From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Tue Apr 26 2005 - 17:29:21 BST
Arlo had asked:
>>Who's engaging in "philosophy" and who's "pontificating"?
>>
>>
>
>
>
Ham answered:
>That's really an unfair comparison, Arlo. Mark is engaged in proving that
>all ID arguments are invalid. I'm postulating a valuistic philosophy that
>is founded on the concept of an intelligent designer.
>
>Given my assertion that "man cannot prove the existence of a creator by
>reason", what 'reason' would I have to attack anti-ID arguments?
>
>
>
>
Maybe I'm out in left-field then, but I thought Mark was arguing that ID
arguments rest on faith rather than rational or empirical arguments,
while you were arguing that ID can be reasoned through rational
argument, if not empirical means. From what you say above, I do see I
was wrong.
However, if your philosophy rests on a faith-based (non-reasoned) belief
in a "designer", why attempt to put it into a "rational" format? Right
or wrong, Pirsig believed Quality was NOT a faith-based (non-reasoned)
concept, but one that could be experienced empirically, and that is (one
reason perhaps) why he took the time to place it in a rational format
(instead of keeping it a mystic reality like he was temped to do in ZMM).
If you start from a non-rational, mystic "faith" in an unexperiencable
"designer", what goal is served by placing it in a structured, rational
format?
But also, if you don't feel that your "designer" can be proven by
reason, but must be accepted by faith, what exactly was your
disagreement with Mark? I thought that what he was saying all along??
Arlo
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 : Wed Apr 27 2005 - 01:26:17 BST