[MD] Plains Talk and Pragmatism

[118]

Hi dmb,
Thanks for the review, that was well written.  I have but one comment(s)
following your paragraph below.

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:15 AM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> The deprivation theory of religion is relevant here, obviously, because we
> are supposedly here for the very purpose of debating and discussing and
> changing our beliefs. It is literally impossible to have a reasonable
> discussion with anyone who needs to believe their beliefs that much.
> Remember what happened to Jamie when he tried to take that doll away from
> Lila? That "baby" was her religion, her religion of one. She didn't believe
> it because it made sense or because it was harmonized so well or explained
> so much. She believed it because she NEEDED to and when Jamie posed a threat
> to her religion she slashed him across the face with a knife. Think about
> that scene the next time you see one of our theist friends respond to any
> criticism of their theism. Then ask yourself if that response is more like a
> knife in the face or more like a reasonable engagement with the concepts in
> dispute. Does that response evade the reasons and evidence with insults or
> does it intelligently comm
>  unicate an alternative point of view? Is that response intellectually
> substantial or is it just anger and abuse? Obviously, there is no way to
> have a meaningful conversation with those who respond with knives to the
> face and such persons aren't really interested in philosophy anyway.
>
> In a context like this, the presence of this kind of psychological
> incorrigibility is very destructive. It's a wrench in the gears. It's not
> just that these beliefs are incompatible with the MOQ. It's that such
> beliefs are incompatible with any kind of open discussion because that's
> about as full as any teacup ever gets.
>

[Mark]
I agree with the notion of deprivation, religion certainly has this, even
the highly intellectual Buddhism.  I would extend this notion to include any
form of metaphysics.  As you say some self analysis tools have more power to
provide growth than others.  As a scientist, I see endless growth in such
construction and no final conceptual solution.  There are temporary answers
which are satisfying, but it does not reach the ultimate conclusions of some
religions.  Opium is of course an extreme analogy, but I understand where
that finger is pointing to.

I do not understand the notion of psychological incorrigibility.  For me,
psychology can encompass philosophy (and of course the reverse as you
state).  I suppose you use it to point to a more primitive state, but even
as such it is a root that cannot be cut.  It would appear that the same
thing could be said of radical empiricism in terms of being incorrigible.

Certainly an inner sense of completeness that may be provided by a religion
does not provide opportunity for any alternatives.  These people are fine
where they are.  I certainly do not like such people intruding on my
concepts with dogma that has no connection with me.  It is like talking to a
chair.  However, such people drink from a teacup that is never empty and
does not need conceptual refilling.  In that sense, admiration rather than
distaste may be more appropriate.

Thanks,
Mark

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>