The Disappearance of Moral Knowledge

When you add the spiritual dimension to the work (perhaps he does, I've only read one chapter) the writing takes on tremendous significance. When writing my senior thesis on the good life with Dallas I was auditing a graduate metaphysics class at USC. Prior to the class I spoke with Dallas regarding an interdepartmental alignment I was becoming award of regarding fundamentals in various academic disciplines. His response was profound (as most of his were) : "there's a good reason for it. It's a battle for authority on earth," He said. J.P Moreland was in class and overheard the observation and asked for clarification and Dallas repeated the point. Those who dogmatically reject the existence of God - will miss the significance of the comment -since it couldn't be true Those who have discovered the existence of God will cherish and greatly profit the books insights. Even those who do not believe in God but are in positions of leadership need (morally) to read the work, although they might not know it given the disappearance... To those who believe God does not exist and might read the book, I'll share another Dallas quip: "I know you intelligent people don't believe in God but I do", he said in class. The quip made me reevaluate my own potential dogmas and came to find out he was right - as he was in most things.....

I have been a fan of Dallas Willard for several years now and find his insight to be valuable. In this particularly philosophical read, Dallas helps us understand and unpack why we seem to have lost our moral way. I have yet to finish the whole work but to date find the language accessible and the thoughtful insight about the loss of moral knowledge challenging. I would recommend this work to anyone who thinks seriously about our moral character and our apparent lack of that moral character in our relationships today.

I am confused by a couple of "lines." Can anyone dispel my confusion?On p. 177 it states, "Moreover, Ayer's reasoning continues, statements of ethical value do not refer to non-empirical … entities, for that would make them unverifiable by relevant empirical tests."So, statements of ethical value DO refer to empirical entities, which ARE verifiable by relevant empirical tests.Then it says: "Statements of ethical value therefore do not as a whole refer to, are not about , anything."How can an empirical entity, which is verifiable by empirical tests, refer to, or be about, nothing?

Written for a academic defense on the possibility of knowing. Could have been a little more organized at points but it was an unfinished writing on a very complex subject. Dallas Willard was a great philosopher and Christian