From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Wed Oct 13 2004 - 19:36:52 BST
What shall we have on our T-shirts?
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Steven Heyman" <markheyman@infoproconsulting.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: MD On Faith
> Hi David,
>
> On 12 Oct 2004 at 18:03, David Morey wrote:
> Seems clear to me that if some aspects of experience
> are not suitable for scientific explanation this is very interesting
> it is also exactly what Pirsig says of DQ. Also without DQ we cannot
> explain how SQ has evolved.
>
>
> msh says:
> Yes, as my friend Platt likes to remind me, there's a lot more to
> life than what is dreamt of in science's valueless philosophy. Art
> is the most immediate example, especially, for me, music and
> literature. Beauty in general. Love. In fact, I think if life were
> nothing more than 70 plus years of running around with calculators
> and yardsticks, no one would stick around long enough to do any
> science anyway.
>
> That's why I love the MOQ. I think we need to get some T-Shirts
> printed up.
>
> Best,
> Mark
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Steven Heyman" <markheyman@infoproconsulting.com>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 1:34 AM
> Subject: RE: MD On Faith
>
>
> > On 11 Oct 2004 at 18:02, Platt Holden wrote:
> > As Scott as pointed out several times, orthodox theology has
> evolved
> > over the years in light of new knowledge. But, it's faith in a
> > spiritual presence hasn't changed from the beginning. Similarly,
> > science has evolved in the light of new knowledge. But it's faith
> in
> > naturalism hasn't changed from the beginning. It will not allow an
> > unmeasurable creative power, like DQ, into it's explanations.
> >
> > msh says:
> > Science can't make room for anything unmeasurable or otherwise
> > physically undetectable; if it did it wouldn't be science. It's
> > simply wrong to say that science denies God; Science has nothing to
> > say about God except, insofar as the concept has any meaning at
> all,
> > there is no scientific basis for believing in a supreme being of
> any
> > kind. This doesn't mean that one, or more, doesn't exist.
> >
> > As long as religion insists that God is unmeasurable, the two
> realms
> > of thought will be concerned with mutually exclusive domains. The
> > only time religion and science come into conflict is when religious
> > people seek for their beliefs the imprimatur of science (or math or
> > logic). The interesting social and psychological question, at that
> > point, is why they desire this stamp of approval.
> >
> > Best,
> > msh
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 Oct 13 2004 - 19:48:57 BST