Re: [asa] Dawkins new book

I note that it is not philosophers generally who deny that there is pain.
It's people who adopt a specific religious view. I encountered a report
of one who suffered angina until she could not get out of bed some
mornings, but denied that she was in pain. There's a piece of a poem I
recall: The right to be a cussed fool/is safe from all devices human...

Don't knock consistency. The Medievals discovered /consequentia
mirabilis/, that a contradictions allows the derivation of every
conclusion whatsoever. Consistency is the one test we have for
philosophical theories. Unfortunately, most human beings are committed to
some contradictory beliefs.
Dave (ASA)

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:09:07 -0400 Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
writes:
Heya Dave,

It's not a question of being able to certainly demonstrate an objective
truth (I'd point out there are some philosophers who take the position
that things like 'pain' and 'beliefs' don't really exist, or that we are
radically mistaken about them - which is for all practical purposes means
they don't exist) - it's about what's even possible to be true given the
commitments of the worldview. For materialist-naturalism, objective moral
values, purposes, and meanings are not available even potentially. And by
this I mean, insofar as someone says "Well, perhaps there are objective
and external/fundamental moral values, purposes, and meanings to life and
reality", they are rejecting the materialist-naturalist worldview. To
even search for these things is to question or reject the truth of the
stated philosophy.

As for consistency, I'd question that (certainly whether the awareness
and consistency shows up in practice) - but its what the position
naturally entails commitment to that I'm pointing out here. The
consistency is a secondary issue. As with attaining an ethos, consistency
is fairly cheap to come by; a solipsist can manage it. A nihilist can. In
fact, a lunatic can.

Finally, I'm not disputing here the idea of 'objective enough facts to
fit into a system' - because, again, I'm not questioning the ability for
someone to develop "an ethos", full stop. Coming up with a set of rules
and standards just isn't all that much of a challenge. Making the set
consistent may be more of a challenge, depending on the desired level of
intricacy, but I'm sure it's still possible. But all the consistency and
intricacy possible won't change what's necessarily intellectually
entailed by embracing such a perspective.

On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 3:07 PM, dfsiemensjr <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
wrote:

It's easy to claim objectivity. However, if objectivity were objectively
demonstrable, everyone would be forced to the same position. It doesn't
happen. If one gets to ultimate positions, the only test available is
logical consistency among the assumed principles, which are not provable.
This is parallel to what we encounter in the Euclidean, Riemannian and
Lobachevskian geometries, incompatible but equally consistent.

Materialism, to my pain, can be a consistent position. From outside, I
can point out problems. But those inside do not see them as insuperable,
any more than the theist finds the objections of atheists relevant.

As to objectivity, is it a fact that pain is undesirable, although a
smaller level of pain may have to be endured to avoid greater pain? Also,
if A can inflict pain on B, then Be can inflict pain on A, unless B lacks
the power of A, when there is still the possibility of revolt or
assassination. Are such matters not objective enough to fit into a
system, whether theistic or atheistic? I acknowledge that there is a
difference if God is the ultimate judge, but this is not necessary for a
system as objective as possible to human beings.
Dave (ASA)

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 01:10:38 -0400 Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
writes:
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

 
----- 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!
____________________________________________________________
Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTMerrKyBqZlXTZXZGAirgOczl60lGhiMRx2kFnQSXvV2RzlZc6zK4/

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 23:49:18 2009