|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Opinions of Edward Feser
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
I am in the latter stages of Edward Feser's 'The Last Superstition - a refutation of the New Atheism'. It attempts to argue for the existence of God, the immortality of the human soul and an objective moral law via Natural Theology and particularly Aristotle's idea of forms and formal and final causation.
He also argues that a materialist philosophical/sscientific world view without formal and final causation makes any objective morality inherently impossible.
Feser is a Roman Catholic who was an atheist philosopher and who changed his beliefs through reading Aristotle and Aquinas. He has a very interesting blog which has links to various articles and tracks debates he has both with fellow academics and the general public commenting on his work.
The book is certainly well written, scathing of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens et al, very funny in parts (intentionally so) and I personally have found it more challenging regarding my own beliefs than any book I have read for a very long time.
So what do those who have read either this or any of his other books think of the man and his arguments?
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Haven't read the book, but read his blog regularly. I disagree with quite a lot of his theology, but also, I enjoy his clarity, and the way in which he sets out various arguments and counter-arguments. His critiques of materialism and scientism are very interesting. He can become a bit too technical and echo-chamberish, but then many philosophers are like that, to my taste.
[ 19. February 2014, 11:01: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Good guy - clear in his thinking and good at expressing his thoughts. Even if you disagree with him about something (and on occasion I do), you will know exactly where and why. I have read several of his books. I just wish that he would cut back on the snark a bit. He really doesn't need it...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Good guy - clear in his thinking and good at expressing his thoughts. Even if you disagree with him about something (and on occasion I do), you will know exactly where and why.
I had a suspicion you'd like him. I sometimes noticed a strong resemblance in the style! His two other books which I have 'Aquinas' and 'The Philosophy of Mind' seem a lot less snide and more in the tone of usual philosophical disagreements. My feeling is that he has become tired of the constant misrepresentations of the philosophical grounds for being a Christian by the New Atheists in general and the unfair treatment of Aquinas in particular. Like I said, he's made me think about things in a very different way.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
It was Ingo that put me on to him Yonatan. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
The book has been quite a game changer for me. Glad it has been for you too. Will write more when I get the chance! Off to work now.
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Seems like he's on a similar path to David Bentley Hart. Has anyone read both, and if so which is better? Are they saying more or less the same thing?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
So what do those who have read either this or any of his other books think of the man and his arguments?
I'm unversed in Thomistic theology and philosophy so he was very helpful in this way. My theological education was limited to later protestant philosophers/theologians.
I'm totally with the "God sustaining us at all times" kind of theology so the Unmoved mover stuff was very helpful but I have to admit I still don't get it 100%. It's based on the idea of change right? And if you have change you have to have a beginning of change in the causal series so there has to be something that begins that causal series of change. Hence God - the prime mover. It does seem to me however that's there's still a possibility of some kind of God of the Gaps in there somehow.
And I'm still a bit lost on the essentially and accidentally ordered causal series. It would seem to me they overlap in the end. No?
His natural law stance is kind of convincing. Yet it seems to me hard to extrapolate human values based on nature (which is often so ungodly - or at least seemingly so). I believe Dawkins says we shouldn't extrapolate values based on evolution. Yet he does sidestep that somehow. I just can't remember how.
As to his idea that all things are teleological: I'm totally with him. There must be a why. The conclusions of his teleology I sometimes find a bit hard to stomach.
The end of the intellect is to know truth.
The end of humanity is to know God.
I'm more interested in what that last statement actually means in practical terms but he didn't go into it.
Overall brilliant and helpful - yet still left questions.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Seems like he's on a similar path to David Bentley Hart. Has anyone read both, and if so which is better? Are they saying more or less the same thing?
I have, though only one book of Hart. They are not saying more or less the same thing, though I would have to re-read and more-read Hart to say anything useful. Hart and Feser have clashed over natural theology on "First Things", see Feser's blog post here.
Feser is a heck of a lot better than Hart in content in my opinion, though Hart probably has the literary edge and is more original. Feser's main achievement in my eyes is to make old thought more accessible, he's not really bursting with philosophical innovation otherwise...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
And I'm still a bit lost on the essentially and accidentally ordered causal series. It would seem to me they overlap in the end. No?
