Thursday, November 26, 2020

Links for Thanksgiving

What the hell happened to the Drudge Report?  The Tablet investigates.

The rediscovery of hell.  At First Things, Cardinal Pell abandons Balthasarian wishful thinking.

Never mind 2020.  David Oderberg asks: How did Donald Trump win in 2016?

Reading Religion reviews Steven Jensen’s book on Thomistic psychology.

The AARP magazine on the heartbreaking last days of Stan Lee. 

Popular Mechanics on the improbability of other intelligent life in the universe.

But is there intelligent life in the Penguin Random House breakroom?  Pathetic wokesters break down in tears over Jordan Peterson’s new book.

Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder nails it in a single tweet.  At BackReaction, Hossenfelder on “follow the science” nonsense and on what we can learn even from flat earth pseudoscience. 

David Greg Taylor’s Blueboy Brown Comics: The Adventures of a Family is ready to go to print.  He’s begun a Kickstarter campaign to get it off the ground.

At Aeon, John Goldsmith on philosopher Franz Brentano.

Carl Olsen interviews Carl Trueman about his book The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, at Catholic World Report.

At Quillette, Gerald Posner on JFK conspiracy theorist Jim Garrison.

Richard Marshall interviews philosopher of science Steven French at 3:16.

FIRE reports on student attitudes about free speech on college campuses.  The Atlantic reports on professorial worries about infringements on free speech.  At The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald on Twitter, Facebook, and censorship.  Abigail Shrier on transgender activists’ attempts to suppress her book, at Quillette.

At Letter, Alex Rosenberg and Daniel Dennett debate naturalism and purpose.

Steely Dan’s Gaucho came out 40 years ago.  Retrospectives at Glide and Albumism.  The story of Steely Dan’s legendary lost song “The Second Arrangement,” at NQN.

Andrew Sullivan on why wokeness is winning.  At the Times Literary Supplement, Simon Jenkins reviews Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay’s Cynical Theories.  Bret Weinstein and Greg Lukianoff examine wokeness from the perspective of cognitive behavioral therapy.  Lindsay on eight unproven assumptions of Critical Race Theory.

Check out John DeRosa’s recent interviews with Fr. James Brent, Matthew Levering, Christopher Tomaszewski, Michael Gorman, Gaven Kerr, Fr. Michael Dodds, and many others, at the Classical Theism Podcast.

Baz Edmeades on the myth of harmonious indigenous conservationism, at Quillette.

Anthony McCarthy on fetal pain and humanitarianism, at Quadrant. 

X-ray specs?  Sea monkeys?  Submarines by mail?  Comic Tropes looks at scam advertisements in vintage comic books.

Going undercover with Antifa: an interview at Reason.  At First Things, Mary Eberstadt on the connection between violent protests and fatherlessness.

At Aeon, Michael Strevens argues that a kind of irrationality underlies the success of science.

At The Believer, Stephen Sparks on being a bookseller.

John Marenbon on Boethius’s The Consolation of Philosophy, at Aeon.

Jesse Norman reviews Edmund Fawcett’s Conservatism: The Fight for a Tradition, at Catholic Herald.

144 comments:

  1. Dr. Feser,
    Big fan here, your work has been hugely helpful to me as a college philosophy major, so thanks so much for all you do.

    I have a term paper due in a few weeks where I need to take a side in the Leibniz-Locke debate on innate ideas (of course I want to take a third side though, as I understand it’s a false dichotomy!). Is there anywhere in your writings where you address the innate ideas issue from a Aristo-Thomistic perspective? Would that be in your book on Locke maybe? Or in the Philosophy of Mind book? Or in the Christopher Shields essay in Aristotle on Method? If you could point me in the right direction, that would be great. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A big fan who haven't read "Philosophy of mind"?

      Delete
    2. But does Aristotle solves the rationalism/empirism problem? I have a few dificulties with his view:

      - He seems to think that the only active part of the mind on knowing is the active intelect, but is that true? I believe that some studies does suggests that all of our sensory and intelectual aparatus have a kinda of direction, that it does play a bit of part in constructing experience(which does not necessarily means we don't have any knowledge of the real world).

      2. While the active intelect seems capable of explaing some concepts like red, dog, two etc, i don't get how it can explain ideas like substance, time, space, quantity etc. Kant view that you need these to be *a priori* to even make sense of experience seems very interesting.

      I don't know. Something like a rationalist or augustinian epistemology seems superior, can the more experienced thomists help out?

      Delete
    3. Aristotle was wrong because "science" is that what your saying?

      Delete
    4. Yes. "Science" and "some big-headed prussian". These are the ones that kicked our boy ass on epistemology.

      The thing is that most defenses of aristotelian epistemology deal more with the passive/active intellects and his "empiricism"(he was not exactly one, of course). Responses to Kant criticism of the negation of a priori knowledge and how Aristotle fits with modern study of optics, neuroscience etc i don't see much.

      Delete
    5. Thinking a little more, it seems that scientific data can be joined with Aristotle, thinking a bit more i failed to see how they both fight on epistemology.

      But a response to Kant would be pretty interesting, he did have some good points.

      Delete
    6. Talmid,
      "scientific data can be joined with Aristotle"
      Aristotle was wrong about the elements.
      Aristotle was wrong about motion.
      Aristotle was wrong about change.
      Aristotle was wrong about causality.

      Any person who is an Aristotelian is intrinsically and inescapably anti-realistic and profoundly anti-science.

      Delete
    7. Every capable adult could understand that i was talking about scientific dats relevant to epistemology, and yet you come here and do not mention the subject at all. It seems we have them:

      - No capacity of actually understanding the posts

      - Aways posts about the same themes

      - Have a pretty weird and annoying posting style

      Oh my godness, SDp, you are a bot!

      Delete
    8. “- Have a pretty weird and annoying posting style”
      Sorry, Talmid, I forgot to mention that the Aristotelian method of acquiring knowledge was also wrong, which connects to all his other errors.

      Scientific data cannot be correctly processed using Aristotelian methods because Aristotle did not follow the scientific method of acquiring knowledge.

      Why do you suppose that examining the works of the ancients will yield useful methodologies or conclusions for anything? Don’t you realize that the whole of humanity has lived and acted and studied and written for some 2300 years ago, rendering the vast majority of the supposed knowledge of the ancients false?

      Delete
  2. Steven Jensen is criminally underrated by lay people interested in thomist. That book reviewed is fantastic. You can tell he's a teacher. In that respect he reminds me of Ed - he's just as good at explaining what thomas thought and why leaving the judgement of truth up to the reader.

    His book on Sin is fantastic as well

    ReplyDelete
  3. Seems like Cardinal Pell has simply decided that it’s more prudent to keep preaching the reality of hell (something no universalist I know actually denies) because it’s an effective means of keeping believers focused on taking their discipleship seriously...ok so far so good. But none of that makes for any kind of good case against universalism. Nor does it even cast Balthasar’s hope as “wishful thinking”.

    How is it possible that people like you can be such good philosophers and yet absolute dogshit theologians?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not a good look for you, Andyroo.

      Delete
    2. Fine. I apologize for that last remark. It was out of line and unnecessary.

      Delete
    3. You were just expressing yourself in a colourfull manner Andyroo. No problem at all. Nothing rides on it. Ignore the jerk at 10.44.

      Delete
    4. Yeah, I agree. Over the years I have defended something like quasi-universalism, but recently I've been thinking that a stronger, hopeful universalism is very hard to reject. If anything, I would be surprised if anyone ends up damned forever. The truth of the matter is that it just doesn't make much sense for God to actively choose to create a world in which X freely sins mortally until the very end to the point of absolute separation from God, as opposed to a world in which X freely repents and ends up saved.

