[MD] BeTteR-neSs (undefined or otherwise)

[david buchanan]

Ham said:
... There are times when I feel compelled to speak out against ideas which violate what I view as the most fundamental principles of reality, and denial of the individual self is one of them.  The rejection of man's spiritual quest in the cause of anti-theism is another.  We're all searching for answers, but bashing the beliefs of others won't get us there.  And I certainly have no desire to undermine the MoQ.

dmb says:

Well, it may not be what you intend but you are bashing the beliefs of others and you are undermining the MOQ, as I've tried to explain several times. The "fundamental principle of reality" that you so emphatically insist upon is exactly the MOQ is designed to replace. 

Again, you are simply offering the original problem and rejecting the solution to that problem. You are entitled to your own beliefs of course, but you really ought to realize what a profound mismatch this is. 

I'd also point out that anti-theism is NOT a rejection of religion or spirituality. Theism is just one particular KIND of religion and the MOQ is more compatible with the non-theistic varieties. It rejects faith and supernaturalism but it is a form of philosophical mysticism. In that sense, it is very, very concerned with the spiritual quest. 

Also, the kind of "metaphysics" you're doing is considered - by most philosophers- to be dead. This is true even among many contemporary theologians, where metaphysics still survives to some small extent. (See Wrathall's book "Religion After Metaphysics", for example.) You are beating a dead horse (no offense, Mick) in almost any context, but here it's even worse because radical empiricism was practically invented to protect philosophy from all kinds of metaphysical fictions or, as William James put it, "trans-experiential entities". Again, you're entitled to think what you want but please understand that you ARE undermining the MOQ with your "essentialism" and you ARE bashing the "beliefs" of MOQers.

And considering the context, who is bashing who? Would it make sense for me to join a Catholic church? Is that the best place to make a case for non-theistic mysticism? Would it make sense to try to sell anti-theism there and then complain that the congregation is bashing my beliefs when they don't accept it? Should I be surprised when they dispute it? Or would they rightly consider me the basher? You see what I mean? It could be done, I suppose. If you're into a really big challenge you could also try to sell magic in some scientific community. But the chances of success are pretty slim and it would be more reasonable to assume that such a person doesn't quite understand the differences between science and magic.