From: Charles Roghair (ctr@pacificpartssales.com)
Date: Tue Oct 05 2004 - 03:58:38 BST
Hello All:
On Oct 3, 2004, at 3:06 PM, David Buchanan wrote:
> [Scott:] I am aware that Pirsig considers the MOQ to be, as he puts it,
> anti-theistic, not just atheistic. Of course he is referring to theism
> as a
> belief in a personal God, and there is none of that in the MOQ.
> However,
> unless mysteries like "where does intellect come from" get better
> answers
> than "DQ created it", the MOQ verges on the theistic.
>
> dmb says:
> Well, the MOQ's explantions might be a mystery to you, but I fail to
> see how
> theism or faith follows from that. The MOQ is not a creation myth, its
> a
> evolutionary metaphysical explanation and its assertions are based on
> empiricism.
A seminarian friend asked me about "faith." Specifically, he
challenged me to explain why I have faith in science and I don't have
faith in God. His point is one of causation, that everything is the
result of a cause, which suggests there must have been at some point
in the past a "first cause."
The following is a chunk of the email in which Brother Jim issued said
challenge:
So here's what I was thinking. This came up in my class on systematic
theology (even more boring than it sounds), but I remember reading it
back in the day when I was reading Nietszche to impress my girlfriend,
who, it later turned out, didn't give a shit what I read and found the
whole Nietszche bit pretty snotty. But anyway.
We were talking about different ways of looking at faith vis a vis
reason--one way would be for reason to lead to faith--i.e., someone
deduces through reason that revelation is correct. Another would be
for faith to lead to reason--you believe in a religious creed and then
use logic and observation to seek out its buttresses. Another would be
to see them working side by side--for example, Thomas Aquinas, who sees
revelation as God's gift to the Jews, and philosophy as God's gift to
the Greeks, and Christian culture as a synthesis of the two, and writes
using that synthesis. Then there's the view that they're antagonistic,
that reason categorically excludes faith, because faith requires a leap
beyond what can be proved or tested, etc. From the faith side, you get
what is politely called "fideism," a belief that all you need is faith,
and logic and reason are a waste of time (in other cultures, these
people are called "suicide bombers"). Catholicism has traditionally
liked to see itself in that Aquinas mode, with faith and reason working
side by side. But when push comes to shove, Catholic authorities
usually are more suspicious of reason and science, etc, in favor of
faith. That's not always true--for example, as long ago as St.
Augustine in the 3th century he was teaching that Genesis was an
allegory, not the actual facts of creation--but a lot of times it is.
Hence the reaction against modernism at the beginning of the last
century, and the business with Galileo in the 16th, etc.
Now here's what I was thinking. When you're in line with your daughter
for preschool and you see "just believe," you pull her out of line and
go somewhere else, because you're horrified at the whole notion of your
daughter being encouraged to accept blind faith (those people would
count as fideists, methinks). And yet your boy Nietszche made the
point that the thought process behind reason, or science, or logic, is
essentially the same problem. I used to have this argument with my old
roommate, who was a psychiatrist and STILL won't prescribe me any
Ambien or Oxy, that is sort of the same--cause and effect, for example.
Why do we believe that cause follows effect? Because it always does?
But isn't that a tautology? It does because it does? His argument was
that science could prove itself--that the rules of science proved
scientific principles. And therefore everyone should accept science
because it's the only system that can be proved by science. But isn't
that a self-referential problem? I mean, wouldn't science obviously
prove itself? It wouldn't have any adherents if it didn't.
So we believe in cause and effect, and gravity, and the laws of
thermodynamics, because by observation we can infer them to be the
case. But we actually have no proof of them--they're descriptive laws,
not prescriptive. And from all that inferring, we make huge leaps of
faith to believe in the existence of quarks, or neutrons, or black
holes. And eventually you get to fantastical theories that are as
amazingly creative as anything religion dreams up--for example, the Big
Bang. What's the difference between a Hindu who believes the world was
vomited out of the mouth of a god-monkey, and a scientist who believes
the universe came into being from a single point that included all mass
and energy, and has been expanding "out" (from where?) all these
billions of years? The scientist points to evidence--leftover matter,
or galaxies flying away from us, to support his theory, and says
evidence holds the day. But the Hindu points to faith and tradition,
and says they hold the day. Why is the scientist's argument more
compelling? What is it that makes a scientist or an atheist or an
agnostic believe in the Big Bang, but scorn that Hindu with his
god-monkey?
One obvious reason is that we privelege logical arguments and
scientific reasoning because they've proved to work, by and large. Then
again, that god-monkey is pretty faithful to the Hindu, else his family
wouldn't have worshipped it for three thousand years, and continue to
do so even though now they've got TiVo and "Real World" reruns. Anselm
and Aquinas and Bonaventure used logical arguments to "prove" the
existence of God, but that logic is dismissed as specious, while
teaching that Einsteinean wormholes can allow a hypothetical time
travel is considered cutting-edge physics. Isn't Steven Hawking saying
"Just Believe"?
And from there, what's the reasoning behind the belief that when you
die, you die completely? What evidence is there to support that
hypothesis. Or is it just a matter of faith--"I believe that nothing
follows physical death"? That god-monkey might be pissed, if you chose
to be a pagan in a creed outworn over and against him.
Now, I'll be fair--there's no one who doesn't accept those laws of
physics and science and reason. I accept them all myself. At the same
time, I agree with Nietzsche that in that matter, as much as in my
incense-choked popery, I'm accepting it on faith.