They might ‘overlap,’ but they are essentially distinct. An ‘accidentally ordered series’ is a casual series where a given member isn’t ultimately dependent on the member before. An example would be grandfather, father and son. The son wouldn’t stop existing if his grandfather or father were to die. An ‘essentially ordered series,’ however, is a casual series where a given member is ultimately dependent on all the members, and where the casual link exist here and now, in the present (and do not extend back in time). An example would be a book resting on a table. The book ‘hovers’ about 2-3 feet in the air, because it is supported by the table. Remove the table, and the book falls down. But the table is dependent on the floor, which is dependent on the foundation of the house, which is dependent on the earth, and so on. This cannot extend back infinitely. But we see this also in existence. Water is dependent on the right combination of hydrogen and oxygen, which is dependent on……………………
An essentially ordered series cannot extend ‘back’ infinitely, and thus it shows that there must be something which is not dependent on anything for its existence, something which not only has always existed, but which is, essentially, existence itself. Someone, then, whose essence is existence.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
And I'm still a bit lost on the essentially and accidentally ordered causal series. It would seem to me they overlap in the end. No?
They might ‘overlap,’ but they are essentially distinct. An ‘accidentally ordered series’ is a casual series where a given member isn’t ultimately dependent on the member before. An example would be grandfather, father and son. The son wouldn’t stop existing if his grandfather or father were to die.
But the son exists in the now only because of the essentially ordered series, just as the grandfather did. Without the essentially ordered, the accidental ceases to exist.
No?
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
An essentially ordered series cannot extend ‘back’ infinitely
Why not?
I understand Aquinas and Aristotle are completely unflummoxed about the idea that the universe does not have a beginning but is eternal.
I assume this means they relegate it to an accidentally ordered series but I still don't get how that's understandable....?
[ 20. February 2014, 12:33: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Without the essentially ordered, the accidental ceases to exist. No?
Correct, but not vice versa. Hence the labels: what must be is essential, what can be is accidental.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I understand Aquinas and Aristotle are completely unflummoxed about the idea that the universe does not have a beginning but is eternal. I assume this means they relegate it to an accidentally ordered series but I still don't get how that's understandable....?
The temporal causal chain of the universe is accidentally ordered, but not the causal chain that keeps it in existence at any point along that causal chain. You pretty much explained that yourself above. We can imagine - theoretically - that people have been around forever and hence that an unending chain of parents and children extends back in time, though most of these people have ceased to exist now. But for each person existing now, we can also look at what they are made of and what enables them to act, tracking that down through a "causal support" physically to subatomic structures (and perhaps to an incorporeal soul). That chain cannot be unending, since all that is supported by a lower link disappears if that link goes, and there is something here now. We can make that same argument about any person at any prior time.
So the picture is like this:
code:
... -> A168 -> B168 -> C168 -> ... accidental temporal chain
^ ^ ^
| | |
A167 B167 C167
^ ^ ^
| | |
A166 B166 C166
^ ^ ^
| | |
... ... ... essential
^ ^ ^ creative
| | | chain
A0 B0 C0
\ | /
\ | /
God
Where for simplicity I have not drawn any temporal chains of causation going from left to right on a lower (deeper essential) level, I have not shown any temporal causations between lower and higher levels, I have not shown any other temporal causal chains and their interactions with this one, etc. The key point is that the existence argument is about causal grounding (going up and down) not about causal extent (going left and right).
[ 20. February 2014, 13:05: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
And I'm still a bit lost on the essentially and accidentally ordered causal series. It would seem to me they overlap in the end. No?
They might ‘overlap,’ but they are essentially distinct. An ‘accidentally ordered series’ is a casual series where a given member isn’t ultimately dependent on the member before. An example would be grandfather, father and son. The son wouldn’t stop existing if his grandfather or father were to die.
But the son exists in the now only because of the essentially ordered series, just as the grandfather did. Without the essentially ordered, the accidental ceases to exist.
No?
Yes, if by that you mean that the father was essential for the son's existence initially so there wouldn't able to be any essential causes, causing him now if the father been an essential cause in the past and the same would apply to the relationship between his father and his father's father.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The temporal causal chain of the universe is accidentally ordered, but not the causal chain that keeps it in existence at any point along that causal chain.
Yep. I get that.
And I get that its about the now that's important to Aristotle/Aquinas.
