Lowder's point is that before we can decide that belief in 'god does more for meaning of life than naturalism we have make sure we are asking the right question about meaning. Do we mean intrinsic meaning, the thing is meaningful in itself, or do we mean extrinsic meaning the thing is meaningful because of something else? Then he finds that a thing cannot have both kinds of meaning. He also talks abouit meaning with respect to the short range span of the universe or meaning with respect to final phrase of universe (0f course he ignores eternal meaning).I saw where he was heading but let's look at the discussion he initiates.[1]
He is going to hold that life has intrinsic value because it's valuable in itself because he likes it. Thus since it is a contradiction to have both intrinsic and extrinsic then it doesn't have extrinsic. If life derives meaning from itself one doesn't need God to give it meaning. Ofr if God gives it meaning then has none in itself.
He is going to hold that life has intrinsic value because it's valuable in itself because he likes it. Thus since it is a contradiction to have both intrinsic and extrinsic then it doesn't have extrinsic. If life derives meaning from itself one doesn't need God to give it meaning. Ofr if God gives it meaning then has none in itself.
First, if, as I think, life has intrinsic value, its intrinsic value does not derive from God’s existence. This follows from the definition of intrinsic value: if life is intrinsically valuable, its value lies in its own intrinsic properties, not the properties of God (such as God’s valuing life). Second, if value realism is true, then it seems highly plausible that life is objectively intrinsically valuable and, again, this value doesn’t come from God. Third, whether or not value realism is true, on theism life can still have subjective intrinsic value. In short,in the context of of whether life has intrinsic value (in any of the senses I’ve defined), naturalism vs. theism is a red herring.[2]
Eric Sotnak summued up the basic choice in Lowder's post: "x has objective value if and only if x would still have value in a world devoid of all valuers (God included)
Rather, the apologist would seemingly have us accept: x has objective value if and only if x would still have value in a world devoid of all valuers other than God." Of course the apologist is assuming that god gives value to that which he values. Eric states:
It also isn’t clear why being valued by God is preferable to not being valued by God. Suppose God values a particular hydrogen atom in a distant part of the universe. The apologist proclaims, “but for God, that hydrogen atom would have no objective value! The horror! Naturalists can only claim it has value subjectively, which is obviously just unacceptable.”Or consider something that is very valuable to you – say, a photograph of your great-grandfather. On Monday, God values it as well. But on Tuesday, for reasons only God knows, he no longer values it. Suppose, too, that you are unaware of the change in God’s attitude toward the photograph. Also, on Tuesday, the photograph is destroyed by genetically altered paper-eating moths. “Ah ha!” says the apologist, “Had the photo been destroyed on Monday, it would have been a real tragedy, but since it was destroyed on Tuesday, it’s clearly no great loss.” Nope. Sorry, I don’t buy it.[3]
So they want to spin it such that God's valuation is subjective while if life is good for us then it is objectively variable because it is good, so naturalistic life is objectivity intrinsically and for the believer extrinsically subjectively valuable. they can;t see why they should value it.
Of course this obviously depends upon how you are using the term "objective." If X is valued by God then X will always be valued by the basis of all reliability the origin of all things, One wonders how anyone possibly fail to see the importance of that. I'm guessing ;Sotnack would be thrilled to know his favorite philosopher thought his world was grand, how could one fail to see how much more important it would be for eternal necessary being to find it so? But that's not even the issue that I want to push. As an objective judge God is the only truly objective mind there could be and thus any objective value would be secured as such if that was the mind that valued it. Even so I would take issue using he term objective only because it doesn't capture the true important nature of God's favor. We are getting something more important that jut objectivity out of Gold's favor.
Rather than "objective" we should be talking about :higher meaning," "spiritualist meaning" theological significance." These are terms that connote registration om a higher level. it's not just some guy with another opinion, God is the basis of all that is, The very possibility of valuing things at all is based upon God's will. God transcends subject object dichotomy and thus transcends intrinsic extrinsic corrective or subjective. This is not magic it's common senese. Which makes you more successful recognition by the master artist in the field or recognition by your mother? Not that recognition by Mom isn't important. We don't have ot earn God's recognition, that;s another issue,
Contrary to Lowder life can have both intrinsic and extrinsic at the same time.My valuing my own life is not mutually exclusive with God valuing it too. I there were no God my life would be valuable to me and a few others who know me. That would be intrinsic value. It would also be what I call "private" value. it doesn't extend beyond my own approbations. It's important that we live in harmony with our own approbations regardless of there being a God or not (existentialism 101). That doesn't compete, however, with God's approbations. I we bring our own approbations into line with God we are in harmony with the universe.