      God strongly wills the salvation of all, is maximally resourceful, and through Providence he can get people to freely collaborate with his ultimate will. If we were given a choice between having a person -no matter how sinful- being utterly lost forever, or having that person freely repenting and seeking God, which one would we choose? Which one would the ultimate Good choose?

      There's no wishful thinking here. It's a serious issue. The problem is that the traditional view is contradicted to it. But the conclusion seems to be that the traditional view is false, in this case.

      Delete
    5. Right. Once you’ve done a sufficient amount of prayerful reading, careful discernment, and probed into theological systems outside of this current fad of manualist Thomism, it’s hard not to come away with the conclusion that “a reasonable hope” is the conservative end that we should start from. I don’t know what it is the the psychology of certain “conservative Catholic” persons that turns this this whole issue away from “hope in the living person of Christ who will redeem all of the cosmos” into “blind obedience to magisterial teaching authority of the institutional Church will hopefully save me from hell”.

      Delete
    6. That said, it is always wiser and more prudent to live one’s life with a healthy fear of hell. Purification and the fire of divine wrath (which I take to be a legitimate aspect of God’s love) are not things to be taken lightly. We are enjoined by Christ to give the entirety of our lives to him, and I take this to be instructive in helping us to bear living witness to the divine reality while we travel this side of the eschaton. It may very well be that fear of eternal damnation is an effective motivator for the vast majority of people, and if so then it’s a worthwhile and necessary line of preaching. None of that, however, can be extrapolated out defeat the notion of universal reconciliation. How is conforming one’s life now in witness to the life of the world to come (which we will all live in together, as purified as changed people!) not a more winsome mode of evangelization? Indeed, it’s the only way to bear witness to the Good News (which I actually take to be GOOD).

      Delete
  4. Hi all,

    I'm having a bit of a hang up on an objection to Gods omniscience. The objection states that being omniscient is impossible and usually goes something like this: To have justified belief in all true propositions (and justified disbelief in untrue propositions) one would have to have the justified belief that one is omniscient. It is then claimed that this is question begging and thus impossible. Now, I don't really see how this is question begging and it seems like the old "Can God create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift?" objection. However, I'm not a philosopher and I'm having some trouble finding where this objection breaks down. So I thought I would come over here for some help.

    Thanks for the help and happy thanksgiving!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't see how this is an objection. Why would knowing that you are omniscient contradict omniscience?

      Delete
    2. I think the objection is something like this:

      1) To know that I'm omniscient, I must know every true proposition.
      2) "I'm omniscient" is a true proposition.
      3) To know that I'm omniscient, I must know that I'm omniscient (since this is a true proposition).

      The apparent issue is that this last statement is question-begging, since to know that you're omniscient, you already need to know that you're omniscient (which is the point at issue.

      I'm unimpressed by this objection. Even if we set aside the anthropomorphic understanding of divine knowledge, it conflates the logical dependence of a belief and the justification for holding it. To me, it seems analogous to arguing that we don't know that the laws of logic hold, since every formal argument for the truth of logic will depend on logic for the premises to cash out the conclusion. Any formal ARGUMENT might be logically question-begging, but it would be absurd to assume that our justification depends on formulating such an argument, or that we don't in fact know the truth of logic.

      Delete
    3. If I were omniscient, it would be self-evident to me.

      Delete
    4. It might seem self evident to you, but would your impression be correct? How woukd you know? Maybe you would not be omniscient at all , but only extremely knowledgable, and conceited.

      Delete
    5. The fallacy lies in the first premise. One does not become omniscient as the outcome of first knowing proposition A1, then proposition A2, ... all the way down to An, where the series A1...An is the set {all true propositions}. The omniscient being is omniscient by reason of being that sort of being which grounds all possible true propositions and grounds the causes some of the possibly true ones being actually true ones. He knows them from their principle(s) (i.e. Himself), not from their having become facts and observed them being factual.

      Delete
    6. Tony, why you call a premise a fallacy?

      Delete
    7. Jaime, because I was being imprecise. Perhaps I might better have said that the chain of reasoning fails because the "question begging" attempted conclusion does not obtain from the premises in the way the premises (especially #1) are true, and requires that the premises being taken in a way that makes them not true. The "question begging" claim depends on a temporal or at least causal relationship: that God (or any omniscient being) is caused to have that attribute by first KNOWING all true propositions: the knowing happens first, and the attribute then results from such knowing. This relation is implied in the phrasing "you already need to know that you're omniscient". The "already" is the kicker.

      By the way, even if being omniscient were indeed something that happened to a person as a result of happening to know all true propositions, it still would not follow that he would "need to know he is omniscient before he is omniscient." Suppose Joe is a very smart guy, and is long-lived, and starts intending to know all propositions. He goes along adding more and more (let us grant that he will need to add them in by whole leaps and bounds, since there are infinitely many true propositions, such as "there are 1,000,000 of 1/millionths of a second in a second'; "there are 1,000,001 of 1/1,000,001 of a second in a second"...) Joe gets to the VERY LAST proposition Y other than proposition Z, "I am omniscient", and grasps it. Upon knowing Y, Joe then says "I would be omniscient if I also knew Z. Since (1): I know everything other than Z, and (2): I know that if I also know Z I am omniscient, and (3): if Z is not true, I already know everything that is true, then Z BECOMES TRUE IN THE MOMENT I KNOW ITS TRUTH in knowing 1, 2 and 3 - which I know." Simultaneously. And so Joe would become omniscient not "before" knowing he is omniscient, but at the same time.

      Delete
  5. One good thing is that since Andrew Sullivan wrote his essay on October 16th, a little more cause for hope has emerged: the amendment to permit racial discrimination in California (which he writes about) was resoundingly defeated at the ballot box (and if a Leftwing measure can't win in California, it sure as all get out isn't going to succeed anywhere else). Meanwhile, Democrats around the nation are lamenting their woeful underperformance (which it was, regardless of how the ultimate result of the election shakes out) and many are blaming the Wokesters for it:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2020/11/05/dont-say-socialism-ever-again-democrats-in-congress-push-back-against-lefty-messaging-after-disappointing-election/

    Could it be that there's more reason than we feared to hope that all of the Woke agenda is confined to the halls of the High Elite, and doesn't reflect America as a whole? Hopefully.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks, Dr. Feser, for the link. I think readers of this blog would most especially like Fr. Michael Dodds's new book and that interview can be found here:

    www.classicaltheism.com/onecreatorgod

    ReplyDelete
  7. Prof. Feser,

    Catholic social teaching, liberalism, and so on have come up in this book review:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/10/joseph-henrich-weird-people/615496/

    (Also, comments on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25227902)

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't get the criticism of Von Balthazar who did teach damnation is possible unlike proper Universalist heretics who say it is not? Hoping for the salvation of all or realistically as maximally as possible is not the same as saying it will in fact play out that way?

    The idea we are absolutely certain who specifically will be saved and who will be damned sounds Calvinistic to me. You can examine yer conscience and have a moral certainty of yer own salvation. The rest is up in the air for everybody else.

    The fault is not Von Balthazar's speculations but the heresy of Universalism proper which teaches we know for certain everybody will be saved and Hell either doesn't exist or is not eternal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Hoping for the salvation of all or realistically as maximally as possible is not the same as saying it will in fact play out that way?"

      So, what's the point of hoping IF it will not "in fact play out that way? That's why that view is wishful thinking.

      Delete
    2. Unknown 2.59pm

      It is not logically impossible that it will play out that way, though for a variety of reasons it seems highly unlikely. But so long as it is not logically impossible, hoping for the salvation of all is surwly something that we shoukd all be doing.

