Epilogue 2/22: As those who have read the updates to this post will have learned, David Bentley Hart has apologized for the offending remarks and has had them removed from the documentary. He has also let me know that the interview was recorded years ago, that he did not remember that it included those remarks, and that he would not have allowed them to remain in it if he had remembered them. Accordingly, I retract my statement that he "has no honor." He has shown himself to be honorable indeed, and I happily accept and appreciate his apology.
Every time a truce between David Bentley Hart and me has been broken, it has been broken by him. And more than once, friendly and fence-mending exchanges in private have been followed by a public shivving on his part. The man has no honor. In a new documentary, he casually remarks that “Feser… really is a person for whom Christianity is mostly about, you know, killing people or, or you know, it’s about beating them.” The surrounding remarks are no less nasty. (Readers who don’t want to watch the entire thing can fast forward to about 57 minutes into it.)
The truth is
that I have merely defended the teaching of scripture and two millennia of
Christian tradition that capital punishment and corporal punishment can, under
some circumstances, be justifiable. The
truth is that this is a small part of my work, the vast bulk of which (as
anyone who follows it or peruses my list of publications can easily verify) is
devoted to other and unrelated matters. The
truth is that I have consistently and vigorously condemned the excessive use of
violence, from Dresden and Hiroshima to Gaza. And the truth is also that I have, as Hart
well knows, done my part to try to help him when he was in need.
None of this
deters him from issuing the grave calumny that for me, Christianity is mostly
about killing and beating people.
The man has no honor.
UPDATE: Several
readers call attention to this apology, apparently from Hart, in the comments
section at YouTube: “Well, I apologize to Ed Feser. When this was recorded I
was obviously angry at him over the public whipping thing… But I have gotten
over it. And we will never agree on what
Christianity is… But I acknowledge that he is a good person at heart, with bad
ideas.”
Fairness requires acknowledging this apology. Fairness also requires noting that it is likely that far fewer people will see it than will hear the calumny for which Hart is apologizing.
UPDATE 2/21: Hart has posted a further apology in the comments section below, and has also done so at Substack.
UPDATE 2/22: The remarks at issue have now been removed from the documentary. I greatly appreciate that. The new version can be found here.
It is sad (and a bad witness) when someone of Hart's talents stoops to such a level. (On the issue of Gaza you may be quite right in condemning Israel's response as excessive and worse though I'm not sure it resembles the 'blunt force' of Hiroshima and Dresden). Hart does seem to have a comparatively 'low' view of scripture and that, at base, seems to be why he errs.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I must add- what talent?
DeleteThe talent of being an incredibly tedious windbag?
I find 99% of modern theology totally unreadable. Hart is a part of that 99%. I don't know if writers are intentionally being abstruse to obscure the fact that they are actually saying very little that makes sense, or whether they are just the sort of people who relish in feeling superior to others by writing in an intentionally convoluted way.
Probably this is because people like Hart are very prideful and cannot stand the thought it is not possible to make a novel contribution to theology in the same way as it is to physics or music because ultimately our theological knowledge comes from revelation. The end result of this is that they "innovate" doctrinally in order to say something original.
So disappointing to read this, as someone who has read and appreciated books by the both of you.
ReplyDeleteVery, very sad. The actions of someone who has lost the argument, and knows it.
ReplyDeleteHi Prof ,
ReplyDeleteOf all the people I have read, your nuanced perspectives have helped me to understand the world in ways which I would have never even thought possible, to contemplate the distinction between the abstract and the concrete, to understand the philosophical underpinnings of empirical science, to pursue and understand the concept of retributive justice. I think it may have been in your old blog post on rehabilitation, that alerted me to the fact that even mercy requires that the perpetrator be deserving of some punishment.
What this man has said of you is slander.
I don't understand how someone whose consistent position for over a decade, has been that, capital punishment is just but ought to be used in only rare circumstances, can be maligned in this way. How can they distort the position so badly.
But anyways, I just hope you know Prof, that your work has made a positive difference to many lives and I count myself among those whose gratitude for your work can never be completely expressed in words.
Cheers
Much appreciated, Norm, thank you!
