Re: [asa] Dawkins new book

I'm largely in agreement with you on this but would make a couple of points. 1st, to say that good & evil are objective realities implies that they are things rather than qualities of things - nouns rather than adjectives. That is definitely problematic for evil which is fundamentally a defect or privation in the good & has no objective existence in itself. But even though I'm something of a platonist as far as physics & math are concerned, I'm not sure how much sense there is in talking about a platonic ideal of "the good." That does not mean that good & evil are not objective but they are so adjectivally & not as things that exist in the world or in a platonic realm.

2d, I full agree that Dawkins et all have no coherent basis for moral judgments in their world view. In fact that's exactly what I said. But their gut reaction to some events as evil is not necessarily without significance. That could be regarded as a vestige of "the law written on their hearts" that Paul speaks of in Romans 2:15. (I speak conditionally because I'm generally not a big natural law guy.) Or to put it another way, they are better than their worldview says they should be.

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Schwarzwald
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 4:14 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins new book

  Heya George,

  I'd have to disagree here, at least in a certain way. You point out, rightly, that evil has no fundamental place in the worldview of Dawkins and therefore there is no moral obligation to respond to it. I'd further add that evil and good are not objective realities for atheists of that (very common) bend - at most they're subjective judgment calls, or the just-so-happens rules of a chosen ethos.

  But if evil and good aren't objective realities, and if there are no objective moral responsibilities when it comes to good and evil... in what sense are we talking about 'good' and 'evil' anymore? Those words are drained of all their typical meaning. Dawkins' "gut reaction" to what you list may be "negative", it may even be "evil", but they can't be "evil" based on the philosophy he's committed himself to. The gut reaction - his subjective view - is the beginning and end of what "good" and "evil" can really be for him. Ted is right that, for Dawkins regarding good/evil, "there is no such thing."

  Now, others may respond that Dawkins and others do in fact call certain things "evil" and "bad", or "moral" and "immoral", etc. I'd simply point out that it isn't the mere speaking or writing of the words that matters, but their content - and once those words are qualified to be consistent with the philosophy committed to, they are in essence empty. And if they dig in their heels and argue that they believe that these things are objectively and truly evil or immoral, etc, the they are being inconsistent - and either the philosophy, or the 'truly evil/immoral' judgments, will have to go to correct that.

  And, just to be a little pedantic myself: That there may be a "gut reaction" of "evil" to things such as genocide, child rape, or Bernie Madoff does nothing to make me think "oh, well, even if they don't believe in evil those things will still be viewed as bad - that much is secure". A person can get over their gut reactions, and the 20th century illustrated just how successful such "getting over" can be even on national levels. The idea (not promoted by you, George, so don't take this as targeting you) that "everyone knows murder, or dishonesty, etc are wrong and will therefore at least act as if these things are truly bad" is painfully naive.

  On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 1:21 PM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:

    Ted -

    A couple of things here. 1st I'll point out pedantically that while atheists do have a "problem of evil," Bernie is right that they don't have a "theodicy problem." Theodicy is "justifying God" & those who don't believe in God can't be concerned about that.

    2d, I haven't read a great deal of Dawkins & you may well be able to point out some place where he says literally that there are no such things as good & evil. But even if he makes that claim in the abstract, I suspect that his gut reaction to news of genocide, child rape or Bernie Madoff is that they're evil. The difference is that Christians believe that there is a reason to say that such things are evil that stems from fundamental aspects of their worldview & for Dawkins there isn't. (Which in itself doesn't prove that Christians are right, as Bernie may want to point out but doesn't have to because I've already done so.) & so there is no moral obligation to respond to
    such things - which gets back to the point I made earlier about bases for ethics. (& again, as Tom Pearson pointed out, this doesn't apply to all atheists.)

    Shalom
    George
    http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

     
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
    To: <asa@calvin.edu>; "Bernie Dehler" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
    Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 12:42 PM
    Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins new book

>>>> "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com> 10/23/2009 12:27 PM >>> writes:
>
> There's an atheist book club meetup that I will likely join, and they are reviewing Dawkin's latest book "The Greatest Show on Earth." I glanced at the book the other day. I think most of it looks like evidence for evolution (what's new?), but I did notice an interesting section on theodicy. (And yes, it looked like it may be shallow in not bringing forth and quoting the best arguments from the critics.)
>
> Anyways, Dawkins mentioned that for believers, there's a thing called 'the problem of evil.' He says 'they even have a name for it- theodicy.' At first I thought that was kind of patronizing to say 'they even have a name for it' then as I thought about it more I realized that theodicy was something only that God believers have to deal with. I know that is obvious, but it wasn't that clear in my mind before, esp. from seeing it from the other side now (not as a Christian).
>
> ***
>
> Ted responds abruptly. Hold the phone, Bernie. There is nothing "obvious" about this, unless you simply fail to think about it for more than a moment or two. The existence of suffering and evil causes great problems for all of us, including atheists. I mean great intellectual problems, not only emotional or existential problems. For the kind of atheist that Dawkins represents (there are other types of atheism that I am not including), there simply is no such thing as "good" and "evil," "right" and "wrong." There is no such thing. Therefore, we have no moral obligation (please reread these three words half a dozen times before continuing) to do anything about suffering and what believers call "evil." None. That, I venture to say, Bernie, is "the problem of evil" in another, equally serious form: for Dawkins, it's a problem that there is no category of "evil" at all. Therefore, there is no obligation to respond morally to it. A lot of unpleasant things happening doe!
>
> s not create a moral obligation to do something. That's a problem, Bernie. A big one.
>
> Ted
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 23 17:15:01 2009