      Delete
    3. Christianity presents the following aporia:

      1) Christ is true God and true man.
      2) Therefore, Christ is a perfect man, as any moral imperfection would be incompatible with this union.
      3) A perfect man such as Christ excels in all virtues, but especially in that of charity, which is the greatest of virtues.
      4) One who has charity to the greatest degree (loves his neighbor to the greatest degree) does everything possible for his salvation.
      5) While ordinary mortals are afflicted with human limitations, there is no intrinsic limit to what Christ can do, being both God and man.
      6) Therefore, Christ did everything possible for the salvation of everyone which, for Him, is absolutely unlimited in scope.
      7) Therefore, all should be saved.
      8) Yet all are not saved.

      This is airtight if compatibilist free will is true. Free will can't be brought up as a reason why all are not saved when God has the power to efficaciously move the will. And neither Protestant "limited atonement" nor the Catholic fancy version of "sufficient" vs. "efficacious" grace can answer the argument.

      So, modern Christian thinkers like Plantinga espouse libertarian free will. But it just moves the problem up one level from how God acts in the actual world to which world He chooses to instantiate. Why couldn't He instantiate a world in which all were saved? According to Plantinga, that is because some individuals exhibit "transworld depravity" - that is, they choose evil and damnation in every possible world in which they exist. But this means their salvation is metaphysically impossible (it occurs in no possible world). Which means their avoidance of sin is metaphysically impossible, and yet they are punished anyway for what was impossible to avoid.

      Delete
    4. GoneFishing

      People go to Hell because they are assholes. Why do assholes exist? Damned if I know.

      Delete
    5. (For some reason i can't delete the error above, i don't know why)

      Gone Fishing

      "But this means their salvation is metaphysically impossible (it occurs in no possible world). Which means their avoidance of sin is metaphysically impossible, and yet they are punished anyway for what was impossible to avoid."

      Well, we need to consider two things:

      1. Sure these guys salvation is impossible in a way, but is it impossible because of some extrinsic thing or because of their choices? Since there would be no force stopping these guys from repenting, i can't see how they could not be blamed by it. Repenting was not impossible to them because of nothing outside, they just were not willing to do it.

      2. Do we need the same individuals to get dammed? Maybe there are worlds where these guys get saved but other do not.

      Delete
    6. I'd like to put forward two other points.

      First, it's important to note that a world in which someone is damned justly is arguably better than one in which that person doesn't exist at all. (Even FOR THAT PERSON, as Alex Pruss as argued--the "it would have been better had [Judas] not been born" verse, he thinks, doesn't contradict this.) So, it won't do to argue that a just God wouldn't create someone if he knows they'll be damned.

      Second, I don't think we should conflate metaphysical possibility and blameworthiness. This is obvious on a compatibilist reading, where. But I also think it's true on a voluntarist reading. The key, I think, is the distinction between logical implication and cause. The propositions

      1) Someone killed Jones.
      and
      2) For every person but Johnson, it is false that that person killed Jones.
      imply
      3) Johnson killed Jones.

      but it is obviously wrong that Johnson killed Jones BECAUSE no one else did: he did so (say) because he was morally depraved, or for some other motivation. Similarly,

      1) Jones exists.
      and
      2) There is no possible world in which Jones exists and does not go to Hell.
      imply
      3) Jones has gone/will go to Hell.
      but this only tells us that Jones must be in Hell, not WHY Jones is in Hell. And if the "causal" explanation is that Jones is a morally depraved person, and God can justly damn morally depraved persons, then I don't see the issue at all.

      Delete
    7. Because Jones's depravity is not Jones's choice, it's God's.
      Jones is not responsible for what his own essence is, so it is not just to punish him for having a certain essence.

      Delete
    8. So many errors here. Where to start:

      First, as good a man as Pell might be, his article wasn't a theological treatise, it is more musings. Don't take it for theology.

      Next: God is not the cause of sin, and he certainly is not the cause of a person's depravity. Only a human person is the cause of the sins that can cast him into the positive punishment of Hell.

      "Being depraved" is nobody's "essence". One's essence is that of human nature, which is not depraved as such. An individual person may be depraved through his sins, but this depravity does not constitute his very nature: if he were to repent, he could become a model of charity, which would be impossible if his very essence is that of depravity.

      Next, it does not follow that

      4) One who has charity to the greatest degree (loves his neighbor to the greatest degree) does everything possible for his salvation.

      One who loves his neighbor with charity desires his salvation insofar as it comports with God's will. Thus (just for one limitation), it does not imply one would commit a sin to keep a fellow man out of Hell. From the Gospels, it is clear that God designed a universe in which it is possible for men to commit sins that will consign them to Hell. Therefore, the perfect man will - conforming his will to God's will - desire the salvation of all men to the extent that comports with God's design.

      Delete
    9. Tony

      If a man is depraved in every possible world, then it follows that his being depraved is (part of) his essence and that God is responsible for that man's depravity.
      Now, you may of course object that no man is depraved in every possible world, but it is obvious that if a man is depraved in every possible world, God is the cause of that man's depravity.

      Delete
    10. @ Walter Van den Acker: I too wouldn't say that an individual has an "essence" such that he chooses to reject God in every possible world. But I think you may be pointing at a promising reply to Plantinga and others who promote Molinism. From what I understand of Quine, only analytic propositions are necessary truths, and to be true in every possible world is to be a necessary truth. So it may be a malformed premise to posit that X is depraved, or rejects God, in every possible world, since we wouldn't think "X is depraved" is an analytic proposition when X stands for some individual person known in the real world.

      Delete
    11. ficino

      I don't claim that X is depraved in every possible world, but I was originally responding to what [name redacted] said.

      Delete
    12. @Walter: yes, I didn't think you were claiming that anyone is depraved in every possible world. I took you to be restating a thesis that I have seen put forth by modern "Molinists," and I think Plantinga is one.

      Delete
    13. One who loves his neighbor with charity desires his salvation insofar as it comports with God's will. Thus (just for one limitation), it does not imply one would commit a sin to keep a fellow man out of Hell.

      Sin and save the soul of the man. That kind of self-righteous do-gooder attitude is the sin of pride, which is the greatest sin of all.

      Delete
    14. If a man is depraved in every possible world, then it follows that his being depraved is (part of) his essence and that God is responsible for that man's depravity.
      Now, you may of course object that no man is depraved in every possible world, but it is obvious that if a man is depraved in every possible world, God is the cause of that man's depravity.


      Indeed I do object: I hold that "in every possible world" is not well-defined (in the mathematical sense) for propositions that are not metaphysically necessary. And "individual human person X is depraved" is not metaphysically necessary. So your conditional turns out to be self-immolating, a null hypothesis.

      And in any case, I also disagree with the proposition that "if X has K attribute 'in every possible universe' then K belongs to X's essence." This is not necessarily true. You can deduce the opposite: if K belongs to X's essence, then K is an attribute of X. But that's because causality works from the essence forward, not the other way around.

      (Ultimately, you cannot rule in or out the content limitations which specify "every possible universe" without also specifying whether "possible" covers "universes which God would not choose to create" for some reason or other, and you would have to say so FOR EVERY POSSIBLE REASON - a completely ad-hoc specification of "possible universes". The term is indeterminate.

      Delete
    15. Tony

      If "P is depraved" is not metaphysically necessary, that simply means there is a possible world in which P is not depraved. I don't see how this is supposed to be an objection to anything I said.

      And what do "universes which God would not choose to create" add to the equation?
      A "universe which God would not choose to create" is metaphysically impossible (if God is the creator of everything). So, there is no content limitation anywhere.