DeleteLOL. He's already apologized to you in the comments on the Youtube video. Go to the newest comments and you'll see someone apologizing to you and if you follow their link it leads to a page with many videos of him.
ReplyDeleteHi Ed,
ReplyDeleteI wanted to join Norm's words of gratitude. Your writings on natural theology were important to me in my journey back to Catholicism, and were a source of help in understanding that God is the proper object of our worship and love.
Those comments by David Hart are completely unacceptable and have no relation to reality whatsoever.
Thank you, Spender!
DeleteFor whatever it might be worth, there is someone in the comment section of the video under the handle
ReplyDelete@leavesinthewind7441 who implies that he is DBH and who somewhat walks back the comments made in the video about Ed's character. He still isn't sanguine in the slightest about Ed's position though.
Even with the qualified retraction, the fact that Hart can't seem to stop himself from indulging in said comments on repeated occasions and the fact that Ed tried to help Hart when he was undergoing medical issues only to be thanked in this way, makes this all pretty sad to watch.
From what I watched and know of him, he is not worth a serious response or notice. It is very sad.
ReplyDeleteDr. Feser,
ReplyDeleteWhen I read the Sacred Monster of Thomism I found Garrigou Lagrange's courage, strength, and principled stand on so many important questions inspiring and I have also been consistently inspired by the principled stand you have taken on so many important topics. In this case, I think I find the kindness you have shown to Hart most inspiring simply because he doesn't merit it. Forgiving someone with a vicious habit of vile vitriol and calumny is magnanimous. One good that it has done for me is to make me desire to be more virtuous and forgiving. May God reward you for that and for all the good that you have done and continue to do in service to Him.
Very kind and much appreciated, Michael!
DeleteConcurring in your support Ed. I have benefited greatly from your unfailingly balanced, honest, charitable and rigorous approach to the matters you discuss. DBH is a much lesser man if this slander, and piss-poor semi-anonymous, barely visible apology is typical. God bless and more strength to you.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Anon!
DeleteWhen this was recorded I was obviously angry at him over the public whipping thing… But I have gotten over it.
ReplyDeleteYeah, "gotten over it"...until the next thing sets him off. I don't think those words mean what he thinks they mean.
And we will never agree on what Christianity is…
Actually, you will: after both are dead, one will be found more wrong about it, I have confidence about which it will be: DBH. That may be because I am a Catholic, but DBH's views would make the Orthodox Church and Catholic Church into two different religions rather than two lungs of the same one Church - something the highest minds on both sides reject.
DBH may have a better grasp of philosophy than Mark Shea, but he seems to suffer from something similar in the ego/passion department, some canker of the soul, something that makes him slip the leash and bound into incivility and uncharity for no particularly useful point, and then be stuck being sorry for it later. I agree with Thomas O: he's well past the point of being worth notice.
I know what David Hart is like. He is always ready for a fight with anyone who he thinks has been lauded with a better grasp of Philosophy and theology. It's time, way past time, he stopped with this egregious and juvenile baiting. For what its worth, I still continue to learn much from the brilliant mind of Ed Feser. Fr John I Fleming PhD
ReplyDeleteThank you for the kind words, Father
DeleteIt's best not to sulk when someone disagrees with you. To be fair, it is legitimate to attack the tradition within Christianity concerning inflicting 'legitimate' pain and death, and DBH does.
ReplyDeleteClearly he isn't bound by Roman Catholic doctrinal fundamentalism (NB doctrinal not dogmatic), and as we know Newman would approve of that.
So, I am not always polite with comments, but I try to keep it civil, nonetheless...a less-than-wise crack can, sometimes, defuse a volatile situation. We all have IMPs...interests, motives and preferences, and, insofar with that, our contextual realities differ. If, as individuals, we adhere to a set of beliefs, held by others, there will be friction and disagreement, among other others. If, and only if, agreement to disagree holds (muchly, it does not), then truces can hold. Wheat from chaff is ancient. We must figure that out on our own. "group think" does not work well, in many instances. And, truces are shaky, at best.