I suppose I'm curious why an essentially ordered series has to have a beginning, but an accidentally ordered one doesn't? Is it just a matter of theoretical observation in that we can't possibly know how far back an accidentally ordered series goes?
As I said above, the Aristotle/Aquinas argument is not fussed about whether the universe has a beginning or not. I can only assume they were not fussed a ) because it's only the essentially ordered series that really mattered in terms of arguments for God and or b) they knew they couldn't know so it became irrelevant.
So why doesn't it matter that the universe may or may not have a beginning?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
As I said above, the Aristotle/Aquinas argument is not fussed about whether the universe has a beginning or not.
I'm slightly wary of talking of an Aristotle/Aquinas argument here. Aquinas thought it can't be proven whether the universe had a beginning in time or not, except through revelation; Aristotle thought it can be proven that the universe has no beginning in time. That is, this is one of the points in which they're clearly at odds.
[Fixed code - Eliab]
[ 20. February 2014, 23:23: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
My bad. Don't enough about either of them. Just going on what I remember from the Feser book.
How does Aristotle prove the universe has no beginning in time?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I suppose I'm curious why an essentially ordered series has to have a beginning, but an accidentally ordered one doesn't?
Well, that’s not entirely what they are saying (or at least not quite what Aquinas is saying). Aquinas is not saying that an accidentally ordered series cannot have a beginning, but that we cannot prove philosophically that it does. He certainly believed that they had a beginning in the past, but he held that on faith (that God created the universe). What he says is that even if an accidentally ordered series could extend back into eternity (which he held could not philosophically be proven either way), an essentially ordered series cannot.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Is it just a matter of theoretical observation in that we can't possibly know how far back an accidentally ordered series goes?
No, it is more that we just cannot prove philosophically that it cannot happen. Which we can in the case of an essentially ordered series.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
As I said above, the Aristotle/Aquinas argument is not fussed about whether the universe has a beginning or not. I can only assume they were not fussed a ) because it's only the essentially ordered series that really mattered in terms of arguments for God and or b) they knew they couldn't know so it became irrelevant.
Yes, essentially.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So why doesn't it matter that the universe may or may not have a beginning?
It matters truth wise (we want to know whether or not it’s true), but it doesn’t matter in the argument.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I suppose I'm curious why an essentially ordered series has to have a beginning, but an accidentally ordered one doesn't? Is it just a matter of theoretical observation in that we can't possibly know how far back an accidentally ordered series goes?
If there is an accidental (temporal) chain of causation stretching back infinitely long in time (forever), then what does that matter for the causation happening here and now? Basically, nothing. All manner of things that are being caused here and now come from a finite past. You were born of your parents. You were not born of your grandparents. Of course, your parents were born of your grandparents, but that does not really matter for you being born of your parents. Once your parents were born, the causal power of having children was with them, and they then had you. Your grandparents can die then without your birth being impossible. In fact, once your parents had you, they can die, too. The causal power to have offspring already has passed along to you. You have it now, no matter what's up with all your ancestors. And since that is the case, it does not matter if we claim that the past of your family goes back forever, or not. Whether you had just millions or an infinite number of ancestors, it is now your turn to become an ancestor or not. Causality has moved on from them to you. Accidental causation rests in the now, and is hence infinity compatible.
Essential causation is instead about causal support, it tells us what makes something else possible. It is mostly a "here and now" analysis that does not care about the past or indeed future. Though in talking about how say an electron cloud causes (makes possible) chemical reactions, we tend to invariably mix in temporal aspects. We think in processes. It's easier to think about this in terms of a "static" analogy.
So let's take you and your ancestors again. Now you all form a human pyramid. You and your siblings stand on the shoulders of your parents who stand on the shoulders of your grandparents and so on. The point is that this cannot go on forever. Why not? Perhaps you can imagine an endless human pyramid. Yes, but look closely, it is merely a huge arrangement of people hanging in empty space with feet on shoulders fading into infinity. What is missing? Gravity, weight. As soon as I say this, you should see in your minds eye this kind of shock wave running through the human pyramid, as your weight sink on your parents, that of your parents drops on you grandparents, and so on. Fine. But not enough. Because if there only was that gravity, then all that would happen is that this entire arrangement of people would start to move together towards the gravitational pull. In fact, they would not feel the weight of each other, they would all just move together. In order for them to truly stand, they have to push back. Your weight drops on your parents, but they push back to hold you up. Your parents weight and your weight drops on your grandparents, but they push off your grand-grandparents to keep you all up. And so on. Can you remove any part of this pyramid? Of course not, every level is essential. Because otherwise the next level up has nothing to push back from, and they and anything higher up will crumble.
