[MF] MOQ: valuable or not?

[david buchanan]

Kevin, Ted, Sam and all:

Kevin said:
You expressed confusion and a lack of understanding with the meaning and 
value others seem to have.  And it sounds like you're convinced intellect 
trumps these things...

dmb replies:
Yea, I think intellectually justifiable beleifs are better than beleifs that 
aren't able to stand up to intellectual scrutiny. Who doesn't? As Pirsig 
points out, its not that intellectual descriptions are any truer than social 
level beliefs in any absolute sense, but they're more dynamic, more open to 
change. And whiule I think lots of the conflict in the world today can be 
understood as a conflict between these two levels of understanding, my 
central concern at the moment is simply to get you to explain what you mean.

Kevin continued:
...But it's your concern with right-thinking and a person's responsibility 
to others that really interests me.  After quoting Sam Harris' opinions on 
religion and the religious, you wrote, "Harris points out that there is 
really no other area of life where people are allowed to avoid scrutiny and 
its gotta stop." And then you wrote the following...

dmb replies:
Right-thinking? I have a rather simple concern here, Kevin. Honesty. 
Intellectual honesty and the courage that it demands. I'm saying that nobody 
should be let off the hook in a place like this. Are we not philosophers? 
Are we supposed to allow religious statements to go unexamined and 
unchallenged simply because they are religious? No, of course not. I really 
don't see how one could make a valid case to the contrary. I mean, in a 
forum such as this it seems unfair to make statements and then get upset 
about it when another asks for some kind of explanation or otherwise 
scrutinizes that statement. Don't you think?

Kevin asked:
Are you asking me if I think you're deluding yourself?  What would you have 
me do if I did think this?

dmb answers:
The point in saying that I have a loving relationship with Zeus and have 
faith in the belief that there is a giant diamond buried in my back yard 
(Harris's examples) is to provide a case that is somewhat analogous to yours 
in terms of its emtional importance to the believer. For people in our 
culture its pretty natural to be a Christian and believe in that God. Harris 
changes the content from Jesus to Zeus and from Heaven to a giant diamond in 
order to expose the distinction between emtional satisfaction and the 
contents of belief. See? It also exposes the taboo. Nobody is going to be 
offended or hurt when the skeptic points out that diamonds just don't get 
that big and Zeus is a mythological figure. See? He's trying to take the 
emotional attachment and cultural bias out of the picture for a moment to 
shed light on more familiar beleifs and the tatics involved in avoiding
criticism.

Ted writes, to David, and Kevin:
Kevin, I think David is arguing more against people like me here.  I  think 
in David's eyes you have the delusion, it is I who am inclined to 'respect  
the taboo against challenging' the delusion.   By David's definition,  I'm 
currently killing my sister by not fighting against her delusions  enough. 
So, as I think we found before, I tend to agree with David the MoQ is a 
better intellectual model of reality than "God is Love", but apparently 
unlike David, I have a sense of symmetry that says - perhaps I also have a 
delusion, perhaps I think my delusion is better than his.  Maybe WAY, WAY  
better.  But I would not want to be scrutinized, and asked to justify by  
beliefs to any intellectual panel.  And I realize that  symmetry, fairness, 
the Golden Rule, Truth, Justice, and the American Way require that must 
grant those same rights to have one's own delusion to  everyone else also.

dmb says:
Your sister's story is interesting, Ted. Thanks for posting about that. I 
lived in Ann Arbor in th4e mid '80s and still remember it fondly.  
Anyway,... I'm not necessarily saying Kevin or religious people in general 
are deluded, I'm just saying that delusions can't be discovered or exposed 
when our assertions and statements are walled off from inspection. I'm 
saying that intellectual honesty requires a frank and open discussion. It 
demands that we be allowed to critized one another's views, don't you think? 
Since there is no final arbitor of the truth, all we can do is put our ideas 
out on the table for everyone to see, to grapple with and by this process 
try to figure out which views are better. Sure, it can be a bit painful to 
sit before our little "intellectual panel". That's where the need for 
courage enters into the picture, no? It probably goes without saying, but I 
certainly wouldn't claim any kind of exemption from this rule nor do I claim 
any kind of talent for this kind of honesty or courage. I'm just saying the 
principle is sound. In fact, I'm a little disturbed that this assertion 
doesn't have universal appeal in a forum like this, but at least Ted agrees 
that...