      Delete
    16. BalancedTryte,

      Come now, that's absurd. How could it possibly be the case that the right thing to do in a given situation is to disobey God and to separate oneself from Him? I think you may have in mind the idea of a man so sanctimonious that he will not deign to get his hands dirty to save his neighbour, but that isn't actually the case here. To *sin* is something much worse than physical dirt. Sin is to seperate yourself from God, to befoul oneself with spiritual impurity, to reject God and to give oneself over to wickedness. It could never be the case that a man served God by doing so. You might as well say that if my brother is going to murder a man, I ought to murder said man first to prevent my brother from sinning. Of course that would be ludicrous - the right course of action is to try to stop him and convince him not to go through with his crime. I don't have to sit there idly and do nothing, but I shouldn't sin.

      Delete
    17. How could it possibly be the case that the right thing to do in a given situation is to disobey God and to separate oneself from Him?

      Decision theory breaks down when it comes to sacrificing eternal life (-infinity) to give eternal life to someone else (+infinity). It's only absurd if I were to sacrifice eternal life (-infinity) for the utility of some sin (+n).

      Because infinity-infinity is an indeterminate form in mathematics, it might be the case that you're right. But it also might be the case that I'm right.

      Delete
    18. PS: not all sin separates oneself from God. Nobody went to Hell for telling their kid Santa Claus is real. See venial vs. mortal.

      Delete
    19. I presumed it was assumed that the sin in question was mortal. It seemed to make sense from the context. But beyond that, we should strive not to sin at all, even venially. Little could be more foolish than to think that we can ignore venial sins because they're not mortal. And in any event, I don't believe there is ever a situation in which one is obliged to sin even venially, for God would not create a world wherein one is obliged to do what is immoral.

      Delete
    20. @ GoneFishing, re: Plantinga's notion of "transworld depravity", do you have thoughts about the following, which I suggested to Walter Van den Acker?

      "From what I understand of Quine, only analytic propositions are necessary truths, and to be true in every possible world is to be a necessary truth. So it may be a malformed premise to posit that X is depraved, or rejects God, in every possible world, since we wouldn't think "X is depraved" is an analytic proposition when X stands for some individual person known in the real world."

      Delete
    21. If God allows free will, then God is not all good. False.

      Delete
    22. Responses in no particular order.

      Perfect charity meaning doing whatever one can do for the salvation of others provided it be "in accordance with God's will". There are two interpretations of this phrase and I address both.

      Sinning for the salvation of others? Of course, when I said the man perfect in every virtue, especially charity, would do everything "possible" for the salvation of his fellow man, I include "morally possible" under the umbrella of "possible", for a man perfect in every virtue could not possibly do anything immoral. But Christ is surely not in need of doing anything immoral to bring about the salvation of anyone.

      The other interpretation of "not in accordance with God's will" is that even though Christ (considered in His human nature) COULD save all men, God (including Christ in His Divine nature) doesn't WANT Him to. This presumes a Divine Command theory of morality, which, while supported by some Protestants, is logically incoherent and easily refuted. In fact saving all men is something good in itself and not something God could "prohibit" without acting against His own nature.

      And, even if one insists upon a prior Divine decree, there is the intractable philosophical problem that one's repentance is metaphysically impossible given the prior decree, and no one can be held responsible for what is metaphysically impossible.

      It's a better world in which X exists and is damned than one in which X doesn't exist at all. Admitted; that it's a better world in which X exists and is damned than one in which X exists and is saved, denied. Now sure one may argue that God is not "obligated" to create the best possible world, but then arguing about the superiority of the world in which X is damned leads nowhere.

      If X is depraved in every possible world in which he exists, then his salvation is metaphysically impossible. Yes, this is a tautology in modal logic. If X's salvation were possible, there would (BY DEFINITION) be at least one possible world in which he is saved. I don't agree that only analytic propositions are necessary truths. "God exists" is a necessary truth, but not an analytic proposition.

      Worlds which God would or would not choose to create. There are (epistemically) possible worlds which God would not create, as they would be against His nature (say, a world which was almost completely evil). But every world consonant with God's nature is a world He could create, and therefore is a possible world.



      Delete
    23. Gone fishing,

      Your fourth premise is not true. It is not the case that "one who possesses charity perfectly does everything he can for the salvation of others" (or whatever you said). Possessing perfect charity does not mean violating the free will of another. It is not evil to allow someone to choose estrangement from God.

      Delete
    24. T N,

      Yes it is true. Would you agree that one who possesses charity perfectly does everything out of love of God and for the greater glory of God to the maximum extent possible? Would you agree that love of God is inseparable from love of one's fellow man, such that the more one loves God, the more he loves his fellow man, and so if one loves God to the maximum extent possible, he also loves his fellow man to the maximum extent possible? Would you agree that love is (in essence) the willing of another's good for his sake? If you do (and I think you do), then one who possesses charity perfectly loves his fellow man to the maximum extent possible and therefore wills their good to the maximum extent possible. The only possible counterargument here is that the greater glory of God is brought about better by X's damnation than by his salvation, which I would say is a completely absurd notion.

      Your counterarguments are mere straw men. Efficaciously moving the free will of someone to choose the good is not "violating" his free will. And one who possesses charity perfectly does more than merely restrain from evil.

      Delete
    25. You wrote: “Efficaciously moving the free will of someone to choose the good is not "violating" his free will.”

      That is true, but that is not your burden. Your burden is to show that because God is perfect charity, therefore all must be predestined. Those who are not predestined receive sufficient grace, but not efficacious grace and this is not a violation of charity.

      The predestined are granted efficacious grace that does not violate their freewill (as you say), but that does not require that all are predestined.

      You wrote: “The only possible counterargument here is that the greater glory of God is brought about better by X's damnation than by his salvation”

      Not true, and you have offered no argument to show otherwise.

      Delete
    26. GF,

      If you want to take the Thomist view as opposed to the Molinist view, here is a somewhat hackneyed way to put it:

      The predestined are created as a type that has a perfected will. As such, they will infallibly choose perfection/salvation and subsequently be saved/perfected.

      Those not predestined are a different type. They are not created with a perfect will, but can attain perfection by cooperating with sufficient grace.

      That God made these two different types is not a violation of charity.

      Delete
    27. gonefishing,

      How about this argument: God is perfect charity. Therefore, God would not allow the fall of man.

      Therefore . . . man is not fallen? Or how about therefore . . . there is not God? What are we going for here?

      Delete
    28. @GoneFishing: you said that "God exists" is a necessary truth but not an analytic proposition. Can you give other examples of what you take to be necessary truths that are not analytic propositions? Tx

      Delete
    29. T N,

      Well I'm glad you concede my first point about efficaciously moving a free will (assuming such is possible) not being a "violation" of free will. Now onto your second point.

      "Your burden is to show that because God is perfect charity, therefore all must be predestined. Those who are not predestined receive sufficient grace, but not efficacious grace and this is not a violation of charity."

      It is a violation of charity. And also of justice. (We're assuming here, of course, that compatibilist free will is true.) I notice you didn't bother to even attempt to respond to all the arguments I made.

      Now of course, you will insist God allows damnation to "manifest His justice", but all He will be really manifesting in reality is that He is a f*cking asshole, which is exactly what those "justly" condemned will tell Him (assuming this worldview is true, which it isn't). (Which explains why so many "traditionalist" or "conservative" Christians are f*cking assholes themselves. They're only emulating the God they claim to worship.)

      Now, the man perfect in charity does everything he can for the salvation of his fellow man, consistent with moral law (e.g. one can't lie because it might in theory lead to the salvation of another). Do you agree with this, or not? If not, what, exactly, does "perfect in charity" mean? If yes, ALL Christ had to do for the salvation of His fellow man is will it, or pray to His Father for it, given that we reject Protestant "limited atonement". And He didn't do it.