But more importantly, as you see the shock wave of weight going down, it has to start bouncing back somewhere. Where is the push back actually coming from? Somebody has to be able to ultimately plant their feet on something, or we are back to everybody just accelerating together. We need a ground on which this whole structure stands, something on which the human pyramid can push, without requiring further support for that ground. The weight must rest. Your ultimate ancestors, let's call them Adam and Eve, are just standing on something, they are not standing on something that again is standing on something that again... And we know that because otherwise we do not know where that power to "push back" really is coming from. Somewhere there must be something that does not require a further explanation in what supports it in turn, it just is the support, the ground, the end of turns, the origin of the push back. Essentially supporting something just means that there is an ultimate grounding, otherwise it is just an arrangement and not really "deeper causation".
And of course, this is actually not in question. It is mere rhetoric if atheists attack this along the lines of "but I can imagine this going on forever". We know this because it is a practical problem in physics. Once we looked at chunks of matter. Then we understood the chunks in terms of atoms. Then the atoms in terms of electron clouds and nuclei. Then the nuclei in terms of protons and neutrons. Then the protons and neutrons in terms of quarks and gluons. And that's where we are at. Are physicists ready to accept a further "deeper level" of matter? Sure, why not, let's build a particle accelerator for 10 billion quid and we will look at that. But are they ready to accept an infinite number of further levels? Definitely not! If you could somehow magically prove to a physicist that no matter how deep one looks, this never has an end, he wouldn't say "Oh, that's cool. Let's look at the first hundred levels or so and then call it a day?" He would say something like "Oh, how interesting. But that must mean that we have been asking the wrong question. Clearly we are then generating these levels of structure by the very act of probing, so that as we probe harder we always see more. That obviously has no end. But the real explanation then must be not in these endless structures we can create, but in the rules that govern how we make as many structures as we want. There must be a few laws that govern that, and we should see regularities in the sort of structures that we can pop into existence that tell us how this new paradigm of probing laws works." In short, you would see an almost instant switch where the currently fundamental physics of looking into deep matter structure become like solid state physics now, i.e., a kind of applied physics that is busy explaining matter arrangements, whereas the new fundamental physics would switch perspectives so as to get back to a finite system of explanation of one thing in terms of another. That's just how human minds work, infinite explanations are meaningless, as in not worth thinking about.
The real question is hence whether you believe in the human mind or not. Is the way we think about the world - in principle - capable of discerning the truth about the world, or do our powers ultimately fail us and there are aspects of the world that "make no sense" to us? That is not a question about errors (which of course we will make). Neither is it a question about whether the total human brain capacity will be in practice enough to analyse some exceedingly difficult problem concerning nature. It is a question of principle: imagining an infinite supply of human ingenuity and boundless technical resources with endless time, would we in at least in a conceptual and abstract sense be able to understand all of the world, or not? If yes, then metaphysics works and I believe God has been demonstrated conclusively. If no, then metaphysics will fail somewhere and all bets are off concerning God. Proofs of God by metaphysics are invariably optimistic about human minds.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
As I said above, the Aristotle/Aquinas argument is not fussed about whether the universe has a beginning or not. I can only assume they were not fussed a ) because it's only the essentially ordered series that really mattered in terms of arguments for God and or b) they knew they couldn't know so it became irrelevant.
It's a).
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So why doesn't it matter that the universe may or may not have a beginning?
Because in either case it is a creature with essential causal dependence on a Creator.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
The real question is hence whether you believe in the human mind or not. Is the way we think about the world - in principle - capable of discerning the truth about the world, or do our powers ultimately fail us and there are aspects of the world that "make no sense" to us? That is not a question about errors (which of course we will make). Neither is it a question about whether the total human brain capacity will be in practice enough to analyse some exceedingly difficult problem concerning nature. It is a question of principle: imagining an infinite supply of human ingenuity and boundless technical resources with endless time, would we in at least in a conceptual and abstract sense be able to understand all of the world, or not? If yes, then metaphysics works and I believe God has been demonstrated conclusively.
