[MD] In religion

[Adrie Kintziger]

Hello, Irina.
leuk , ben ik niet meer de enige belg hier.Je hebt een mooie posting
gemaakt , Irina,je kunt heel goed intellectueel uit de voeten merk ik.Zelf
post ik hier eigenlijk nog zelden, we maakten in de groep teveel ruzie soms.
anyway,ff een tip , wil je erop letten niet de gehele body's van de threads
te cut-copy pasten?;het is snel verwarrend en het word ook nog eens
gearchiveerd? je mag natuurlijk wel grote snips nemen,maar denk om de
bandbreedte.Ik probeer je ook maar te helpen hoor.
groetjes , Adrie,Oost Vlaanderen.

2016-02-10 17:00 GMT+01:00 Emily Schober <emily_parodi at hotmail.com>:

> 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
> 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