      Moreover, if efficacious grace is a necessary and sufficient metaphysically prior condition for avoidance of sin, then avoidance of sin is metaphysically impossible without it, and noone is responsible for what is metaphysically impossible under the circumstances. But wait, you say. Efficacious grace would have been granted had sufficient grace not been resisted. But how come that mysteriously never happens? Are there possible worlds in which the "non-predestined" are saved, or no?

      ficino:

      A human is a rational animal.

      Delete
    30. T N,

      Regarding original sin.

      The Church can proclaim monogenism and a "literal" interpretation of Genesis insofar as Adam and Eve are concerned until the cows come home, but it won't make it true, any more than geocentrism is true, despite the fact it took the Church two whole centuries from Galileo's time to admit it. Genetics clearly shows the founder human population to have been way more than 2.

      Delete
    31. @ to GoneFishing: Leonard Peikoff says that "a human is a rational animal" is an analytic proposition.

      https://courses.aynrand.org/works/the-analytic-synthetic-dichotomy/

      Delete
    32. ficino,
      There is a reason why, as Peikoff clearly states, that nearly every other philosopher disagrees with Peikoff-Peikoff is wrong.

      All Peikoff has done is move all the synthetic facts of a physical subject into the “logical” definition of that subject, and thus simply call synthetic statements analytic.

      Peikoff is simply engaging in a philosophical slight of hand, an attempted trick, and not a convincing one.

      There is no logical necessity why a particular subject must have the properties that it does in fact have, those are just the physical facts of the subject. Furthermore, our human understanding of those facts can change, such that under Peikoff a seemingly “analytic” true statement can later be found to be false, as our human understanding of the true synthetic nature of the subject becomes better understood.

      That leaves Peiklff going from a logical truth to a logical falsehood based on clarification of analytic facts without changing the wording of the original “analytic” proposition.

      Objectivism is a mess.

      Delete
  9. Sabine Hossenfelder is an absolute gem!

    "Science doesn't say you shouldn't piss on high voltage lines; science says urine is an excellent conductor".

    I especially love it when she gets pissy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes indeed she is correct science in itself doesn't make moral or value judgments, but "science says" is simply shorthand for the scientific facts plus an assumed value judgment, such as dying by electrocution is a bad thing and to be avoided.

      And just wait until you find out she denies free will.

      Delete
  10. Balthazar's view contradicts Church Tradition on Judas's fate.

    Andrew Sullivan on why wokeness is winning.

    Don't ask "why are the woke winning." Ask "why do young people find my conventional political views so ugly?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And the answer might well be "because they have the combination of arrogance and ignorance that has always characterized youth, combined with the conviction of the absolute rightness of their views encouraged by the participation trophy culture they grew up in."

      Delete
    2. @Fred

      You can't fool all of the people all the time. If all of the youth thinks your political views are ugly all the time, then they are false.

      combined with the conviction of the absolute rightness of their views encouraged by the participation trophy culture they grew up in

      Yes! Your failure to raise Millennials and Gen Z is just another part of your general pattern of failure to manage the economy, and the global climate (both political and ecological), and the Church. All you did was fail, fail, fail. That is another reason we're justified in thinking the old convention is ugly.

      Delete
    3. BTO, You are obviously too young to realize just how much you sound like a Boomer circa 1968-1975. They grew up by 1980 (hence Reagan's election and landslide reelection). Hopefully, you and your generation will grow up as well.

      Delete
    4. But given just how arrogant and ignorant you lot are, I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

      Delete
    5. Tryte, nothing you wrote follows, and millennial to millennial, you seem unhinged. Is Fred your dad? Did he 'fail' to raise you? If not, read what you wrote again and look in the mirror for a while.

      Delete
    6. Thank you PIO. It's good to see sanity hasn't died out yet.

      Delete
    7. @BalancedTryteOperators

      "You can't fool all of the people all the time. If all of the youth thinks your political views are ugly all the time, then they are false."

      Do you think most of the youth on 850 a.C would agree with your political views?

      If yes, them good. If not, them i just ask: What exactly makes this generation wiser that the others? Being younger myself i can safely say the average youth opinion of politics or most themes is worth the same as a piece of paper: not much.

      Delete
    8. Talmid, each generation inherits a different framework to operate within. The framework politically-powerful youth operated in 850 B.C. was different. For instance, they were not technologically powerful enough to permanently alter their environment (but the Romans were: almost none of the mountains around the Mediterranean coasts were left unaltered by Roman mining techniques).

      Delete
    9. How does the relativity of political opinion to historical framework prove your generation wiser than others? It would seem just the opposite. In any case, it is hard to take seriously the political opinions of someone who explicitly said that if Trump won in 2020, leftists would be justified in rioting and destroying the livelihoods and even lives of people who voted against Trump because attacking Trump voters is too dangerous, those voters being armed. That's not ugly, not to mention cowardly?

      Delete
    10. Fred,

      King Reprobate Ahab went to Hell for killing one innocent man (Naboth). That action was enough to incur the wrath of Saint Elijah and any true prophet alive at that time. What do you think should happen to Trump for killing George Floyd?

      Delete
    11. Well, given Trump didn't kill George Floyd, I'm going to guess nothing? I think PIO is right. You are unhinged.

      Delete
    12. Fred,

      Balanced is just one of the trolls on this forum whose whole goal it to make any meaningful discussion impossible.

      Delete
    13. Of course, you're right TN. Still, it is amusing to see just how nuts BTO is. His notion that Trump should go to hell for murdering George Floyd is hilarious. And the more he writes, the more hilarious material he contributes.

      Delete
    14. @BTO

      I don't see your point here. The only way the people capacity of altering the environment should even matter would be if we were discussing global warming or something like that, but you attacked this Andrew Sullivan political views in general, so...

      Delete
  11. The selling a live monkey in the box on those scam comic book ads we read as kids in your youtube link had me cracking up. The guy who invented sea monkeys and x ray specs needs to have a movie made about his life.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think Hossenfelder's presentation was a bit tendentious. Life consists of tradeoffs. Destroying the world economy in an attempt to stave off climate change would cause as much disruption, dislocation, and death as climate change itself. Recognizing that fact is not the same as not "giving a shit" about the poor or future generations, in fact, quite the opposite.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Speaking of tradeoffs, there are a lot of them with Hossenfelder. What can one say about the strident endorsement of blind religious claims of those who cannot build a climate model anywhere close to accurate and yet then make the most draconian policy proscriptions—and that in a video against scientism? (She did fall in her own trap)

      Nonetheless, as I stated above, I do have an affinity for her work and the videos she produces. Her book “Lost in Math” points out some epistemological problems with the contemporary approach to physics that is excellent IMO. I see her as someone who sees many of the epistemological problems with contemporary science (the video linked above is kind of a succinct illustration of what I’m talking about), but has yet to make some important connections as to what to do about it. She’s kind of a victim of the things she complains about.

      Delete
    2. I too noticed that she appears to be a flaming hypocrite (or 'victim' if you prefer).

      Delete
  13. Mary Eberstadt's piece is typically excellent.

    A society with rampant fatherlessness is living on borrowed time.

    ReplyDelete
  14. So, did Biden steal the election? What is the opinion now? Your pathetic Dear Leader Trump made a fool out of himself. And so did Feser and most of you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Feser and his acolytes make fools of themselves most of the time, or havn't you noticed? They are bizarre cultists.

      Delete
    2. Who claims Biden stole the election?

      You are definitely a twitter user, aint you, Anon?

      Delete
    3. Billy Boy, didn't you read Feser's " Means, Motives and Opportunity" column? With the patina of scholary philosophical inquiry, Feser was essentially saying, " I am not declaring that Biden won by fraud, but he had the means, the motive and the opportunity to do so, and here are my reasons." Feser the Fool. Maybe he hoped someone would show it to Trump but he forgot Trump doesn't read.

