Re: MD quality religion (Christianity)

Date: Wed Apr 14 2004 - 01:43:48 BST

  • Next message: "Re: MD quality religion (Christianity)"

    PART. 1.

    Hi Mark,
    This is exactly what I thought might happen with this thread. Done to death
    by ignorance and

    Mark 13-4-04: You have already agreed with me that one cannot distinguish
    between an individual who practices Universal Love minus theistic convictions,
    with on who practices Universal Love plus theistic convictions. If UL is what
    amounts to living a Good life, then the good life does not have to be a
    religious one. Unless you are going to insist that one cannot practice Universal Love
    unless one holds theistic conviction?
    If so, you are being ignorant and you are prejudging Sam.

    Mark 13-4-04: It may be argued that it is the character of Christian enquiry
    to hold the following principle: All conclusions from enquiry must not be
    In other words, pre-judgement. Avoiding the consequences of enquiry if they
    to happen to be blasphemous is ignorance.

    First the notion of 'hypocrisy.' As I understand it that's what you call
    someone who makes an
    accusation that they are themselves guilty of.

    Mark 13-4-04: Agree. You accuse me of giving globalised arguments.
    But, if Sam Norton had been born into a culture which had not been introduced
    to Christianity, Sam Norton would not be a Christian. It is Christianity's
    business to become a Global phenomena, and to this end it has been successful -
    it is difficult to for any culture today to remain uninfluenced by
    Christianity. So, to accuse ME of globalising arguments when you are a member of a
    movement which aims at global influence is hypocritical isn't it?

    > PART. 1.

    1. My answer... ...that Christianity is good food - which is independent of
    the MoQ, as I see it.

    Mark 13-4-04: Nothing is independent of the MoQ. This is a killer argument.
    The MoQ provides a fundamental description of everything.

    2. 'Christianity' as if the fact that I am a Christian necessitates an
    absence of independent thought.

    Mark 13-4-04: Christianity does 'necessitate an absence of independent
    It may be argued that it is the character of Christian enquiry to hold the
    following principle: All conclusions to enquiry must not be blasphemous.
    If this is so, and as far as i can see it must be so, otherwise you would be
    holding contradictory world views, Sam Norton may indulge in the activity of
    independent thought, but in doing so, Sam Norton must not conclude
    blasphemously. This helps explain Sam Norton's dislike of:
    1. The MoQ.
    2. Memes.
    Both of the above have appalling implications for theistic Belief systems; 1.
    explains them in terms of patterns of value, 2. attempts to explain them as
    non-organic 'cultural' replicators.

    3. This was an appeal to authority, viz those 'who have spent a great deal of
    time studying philosophy and the MoQ.' As such it is a very weak argument.

    Mark 13-4-04: It is not an argument weak or otherwise, it is an empirical
    observation. The MoQ tells us this is the way it is. You are once again
    displaying your ignorance of the MoQ Sam.
    Ideas (Intellectual patterns of value) need authority to survive. IP'sV need
    social approval to catch on. When the MoQ, as an IPV has sufficient social
    approval it will have caught on, and this is a threat to those who approve your
    While charming and innocent, many adults need a bit more than, "Mummy and
    Daddy say Jesus popped out of Mary's Tummy without any prior sexual intercourse"
    before they believe it.

    4. Firstly, my understanding of the good life is not 'based on' religious
    belief. I am not an
    essentialist or foundationalist. I find that the Christian mythology enables
    a good life, and having sampled alternatives, including secular atheism, I
    haven't yet found a higher Quality alternative.

    Mark 13-4-04: I find that many Children, 'find that the Christian mythology
    enables a good life' as you put it. But adults understand the stories they tell
    their children are mere stories. Do you seriously advocate a societal wide
    theatre of story telling employing full costume and props? The costumes being
    clerical robes and props being cathedrals? Are you THAT dangerous Sam?

    If I do, my views will change.

    Mark 13-4-04: I see, this is all contingent is it? You are not a Christian,
    you simply wear the garb of a Christian. I understand now!

    In that regard I don't see any inhibition to the 'free range of intellectual
    activity' - if I did, I'd hardly be a contributor to this forum, would I?

    Mark 13-4-04: No. I apologise Sam. I have been holding the wrong end of the
    stick. Sorry.

    So, when you say "you begin with a conformity and then shape what intellect
    would have to be in order to affirm that conformity" I say "that is not the

    Mark 13-4-04: Yes, i see that clearly now.

    But then, that would be simply an appeal to my own expertise and pretty poor
    as arguments go - which is the content of your last sentence above.

    Mark 13-4-04: That is not fair. If you made it more clear that you are an
    actor pretending to be a Christian because it makes for good living, then i would
    not have challenged you. You are prostituting yourself; selling yourself as a
    commodity to be used and to use Christianity for personal and family gain.
    You don't have any other consideration for the good other than garnering a good
    life for yourself and your family.
    I invite everyone to read Robert Pirsig's Introduction to Anthony McWatt's
    'Introduction to the Metaphysics of Quality' and contemplate the difference.

    In other words, as a result of your prejudice (Christians lack the capacity
    for sceptical and
    independent thought) you place my views into a particular box marked 'low
    Quality intellectual
    endeavour' and then attack the box.

    Mark 13-4-04: Shhhhhhhhhh! Someone might hear you? You are only pretending to
    be a Christian, remember? You are not actually a Christian. You don't
    actually believe all those stories, you just go along with them.
    Of course, the ones who DO believe it? Well, that's got nothing to do with
    you has it?
    Nope. This has all been a misunderstanding on my part, for which i have and
    continue to apologise for.

    You fail to engage with my arguments as they stand. The point about hypocrisy
    comes to mind again. And once again, the reason why I ignored this point was
    I didn't see anything there worth engaging with.

    Mark 13-4-04: But you are the biggest hypocrite of all. You trick others into
    thinking you are a Christian when you simply say what has to be said in order
    to appear as one; you simply argue what must be argued to reinforce as one. I
    think the latter is taking your part too seriously mind you!

    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 : Wed Apr 14 2004 - 02:23:25 BST