Intrinsic and extrinsic by definition can't be had in same object in the same place/;time unless we mean them in different senses. but there can be intrinsic and extrinsic value in the same object in different senses, For example if God writes a certain kind of value into being a priori, love for example, love has intrinsic value but it comes from God. As opposed to private meaning that is bestowed by us and has n meaning except what we give it, A picture of my house I grew up in, or debate trophy I wont at Texas Tech tournament my freshman year (3d place Jr. division). Now that trophy is interesting because it has two different kinds of intrinsic meaning, it has the meaning the tournament bestowed upon it, which lasted almost until until got it home. Then the value I placed on it because of where it came in my life, making it valuable enough to gather dust for several years before becoming my brother's ash tray. Because it became his ashtray at the end of his life it has a new value that will last until I die. It has a history but that history is only meaningful to me. It's private intrinsic meaning.
Above all else intrinsic meaning of all kinds supervenes upon extrinsic meaning.Without God's creation there would be no objects to be infused with intrinsic value. In that sense all objects that bear intrinsic value find thiat value provided by God.
I was an atheist and an existentialist. That made me aware of the nitions of making own' own meaning Anyone following the philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre back in the 70s would have been aware of the notion that being precedes essence. That means first we exist then it is up to us to attach whatever meantime we will. That was the view point I held to when I found Jesus. Thus i say from my own experience is a marked qualitative difference in knowing Jesus and holding to a naturalistic philosophy, I know existentialism is a museum piece in philosophy now but it was big stuff in the day,
Sources
[1] Jeff Lowder, "Naturalism, Theism, and The Meaningof life," The Secular Ourpost (July 9,2016) blog URL
[2] all quotes by Lowder from this source
[3] Eric Sotnak, Ibid. comment section
[3] Eric Sotnak, Ibid. comment section
5 comments:
I would take issue using he term objective only because it doesn't capture the true important nature of God's favor.
I was implying a similar thought when I asked (somewhere in that comments thread) why we should care about such an account of value. Suppose at one time, God values Lucifer more than all other angels, but later values Lucifer less than other angels. Doesn’t it follow from the view of objective value you propose (rooted in the eternality of God’s valuing) that Lucifer was never objectively more valuable than other angels? I smell an instance of the Euthyphro dilemma here.
I don't what to make of questions where I have to supposes whist God might feel. If God beyond our understanding...you know. we are also told that God doesn't change. But I think I get your point.
I think i proposed not speaking of objectivity but of universality or something, God's valuations of moral motions are all trooped in love that wont change. they transcend subject object dichotomy since God is universal mind.
The writer who has surpassed Sartre in contemporary theo-philosophical interest from that era is named 'Georges Bataille', whose brand of existentialism did not translate so easily into programs and actions in the world as did Sartre's, but, more like, lingered in the meaninglessness, pondering it ...
... an apophatic existentialism? ... Sartre criticized it as 'mystical'.
I've never heard of him Mike. Tell ,me ,more about him?
Don't really know him firsthand. Seems pretty dark tho, especially his literary writing ...
"Founder of several journals and literary groups, Bataille is the author of a large and diverse body of work: readings, poems, essays on innumerable subjects (on the mysticism of economy, poetry, philosophy, the arts, eroticism). He sometimes published under pseudonyms, and some of his publications were banned. He was relatively ignored during his lifetime and scorned by contemporaries such as Jean-Paul Sartre as an advocate of mysticism, but after his death had considerable influence on authors such as Michel Foucault, Philippe Sollers, and Jacques Derrida, all of whom were affiliated with the journal Tel Quel.
(Wiki)"
Kinda sucks to be discovered posthumously, I guess...
"according to Bataille's theory of consumption, the accursed share is that excessive and non-recuperable part of any economy which is destined to one of two modes of economic and social expenditure. This must either be spent luxuriously and knowingly without gain in the arts, in non-procreative sexuality, in spectacles and sumptuous monuments, or it is obliviously destined to an outrageous and catastrophic outpouring in war."
This is something Derrida would have liked, no? Sort of like, that emptiness at the top or hidden somewhere, not easily speakable... But I also remember similar ideas, somewhat toned down, in the psychologist Heller's book from around 2000 or so, "A Terrible Love of War"....
Post a Comment