[MD] a-theism and atheism

[John Carl]

dmb and all interested,


But Pirsig's comment in the annotations is about the MOQ being
> "anti-theistic" in much more specific way. In that case, his complaint is
> about the way philosophy is being used to prop up theism.



"in this regard" the moq is ant-theistic.  And I do agree that philosophy
should not be burdened with any religious baggage.  However, the following
begs the questions arising:


dmb:

It's wrong to make philosophy into the servant of religion. Because religion
> is social quality and philosophy is intellectual quality, he sees such
> service as an evil act. This same basic moral relationship holds in general.
> According the MOQ, a society guided by intellectual quality is absolutely
> superior to one that is not so guided.
>
>
John:

The questions arising, at least from me, is what kind of society doesn't
have intellectual guidance?  All human society's are formed by ideas. Even
the most primitive tribe and culture, weave a meaning for their lives out of
a mythic and religious context that is partly intellectual and partly
aesthetic.  But if you want to argue about the pre-socratice greeks or
primitive american tribes as being 100% non-intellectual, I'll save that for
another day and add, even so, the vast preponderance of social groups extant
today are guided by various intellectual ideas.

At the same time, intellectual dominance is largely decided by social
patterns - gathering agreement and persuading others to "join our side".
 There's probably no more intellectual world in the world, than a faculty
meeting, but also no place more devoted to social-type politics and gaming.


dmb:

This particular comment is relevant to our own conduct here, no? Wouldn't it
> be equally evil to make the MOQ the servant of theism? I think so.
>
>
>
John:

I agree completely.  What I don't agree with, is your clear aspersion that
that has been happening or would happen if it weren't for super-dave and his
heroic opposition.