Pardon? If it is not at least in part about errors - or avoiding them - then the whole philosophical enterprise is pointless. If all you need is the ability to imagine an understanding of all the world in a conceptual, abstract sense, why would anyone bother reading Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant etc? You'd just pick one you like the sound of, imagine that they've got it right and have done with it. Granted, this could be how lots of people come by their beliefs, but I thought philosophical inquiry was about something more than that.
Feser seems to think so. In the preface to The Last Superstition he tells us that the most important thing to know about same sex marriage is that the very idea is a metaphysical absurdity and a demonstrable moral abomination. He says the issue is an objective fact in the same way the chemical structure of water is an objective fact and that it is the business of reason to discover rather than democratic procedure to stipulate. That seems to me to be putting the stakes somewhat higher than you are. It also seems to me he is deluded and viciously bigotted, but then again I'm just part of twenty first century liberal secularism, "by turns blaspheming, whoring, and otherwise offending against all sane and decent sensibilities as the mood strikes it."
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
Pardon? If it is not at least in part about errors - or avoiding them - then the whole philosophical enterprise is pointless.
Read for comprehension. I was saying that I intended to discuss here the principle capabilities of the human mind, not its occasional (or even frequent) failures. We can have at least three different kinds of discussion about the powers of the human mind - to illustrate by example: Why someone made an error in solving a physics problem, why people tend to make errors in solving physics problems (and what that means for physics), or whether there is some physics problem that no human mind can ever address in any way under any circumstances. My point was simply that I was intending the last type of discussion, and hence had no particular need to discuss human error. The question was what the human mind at its best can do.
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
If all you need is the ability to imagine an understanding of all the world in a conceptual, abstract sense, why would anyone bother reading Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant etc? You'd just pick one you like the sound of, imagine that they've got it right and have done with it. Granted, this could be how lots of people come by their beliefs, but I thought philosophical inquiry was about something more than that.
I have no idea what you are going on about, and it has nothing to do with my paragraph that you have quoted.
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
It also seems to me he is deluded and viciously bigotted, but then again I'm just part of twenty first century liberal secularism, "by turns blaspheming, whoring, and otherwise offending against all sane and decent sensibilities as the mood strikes it."
Correct. Though such allegiance does not absolve you entirely from personal responsibility for your own moral and intellectual corruption.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Though such allegiance does not absolve you entirely from personal responsibility for your own moral and intellectual corruption.
Criticising 'twenty first century liberal secularism', and endorsing Edward Feser's opinions of it is acceptable.
Accusing shipmates of moral and intellectual corruption because they identify as liberal secularists is a personal attack and as such is not acceptable outside Hell.
Eliab
Purgatory Host
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Grokesz wrote:
Feser seems to think so. In the preface to The Last Superstition he tells us that the most important thing to know about same sex marriage is that the very idea is a metaphysical absurdity and a demonstrable moral abomination. He says the issue is an objective fact in the same way the chemical structure of water is an objective fact and that it is the business of reason to discover rather than democratic procedure to stipulate. That seems to me to be putting the stakes somewhat higher than you are. It also seems to me he is deluded and viciously bigotted, but then again I'm just part of twenty first century liberal secularism, "by turns blaspheming, whoring, and otherwise offending against all sane and decent sensibilities as the mood strikes it."
Yes, I sometimes look at his blog, out of interest in various philosophical discussions, but then some right-wing views are expressed which seem rather astonishing; 'vicious' seems about right, and chilling actually. They seem like a caricature almost, but no, they are for real. Horrific really.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
Read for comprehension. I was saying that I intended to discuss here the principle capabilities of the human mind, not its occasional (or even frequent) failures.
Rewrite for clarity, then. In a discussion about the details of the work of Feser/Aquinas, you told us that the real question is some gibberish about human mind.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I sometimes look at his blog, out of interest in various philosophical discussions, but then some right-wing views are expressed which seem rather astonishing; 'vicious' seems about right, and chilling actually. They seem like a caricature almost, but no, they are for real. Horrific really.