      Delete
    4. Anon, if that is what you got from that post, then twitter has seriously fried your brain.

      Please quote where in that post that Feser said Joe Biden himself had anything to do with anything, or even that anyone at all did anything at all?

      In your desperate addiction to "owning the cons" with a quick trolly quip, no doubt developed by rampant twitter use, it just makes you look like a fool.

      Again, go to twitter for all that nonsense.

      Delete
  15. Where did Feser say that Biden had stolen the election? (I recall him pointing out that the left seemed to think that the prospect of a second Trump term was an existential threat to American democracy, of the sort that would justify violent revolution, and then reasonably asked why people who thought that way would balk at electoral fraud. It's a question I myself was asking long before the election, and one to which I still haven't heard a good answer.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well Seamus, apparently looking into evidence of fraud and going through a legal process to determine the status of an election makes one a member of a strange cult. And this from the people who spent four years on repeatedly debunked conspiracy theories about collision and how the last election was masterminded by Putin. Go figure.

      Delete
    2. T N, even the National Review editorial board calls this whole thing 'disgraceful'.

      * "Almost nothing that the Trump team has alleged has withstood the slightest scrutiny."

      * "Flawed and dishonest assertions like this pollute the public discourse and mislead good people who make the mistake of believing things said by the president of the United States."

      * "Trump’s most reprehensible tactic has been to attempt, somewhat shamefacedly, to get local Republican officials to block the certification of votes and state legislatures to appoint Trump electors in clear violation of the public will. This has gone nowhere, thanks to the honesty and sense of duty of most of the Republicans involved, but it’s a profoundly undemocratic move that we hope no losing presidential candidate ever even thinks of again."


      https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/11/trump-election-fraud-disgraceful-endgame

      Delete
    3. Paranoid Android,

      Affidavits are evidence in a legal proceeding. When legal claims are made, they should be examined to see if they are true, no?

      Are these issues to be settled by the media, or the courts?

      Prominent Democrats and articles in liberal publications were warning about the danger of mail-in ballots for the past two years. Is it not intuitively obvious that ballots for which the chain of custody is broken pose a danger of fraud?

      Do we want to settle the issue so that we can trust future elections, or just tell people to shut up?

      Are the people who served up unhindged conspiracty theories about Russia for four years, really qualified to now tell us about the purity of our elections?

      Delete
    4. Well,TN, problem is,Trump's lawyers kept getting smacked down in court because they had nothing. The big law firms dropped him, so all he had left was dripping Rudy Giuliani to babble about conspiracies.
      And Mad King Trump now thinks his own FBI and Justice Department were out to get him. Trump's bizarre antics prove that General Mattis was right when he said Trump was "dangerous and unfit."

      Delete
    5. And TN as for your comment about "unhinged conspiracy theories" about Russia and the 2016 election, Google "5 Takeaways from final Senate Intel Russia Report.

      Delete
    6. Well Anonymous, determining the merit of claims is the job of the court, no?

      I'm supposed to do research to construct an argument for you? No thanks.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous, if everything is so above board, why is there such reluctance by election officials to let anyone see the signatures, to make sure they match? Why is there such skulduggery, such a lack of transparency, around a very important election which has a shockingly poor chain of custody? Because if you want to undermine faith in an election, then that's how you do it. Rasmussen reported that we're already up to 47% of Americans believing that there was significant enough voter fraud to ensure a Biden victory (including 20% of Democrats, 30% of independents, and 75% of Republicans). Which is honestly worse, because it means that a fifth of Democrats honestly believe their guy cheated and don't care.

      Delete
    8. TN and Cantus, I agree that the hysteria on the left about Trump's lawsuits and behavior is overwrought and hypocritical. That said, while I have no doubt that the Democrats pulled some shenanigans in some places, Trump has not provided evidence that would hold up in court, and even if he had, the fraud that no doubt happened would not have been extensive enough to change the outcome of the election. We would do ourselves a favor by just accepting defeat in this election and concentrating on taking back the House and retaining or regaining (depending on what happens in Georgia) our majority in the Senate. The most urgent matter now is to prevent the left from imposing the one-party dictatorship they have planned for us. As for Trump, if he wants to go out like a buffoon, well, he is who he is and he does what he does. I knew what I was getting when I voted for him. For all his flaws, he was a better option than the totalitarian loons who opposed him. He is still a better option than the totalitarian loons who oppose him, but it's over. It's time to move on.

      Delete
    9. If they get away with it now, what in God's name makes you think they'll stop in future? Give up here and you won't HAVE free elections in future.

      Delete
    10. Also, Fred, how much of the evidence have you looked at? There are a *lot* of extremely suspicious statistical anomalies and behaviours of officials going on. I believe it highly naive to think that there couldn't possibly be enough fraud to change the results.

      Delete
    11. Fred,

      I have said that legal claims have been made that need to be adjudicated. We are now in the process of deciding those claims. However, you seem to think this has something to do with me and my opinions. I have no witness testimony ot offer. No court has sought my opinion. I'm not the one who decides to "accept defeat". I'm waiting to hear what the legal process decides.

      Delete
    12. There are a lot of statistical oddities in this election that favor Biden. Its not uncommon in some counties for one candidate to get >90% of the votes in a vote dump, even of 100s of 1000s. But in vote dumps of >500k, Biden is getting 99.5% of the votes. He's getting numbers that, if this were Putin, everyone trying to silence any questions about the election would be saying Putin fixed the election.

      That isn't to defend Trump at all. Some of Trump's court cases have been extremely frivolous. He went to court over 50 or so votes at one point.

      The real question is: why are some people afraid to just ask question? Why are you willing to lump people who say "The election has some very strange circumstance that haven't been properly explain, we'll see what Trump can prove in court" in with every conspiracy theorist out there? I'd say it shows a lack of confidence in your position.

      Delete
    13. Also, Billy, I believe many of the frivolous court cases were brought by private citizens, not by Trump directly. Admittedly, I could be mistaken on that, but that's what I've heard.

      Delete
    14. Fred,

      The most urgent matter now is to prevent the left from imposing the one-party dictatorship they have planned for us.

      Did you object to the "one-party dictatorship" of 2016, or do you think your life will really see some sort of significant change under a Biden administration?

      Delete
    15. Billy,
      There are a lot of statistical oddities in this election that favor Biden. Its not uncommon in some counties for one candidate to get >90% of the votes in a vote dump, even of 100s of 1000s. But in vote dumps of >500k, Biden is getting 99.5% of the votes. He's getting numbers that, if this were Putin, everyone trying to silence any questions about the election would be saying Putin fixed the election.

      We have not had an election with this high a turnout in over 100 years, and never with this much vote-by-mail during a pandemic. We don't have a basis for judging what is anomalous.

      I agree that we should investigate and confirm the handling and security of the election. Knowing how well it worked, or did not, will be crucial for our decisions going forward.

      Delete
    16. I'm glad to see that you agree the results have to be known to be legitimate. And yes, while there was record turnout, that does not magically overthrow all conventions and mean that we are in such a new space that we have no idea what is and isn't anomalous. That seems a bit like selective mysterianism (IE, trying to induce unreasonable doubt to cloud the discussion and put likely and unlikely things on an even playing field).

      Delete
    17. Not just massive turnout, but to my understanding, a much higher percentage of voting by mail than any other election, and in part because the two main candidates and their parties encouraged distinct types of voting behavior. That's a type of difference we've never seen before.

