RE: [asa] Dawkins new book - objective

You are quite right George, that is the reason why all Christians ought to vote according to their Christian principles and not based on political parties.

Moorad
________________________________________
From: George Murphy [GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 12:39 PM
To: Alexanian, Moorad; Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins new book - objective

Moorad -

Granted that we each have responsibility for our actions & "I was just
following orders" isn't an adequate defence. But if we're to live together
in a society there have to be some agreed moral standards. As Christians we
of course believe that a genuinely Christian society would be best & in a
few cases there might be a good approximation to that but neither the USA
nor the world as a whole can be described in that way.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 11:13 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] Dawkins new book - objective

> The real moral question is not if euthanize is the correct (societal)
> moral position but rather would YOU euthanize someone. After all, in the
> Nuremberg trials we did not accept from Nazis the rational that they acted
> under order. Moral laws govern individual behavior, which are God given
> but may be mimic by humanly created statutes. Herein lies the importances
> of the individual in the Christian faith, viz., your choices either open
> wide or close shut the doors of Heaven.
>
> Moorad
> ________________________________________
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of
> Dehler, Bernie [bernie.dehler@intel.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:42 AM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: [asa] Dawkins new book - objective
>
> " Probably way off thread, but, again, I've been thinking about this of
> late."
>
> The tread was Dawkins book (evolution), got into morals, and now what
> atheists believe- all without changing the subject line.
>
> Back to morals... my issue is 'what is the source of morals?' I still see
> Christians claiming some kind of Godly source, but when asked for
> specifics on a specific thorny moral issue, there is no direction from God
> (except for those who claim to have the true position and say they are the
> only true Christians; other Christians who disagree are lesser Christians;
> the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy).
>
> It just seems so worthless to say that morals are grounded in God, then
> when Godly people get together they can't agree on what the correct moral
> position is. Euthanasia was the last specific issue I talked to George
> about.
>
> ,,,Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Bill Powers
> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 7:00 AM
> To: Schwarzwald
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins new book - objective
>
> I would like to make a brief comment on this thread, only because I've
> been thinking about it in another context.
>
> The problems with what is being said are twofold
> One problem with what is being said is that we are speaking of atheism as
> what it doesn't believe, but not in terms of what it believes.
>
> As a former atheist (even zealous atheist), I suggest that an atheist
> has two firm committments:
> 1) That there is Nothing
> 2) that caring is optional.
>
> By Nothing I mean that nothing is Absolute, there is no intrinsic meaning
> in the world. That caring is optional intends to convey that meaning is a
> matter of choice, i.e., it is what we choose to matter.
>
> Atheists, at least what I would have called real atheists, oppose the
> smell of theism, absolutism. It would be suspicious of science as an
> attempt to establish an absolute knowledge, so too with metaphysics for
> the same reason. All of them stink of a god. Atheism seeks to uproot all
> senses of theism and god. It declares the individual, if there is such a
> thing, as supreme creator and destroyer.
>
> All of the new atheists are not atheists, but merely appeasers, luke warm
> and spit out by atheists. All of these refuse to bare their gaze upon the
> howl of existence and Nothing. Atheism declares that nothing exists but
> Nothing.
>
> To say that atheism is merely not believing in a certain type of god says
> little. The same could be said of Christians. Dawkins and the like still
> believe in a god, just not your god. They are no atheists.
>
> As for materialism, there are Christian materialists. I'm not certain why
> a materialist need be an atheist. An atheist-materialist, what is that?
> I'd say that an atheist would not be willing, unless of course he cares
> to, commit himself to materialism. An atheist could be a believer in a
> god. He just refuses to believe that he must believe. He believes what
> he wants, even to convenience. There is only Nothing, except what the
> atheist chooses. So nothing is true, and anything is true. Truth is a
> theistic concept, embraced only for some convenience or for a time.
> Ultimately, the atheist must remain free of everything, even reason,
> another god.
>
> Probably way off thread, but, again, I've been thinking about this of
> late.
>
> bill
>
> On Tue, 27
> Oct 2009,
> Schwarzwald
> wrote:
>
>> Heya David,
>>
>> You didn't ask me, and I'm in much agreement with your thrust of this.
>> But I
>> want to add something to this.
>>
>> I think one problem that often comes up in this situation is that
>> materialists/naturalists tend to reply in a very mechanical sense. Such
>> as,
>> 'Oh, you think Mother Teresa did good works? Well, there's nothing about
>> materialist-atheism that prohibits a person from devoting their lives to
>> the
>> poor just as she did (aside from, of course, the theistic parts)!' Or,
>> 'Okay, so the Columbine murderers were nihilists. But not every atheist
>> is
>> running around slaughtering people!' Mechanical, adding up to 'That
>> negative
>> act X is not mandated! That positive act Y is not prohibited!' Which,
>> then,
>> leads to those monopoly rules - "Well, we can craft certain rules that
>> formally encourage Y and discourage X! See, we can have all the values
>> normally associated with theism/non-naturalism* without the actual
>> theism/non-naturalism!"
>>
>> Your example of Doc helps indicate some of the problem there, but I'd
>> like
>> to draw that out further. Yes, there's absolutely the aspect where the
>> man
>> thinks he can just plain get away with what he's doing, sans
>> repercussions.
>> But there are other problems: No matter what the man does, by
>> atheist-naturalism, it can't really endure anyway. Humanity is
>> accidental,
>> unforeseen, without purpose, and hopeless. Achieving salvation for
>> ourselves, resurrecting the dead, bringing justice to all, defeating
>> death,
>> etc, is not only a hopeless endeavor, it must be - or atheist-naturalism
>> is
>> not true. The only possible victories are utterly transient ones - "what
>> does it profit a man to gain the world but lose his soul", except it's
>> not
>> possible to keep your soul. If this is not true - if it's possible for
>> him
>> to 'keep his soul' - then a-n is incorrect. Indeed, if he even suspects
>> a-n
>> is not true, or may not be true, his commitment to a-n weakens in
>> proportion
>> to that suspicion. Which is why I sometimes wonder if there really are as
>> many a-n's out there as is often suggested; I think the number is far
>> fewer
>> than most would suspect.
>>
>> On the flipside, if he really believes a-n is true.. then built into that
>> belief is a recognition that all of his efforts will ultimately be in
>> vain
>> anyway. Strive to unite the world in peace, but that unity will
>> inevitably
>> disintegrate - permanently. Cure diseases if you wish - you'll never cure
>> them all, and death is inevitable anyway. Actual progress is illusory,
>> like
>> shooting a pistol at the sun to combat global warming (Well, at least the
>> bullets cast a shadow!) All that's within grasp is temporary personal
>> satisfaction, accent on the temporary. Which helps to illustrate why talk
>> of
>> a-n ethos just isn't all that interesting. It's hard to take seriously,
>> given the commitments.
>>
>> (* But naturalism is a ridiculously slippery term, I've found - it can
>> now
>> include panpsychism, dualism, making the "mental" fundamental to the
>> universe, etc. And, as I said in another thread, I don't think the future
>> holds much for Dawkins-style atheism, or the naturalism we associate with
>> him. I do suspect that a 'naturalism' which commits to something other
>> than
>> materialism, possibly a very odd form of theism (or polytheism), is going
>> to
>> be the greater concern in years to come.)
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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 12:52:13 2009