Re: MD quality religion

From: David MOREY (
Date: Sun Mar 21 2004 - 16:44:36 GMT

  • Next message: David MOREY: "Re: MD quality religion"

    Hi All

    For me, to talk about something existening is to ask
    whether we can experience it or not. This is complicated by the fact that
    the sort of language you use will be built into and enable the sort of
    experiences you can have.
    This is why SOM blocks out DQ and other qualitative aspects of experience in
    of SQ related theories of substance and quantitative aspects of experience.
    Lots of religious talk does seem to be dealing with either DQ and the
    aspects that go along with DQ, but also a more SQ based god who is the god
    of order,
    the god of natural theology who can be given credit for the great
    achievements of nature/
    evolution that Pirsig discusses as levels. The problem with most organised
    religion is that
    its dogma is too full of SOM type of reasoning.

    David M

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Steve Peterson" <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 2:29 PM
    Subject: Re: MD quality religion

    > Hi Platt, DM, Matt K, all
    > > Platt: IMHO, the MOQ is atheistic to the core.
    > >
    > Here is my Matt K inspired approach to the atheist question:
    > Theistius: Are you an atheist?
    > Moqist: An atheist is one that asserts that there is no God. I make no
    > such assertion and do not accept being labeled "atheist."
    > Theistius: Yes, but do you believe that God exists?
    > Moqist: Such a concept certainly exists. Otherwise, what have we been
    > talking about? Many people find God to be a useful idea for explaining
    > their experience.
    > Theistius: I want to know whether God actually exists. Not whether such
    > an idea exists.
    > Moqist: Before I answer, can you tell me why I should participate in
    > this God/no God distinction that you've created?
    > Theistius: You are begging the question. You are assuming that God is
    > merely an idea that I've invented.
    > Moqist: Indeed. But can you tell me why it is good to believe that
    > there is a God without doing the same?
    > Theistius: I guess not. I want to that you must believe in God and
    > accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior who died for your sins and
    > repent for the end is near or otherwise you will burn in the raging
    > fires of hell for all eternity, but I suppose you would not accept that
    > answer since it presupposes that there is a God.
    > Moqist: You are right. I would not. Since you cannot answer, I see no
    > reason why I should play the "god/no God" game and accept your label of
    > "atheist" with its connotations of immorality. Now we were discussing
    > whether or not God exists, but you just said that I "must believe in
    > God." Is there is a difference between believing or not believing in
    > God and believing or not believing that God exists?
    > Theistius: I would say belief that God exists is a statement of fact
    > while believing in God is to have a conviction of the goodness of
    > asserting that fact.
    > Moqist: Since I have not been convinced that it is good to believe
    > that God is other than a concept, I have no conviction of the goodness
    > of God, so it seems correct to say that I don't believe in God, so long
    > as you don't call me an atheist or a wishy-washy agnostic who can't
    > make up his mind. Such labels are unfair and beg the question of God's
    > existence. After all, I only believe in one fewer god than you do.
    > Thanks,
    > Steve
    > MOQ.ORG -
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    > MD Queries -
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 21 2004 - 17:36:20 GMT