
> I have grown up, I have grown past needing a parent.  I am my
> own autonomous individual, I am my own free agent.  I make my
> own purpose and meaning.

I was raised in a nominally Christian household where religion was a 
"non-paralyzing" basis for morality.  I managed to escape the mythology of 
Christendom without despising it, and became a free-thinker with an intense 
interest in philosophy . You see, that's why I don't consider myself a 
theist.  In fact, Essentialism frees one's life from dogmatic restrictions 
and cultural traditions, even to the extent of elevating value-sensibility 
above the rule of law.  If everyone was an essentialist, we would have no 
criminals or brutality, no cause for war, no unbridled greed or pompous 
preaching.  We would be free to create the world of peace and harmony that 
all compassionate individuals innately value and wish for their fellow 
creatures.

> I also wanted to thank you for pointing this out and simplifying
> the argument, after reading your post more thoroughly, catching
> more of the meaning and intent behind your words, you made a
> fairly accurate appraisel and concluded very nicely.  I apologize
> for coming off kinda krassly.  I think we were beginning to get
> annoyed with each other.

That postscript is appreciated, Ron.  I'm glad you've read me "more 
thoroughly", and no apologies are necessary.  We all tend to get carried 
away with our own beliefs and quarrel over labels, terms, and definitions 
used by others.  I would ask only that we acknowledge life as we find it, 
including the desire to know its ultimate reality.  Beyond that, truth is 
mere speculation and hypothesis leading to belief.

Essentially yours,
Ham