      Delete
    18. One Brow, At one time or another, prominent mainstream Democrats have said they would pack the Supreme Court, grant statehood to Puerto Rico and DC to ensure a majority in the Senate, destroy the suburbs with the Spartacus plan, decriminalize illegal border crossing and grant expensive benefits to illegal immigrants (why do that except to import Democrat voters?), and grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants already here (which not coincidentally, is likely to create millions of new Democrat voters domestically). Biden and Harris have either signed on or refused to rule out all of the above. That's not what Sean Hannity said they would do. It's not what Rush Limbaugh said they would do. It is what they said they would do.

      Delete
    19. TN, I get the impression you and I agree on more than we disagree on. That said, I just don't buy that William Barr has suddenly become a liar or an agent of the "deep state." I believed him when he said there was no obstruction of justice in the Russia investigation. I believed him when he said the Trump campaign was spied on in 2016. I believed him when he said the sentencing of Roger Stone was excessive. I believe him now. I'm not sure what I wrote that made you believe I think your opinions have anything to do with the court cases. Whatever it was, I'll try to be more clear in the future. I was saying that conservatives and Republicans in general should accept that this election just didn't go our way.

      Cantus, Did the Democrats cheat? Of course they did. That's what Democrats do. But was it enough to change the result of the election? There is no evidence it was. In addition, the Democrats failure to achieve a blue wave is quite encouraging. We picked up seats in the House and could quite possibly retain our majority in the Senate. Both those facts militate against your fear of loss of free elections. They also indicate to me that conservatives would be better off working toward the eminently achievable goal of retaking the Congress in '22 than wasting time and energy litigating hopeless cases and indulging in useless recriminations.

      Delete
    20. Fred,

      No worries.

      Bill Barr said: "**to date**, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election."

      His words do not indicate that they won't find such faud tomorrow; they just mean he has found no fraud **to date**. Furthermore, Bill Barr is not the one who decides the matter, a court of law does that.

      Look, I don't really care. It's not up to me; it's not up to you; it's not up to the media. Let the plaintiff's take their evidence before a court of law and let the finders of fact do their jobs.

      Delete
    21. Fred,
      One Brow, At one time or another, prominent mainstream Democrats have said they would pack the Supreme Court, grant statehood to Puerto Rico and DC to ensure a majority in the Senate, destroy the suburbs with the Spartacus plan, decriminalize illegal border crossing and grant expensive benefits to illegal immigrants (why do that except to import Democrat voters?), and grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants already here (which not coincidentally, is likely to create millions of new Democrat voters domestically).

      Republicans stacked the courts, why shouldn't Democrats? Don't you think US citizens deserve to have Senators and Representatives in Congress? I have no idea what the "Spartacus plan" is. Decriminalization is not legalization and before Trump, Obama was called the "deporter-in-chief", so it's not as if his ilk are to welcoming of illegal immigrants. With so many of the Hispanic people being staunchly pro-life and anti-'socialist', their ranks would swell the Republican Party (if you could ever tone down the racism, at any rate).

      Biden and Harris have either signed on or refused to rule out all of the above.

      I don't recall many Republicans ruling out stacking the courts, or saying they would oppose California separating into a red and a blue state.

      It is what they said they would do.

      Which of these items would make a significant difference in your life, to the point of it being "dictatorship"?

      Delete
    22. Oh, come on One Brow, don't tell me YOU're going to follow Stardusty in conflating court stacking and court packing again. We've been down this road before, and it's incredibly tiresome to hear you try to equivocate this way again.

      Delete
    23. Fred,

      I would submit a collection of concerns that's tabulated here for your perusal:

      https://hereistheevidence.com/

      I would also respectfully disagree with you about there being no reason or insufficient reason to think future elections will be meddled with. If your vote doesn't matter now, why would it matter in a runoff election in January, with less oversight? Plus, the mainstream media and Big Tech are clearly already colluding with the Democrats to support their power, and with a Biden administration giving them both a pass, they may be able to fasten their grip on the public narrative into an iron stranglehold that shuts out all dissent. That's also assuming that they aren't able to generate overwhelming amounts of indentured voters via benefits to illegal immigrants. Indeed, you yourself acknowledge this is likely their plan. Given that, I fail to see why you are so sanguine about regular electoral politics remaining a viable option in the future - if they plan on imposing a one-party state, are we just to hope that they're incompetent enough that they haven't achieved their goal in time to rig the 2022 election?

      Delete
    24. Cantus,

      Sorry. I thought I was using your preferred terms. Did the Republicans stack the courts or pack the courts, as you use the terms?

      Delete
    25. The Republicans stacked the courts, by getting the chance to appoint more justices in the manner set out by the Constitution. The Democrats are attempting to pack the courts, by increasing the number of justices. These are two completely different things, and have very different outcomes - most notably, court packing destroys faith in the independence of the judiciary and opens the door to each side adding more and more justices to act as puppets whenever they return to the executive. Pretending that these two are the same or morally equivalent is dishonest.

      Delete
    26. "I don't recall many Republicans ruling out stacking the courts, or saying they would oppose California separating into a red and a blue state."

      The difference being that the State of Jefferson is not a mainstream idea being espoused openly by large portions of the Republican party, whereas DC+Puerto Rico statehood, court packing, welfare for illegal immigrants, etc, are all popular and mainstream ideas being floated by prominent Democrats. Not denouncing a fringe idea isn't something an honest person needs to do, because he may judge it is politically irrelevant. But for someone to refuse to condemn a policy that is popular and routinely discussed among his party says something entirely different - that he is at least quietly in favor of it, or at minimum will not actively resist its implementation.

      Delete
    27. Cantus,
      Court packing is like jury packing, using underhanded means to pack in members likely to vote your way.

      Your phony distinction between stacking and packing is just hindsight nonsense.

      A jury is packed without a change in the number of jurors.

      There is no requirement that the number of seats be increased to perpetrate court packing.

      The Republicans have already packed the court by the unprecedented failure to take up and confirm a nomination in the term of the president that the seat opened up. There is no other example of this in living memory other than the McConnell/Trump court packing scheme.

      If the Democrats can expand the court that will be a case of unpacking the court, as provided under our constitution.

      Unpack the court, President-Elect Biden. Don’t let the Republican court packing stand.

      Delete
    28. Cantus,
      The Republicans stacked the courts, by getting the chance to appoint more justices in the manner set out by the Constitution.

      That's the term I used.

      The Democrats are attempting to pack the courts, by increasing the number of justices.

      "Are attempting"? You can't name one single provision in Congress to do this, so this is a false statement.

      These are two completely different things, and have very different outcomes - most notably, court packing destroys faith in the independence of the judiciary and opens the door to each side adding more and more justices to act as puppets whenever they return to the executive.

      Whereas, court packing by stalling the appointments on one President and quick-trotting the appointments of the next destroys faith in the independence of the judiciary and opens the door to each side appointing more and more justices to act as puppets whenever they return to the executive. It doesn't seem all that different.

      Pretending that these two are the same or morally equivalent is dishonest.

      Claiming dishonesty when you just made a false statement seems quite disingenuous.

      Delete
    29. Sorry, that should have been 'Whereas, court stacking by stalling the appointments on one President and quick-trotting the appointments of the next destroys faith in the independence of the judiciary and opens the door to each side appointing more and more justices to act as puppets whenever they return to the executive. It doesn't seem all that different.'

      Wouldn't want to use the wrong word.

      Delete
    30. Cantus,
      ..., whereas DC+Puerto Rico statehood,

      Why do you oppose US citizens being able to vote for Representatives and Senators to represent them?

      ... court packing, welfare for illegal immigrants, etc, are all popular and mainstream ideas ...

      Are they? Outside of SCOTUS, what courts are being proposed to get additional judges? Who are the Congressional leaders (committee heads, etc.), calling for immigrant welfare?

