[MD] In religion

Emily Schober emily_parodi at hotmail.com
Wed Feb 10 08:00:45 PST 2016 

Hi Irina,

First off, welcome. Second, well said. I think the best approach of the group, speaking from my own POV, is that the group have NO expectations whatsoever from commenters. If we have no preformed expectations about others' opinions, then it would be impossible for you to "fall short". Regardless, even saying that you might "fall short" is saying that everyone else's opinions are potentially more important and relevant than yours. And who is to say that??? I've only been in the group for less than a year, but I don't think that length of time amongst the MOQ discussion subgroup necessarily equates to more qualified. 

Anyway, I'm a person who is strongly but also skeptically and questioningly religious -- both from a more traditional (Catholic upbringing) and Zen Buddhist (from more recent personal research) approach. However, I don't discount the current scientific laws of evolution, because as a person who believes in the scientific method I find it very difficult to swallow that anyone can believe the universe is only a few thousand years old and that humans started off as the modern homo sapien (and let's not forgot about dinosaurs and prehistoric creatures in general).

All of your thoughts resonate with me, make sense, and echo what I believe, in part. You put my thoughts into well phrased words. However, I don't think I quite follow what you mean by "the duel between self sustenance and self deprivation". Can you expand upon that?

Thank you.
Emily Schober

________________________________________
From: Moq_Discuss <moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org> on behalf of Irina <irinaduplessis.ii.consult at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 11:53 PM
To: moq_discuss at lists.moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] In religion

Hello. This is my first attempt to join the conversation and it might fall short of all expectations but I am interested to try.

I wonder why there is a need to prove or disprove the existence of a god...any god. If we proved that god existed in the biblical sense of the word, would that really many any difference to the laws of science? Those laws are like calculations meant to arrive at a specific result. Whether we constructed them from a basis of religion or from pure pragmatism makes little difference to the practical application of it all. Science has never being for its own sake and as far as I am concerned neither has religion. Each set of norms...laws...whatever we want to call them, were designed to serve a purpose first and foremost.

Having read the bible and studied some theology I can say there are a lot of pragmatic social laws described therein. The purpose being social order of a more archaic type. Yes personally I am not a fan of this form of social order because it is biased and not updated to suit life as it unfolds today. I am not atheist as such and neither agnostic. I am in favour of spiritualism as a whole. This entails a whole set of behaviours and a specific mentality as well as openness to possibility...another discussion.

The main barrier to human evolution is our refusal to move past the need to confirm what we can't. The constant duel between mind and body and self and society is the mirror image of the duel between religion and science and between self sustenance and self deprivation. Unless this argument is left altogether as unpractical to argue in the first place...we will never move forward.

Initially I said that if I had one wish to wish...it would be a world without religion. Because then all would be forced to find their self worth from within their own core and not on the basis of external motivators. However, that is idealistic at best. As a second best wish I would settle for a world of religion without publicity. Believe what you will but no need to advertise it. If you can't sustain your belief from within.. Without the need for affirmation, then let it go altogether.

It is funny to think that religion might not survive at all if no one were to talk about it publicly.

Some thoughts...

-----Original Message-----
From: "moq_discuss-request at lists.moqtalk.org" <moq_discuss-request at lists.moqtalk.org>
Sent: ‎08/‎02/‎2016 21:05
To: "moq_discuss at lists.moqtalk.org" <moq_discuss at lists.moqtalk.org>
Subject: Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 122, Issue 8

Send Moq_Discuss mailing list submissions to
        moq_discuss at lists.moqtalk.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        moq_discuss-request at lists.moqtalk.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
        moq_discuss-owner at lists.moqtalk.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Moq_Discuss digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: still going? (John Carl)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2016 16:57:02 -0800
From: John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] still going?
Message-ID:
        <CAKPdW3nC7-n0PSgxp4B71JLJwSL7c2=5TJAhG3GADtxLMwQGMQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Adrie and dave,


> It is true altogether that we cannot prove that god does not exist, hence
> he 'does 'exist or to say the least, fallibilism as a postulate (if
> accepted) allows
> the creator to stay on top of the pyramid.

Jc:  I understand your fear, but I wonder what place "fear" has in
rational inquiry?  Perhaps Christianity and Islam have bred such
virulent forms of fundamentalist social dominance tactics that any
conception of God must be branded as 'evil' immediately and the
subject never raised again.  At least it seems that is the gist of the
arguments you offer against "sunday-school teacher"  Randy, and me.