Ted continued:
"..it should be OK to criticize, I absolutely agree that we who think we 
have a better understanding should have a voice, we should not be silenced.  
But we have no right to unilaterally decide that, since our thinking is 
better, we should probe and root out the God force wherever we find it, 
right?

dmb says:
It seems like the second sentence undoes the first insofar as it is really 
just a negative way characterize CRITICISM and the CRITIC as excessive and 
authoritarian. See, I think this is the sort of thing that reinforces the 
taboo. It implies that there is something wrong with the critic, that his 
criticism is based on malice and arrogance and is therefore unsound. But 
that's not a valid defense, is it? That would just be a way to avoid the 
debate. The critic should be engaged and defeated intelledtually, not just 
dismissed with slander or insult. This will probably seem overly defensive, 
but I gotta say I'm really not trying to "root out the God force". As I 
understand it, the MOQ is anti-theistic, but basically equates DQ with a 
mystical God. I'm very interested in mythology, comparative religions, 
psychology and these things all flow into conversations about God. So rather 
than root it out, I very much like to discuss it. (Have you seen my paper, 
"Fun with Blasphemy", at robertpirsig.org yet? I suppose its nasty enough to 
make a priest's head explode.) Anyway, I'm just saying that the taboo 
against criticism tends to frustrate the ability to have that conversation. 
I'm just saying that, in terms of intellectual validity or philosophical 
respectability, it doesn't matter how deeply held or deeply felt our beliefs 
are.

Ted said:
I think it's a more hopeless, like a catch 22 position, like, you can lead a 
horse to water, but you can't make him drink.  I've tried to argue it with 
my sister, as I've detailed in past posts. We can argue with Kevin, or try 
to explore his position, but I doubt we'll change it much. We seem to live 
in different worlds, almost with different languages, and ways of seeing the 
world.  But it comes a point where I say, OK,  I have to respect the other 
guy, too.

dmb says:
Yea, it does seem like there is a real rift. I think its part of the larger 
conflict between social and intellectual values. There's a similar rift 
between the two political parties in the US and its getting pretty bad these 
days. Each side thinks the other is dead wrong about nearly everything. Last 
night I heard a talkshow host compared the conflict betweens liberals and 
conservatives to the conflict between Sunnis and Shiittes. He said its 
getting to the point where people might get violent, smash each others faces 
in or even do murder. And a while back I heard a guy say that the US was on 
the verge of civil war. Personally, I think that's a bit over the top, but 
its bad enough that such things can be said in public. Despite all that, I 
guess I'm saying no we don't HAVE TO respect the other guy's views. We can 
and should respect the guy or gal, but its open season on everybody's 
assertions and claims. No exceptions. Respect for somebody's views has to be 
earned. We need only respect views that are respectable.

I also have to say that I don't mean to pick on Kevin, who seems like a 
genuinely nice guy. Its not personal. Maybe he's been taking heat from me 
that should really be directed at Sam. There seems to be a similarity among 
theists on this frustrating point. This will probably look like petty 
revenge, but Sam's recent posts put this tatic on display pretty clearly. 
Insofar as I want you to understand my complaint, these examples are 
irresistable. When Marsha challenged one of Sam's theological assertions 
about love, he responded by saying...

"Hey Marsha, don't let me lead you into thinking you have anything to learn.
Screen me out, you don't have to read a single word I write. (Easiest thing 
in
the world to do if you use Outlook Express - put me in the 'blocked senders'
group - then you'll never have to be exposed to me again. Rest content in 
your
'experience' and let it direct you as you wish. If I'm just an entirely 
negative
source of SQ to you - fine, leave me be. Just don't try and engage me with 
your
'baggage' either - seems to me like you're working out some pretty heavy 
karma
there, and I don't particularly enjoy being the place where you have your 
dump."

Likewise, Sam was offended by my statements about the "God is Love" sign and 
said...

"You won't take it from me, so why don't you start exploring the links 
between emotion and intelligence that are currently being written about by a 
number of significant (non-religious but still sensible) philosophers. Try 
Martha Nussbaum's 'Upheavals of Thought' for how and why emotion is linked. 
...Oh, hang on, we've been here before.... that's when you pretended to have 
read
the book, wasn't it? ...Sigh. Same old tea, sloshing round the same old cup. 
Back to lurking.

Beyond the insults (Ironically delivered in defense of divine love) the 
first thing I noticed was the evasion tactic contained in both salvos. Sam 
is telling Marsha to ignore him, in effect to remain silent about any 
disagreements she has with him. Her criticism is dismissed as shit, 
basically. He's telling me that he will go away, that he'll go back to 
"lurking" and dismisses my criticism because I'm an ignorant, a liar and a 
purveyor of boring old tea. (Just for the record, I'm an ignorant liar who 
drinks coffee. In America, tea is for little girls and old ladies, although 
I do like the ocassional citrus tea. I was just opening a box of tangerine 
orange Zinger when, as if to prove my point, I found a little pink pamphlet 
on women's heart disease.) Anyway, in both cases Sam seems to be suggesting 
that he's being persecuted rather than scrutinized or criticized or 
challanged. Rather than respond to the content of the disagreement or 
otherwise criticize the critic, Sam is just inventing excuses to avoid the 
debate. And rather than embrace the opportunity to persuade others or 
sharpen his arguments, he just wants it all to go away.

This is the sort of evasive tactic that has frustrated me for a long time. 
I've drawn Kevin into this little drama because of his lasting desire to 
find a place for theism and faith within the MOQ, which is not quite as bad 
as trying to find a place for atheism and skepticism within the Baptist 
church.

Thanks.

dave (not quite as offensive as I'd like to be) buchanan

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963