[MD] Terry Eagleton on Dawkin's God Delusion

[Case]

[Bo]
You are tough case, but then I'll retreat from the level issue to the
metaphysical where the MOQ is supposed to depart from the SOM. Do you
recognize any SOM? That existence seems to be split along a subject/object -
or mind/matter - divide? For instance that (our) thoughts are mind and thus
non-existent in the materialist view, or - opposite - that everything is
mind in the idealist view? I won't predict your answer, but many say that
the is no such divide, but no sooner is this said before the two camps are
at it again. Nurture is what determinates things! No, no, it's nature
(genes) on and on. 

[Case]
I do not reject SOM at all, as a way of seeing the world. The attempt to
eliminate it seem weak to me. Sure I can have this marvelous feeling of
oneness. But you can have one too and One as I may be, I do not have access
to your oneness. But I think I would take it even a step further in that
there is only one subject; in my case me. I am the only subject in my little
SOM world. You are an object. Often so am I as I objectify my past deeds or
look at my hand which is sometimes me and when making typos is definitely
other. But the fundamental irresolvable problem of philosophy for me remains
solipsism. In my view it can only be rejected as a matter of faith.

Pirsig casts SOM in a different light but he does not eliminate it.

But don't get me started on Nature versus Nurture.

My point about philosophy's need to import ethic was only that ethics are
hard to formulate rationally; probably because they are so easy to refute
rationally. Ethics demand a degree of arbitrary setting of rules and
philosophy distains the arbitrary. It is easier just to dispense with the
rationalizations and say do it this way or else...