Re: [asa] Dawkins new book - objective

Tom said:

[quote]
It's not at all clear to me why a "materialist-naturalist" cannot lay claim
to objective moral values, purposes and meanings in approximately the same
way. They may not be universal or grounded in an unassailable source, but
that doesn't disqualify them from being objective.
[unquote]

I am reminded of 'doc', my friend who was walking along a road in Viet Nam.
He was arguing with a south viet regular army officer about philosophy and
life. Doc had asserted there is an objective moral law to which we will be
held accountable. The army man pulled his 45, pointed it at a villager that
was in a rice paddy at the side of the road. He killed him. He then turns to
my friend and says "no there isn't". "It doesn't matter that I killed him,
and nobody will ever punish me for doing so. In reality life is dirt cheap,
as I have just demonstrated."

I would submit that the vietnamese soldier was correct, except in one case.
There is an afterlife and a judge. Objectivity will be demonstrated to all
of us, and it doesn't really matter if we acknowledge it today. The only
thing acknowledgement could do is affect how we live today.
But materialists deny the afterlife and the judge. So by their definition
there is no objective moral law. What is it to which they are going point
to? Can they point to something that would have given pause to those kids
at Columbine? I don't think materialists can possibly believe in anything
that would have dissuaded those gunmen. Maybe I am wrong. Show me that
materialism and nihilism are not lovers (and the case where the materialists
are taking a lot of drugs doesn't count).

Cheers,
Dave C

On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>wrote:

> hi Tom,
>
> don't think we've met or dialogued before, so just want to first say:
> hello!)
> yes, i'd say you're missing something in your 'analysis'.
>
> first, maybe you could answer a question: is the reality of the Holy Spirit
> 'objective'? if so, then how do you 'know' it? (and please feel free to
> treat this as a rhetorical question and just to answer to what is written
> below)
>
> i think you've missed Schwarzwald's main point about
> materialism-naturalism, by focussing on some particular phrases. perhaps you
> could add what you mean by those 'ideologies' in order to meet the point
> more directly? do you accept the 'reality' of such ideologies in the
> minds/hearts/bodies of people today?
>
> what if we called such values, purposes, meanings, etc. as 'extra-natural'
> or 'extra-material,' 'supra-natural' or 'supra-material' instead?
>
> also, it seems the discussion of 'subjective/objective' by Georg Simmel
> might help here (e.g. "On Individuality and Social Forms"). this might offer
> new language for your view that 'objective' means 'public.' i'd suggest
> there is much more to speak about than to make such an equivocation. it is
> as a sociologist that i suggest this, noting with respect your background in
> history and philosophy given in your 'signature'.
>
> warm regards,
> Gregory
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Thomas Pearson <pearson@utpa.edu>
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Mon, October 26, 2009 6:58:35 AM
> *Subject:* RE: [asa] Dawkins new book
>
> On Saturday, Ocotber 24, 2209, "Schwarzwald" wrote:
>
>
> >>>For materialist-naturalism, objective moral values, purposes, and
> meanings are not available even potentially.<<<
>
>
>
> I don't see why not -- unless, of course, you have inflated the meaning of
> "objective" to include particulars that don't belong to a strict definition
> of "objective," such as (1) grounded in an unassailable source and/or (2)
> universal in scope and application. But neither of those are required in
> order to achieve objectivity. I'm assuming that "objective" means something
> like "public," or "not simply residing in, or justified by, the subjectivity
> of a particular individual."
>
>
>
> >>>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.<<<
>
>
>
> But why should anyone believe that anything such as "external/fundamental
> moral vlaues, purposes and meanings to life and reality" is necessary for
> something to be objective?
>
>
>
> For example: on our campus, as on most university campuses, we have a
> policy against plagiarism. It is a public, objective policy, justified by
> its connection to other university policies, and to roughly similar policies
> at many other schools. But its objectivity is not based on the fact that it
> has a universal application (it doesn't), nor on possession of any sort of
> "fundamental/external values, purposes and meanings to life and reality" (it
> certainly isn't). It is objective because it is a promulgated rubric that
> governs our common life together in this particular community.
>
>
>
> It's not at all clear to me why a "materialist-naturalist" cannot lay claim
> to objective moral values, purposes and meanings in approximately the same
> way. They may not be universal or grounded in an unassailable source, but
> that doesn't disqualify them from being objective.
>
>
>
> Am I missing something here?
>
>
>
> Tom Pearson
>
> ______________________________________________
>
> ______________________________________________
>
> Thomas D. Pearson
>
> Department of History & Philosophy
>
> The University of Texas-Pan American
>
> Edinburg, Texas
>
> e-mail: pearson@utpa.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Looking for the perfect gift?* Give the gift of Flickr!*<http://www.flickr.com/gift/>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 27 00:53:59 2009