[MF] MOQ: valuable or not?

[david buchanan]

Kevin and y'all:

dmb said:
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...

Kevin asked:
I'm sure I don't know what you're talking about.  Did I say something 
intellectually dishonet?  Did I get upset when asked to explain something I 
wrote?  Did I get upset when someone scrutinized a statement I made? Please 
elaborate.

dmb answers:
OK. As I explained, you're catching some of Sam's heat because I see you 
making similar moves. And as I tried to explain, I think these moves are 
related to a larger problem, which is where the comments about the Harris 
book come in. So where do I get the idea that you're using some of these 
evasive moves? Beyond an apparent reluctance to provide answers to my 
questions, (I still don't know what you or Sam mean by "faith", for example) 
there are comments like this...

Kevin said:
The caveat is that, as a man who maintains a love relationship with Jesus, I 
may use language that would tend to inflame other people's sensibilities. If 
this becomes a problem then I'll have to bow out of the conversation.

dmb says:
I suppose this caveat can be read to mean that you're genuinely concerned 
that your Christian mode of expression will upset people too much and that 
you'd be bowing out for the sake of kindness. But that's kinda hard to 
believe. I mean, I've never noticed any kind of problem along those lines 
around here. If you recall the two examples of Sam heading for the exit soon 
after being challenged, you'll see why your caveat about loving Jesus and 
bowing out might bother me. One could read your comments to mean, "I'm a 
christian so I'm gonna talk like a Christian and if anybody makes a fuss 
about that, I'm leaving." It could be seen as an announcement that you're 
simply not going to respond to those who might have a problem with what 
you're saying or how you're saying it. It says, "Don't you dare." And that's 
the kind of emotional blackmail Harris was talking about, the kind that is 
used to protect beliefs from scrutiny. It puts conditions on the way the 
conversation is going to be conducted and then backs it up with a small 
threat. It says, "Don't challenge me on this or I'm leaving". Its 
emotionally manipulative to suggest in advance that certain kinds of 
responses will cause you to leave. It mutes the conversation to the extent 
that people feel obliged to comply. To the extent that this fixes the game 
in your favor and sets certain self-serviing parameters, I think its 
intellectually dishonest.

And of course I'm not resting my whole case on that one example. There is a 
more generalized complaint that bothers me just as much. Your questions 
about theism in the MOQ were answered some time ago with a bunch of quotes 
from Pirsig and some explanations and yet you persist with the assertion 
that the MOQ is silent or inadequate on the matter. That's just not true 
Kevin. There are answers, its just that you find them unacceptable. And 
that's fine. Nobody's asking you to adopt an anti-theistic stance. But the 
Pirsig quotes were petty unequivocal and LILA has lots and lots to say about 
religion and God too, so please don't pretend the MOQ is silent on these 
matters.

And then there is the name of the thread. MOQ: valuable or not? It seems to 
me that rather than engage with the MOQ's stance on this particular matters, 
you've decided to take an indirect approach and just call the whole thing 
into question. That strikes me as a bit dishonest too, but maybe its merely 
disengenuous. Anyway, I'd much, much rather see a theist take it on 
directly. Challenge the anti-theistic stance. Make a case for faith and 
love. I've never seen anything like that around here, despite many, many 
questions over the years. 'Twould be marvelous. Please, surprize me.

Don't get wrong. I'm not saying you're a monster. I'm not saying you're a 
big fat liar. I'm not saying your pants are on fire or that you're making 
stuff up or that trying to fool any one with sinister deceptions. 
Intellectual dishonesty isn't pretty, but its not that ugly. Its more like 
cheating at a game. It usually more like a form of unfairness rather than 
one of those more severe types of dishonesty like theft or an outright lie. 
Its safe to say there is a moral dimension to my argument, but its not a 
crime. The central concern for me is that this is a forum for discussion, I 
think this topic is way at the top of the list in terms of both interest and 
importance, and the dishonesty I'm complaining here is a real show-stopper. 
I'm saying this sort of dishonesty gets in the way of having a good 
conversation about fascinating things.

I'm not looking for MOQish answers, for the "right-thinking" answers, for 
answers I personally find attractive. I'm just asking for answers I can 
comprehend. What do you mean by "faith"? What does it mean to say, "God is 
Love"? What do you mean when you say you "maintain a love relationship with 
Jesus"? And, assuming I've misread your intentions, how does that 
relationship lead to the use of certain kinds of language and why do you 
think that language would "inflame" anyone? Naturally, you don't OWE me any 
explanations, but you have been posting and making these comments. I think 
its reasonable and fair for me to ask questions. Providing something like a 
clear and direct answer is the decent thing to do in that situation, don't 
you think?

Apologies for the over-explaining and long-windedness here, but you were 
certain that you didn't know what I was talking about last time and wanted 
to make sure you had at least SOME idea this time.

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/