I almost understand, such a prejudicial stance, but if we're talking
about the actual fact of the historical record then we have to be more
honest, intellectually, and if you throw out Royce, you sure have to
throw out James, who was certainly more of a church-goer than Josiah
was.

But honestly, is all that really the point?  Royce laid out the proper
sphere of religion and philosophy in his Religious Aspect of
Philosophy, and right off the bat he makes it clear that these are TWO
DIFFERING REALMS.  Just as Pirsig made it clear that religion is
social and philosophy is intellectual, Royce makes it clear that
Philosophy cannot be constrained or beholden to ANY unexamined
preconceptions or prejudice.

I would remind you all, that being Anti-God is just as pernicious a
prejudice as being pro-God.  In fact.  This can be most plainly
observed in the ontology of Ayn Rand, where she explicitly makes moves
for no other reason than to exclude God.  and as we all know,
unconscious metaphysics tend to be bad metaphysics.




> But in this instance,one has to accept,--fallibilism as true, and
> fallibilism as a
> postulated guarantee not only that we are wrong to deny the creator'
> story,..
> but also that we live with the wrong a priori's.
>

Jc:  Ok, but "wrong" does actually imply the ontological status of
"right", therefore the assertion of wrong, fundamentally, helps us
escape that modern skepticism which begets nothing but nominalism in
academic Pragmatism.


Ad:

> It did not take me much time to find that Royce, indeed is using fallibilism
> to maintain the theistic stance.
> It took me less then 10 minutes to keep Auxier against the light to find out
> he gives bible classes in his free time.But using this as an argument
> against
> John's apparant will to devote him would make this case moot.
>


Jc:  I consciously choose a Theistic interpretation to my life.  It
helps me feel happy.  What can you do?  We all got our weird little
quirks.  I think the problem has been the exclusive nature of theistic
interpreters and this has gotten us all a bad name.  You hear any of
that "god" talk and right away you think narrow, moralistic,
holier-than-thou and all that baggage that has gotten dragged into the
dialogue with and about modern Christianity. I hear ya.  I don't
blame ya.  that stuff sickens us all.  All I can do is assure you that
there are some of us who appreciate the mythic structure of the bible,
and observe and influence the communities that collect themselves
around those writings.  We don't mean anything absolute about it, but
as simply another painting hanging in the gallery, we like it.

Sorry if that offends you.

I will tell you an interesting story that I fully believe.  It's by
another of my favorite authoris, M. Scott Peck. In it, he tells of his
encounters with various people who come to him for help, as a
psychotherapist and Psychologist.  Many troubled people he as seen,
and one thing he has remarked upon over the years is that many times a
good christian has come to his office and stayed for the treatment and
found help, who has become converted, in the end, to atheism.  Also,
many atheists have come to him, talked out their troubles, and come
over time to a conclusion that there must be some sort of god out
there, and a more deeply connected spiritual life.  So what's going
on?  Atheists are converted to Theism and Theists are converted to
Atheism, by the same process.  How can that be?  Isn't one of these
more right than the other?

Well all I can say is, we need to learn to accept where we are and
where each other is as well, without all this judgement and criticism
and I know Randall Auxier well enough to assert he would say the same.

Ad:

> My personal perspective on fallibilism in general is derived from logic, if
> fallibilism is true,then fallibilism itself is probably wrong.

Jc:

Oh, you think you're clever, doncha.

Well... you are. but within limits.  "probably" is "merely" a
pejorative term.  Change it to "fallibilism 'could' be wrong" and I'd
hum that tune right along with ya and harmonize with a mighty
resounding DUH.

Ad:

> However this does not mean that fallibilism is not a genuine and solid
> analytical knife, if handled in skilled hands.Roye apparently understood
> true/untrue false/correct as 'wrong' and 'mistaken' but if this is the
> case, then the denotation is fighting with the connotation, and ths?e game
> becomes a mindfuck.I find it rather strange that he attempted to repaint
> the mona lisa so to speak.
>

Jc:  I think there is more here to unpack, but the super bowl is on,
and I'm gonna go watch more.  GO BRONCOS.

didn't Lady Gaga do a wonderful job of the national anthem?  I think so.