ReplyDeleteIt should be noted as well that (as DBH remarks in the comments under the video) the interview was filmed two years ago, before your public efforts to assist with his medical expenses. This may at least partially mitigate the lack of decorum.
ReplyDeleteThis is for Norm. Some (many?) who have lost the bet, employ a fallacy, to try to look and sound better. This is an old ploy of distortion and/or misrepresentation. Professor Feser knows about this, I am sure. His view(s) have been challenged before. Thinkers understand these deceptions. Be well.
ReplyDeleteI find Hart’s words disgusting and quite frankly legally defamatory.
ReplyDeleteIn the midst of so some much personal tragedy and failure I have found in the writings of Ed Feser a clarity and charity of presenting a worldview that has enable me to continue a hope that God is there and my soul will live forever. Thx Professor.
Many thanks for the kind words, Anon
DeleteMy personal educated opinion is that you are or are among the best philosopher in the world at this time. You have my support of the amazing breadth and depth of your work and insights. I’m amazed at the coherence, depth and judgement of both your philosophical and theological insights. I’ve many of your works. The world of truth is indebted to your work.
ReplyDeleteMuch appreciated, John, thanks
DeleteI admit that when that interview was recorded I was convinced I understood you, Ed, and was sure you were animated by a cruel view of Christian teachings. I was even certain you represented a harmful influence in the Christian world. All I was paying attention to were those areas of your writings that excited my most self-righteous indignation. And I probably was still angry over what I took to be your misreading of my works. Had I been better acquainted with your writings on other topics, I would not have arrived at such a state of unjust certainty. Had I remembered the interview or known it was in the documentary, I would have asked it be removed. But I won’t repeat the endless cycle here. I am sorry. I know I have profoundly misjudged you and that, back then, my remarks were coarse and uncharitable. Much has changed since then. I will never see your capital punishment book as the anodyne and orthodox Catholic document you see it as being; it shocked me and seemed to me clearly to break with your own church’s catechism; but I had no business thinking it granted me a window into your soul. I should have read you on Hiroshima.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I am done with theology now. I find it impossible to do it in the right spirit.
I accept and appreciate your apology, David. Your remarks do remain in the interview, however, and it seems certain that many more people will hear them than will ever read your retraction of them.
DeleteExactly
DeleteThe version of the documentary without the problematic remarks has now been re-uploaded to YouTube.
DeleteAs someone dear to me as said: Kirk, out.
ReplyDeleteTony wrote: "DBH may have a better grasp of philosophy than Mark Shea, but he seems to suffer from something similar in the ego/passion department, some canker of the soul, something that makes him slip the leash and bound into incivility and uncharity for no particularly useful point, and then be stuck being sorry for it later. I agree with Thomas O: he's well past the point of being worth notice."
ReplyDeleteThe same comparison had occured to me. And hasn't Harte conceded that he's not strictly a Christian anyway? Or did I get that wrong? He's not bound by revelation or tradition in that case, and can't appeal to them.
I echo the support of Ed among many of the posters here, and I am glad that Dr. Hart apologized on this post. I want to address one of the underlying doctrinal differences mentioned in the OP. As I have written in various publications myself, the legitimacy of capital punishment (when proportional to the crime committed) is found in the Noachic laws which govern all human beings. It is part of natural law; one does not need special revelation to know this. It is of course defended in Scripture also, and has been a standard tenet of Christianity for much of Christian history. I am not surprised to see opposition in some Christian circles to capital punishment; the level of hostility frequently displayed toward the doctrine does surprise me.
ReplyDeleteIt's always best to forgive each other. We shall all be together for a very long time.
ReplyDeleteI guess I came to know DBH through YouTube and learned more about him through Ed's blog posts. In 2019, I tried to look for philosophical answers everywhere and may have stumbled across a video of him on YouTube but I don't remember everything quite right. What I do remember, however, is how much Ed helped me and prayed for me, and how patient, charitable, and wonderful human being he is.
ReplyDeleteSo, when DBH tries to frame Ed in this faulty way, I really think that he's not talking about the same Ed Feser I know -- he must be talking about a figment of his imagination at best.
