From: Joseph Maurer (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Sun Nov 14 2004 - 22:27:30 GMT
On 13 November 2004 4:20 PM Ian writes:
I've said enough already, but ...
"Shouldn't we teach what people believe to be true ?"
True, but why would "intellectuals" bother to debate / argue what is
true, if the truth could be found by popular democracy ?
"They call it God now only because they don't know about Quality ?" I
don't mind what they "call" it, but I am concerned what they think it
is. Whether they call it God or Quality, I'd be horrified if they
thought it was a transcendent purposeful being.
"Allowing room for both God and Darwin ?" But why must it always be a
binary debate ?
Ian
Hi Ian and all,
Ian I have always admired your calmness. When there have been difficult
postings on the list, calmness is king. I went back in Lila's Child,
Chapter 14 [March 1998] to [April 1998] pp 403 to 474. Struan proposed
that the MOQ's inquiry into morals was based on 'emotivism'.
No one could answer him. If they said yes to 'emotivism' he would
counter that emotivism is subjective and unverifiable and not
metaphysics. If they said no, then what was the basis of ethics. The
metaphysics of ethics in the MOQ could not be established and An Inquiry
into Morals, was a subjective unprovable assumption of LILA.
Now evolution is a problem. Again no satisfactory answer. IMO mystical
experience is subjective and verifiable. A new meaning for subjective.
The statement 'All men are equal' is dogma from mystical experience, and
is verifiable as all men have mystical experience. 'All men are free' is
again a dogma of verifiable mystical experience. The Native American
matrix. Rhetoric 2 logic 0.
Different moral levels inorganic, organic, social, intellectual are
dogmas of verifiable mystical experience. The origins or evolution of
the levels are obscure and not important, and can be left to further
study like the origins of planet Earth.
Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: Ian Glendinning
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: MD Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching
I've said enough already, but ...
"Shouldn't we teach what people believe to be true ?"
True, but why would "intellectuals" bother to debate / argue what is
true, if the truth could be found by popular democracy ?
"They call it God now only because they don't know about Quality ?"
I don't mind what they "call" it, but I am concerned what they think
it is. Whether they call it God or Quality, I'd be horrified if they
thought it was a transcendent purposeful being.
"Allowing room for both God and Darwin ?"
But why must it always be a binary debate ?
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Loggins
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: MD Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching
Hi all,
I have to wonder if nearly half of adult America sees something - a
creative something - that is missing from Darwinism and science at large
that lies behind everything it bludgens into mindless mechanisms. They
call it God now only because they don't know about Quality, but all
these people sense something that they are not willing to sluff off.
Science doesn't seem to be making inroads into their beliefs, because
it's missing something key: the creative source of all things. All the
more reason in my view that Creationism or ID should be taught
side-by-side with evolution. Those are closer to the truth of the MoQ
and it is what people believe. Shouldn't we teach what people believe to
be true?
Rich
From the Nov. 2004 issue of National Geographic -
"According to a Gallup poll drawn from more than a thousand
telephone interviews conducted in February 2001, no less than 45 percent
of responding U.S. adults agreed that "God created human beings pretty
much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or
so." Evolution, by their lights, played no role in shaping us.
Only 37 percent of the polled Americans were satisfied with allowing
room for both God and Darwin-that is, divine initiative to get things
started, evolution as the creative means. (This view, according to more
than one papal pronouncement, is compatible with Roman Catholic dogma.)
Still fewer Americans, only 12 percent, believed that humans evolved
from other life-forms without any involvement of a god.
The most startling thing about these poll numbers is not that so
many Americans reject evolution, but that the statistical breakdown
hasn't changed much in two decades. Gallup interviewers posed exactly
the same choices in 1982, 1993, 1997, and 1999. The creationist
conviction-that God alone, and not evolution, produced humans-has never
drawn less than 44 percent. In other words, nearly half the American
populace prefers to believe that Charles Darwin was wrong where it
mattered most."
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 15 2004 - 13:41:59 GMT