[MD] In religion

[John Carl]

Irina,

I had some of your questions in mind when I responded to Adrie and dmb so I
hope that helps but if it doesn't feel free to prod me some more.  On the
whole, I think philosophy and religion should be kept in their separate
places, but with the caveat that some sort of religious values underlie the
bindings of society and when those patterns come into conflict, it's
intellect that unties the knots.   So we ought to be able to discuss
religion rationally.

As for it "going away".  That is no more possible than  living lives of
spirit, floating in the aether with no connection to biology or matter.
Human life is lived on 4 levels.  Philosophy is king of the 4th, Religion
is the king of the 3rd.  You can't experience a human life without
religion, any more than you can have a thought without a biological brain.

Glad to hear a fresh voice.

John



On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:53 PM, Irina <irinaduplessis.ii.consult at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>



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