From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Mon Apr 11 2005 - 12:21:53 BST
Hi DMB,
I have a moment to indulge in some of this knockabout stuff.
> dmb says:
> Broken for me? C'mon Sam. I'm refering to a historical reality that
> occured
> before we were born and its not just a matter of taste. (I assume you
> understand that I am talking about the death of God. I'm talking about the
> problem we educated modern Westerners have in maintaining a belief in
> creation, virgin births, miracles, the ressurection, etc., etc..) The
> Catholic church, for example, is shrinking in the West for the very same
> reason that it is growing in Latin America, Africa and other non-Western
> cultures, where they just love to believe in visions and miracles. That's
> what I mean by broken.
The Catholic church is growing in the US, so far as I understand it, and
hugely everywhere else except Europe. You seem to subscribe to the
Enlightenment-era thesis that religion is a superstitious relic that will be
discarded as people evolve in their understandings. I think that thesis is
not only false, but is daily being shown to be false, if only eyes are
opened. The more likely scenario is that Western Europe (as a civilisation,
ie both ideology and population 'living' the ideology) will die out over the
next one to two hundred years, and secularism will be remembered as an
idiosyncratic detour with various frightening consequences (like Nazism and
Communism).
In other words, I do precisely think that it IS, in many ways, just a
question of taste.
> What static forms to I find useful in the process of discovery? This
> should
> not be a mystery to you, old friend. I love philosophy, comparative
> religion, mythology, psychology, and art. Considering the fact that just
> about everything that has ever been written can now be found with ease -
> and
> nobody is going to burn you at the stake for reading it - I find it
> impossible to choose a narrow path.
Cool. I don't see Christianity as a narrow path, and I remain very
interested in lots of different sources of wisdom, both other 'religious'
traditions, and the non-religious. Bizarrely, I'm a fan of Richard Dawkins,
for as long as he talks about the wonder of creation and doesn't go into
rant-mode about religion - a subject on which he knows next to nothing,
except by feedback from fundamentalists.
> Please feel free to offer a contrary view, but as far as I know, people
who
> follow the Christian path exclusively find nothing but Christianity.
Of course, but where did 'exclusively' come from?
> I mean,
> do you know of anyone who has followed Christianity to find a more
> universal
> truth? Is there a Christian who reached the mountian top and said, "Gee,
> those Buddhist really have a good point."? Or anyting of the sort? Please
> take this in the spirit it was intended; I'm genuinely curious and yet
> very
> skeptical too.
As I said before, have a look at Bede Griffiths or Thomas Merton.
> dmb says:
> I get the impression here that you see the specific forms of Christianity
> itself as a culture.
Yes (using Pirsig's understanding that a culture is both social and
intellectual).
> That's true enough, but the assertion is also far too
> vague to be of any use.
You made the assertion.
> I would like to point out that at this stage in
> history Christianity is a rather narrow subculture, one that is
> increasingly
> at odds with the larger culture.
??????????!!!!!!!!!
Er, a third of the population of the world? in what way, precisely, is that
'narrow'? I think that the narrow culture is, in fact, the secular one. And
to be at odds with the 'larger culture', if by that you mean the
contemporary mores and practices of late western capitalism, seems to me to
be quite obviously the higher Quality option.
<snip the Schiavo bit as I haven't followed the case closely - but I'm happy
to be persuaded that there are 'religious' nutcases causing problems - or,
in fact, 'scientist' nutcases causing problems - or, in fact, just normal
human beings getting in their usual mess and causing problems....>
> dmb says:
> I think you're confusing Protestant culture with a much broader historical
> development. <snip the Wilber stuff>
> Which means that it is simply wrong for a contemporary Westerner to
> accept beliefs on the basis of authority and tradition rather than upon
> actual evidence and knowledge.
The authority and tradition of the Christian church a) places the conscience
first and foremost, and b) mandates the pursuit of the truth. Why is that
wrong?
> Think of what the Pope's postion on condoms, for example...
The Pope's position on condoms was (IMO) wrong - but demonstrably wrong from
within the Christian tradition, even from within the RC Christian tradition.
I completely agree that the structures of power meant that his views had
widespread negative impact. But why equate Christianity with the Pope? I
think the Pope was on many things great, but on other things (like condoms)
totally wrong. But I understand where he was coming from with it.
> dmb says:
> What?! "The world" is the social level and embracing the church is a move
> toward transcending the social level? For the sake of civility I will
> simply
> say that this move strikes me as a self-serving distortion that turns the
> MOQ on its head. I would also add that any modern Westerner who believes
> the
> world was created in six days or that God's one and only son was sent to
> redeem the world, anyone who literally believes that does not need a
> lobotomy because they do not have a brain.
If the MoQ gets turned on its head, then all the worse for the MoQ. I don't
happen to think that it does, of course, I just think that various
assumptions about the nature of Christianity (ie yours ;-) are what get
turned on their head. (And it's not embracing the church that transcends the
social level, but embracing the gospel)
> Sam quoted: (after his signature, NB)
> "God wishes to be adored by people who are free." Pope John Paul II
>
> dmb says:
> God wishes to be adored? So do babies and stripppers. But seriously, is
> there any reason to believe this, any evidence WHATSOEVER that there is
> such
> a God or even the slightest clue that we could possibly know such a thing
> about his wishes? If I believed in such a God, I'd like to believe that he
> is NOT a vain narcissist. And where do you get the nerve to post such a
> thing in a philosophical discussion group devoted to discussing an
> anti-theistic system? Sheesh.
>
> Thanks for being such a fine enemy. It makes things easy for me when you
> make moves like this, father.
To which I will simply give yet another quote from Mr Ludwig, my main
philosophical inspiriation: "The way you use the word “God” does not show
whom you mean – but, rather, what you mean.’Wittgenstein, 1946
Cheers
Sam
"The intelligent man who is proud of his intelligence is like the condemned
man who is proud of his large cell." Simone Weil
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 Apr 11 2005 - 13:31:41 BST