Yes, I've had similar thoughts. He makes derogatory comments about people who make sure that the tuna they buy is 'dolphin friendly' i.e. is caught with a pole and line rather than in huge nets implying that needlessly drowning and causing suffering to mammals of high intelligence is somehow of trivial unimportance, or that it's obvious that global terrorism is a greater threat tan the damage we're causing to the environment. It may be of course, but I don't think that it is obviously so.
I also take issue with the belief which he seems to hold that final causation is the only reason to justify sexual relationships i.e. to procreate and build a family. It misses the point which I think is fairly obvious that humans not only have sex, but 'make love' and in the context of a committed, monogamous relationship, where there is philía, agápē, storgē and eros, there is a total giving to, and affirmation of another which is good in itself - it doesn't require a final cause.
It's not so much that his arguments are wrong - although I don't think final causation can be said to pervade creation to quite the extent that Feser argues, nor do I think the idea of 'final causation' is particularly more coherent idea than (for example memes). It's just that he seems to be missing a vital piece of the puzzle: love, compassion, empathy.
[ 23. February 2014, 10:30: Message edited by: Yonatan ]
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think somewhere he refers to same sex marriage as 'making a sacrament of sodomy', which is quite funny in one way, but also kind of nasty. Also, very cold.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I also found his ideas interesting but his tone very unpleasant, and that did make me take him less seriously. Surely kindness is also a part of traditional Catholicism. Thinking that it's ok to ridicule and insult his opponents because he finds it amusing to do so seems like what is called cafeteria Catholicism to me, as he ignores the part of the church's teaching that he finds uncongenial.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Please avoid the Dead Horse.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
Am I allowed to ask here which one ? Or do I have to ask in Styx ? I am not meaning to query a ruling, just unsure what you mean I have done wrong.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Sorry, posted in a hurry (RL thing).
The DH is "any aspect of homosexuality"; the reference wasn't aimed at you but intended to stop that aspect of the Feser Preface which was raised a few posts earlier, becoming a major theme here.
My bad, moonlitdoor, not yours.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I suppose I'm curious why an essentially ordered series has to have a beginning, but an accidentally ordered one doesn't? Is it just a matter of theoretical observation in that we can't possibly know how far back an accidentally ordered series goes?
If there is an accidental (temporal) chain of causation stretching back infinitely long in time (forever), then what does that matter for the causation happening here and now?
[snip]
In short:
Premises:
1: Everything finite must have a beginning (probably true)
2: Everything in the universe is finite, and so is the universe itself (apparently true)
3: Everything with a beginning must have a cause (not proven)
4: Causes must be intentional (nope)
Conclusions
5: Because everything in the universe is finite it must have a beginning (follows from 1 and 2)
6: There must be an intentional cause at the root (follows from 3, 4, and 5 if they are all true)
7: The first mover can not be created: (this is a paradox and means that you should be checking which of 1-4 is false because it means at least one of them is)
8: If there is an uncaused first mover (not proven) we can call that first mover God (if that's how you want to define the word God)
9: I already have something I call God. Because it shares a word with the first mover they must be the same (just a fucking minute...)
Also I believe that it is demonstrably impossible for a human mind to completely understand the universe. This is because the universe contains that human mind and is therefore more complex than the mind itself. It therefore is trying to fit something bigger than the mind (the totality of the mind + other stuff) into the mind itself. So we will never be able to prove that there isn't a God - and we won't be able to prove that there is one beyond reasonable doubt unless said God stops hiding and decides to unambiguously manifest. Which means that either God won't (in which case I'm happy following the evidence that God isn't real) or God can't (in which case they aren't a classic conception of God).
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
As for Fesser himself, from reading his blog and essays, I see little evidence that he has any sense of charity, compassion, or the beauty of the universe. He also appears to have replaced common sense and empathy with scholasticism and sophistry. And I believe that it is beyond reasonable doubt that were it not the direct teachings of the Catholic Church he would reflexively reject any assertion that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.
From the preface to The Last Superstition, Fesser makes Dawkins look sane, compassionate, empathic, understanding of and welcoming to opposing points of view. And that's Dawkins when writing about religion rather than sticking to the subject he actually knows. The parts of his blog I have read are entirely in line with this assessment. I suppose that if you like logic unmediated by compassion or empirical observation in order to come up with predetermined answers, he follows in the footsteps of Aquinas.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