      Not denouncing a fringe idea isn't something an honest person needs to do,

      Downplaying the favored side's less supported ideas as "fringe", while unplaying the less supported ideas of the less favored side as "mainstream" doesn't seem like something an honest person would need to do, but it is something that you do.

      Delete
  16. "T N, even the National Review editorial board calls this whole thing 'disgraceful'."

    What do you mean, "even"? Are you surprised that a never-Trumper publication would be critical of Trump?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seamus, I don't think it's quite fair to characterize NR as a "never-Trumper" publication. It has never-Trumper contributors like formerly Johah Goldberg, Kevin Williams, and Michael Brandon Dougherty; Trump skeptics like Rich Lowry and Jim Geraghty (sp?); and Trump supporters like Andrew McCarthy, Victor Davis Hanson, and Conrad Black. None of that proves they are right, but it does suggest they shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

      Delete
  17. TN,
    And the courts are saying NO CASE to Trump. Can you not read that on the Internet?

    Cantus
    Election officials are certifying the results because there was no fraud. So Trump is reduced to having Rudy Guiliani appear in hotel meeting rooms with Trump calling in to make wild claims about fraud. It's pathetic but it's comical

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      Firstly, I don't know why leftists are so obsessed with pointing out that meetings are "taking place in hotels", as if that somehow proves that they aren't credible. What kind of nonsense is that? Secondly, if you can really look at all the really suspicious irregularities going on with this election and conclude that there's genuinely nothing wrong whatsoever, then I can't call you honest. A fifth of your *own side* think there was massive fraud, for crying out loud.

      Delete
    2. Actually, I was *understating* it: almost a THIRD of your own side thinks there was fraud, with a fifth being STRONGLY convinced.

      Delete
    3. Also, you are awfully quick to dismiss sworn testimony that you don't like to hear as "wild claims". It's not *impossible* that someone could lie under oath, but to blithely dismiss a significant number of testimonies sworn under oath as if they were hearsay off the side of the road is ludicrous.

      Delete
    4. *Also* also, you'll find that I did not directly mention certification in my comment, but asked why there was such reluctance to provide evidence to the public that signatures did in fact match, that everything was indeed above board, etc. If you were truly concerned with trust in democracy and truly believed that Biden won fair and square, you would surely have no problem with that, wouldn't you?

      Delete
    5. “And the courts are saying NO CASE to Trump.”

      Does that mean that all legal claims have been adjudicated? I assume not since you could have simply stated that to begin with. Legal claims have been made that need to be examined and settled in a court of law. That isn’t hard to understand, but you seem to be completely ruled by emotion.

      “Can you not read that on the Internet?”

      I don’t know. Can I read on the internet that all claims have been definitively adjudicated?

      Delete
    6. Cantus,
      Also, you are awfully quick to dismiss sworn testimony that you don't like to hear as "wild claims". It's not *impossible* that someone could lie under oath, but to blithely dismiss a significant number of testimonies sworn under oath as if they were hearsay off the side of the road is ludicrous.

      Most of that sworn testimony is about legal and useful behavior, like copying the information from damaged ballots to usuable ballots.

      Delete
    7. One Brow,

      Where does your information on that come from? That's not what I've been hearing. And besides, how many testimonies to fraud do we need before it becomes a big problem?

      Delete
    8. Cantus,

      Lawyers who say they have read the affidavits. Where is yours coming from? Why aren't these affidavits making a difference in Trump's court cases, if they accurately depict what you claim?

      Delete
    9. Cantus,
      "I don't know why leftists are so obsessed with pointing out that meetings are "taking place in hotels", as if that somehow proves that they aren't credible."
      Yes.

      They are not "hearings". Typically, hearings take place in government buildings.

      There is nothing official about these absurd hotel ballroom pep rallies. They are fake hearings.

      When a government body holds an official hearing not only is it typically held in a government building it is held by an actual committee of that government body, which these fake "hearings" are not.

      Committees of, say, a state senate have both Democratic and Republican members. Witnesses come to speak and both sides are allowed approximately equal time.

      The transcript of the hearing is on the record and is placed in the government archives as a record of an official government hearing.

      Civics 101 folks.

      Renting a hotel ballroom and inviting only members of your own party to speak at a political pep rally is not an official hearing.

      It's just a pathetic, one sided, lie fest, fake.

      But that is all Trump and his supporters have. They lost the vote of the people, they lost even the Republican state and local officials, and they lost all their court cases.

      Trump is a loser.

      Delete
    10. One Brow,

      Which lawyers? Who are they?

      Delete
    11. Cantus,

      It's been a few days, I don't remember off the top of my head whom I read. However, this one was easy enough to find:

      https://www.newsweek.com/michigan-election-affidavits-fraud-trump-1546698

      Delete
  18. As for polls,https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll/half-of-republicans-say-biden-won-because-of-a-rigged-election-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN27Y1AJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rasmussen's poll is more up-to-date:

      https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1333113548281683977

      Delete
  19. Atty Gen. Barr now says no fraud, but Trump and Trumpers still cling to their fantasy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That headline has been proven to be misinformation, or at bare minimum a gross misrepresentation:

      https://twitter.com/kevincorke/status/1333940136351059968

      Delete
    2. You ought to be banned for stupidity.


      Delete
    3. People around the world are breathing a massive sigh of relief since mad King Don has been dethroned. President Biden and Vice-president Harris, in accordance with the traditions of the First Americans, should perform a smoking ceremony to rid, to exorcise the virulent evil and malevolent spirits from the White House brought in by the Trumpist miasma. A following total de-infestation program will need to be carried out before the property can be re-occupied safely and securely. Every trumpian slug and cockroach, Barr, Pompeo, Mnuchin, Wolf, MacEnany, DeVoss, Alexander et al must be scoured out of the woodwork and between the floorboards and the whole place disinfected to ensure the sanctity of the place can be properly and rightfully restored.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 9.26pm You ought to read his metaphysical ramblings.

      Delete
    5. Papalinton
      You are so right.But unfortunately Trump and his minions will be around for quite a while because instead of draining the swamp, he filled it with creatures that are slithering through our country.

      Delete
  20. GoneFishingNovember 27, 2020 at 5:35 PM

    There is a diffrence between sweet talking and courting a woman to get her hand. As compared to forcing her into a relationship. Heaven is a relationship with God being all good he will do everything possible to persuade but nothing to twist the persons will. That would be the same type of evil as torture just with pleasant things instead of pain. Forcing a persons will is wrong either way. If someone in the end calls him an oriental despot will full knowledge and will then that person fully desires separation (Hell.) In the end we get what we fully want not what we deserve. Pursuing ends that will not satisfy eternally would be Hell. Like the party slug for slurm on futurama shows the starting of. An eternal party focused on substance abuse and carnal pleasure is not the heaven some think it would be. Though to present Hell in that manner would be dangerous to the unwise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown - GoneFishingNovember 27, 2020 at 5:35 PM

      “As compared to forcing her into a relationship”
      God says marry me or I will torture you for eternity. How free is a relationship if the alternative is eternal abuse? If a family threatens to beat a woman every day of her life and hold her prisoner in torture and isolation if she does not marry an invisible man how is that a free choice?

      God is an extortionist, threatening torture if you fail to worship the correct invisible man from a vast population of such men. Christianity is a truly grotesque belief.

      “full knowledge and will then that person fully desires separation”

      God hides himself such that people throughout history have worshiped a multitude of very different gods, so full knowledge of god is impossible.

      A lack of knowledge of god is god’s fault. It is god who is to blame and god who deserves punishment because god has chosen to hide himself and foster a multitude of false gods such that human beings are blameless for not seeing the invisible god.

      Delete