I'm going to the Jersey shore this weekend--I'll make sure to send Chad
a postcard.
jk,sj
CHUCK'S MoQ TINGED VIEW OF FAITH:
Faith
Faith is a process. In order for there to be faith, there must be a
subject/object duality. Also, faith may be divided into "rational"
faith and "irrational" faith
While the subject requires consciousness, the object need only be real
or true according to the subject's belief system.
I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. I am the subject, the
sun is the object. My faith in tomorrow is based on my experience of a
thousand yesterdays. Rational.
George W. Bush has faith that "God is on our side!" in the U.S. led
coalition occupation of Iraq. George W. Bush is the subject, God is
the object. His faith is based on, I don't know, what Pat Robertson
tells him or what he finds stuck to the bottom of his shoe at the end
of the day, or what Rummie and Dickie C. say. Irrational and scary.
As the sun has risen every day I can remember and every day before that
as far as I know, this is a rational faith.
As far as George W. Bush's belief in an omnipotent, all-benevolent
creator who has taken up America's illegal, imperialistic agenda to
kill arabs and dominate world oil caches, well, let's just say I think
that's irrational.
So there is "rational faith" and "irrational faith." Capisce?
Faith in science is rational and convenient. Faith in God is
irrational and inconvenient and, if you ask me, also scary.
Scientific Validity
Your old roommate was wrong: one cannot use science to prove science to
be true. I won't even maintain that science is true, only convenient
at the moment to describe what's happening as God was convenient (more
convenient, at least) in Biblical times. Biblical times was a long
time ago. Before a lot of scientific evolution, discovery and
explanation.
Gravity is a good example. The law of gravity didn't exist before Sir
Isac Newton came along to write it. This is also, of course, an
example of the way in which the power of reason can be applied to
create knowledge. Newton was able to theorise the relationship between
two bodies (the earth and an apple) by suggesting it was based on the
presence of a hidden, unobservable, force. He was, furthermore, able to
test this theory and demonstrate its reliability and validity over
time, in every known case. The law of gravity is made up of words that
describe a phenomenon.
Can you make an equally persuasive argument for God based of
"irrational faith." Send me the results of your test; describe your
reliability standards; help me to understand the validity of entire
thing.
All I know is that I was born with blood on my hands and then I must
have this irrational, inconvenient, faith. There's no testing,
reliability or validity. "No questions, just believe."
Stephen Hawking didn't say "just believe." Stephen Hawking said "I'm a
lot smarter than you; that's obvious. After a shit- load of intense
thought and hard work, I think I've got this figured out; I believe
this, and here's why..."
Father Gary back in the early eighties at Saints Simon and Jude
Catholic school in Huntington Beach said "you are an original sinner,
this hippie carpenter was nailed to a tree a couple thousand years ago
and it's your fault, and now I'm gonna tell you once a week for an hour
on Sunday what asshole you are over and over even though God's perfect
and he made you in his image and I know that because it's written in
these old books that have been translated a bunch of times from an
original language that no longer exists in practice by people who
weren't actually there and didn't know Jesus and by the way, he never
intended to start a church, that was us and we've fucked up a hell of a
lot since then, but Pope John Paul II just got around to admitting we
were wrong about Galileo Galilei in, 1992 was it? So it looks like
we're coming around. Your ass looks hot in those Toughskins, by the
way. Yow!"
Father Gary was a little boy-crazy. Also, judging by the dates he was
some kind of clairvoyant. Weird.
Also static. Static and sort of silly.
Causation:
Causation is an illusion. Microscopic particles do not adhere to the
laws of causation; sub-atomic particles in fact appear and disappear
without rhyme or reason. Science has shattered causation, it exists
only on a social level–in people's heads.
Point being that reality is dynamic. Future scientific revelations may
reveal that causation does in fact exist again. I'm open to that
possibility. That will be the reality then, of that moment, of and
when it happens.
"Just Believe"
My problem with the sign on the wall in Cecilia's preschool classroom
is not so much what is said, but what is implied.
"Don't ask questions, just believe."
I don't like that message; it smacks of brainwashing. Also, it's
incredibly static. It swims upstream in the dynamic river, REALITY.
Christianity, Islam (even more than Catholicism!), Judaism, Hindus,
Scientology, etc; all stubborn salmon flopping at reality. God? Flop.
flop.
Nietszche, that cranky bitch, when he said "God is dead," I think that
was wishful thinking. God is the enemy of genuine mystical experience.
Nietszche would have killed God, given the opportunity. Nietszche
knew that only upon God's death did he have a chance of ever actually
knowing God. God is dynamic.
Church: flop.
Tradition: flop.
Ritual: flop, flop.
Dogma: flippity, flop, flop, flop!
Christianity's personified God is a 25 pound pregnant salmon-cow,
flopping and struggling against the undeniable, rushing waters of
REALITY
The Godhead, or getting beyond the illusions of duality and symbols,
seeing that everything is one and that matter isn't real–that's God.
It's not something you can institutionalize. There are no hierarchies.
There is no guilt. There is no judgment. There is no Pope-mobile.
Now I'll be fair, I know your God isn't necessarily that of traditional
Christianity's, but I need some point of reference and I don't expect
you to define your God because I suspect it is beyond comprehension
ergo beyond definition.
Which leads me to my final point...
Faith is for Science. Faith is for people. Have faith in your spouse
or your best friend or your family or booze or porn, hopefully it is
rational faith; have faith in art or philosophy or literature or junk
food or television or The Fighting Irish...
Faith doesn't enter the equation, where "God" is concerned. I am God;
the apriori me, I mean, that guy, him, me, I, am God. Faith is moot.
The self is it, after all.
REALITY!
--------
Comments?
C.
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 : Tue Oct 05 2004 - 08:43:31 BST