What really makes me sad is how careful Ed is in describing his position in all of his works and people try to give their own interpretation instead of what Ed's really saying (Ed's book By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed is one of the greatest examples of this).
As for anyone recently acquainted with Ed Feser who may read this comment, I firmly recommend you to look for his books. Try Five Proofs for the Existence of God. If one reads this book (or any other of his books, I would say) one can see how deeply motivated by God Ed really is.
Btw, as a long-time reader, I also endorse everything @Norm said above. And, I would also add that if people knew how much Ed sacrificed his time to help others (through philosophy, religion, praying, and so on), they would know how preposterous and outrageous Hart's remarks are.
Ed is a wonderful human being and one of the best people I ever talked to (even though is only through the internet). I can't properly express through a single comment how much this man helped me through my life and how much his work mean to me. So, again, if people knew Ed as I know nobody would buy for a moment that Ed's Christianity is about "killing or beating people." On the contrary, I maintain Ed is a modern Ambrose for a generation of new Augustins (and I am very, very grateful for his work).
Thanks so much, Vini!
DeleteHi Vini
DeleteThanks for the endorsement :)
I am delighted that my comment seemed to have sparked a wave of so much appreciation.
It seems like so many people were just waiting to express their gratitude.
Even though I said "I just hope you know Prof, that your work has made a positive difference to many lives."
I didn't foresee the depth to which the gratitude and goodwill for the good professor extends.
It has been a pleasure to read a lot of the comments here.
Definitely one of my best memories of the internet!
Ed
ReplyDeleteI remember when you tweeted that DBH was seeking contributions to pay his medical bills. That was very generous of you.I wasn't able to
contribute, buy I have prayed daily for him.
Although I share more of DBH's professed political beliefs than Feser's, Professor Feser is a more natural writer (DBH's fiction is particularly embarrassing) and has always seemed a much more honorable man and certainly not as mean-spirited.
ReplyDeleteThere is no living philosopher who I respect more than Ed Feser. This Protestant is immensely grateful for your work, Ed. Keep swinging.
ReplyDeleteVery kind, thank you!
Delete“Feser… really is a person for whom Christianity is mostly about, you know, killing people or, or you know, it’s about beating them.”
ReplyDeleteIf I knew nothing of you and did a google search for Dr. Ed Feser I would find more than enough evidence to understand why DBH would make such a claim.
You should be distressed. You are the one who did that. You made choices about what was important to say, and in this violent age you decided what we needed was a book defending the state's right to execute people. Thanks for that. Reap what you have sown.
It is interesting that this post has made its way to BigPulpit; you'll be happy to know that your echo chamber agrees with you. But here's another fact, DBH isn't wrong about the public Dr. Ed Feser of the last 5-8 years. That man is a man of whom it is heartbreakingly easy to say: “Feser… really is a person for whom Christianity is mostly about, you know, killing people or, or you know, it’s about beating them.”
Yet you are the most fortunate of men, to have an acquaintance in life who isn't afraid to show you how others see you; i pray you take advantage of this gift.
peace, Myshkin
DBH himself does not agree with you, since he has apologized several times now and had the offending material removed from the video. Too bad you are not as honest and gracious as he is.
DeleteSorry, you don't get off that easily. As he has come to know you better his opinion has changed. But I and many others only know the public personality, and of that manifestation of Dr Ed Feser it is quite easy to see the truth of the critique. Decry it all you want, call me dishonest if you want, but I am not the only person who has come away from your recent works chagrined by the nature of what animates what you choose to defend. What he said is a reasonable impression of the person who wrote those books and articles; rather than deflect, receive the truth of it, and because you are a good man, a delight to your Heavenly Father, repent and believe the Gospel. Peace Myshkin
DeleteI suppose if one both focused obsessively on one particular fraction of my work and willfully misread it, one might come to the sort of conclusion you have. But that's on you, not me. And your persistence in trying to stir up division even after Hart himself has apologized only reinforces that judgment. Now, kindly go away.
DeleteWanted to wait until the temperate voices had had their say. And, I have already commented on X under my e-mail default hunting camp name which occasionally intrudes here too.
