Douglas, It's Simple, Really!

["Doug Jones" <credenda@moscow.com>]

Hi Ted,

It's really not that simple. This note is for those who have a
particular interest in Ted's question; others won't care. 

Ted wrote:
> 
> My point is simple.  I am merely saying you cannot prove your
absolutes are
> any more absolute than other contradictory absolutes, and therefore
your
> belief in your absolutes is a matter of faith.  . . .   You
> are subject to the same logical difficulties in proving your values
are true
> and correct and absolute relative to other differing absolute value
systems,
> as anyone is who claims they have absolute ethical values.
> 

This formulation and many of your other posts assume that proof and
logic are some neutral ground that we both fight with. In fact, though,
what counts as proof is as much a matter of ultimate
commitment/worldview as anything else. To pick perhaps one of your own.
What Logical Positivists like A.J. Ayers would count as proof,
formulated within a narrow empirical approach to meaning, is not what a
trinitarian could agree to. Ayers' metaphysics predetermines what he
will count as proof, as much as a Christian's does. 

So any "proof" I would offer you for objective morality would be apriori
gutted by your metaphysics, or else you'd have to jettison your
metaphysic in order to embrace Christian proof. And it works vice versa
too. Your proof appears to assume a rather Platonic account of logic
that I can't concede as a Christian. 

This doesn't mean we can't argue fruitfully. But we can't argue directly
as if there were some neutral grounds for proof. That's why I've
recommended that the list argue "internally," i.e., asking which
worldviews live up to their own standards. Most of my criticisms on the
list aim to be of this variety (e.g., of late, the talk of exclusive
inclusivity, where progressivism can't extricate itself from its
dialectic of freedom and equality). As for the Logical Positivism, which
I think you've defended at times, I'd say that one reason that worldview
implodes is its traditional self-defeating mix of materialism and a
Platonic approach (i.e., immaterial abstractions) of logic. Materialism
undermines your own attempts at proof. Alternately, if your proof is
thoroughly naturalized, then you lose your universality (i.e., Rorty).

All of which is to say, the point is not as simple as you think.

All the best,

Doug Jones