Love,

John



> But regardless of these moot-events,David , in your opinion, should i take
> the effort to read and study some work  of Royce,just for the sake of my
> knowledge of philosophy, or lack of it? Is there value to discover, new
> insights or things that were left behind to easy?
>
> Adrie.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2016-02-05 16:41 GMT+01:00 david <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>:
>
>>
>> Adrie quoted Wikipedia to dispute John's claims:
>>
>>
>> "His publication in 1885 of The Religious Aspect of Philosophy
>> ...contained a new proof for the existence of God based upon the reality
>> of
>> error. All errors are judged to be erroneous in comparison to some total
>> truth, Royce argued, and we must either hold ourselves infallible or
>> accept
>> that even our errors are evidence of a world of truth. Having made it
>> clear
>> that idealism depends upon postulates and proceeds hypothetically, Royce
>> defends the necessity of objective reference of our ideas to a universal
>> whole within which they belong, for without these postulates, ?both
>> practical life and the commonest results of theory, from the simplest
>> impressions to the most valuable beliefs, would be for most if not all of
>> us utterly impossible?. (see The Religious Aspect of Philosophy, p. 324)"
>>
>>
>>
>> dmb says:
>>
>>
>> Since Royce was offering fallibilism as "a new proof for the existence of
>> God" and "the necessity of objective reference of our ideas", his
>> fallibilism is very, very different from the fallibilism of Pragmatists
>> like James and Pirsig. I think it's fair to say that Pirsig is NOT
>> offering
>> theism or objectivity. James, Dewey, and Pirsig are quite explicit in
>> their
>> rejection of SOM and even James, the most religion-friendly of the three,
>> wrote his Varieties of Religious Experience in order to DISPUTE the
>> religious claims made by Royce.
>>
>>
>> From the Stanford Encyclopedia:
>>
>> "Royce and James had always disagreed deeply concerning the proper
>> understanding of religious phenomena in human life. When James delivered
>> the Gifford Lectures in 1901 and 1902, he directed many arguments against
>> Royce's idealism, though he did not there target his friend by name.
>> James's lectures, published as The Varieties of Religious Experience, were
>> a popular and academic success . Royce believed that James, who had never
>> been regularly affiliated with an established church or religious
>> community, had in that work placed too much emphasis on the extraordinary
>> religious experiences of extraordinary individuals. Royce's first
>> education
>> was into a strongly Protestant world view, he always retained a respect
>> for
>> the conventions of organized Christianity, and his writings exhibit a
>> consistent and deep familiarity with Scripture. He sought a philosophy of
>> religion that could help one understand and explain the phenomena of
>> ordinary religious faith as experienced by communities of ordinary people.
>> There was a deeper difference between them, as well, and it centered on a
>> metaphysical point. Royce's 1883 insight concerning the Absolute was at
>> bottom a religious insight. Contrary to the open-ended pluralism and
>> pragmatism of James, Royce was convinced that the object and source of
>> religious experience was an actual, infinite, and superhuman being."
>>
>>
>>
>> Since Pirsig was suspicious of James for trying to sneak religion in
>> through the back door into philosophy, imagine what he'd think of Royce's
>> "respect of the conventions of organized Christianity" and his stance
>> "contrary to the open-ended pluralism and pragmatism of James".
>>
>>
>>
>> Like I keep saying, trying to make this Idealistic religious fanatic into
>> a Pirsigian is like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. Why,
>> why, why does John keep preaching this nonsense against all evidence and
>> reason? This covert theism is bullshit and cannot be sustained without a
>> huge dose of dishonesty, or ignorance, or both.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's fine if a person insists on being an Idealist, an Absolutist, or a
>> advocate of conventional Christianity but it makes no sense to paint
>> Pirsig
>> or Pragmatism in these colors. The keys concepts of these two opposed
>> views
>> will crash into each other like two trains heading in opposite directions.
>> It's worse than a pointless waste of time because, frankly, it's so
>> obviously stupid. It makes me sad and angry that John is allowed to
>> continue raining his bullshit on Pirsig and James.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> parser
> 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
>


--
"finite players
play within boundaries.
Infinite players
play *with* boundaries."


------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Moq_Discuss at lists.moqtalk.org
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org


------------------------------

End of Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 122, Issue 8
*******************************************
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

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list