[MD] Why not Theism?

[Francisco Albano]

Hi everyone.
MoQ is public property. Thank you, RMP.  For me, "smuggling theism" is okay. I distinguish between Undefined God and God of definitions. "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" is a definition, so too, the God of Aquinas, A definition is correct if it leads one to service of neighbor and participation in the struggle for justice, peace, and integrity of creation. Undefined God is the God of experience. For me, the best definition is "God of Jesus Christ."  To honor him,  I transmit what Pirsig wants to say. However, I interpret him according to my Christian beliefs. The Undefined should inform static definitions to enliven these. "El Senor te bendiga y te guarde;
el Senor te mire con agrado y te extienda su amor;
el Senor te muestre su favor y te conceda la paz."
                                          (Numeros 6:24-26) 

    On Thursday, November 10, 2016 7:12 AM, david <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
 

 Pirsig makes it pretty clear how he feels about theism and it's place in philosophy, particularly his own philosophy. He says he had dismissed William James' famous book on religious experience because "it smelled more like some Victorian religious propagandists trying smuggle God into the laboratory data." He'd seen plenty of that in biology and chemistry too, he says. He'd also turned against the idea of 'uniting science and religion' (and doesn't like it any better now) because, "when you start out with an axe like that to grind, it's almost guaranteed that you will conclude with something false". As it turned out, James was guilty of none of these uses of philosophy, uses that are "immoral" according to the MOQ. Pirsig concludes his discussion of James by identifying the MOQ with James' pragmatism and radical empiricism.



And that's why I object when John or anyone else tries to smuggle theism into the MOQ. It doesn't matter if theism is compatible with my views. What matters is that Pirsig thinks it stinks. He thinks that grinding such an axe as you approach any philosophy will almost certainly lead to something false. It's also immoral, he says, to let a lower form of evolution devour a higher one. Theism, I would add, would force a particular definition onto DQ. It's metaphysics of the worst kind, the kind where you pretend you can make claims about the ineffable mystic reality. If he doesn't want religious axe grinding from William James, then he doesn't want it from Whitehead or Royce either. And he certainly wouldn't want it from some insulting joker on the internet.


John, our resident theist, has heard this argument before and he's seen this evidence too, I suppose, but he simply doesn't care about Pirsig's intentions or the meaning of Pirsig's text. Axe grinders are like that.



"In his undergraduate days Phaedrus had given James very short shrift because of the title of one of his books: The Varieties of Religious Experience. James was supposed to be a scientist, but what kind of scientist would pick a title like that? What instrument was James going to measure these varieties of religious experience? How would he empirically verify his data? It smelled more like some Victorian religious propagandists trying smuggle God into the laboratory data. They used to try to do that to counteract Darwin. Phaedrus had read early nineteenth century chemistry texts telling how the exact combination of hydrogen and oxygen to produce water told of the wondrous workings of the mind of God. This look like more of the same." -- Lila, chapter 26 (p325)



"He'd read quite a bit of James' philosophy. Now he wanted to get into some of his biography to put perspective on it. He wanted particularly to see how much actual evidence there was for the statement that James' whole purpose was to 'unite science and religion.' That claim had turned him against James years ago, and he didn't like it any better now. When you start out with an axe like that to grind, it's almost guaranteed that you will conclude with something false. The statement seemed more like some philosophological simplification written by someone with a weak understanding of what philosophy is for. To put philosophy in the service of any social organization or any dogma is immoral. It's a lower form of evolution trying to devour a higher one." -- Lila, chapter 29 (p362)


"There was nothing in what he was reading that suggested James was some kind of religious ideologue interested in proving some foregone conclusion about religion. Ideologues usually talk in terms of sweeping generalizations and what Phaedrus was reading seemed to confirm that James was about as far as you can get from these. In his early years especially, James' concept of ultimate reality was of thing concrete and individual. He didn't like Hegel or any of the German idealists who dominated philosophy in his youth precisely BECAUSE they were so general and sweeping in their approach." -- Lila, chapter 29, (p363)




<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