ReplyDeleteWhatever it is that DBH's fandom finds gripping in his turgid Victorian emissions (his admirers use the term "baroque") escapes me. And his supposed logical acuity, is even less evident, though he boasts of it enough. Perhaps a languidly dismissive manner, suffices for a syllogism among the initiated.
"What again, is it exactly, that we all, being inevitably saved, are being saved FROM?" Oh, nothing, really. Be sure and let Jesus know too, but let him down gently, won't you?
As far as you are concerned, and for what it's worth, you are one of the few explicitly Catholic writers I can bear to read, other than Gilson.
Mysterianism, obscuratism, fideism, with a heavy slathering of emotionalism and barely sublimated sexual masochism on a bed of milquetoast seems to be par for their courses. [get the academic pun? ... sorry]
Anyway, agree or disagree, appreciate your work.
Your dad must have taken you hunting or golfing or sailing or worked on cars with you ... or something ... because you aint typical of the breed.
Thank you for your kind words about me, DNW. As to my father, you are not far off. He was a great man.
Delete> As far as you are concerned, and for what it's worth, you are one of the few explicitly Catholic writers I can bear to read, other than Gilson.
DeleteI agree with your assessment of many Catholic writers as being too syrup-y and the like. I also like EF and Gilson (and Gaven Kerr is great as well), since they avoid this high-falutin' tone while remaining orthodox. Too many others seem to go one way or the other.
It seems that his remarks now has been edited out of the documentary. All shall be well and all shall be well.
ReplyDeleteSounds like Hart has honour after all! Hopefully this whole post can be removed - it's frankly all a bit pathetic on both sides (and while Ed is a fab philosopher in many respects it's not as if his own use of language and manner isn't generally viewed as unpleasant and needlessly provocative either) so hopefully this post can be removed now.
DeleteBecause this affair has been referred to and discussed in various places online, it doesn’t make sense to remove the post, because that would strip that discussion (and any reference people might make to it in the future) of proper context. However, I have added a paragraph in boldface at the beginning of the post retracting my statement about Hart having no honor.
DeleteDr F, I'd like to second all of the good things said about you here by various commenters. At a mostly-Protestant apologetics ministry (Talk About Doubts) your blog and works and what I seem to point many people and struggling people to over and over. If Dr Hart said what he said in that context, that's just slander. Three cheers for your body of work from this Protestant.
ReplyDeleteThank you!
DeleteGiven this clip from documentary was filmed two years ago - before the current 'truce' - and has now been taken down, it seems a bit silly to leave this post accusing Hart of having 'no honor' up. I'd suggestion deletion
ReplyDeleteBecause this affair has been referred to and discussed in various places online, it doesn’t make sense to remove the post, because that would strip that discussion (and any reference people might make to it in the future) of proper context. However, I have added a paragraph in boldface at the beginning of the post retracting my statement about Hart having no honor.
Deleteif that's true, shouldn't the offending remarks also have been left in the doc? (I think it was right to remove them, full disclosure...)
Deleteif that's true, shouldn't the offending remarks also have been left in the doc
DeleteNo, that doesn’t follow. The remarks made in the documentary were unjust, and there was nothing in the documentary itself that would tell a future viewer that they had been retracted. Hence, simply removing them was the best solution to the problem.
By contrast, there was nothing unjust about my post, given what I was responding to. And while, in light of Hart’s apology and explanation, I do retract the accusation of dishonor, those who read my post in the future will see that I have retracted it. They will also see that I have called attention to Hart’s explanation and apology. All the relevant statements from both sides are there in my post, whereas they would not all be there in the documentary if the unjust remarks had been left in. So, there is no parallel of the kind you’re suggesting.
Anyway, judging from past experience, if people make reference to this episode in the future, there are bound to be those who will misrepresent what I said, or what Hart said, or both. Hence I am loath to simply delete it, lest there be no record of what actually happened. But as far as I’m concerned, it’s now water under the bridge.
I'm the 'original' anonymous but not the second anonymous.
DeleteFair enough - I can understand your reasoning and can see why it might be best to keep open.
