Re: [asa] Dawkins new book

Moorad,
You're claiming that what you're not thinking about isn't there.
Underlying principles remain despite awareness.
Dave (ASA)
 
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:27:54 -0400 "Alexanian, Moorad"
<alexanian@uncw.edu> writes:
> Dave,
>
> I think there is a big difference between, say, doing physics and
> talking about physics. The former is science, whereas the latter is
> the philosophy of science. It seems clear that one can do the
> former, which most physicist do, without worrying about the latter.
> The metaphysics that is implied by science is the main aspect of
> what the philosophy of science is.
>
> Moorad
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: dfsiemensjr [dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
> Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 7:28 PM
> To: Alexanian, Moorad
> Cc: schwarzwald@gmail.com; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins new book
>
> Moorad,
> Consider the assumptions that the world matches our perceptions, or
> that
> the universe is consistent, or that the rules found in our vicinity
> match
> those for the rest of the universe. Such common sense matters are
> so
> basic that they are seldom recognized as philosophical.
> Dare (ASA)
>
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 09:03:45 -0400 "Alexanian, Moorad"
> <alexanian@uncw.edu> writes:
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > What metaphysics is required to drop a stone and measure how it
> > falls? I am sure the founders of quantum mechanics never realized
> > the intellectual quagmire that they will be leading us into? The
> > notions of space and time were there before Kant thought of them
> as
> > a priori concepts. I think metaphysics comes after the facts. It
> is
> > not hard to conceive that new discoveries will definitely alter
> our
> > currently supposed scientific metaphysics.
> >
> > Moorad
> > ________________________________________
> > From: dfsiemensjr [dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 11:46 PM
> > To: Alexanian, Moorad
> > Cc: schwarzwald@gmail.com; asa@calvin.edu
> > Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins new book
> >
> > Moorad,
> > There is a problem that you have not addressed. One requires a
> > metaphysical foundation to do science. That it is normally tacit
> > and
> > implicit does not change the "reality". I can note that probably
> the
> > most
> > difficult task a human being will face is making express the
> > underlying
> > metaphysical and epistemological commitments held.
> > Dave (ASA)
> >
> > On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:40:51 -0400 "Alexanian, Moorad"
> > <alexanian@uncw.edu> writes:
> > > I think we have to make clear that we deal with the real thing
> > first
> > > and that the metaphysics follows afterwards. We deal first
> with
> > > existing things and we develop a metaphysics to make sense of
> our
> > > experiences, sensations, and memories. It is false to study a
> > > certain aspect of reality and use the metaphysics implied by
> that
> > > aspect of reality to regulate the whole of reality. For
> instance,
> > > studying the physical aspect of Nature may imply a metaphysics,
> > > viz., physicalism or materialism. However, it is nonsensical to
> > use
> > > that metaphysics, derived from the physical, to regulate the
> > > nonphysical or even the supernatural aspects of Nature.
> >
> > > Moorad
> > > ________________________________________
> > > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
> On
> > > Behalf Of Schwarzwald [schwarzwald@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 9:09 PM
> > > To: asa@calvin.edu
> > > Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins new book
> > >
> > > 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/%7E
> > scitheologyglm>
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Ted Davis"
> <TDavis@messiah.edu<mailto:TDavis@messiah.edu>>
> > > To: <asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>>; "Bernie Dehler"
> > > <bernie.dehler@intel.com<mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>>
> > > Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 12:42 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins new book
> > >
> > > >>>> "Dehler, Bernie"
> > > <bernie.dehler@intel.com<mailto: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 d!
> > >
> > > oe!
> > > >
> > > > 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<mailto: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=luA1PWfnQF1CQ05qrv0g2
> >
> QAAJ1AVEvaZT-bWWXwig7va8C47AAQAAAAFAAAAAKi

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Oct 25 23:33:57 2009