Re: [asa] Dawkins new book

Heya Dave,

As I've said in another thread, I do not deny that one can have a 'well
worked out system' of ethics. I'm pointing out what that 'system of ethics'
means once it's denied that there is objective purpose and good/value at
work in the universe - and it means something radically different to do
"good" on an atheist-naturalist scheme/ethos [where 'good' means 'acting in
accordance with given ethical system X'] than "good" means on non-naturalist
schemes [where 'good' speaks to objective standards that are right or wrong
regardless of what a human individual happens to subjectively judge, be this
a theistic system or a non-naturalist 'force'/'reality'.]

Even the claim that these systems can "do remarkably well" are suspect to
me. Remarkably well? By what standard? Another subjective one? Stalin's
government, according to some subjective standards, performed remarkably
well in the "moral" area. And he certainly had a good handle on "social and
governmental sanctions pushing conformity".

That's not to say I find nothing to admire in someone working out a very
intricate, balanced, internally consistent system of ethics. Just as, say, I
can admire a sci-fi or fantasy author writing source material for a
fictional world that intricately and intensely describes a fictional
culture's values, beliefs, ethics, etc. In fact, I have to admire them
almost equivalently - because in the end, they matter about as much in most
ultimate ways. In fact, the fantasy author may have an edge - at least they
tend to come up with fun costumes and engaging stories, though I hear the
conventions are embarrassing.

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 11:39 PM, dfsiemensjr <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:

> As a person who has studied and taught ethics, I have to note that one
> does not have to be a theist to develop a strong ethical approach. For a
> common basis, pleasure has been often held to be foundational for
> determining right and wrong. The Mills and Bentham produced a utilitarianism
> on the basis of the maximum pleasure for the maximum number. This requires,
> on the opposite side, reducing negative feelings to the greatest extent
> possible. With social and governmental sanctions pushing conformity, one can
> do remarkably well in the moral area.
>
> A different standard was promoted by Logical Positivism about a half
> century ago. Right and wrong were determined by the intensity of feeling
> generated. This was the usual basis of demonstrations on various campuses.
> It is, for obvious reasons, no longer commonly accepted, but emotion can
> still trump reason for many. If A can persuade B, C, and a bunch of others
> to join his mob, he'll claim the moral high ground and cannot be persuaded
> otherwise.
>
> There are other approaches to devising ethical standards without calling in
> supernatural sources and sanctions. So one may be an atheist and have a well
> worked out system. I cannot say that this is true of Dawkins, who seems not
> to have thought matters through carefully.
> Dave (ASA)
>
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:14:44 -0400 Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
> writes:
>
> 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<http://home.roadrunner.com/%7Escitheologyglm>
>>
>>
>> ----- 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> House Rescue Bill Passed
> $133,000 mortgage under $679/mo. Compare rates and save!<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2142/c?cp=luA1PWfnQF1CQ05qrv0g2QAAJ1AVEvaZT-bWWXwig7va8C47AAQAAAAFAAAAAKi8Tj8AAAMlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaTcQAAAAA=>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Oct 24 01:11:17 2009