That said, while I wouldn't label your original post 'unjust' per se, it might be a helpful reminder that it's usually best to attempt to settle these matters in private first if possible, e.g. if you'd gone straight to Hart it could have been resolved without continuing the cycle of public allegations. Best to settle with your accuser before you get to the court (of public opinion) and all that. But at the same time your original assumption was understandable.
Anyway, it's great to see you're both reconciled, and I'll look forward to beers with you and Hart at the eschaton.
Hi Ed,
ReplyDeleteGlad to see that you’re on better terms now. Over the past two years, I have found both your work and DBH’s work invaluable in moving me towards classical theism (I used to be a New Atheist, incredibly).
I agree with you on some things, with DBH on others. But I have never enjoyed the bad blood that has occasionally flared between the two of you, even when I can see where it’s justified. I am convinced you are both good men — and both formidably intelligent.
Thank you,
— AKruger
Ed, since writing my first comment, I have now watched DBH's video. What he said about you was completely unjust and you were rightly outraged. I am glad that he deleted that portion of the video. I believe that much of his animosity lies in that you are a capable defender of several views he regards as abhorrent. In his video (this section is still up), he characterizes his critics into three groups and sees all three groups as not just wrong but with severe moral failings. This is not healthy. I shall give the details in my next post.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Tim!
DeleteThe first group of critics, of which Hart likely included you as a member (although hopefully his apology means he has second thoughts about this), "have within them reserves of resentment and cruelty and sadism at the foundation of their faith to a degree that I found shocking."
ReplyDeleteThe second group "did not take delight in the doctrine of hell but had reconciled their consciences to it as some point in the past and then made themselves forget that they had made this deal with the devil." It is about this group that DBH is talking when he says, "There is a whole portion of the Christian world that in a sense suffers from a repressed memory syndrome."
The third group, of which DBH mentions Eleanor Stump as a member, are "the people who have the brains to see the problem with what they are saying but have somehow made themselves not see it, out of just party loyalty, they're the people who frighten me the most."
On this issue of the nature of hell, as on many others, scholars honestly come to different conclusions from looking at the entirety of the biblical witness. Contrary to Hart, I think that the exegetical arguments for universalism are weak. As I mentioned in a previous post a long time ago, the overwhelming evidence of the OT is in the direction that the ultimate fate of the wicked is different from that of the ultimate fate of the righteous. But I do not believe that all universalists are arguing in bad faith or are morally defective for holding their view. Not everyone who is wrong is arguing in bad faith.
Personally I don't think exegetical arguments can resolve things either way. Personally I can't find ECT anywhere in the bible, but I see plenty of both universalism and annihilationism throughout. As far how these can be reconciled... well, I can see the biblical case for Hart's two 'eschatological horizons' (i.e. an initial separation in the fate of the wicked and the righteous, followed by a final reconciliation of both groups) although it's hardly clear cut.
DeleteI admire Feser in his clear case for classical theism although I don't find his arguments for hell strong compared to others. I genuinely doubt that Hart's animosity is driven by a sense that Feser's arguments on hell are especially capable - in fact I'm afraid I would put Feser in the large camp of those who simply haven't understood what Hart's arguments are and haven't really responded to them (I don't fully agree with Hart that NO critic has understood his arguments btw, but I don't see Feser really get to the heart of the matter in the way that others get closer to - e.g. Jerry Walls, who Hart admires)
On the morally defective point, it's a tricky one. If someone believes that all abortions are licit, or that it is acceptable to perform intrinsically evil acts for the sake of a 'greater good' - well the Church teaches that those things are immoral. But we'd still normally recognise that those beliefs could be held in good faith and would distinguish the immoral acts from simply holding the wrong moral view (and indeed, even if they performed the wrong moral acts themselves, we'd recognise that they were better than someone who understood the acts were wrong yet did them anyway).
At the same time, we don't let them off the hook entirely, do we? We'd probably say that, whilst they're not sinning per se for having the belief, they should really be thinking about this harder - and that, even if they're culpable for the belief, it's still a moral failing inasmuch that it's an incorrect moral belief - isn't it correct to say that such a person's moral foundation is in some way corrupted?
