From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sat May 29 2004 - 14:35:57 BST
On 29 May 2004 at 11:02, David Morey wrote to MSH:
Thanks for your tolerance towards people with a religious
perspective. Having read Charles Taylor's Sources of
the Self, and other books I believe that a secular perspective is
inevitably nihilist, immoral and unable to support rationality, which
makes you the irrationalist. But in case you think you can smell
religious faith in my view, I subscribe to no organised religion.
msh says:
You may be right. Thanks for tolerating my irrationality.
Whether or not religious beliefs are organized is irrelevant, IMO.
In your view, is it rational to believe that quality/DQ is a power
with a personality, that takes an active and caring (yes, paternal)
interest in human affairs, with an extra loving interest in those
humans who worship and appease DQ?
If so, then our understandings of the word "rational" and of DQ are
so far apart that using them in conversation will result only in
confusion. If not, then we have no argument, as this is the sense in
which I see religious belief to be irrational.
dm continued:
Another thing that has led me to this view is that it seems to me
that a religious commitment is one of the most powerful ways of
sustaining a moral approach to life as you have described very well.
msh says:
Thanks. But, as you imply, RC is not the only way to sustain a moral
approach to life.
dm continued:
The equation secular=rational is Enlightenment propaganda created to
distance the intellect from religious organisation and control for
the sake of intellectual freedom -a good thing at the time.
msh asks:
Of course, "propaganda" is used pejoratively here; the Enlightenment
was about a lot more than your simple equation. But I understand and
agree.
dm added:
Let's trust in the testament of the world rather than the book as
Galileo suggested.
msh asks:
Why one or the other, and not both?
dm said:
In the post-secular future, I suggest, we may start to re-recognise
the reality of quality/DQ & to this I suggest, the only rational
relationship is one that contains many elements that we would
previously call religious.
msh says:
I recognize the reality of DQ right now. At least I think so. This
is why I'm interested in the MOQ. As for the future, you may very
well be right.
Thanks for your thoughts. I'm looking forward to your contributions
to the "Moral Evolution of Society" thread.
Best,
Mark Steven Heyman
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is everything." -- Henri Poincare' 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 : Sat May 29 2004 - 17:04:52 BST