I think that's what 90% of Hart's criticism is talking about. If, as Hart believes, non-universalists are preaching belief in a God who does things which are intrinsically immoral, then, while this may be in good faith, there is something wrong with their morality that needs calling out.
Anonymous,
DeleteI said that Ed was a capable defender of SEVERAL views that Hart finds abhorrent. It may be the case that some other scholars defend traditional Catholic teaching on hell better than does Ed. But Ed is one of the most capable defenders of capital punishment, of the retributionist theory of punishment in general (and that is clearly biblical but also found in cultures even before Moses), and of the manualist tradition in Thomism. Hart hates manualist Thomism and has said so on several occasions.
If ECT is true then by creating the world God has made evil eternal. How reasonable is it to believe this? - What is far worse is the existential implications of believing in ECT: it hides from you the beauty of God. It makes it impossible for you to love him with all your heart. - Dianelos Georgoudis
DeleteAnonymous,
Delete"If, as Hart believes, non-universalists are preaching belief in a God who does things which are intrinsically immoral" is a protasis whose premise is far from epistemologically certainty. Not just Christians, but Muslims and Hindus (and many others) would reject it. Let's just say that it is FAR from obvious that rejecting universalism is suppressing an obvious innate moral tenet or the other vices that Hart ascribes to non-universalists.
I think that's what 90% of Hart's criticism is talking about. If, as Hart believes, non-universalists are preaching belief in a God who does things which are intrinsically immoral, then, while this may be in good faith, there is something wrong with their morality that needs calling out.
DeleteHe might imagine this is so, but since a number of non-universalist saints (ECTs, if you will) who are considered saints by the Orthodox Church (and, at least by presumption) were viewed as saints by universalists like Gregory of Nyssa, then it follows that whatever "something is wrong with their morality" it wasn't so far interfering with good morals that it prevented them from being saints. If Gregory of Nyssa was OK with it, I don't see DBH being a better sounding board for whose views vitiate their morals.
It won't carry quite the same weight with DBH, but the same point can be made with regard to modern universalists in the Church, who - while holding universalism (at least a soft version) - are perfectly fine with ECT saints in the distant and near past being real saints.
"whose premise is far from epistemologically certainty."
DeleteWell precisely - I'm sure you would say that those who believe that abortion is morally licit have moral failings (not that they're evil, just that their beliefs with respect to certain moral facts are profoundly wrong and so indicate a gross failure of moral reasonings). Same for homosexuality etc. Yet large number of people have no problem with these activities, and of those who do have a problem they don't all think they're innately obvious moral truths.
My point is that it's reasonable to see others as having serious moral defects/failings for having the wrong opinion on these matters, even if it's not obvious to everyone.
Peace.
I second most of the comments here and also want to express my great gratitude for Feser's work. There's no living philosopher I respect more.
ReplyDeleteIt was through reading this blog that I first learned of Hart and came to appreciate his work too- most recently his apology on Substack. I pray that this will be a permanent truce.
This reminds of the old saw that the battles in the liberal arts are so fierce because the stakes are so low.
ReplyDeleteHart and Feser should have a formal in person debate. Not because we would learn anything interesting or important but I only wonder if we could find an auditorium big enough that could simultaneously accomdate both men and their giant egos. Talk about a question of metaphysical proportions!
ReplyDeleteI don’t know much about Hart, but what would make you say Feser has a big ego? He always seems very humble in interviews, even when the interviewer repeatedly talks over him. If someone said your views on Christianity (or whatever is important to you) were animated by cruelty, you’d probably want the record set straight too-especially if you’d gone out of your way to bury the hatchet and even provide aid to your accuser.
DeleteFeser might be touchy, but Hart is the one with the ego. This is practically indisputable.
DeleteDr. Feser does not have a big ego. Proof of that are all the barbed posts criticizing him that he publishes. But some academic philosophers, especially at some of the more "prestigious' institutions" do have big egos.
DeleteI'd say that Feser and especially Hart come across as quite humble in videos. Feser is known for having a huge ego though (as is Hart) which I think comes across in their writings. Feser has clearly thrown quite a few barbs out himself. But then so have we all, to one degree or another.
Delete