tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post1526144385454393581..comments2024-03-19T00:20:18.049-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: The road from atheismEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger298125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56665419062466419382023-04-22T03:54:39.781-07:002023-04-22T03:54:39.781-07:00I also knew at a very young age that Catholicism ...I also knew at a very young age that Catholicism wasn't true. The human mind is not the same for everyone. Some are easily indoctrinated. Others are not. Yes, many kids sit in a church wondering why all the others believe obvious nonsense. As one ages they can if they want study the human mind and human cultures to get a better understanding of why humans are superstitious. Others that question what they are taught but want to keep believing can find volumes of information published to reinforce their indoctrination. So the seek confirmation bias in those sources to ease their cognitive dissonance. Motivated reasoning is used. Not logic or reason. A human can be rational in other aspects of their life but still cling to their irrational belief. Whether Catholicism, Scientology, Voodoo or any other false belief. Why humans believe matters. What they believe is based on their nurture. They are taught it culturally. This site cares about Catholicism. Hitchens isn't necessarily discussing Catholicism or Christianity. You would likely not find real human sacrifice to the Aztec gods to be necessary let alone find that their assertions are true. Right? There are real reasons that religions and gods were invented by humans. The gods asserted by humans are not real. I have many family members that are Catholic, friends too. I also know Jews, Muslims and others. All are bright, function well in life and believe. All are wrong. Not just Catholics. <br />Or from your perspective they are wrong except Catholics. There are also very real differences in the human mind that determines how strongly one is attached to a belief. What makes someone kill for their belief? What makes someone think they are correct and others are not only wrong but evil or not human? Tribalism is a real thing. Religion is a cultural and tribal construct. Lot's to it. If you believe it's unlikely that you can change your belief. Others can't change their quite different belief. Others that don't believe can't believe it. There is no new atheist lie. That's projection. The lie you believe was told thousands of years ago and reinforced constantly since. You have to attack others because you can't understand why they don't believe what you do. You don't even understand why you believe what you do. scarletwillowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06619720261476014407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20145042227466471762021-06-13T03:43:26.740-07:002021-06-13T03:43:26.740-07:00With all due respect, Edward Feser is a liar. Nobo...With all due respect, Edward Feser is a liar. Nobody comes to religion with such intensity out of the pure, intellectual merits. That simply doesn't happen. There is more going on that he isn't telling us. Most likely, there was a woman motivating him, or he has some magical revelatory experience, or he just got really terrified of the prospect of dying. Whatever it was, it certainly wasn't the deranged ramblings of Aquinas. AnticitizenXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041380277822761284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78009720247223452392020-07-14T08:12:09.732-07:002020-07-14T08:12:09.732-07:00I am doing Aquinas 101 and was referred to a podca...I am doing Aquinas 101 and was referred to a podcast by you and wanted to know who you are and your background. I did not understand most of what you said here. But I was moved by your journey. I could see the steps. Some of them dancing, some twirling with the joy of the undergrad. Some trudging with the continuity of man's struggle to identify himself and God. You spoke in words I did not understand. But you spoke with the Word. Thank youQuryshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03363624969267494188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54555420438212557052019-03-25T08:00:09.484-07:002019-03-25T08:00:09.484-07:00Dr. Feser,
As I read through this article, a half-...Dr. Feser,<br />As I read through this article, a half-baked question popped into my head: was Aquinas a neutral monist (with qualification)? I just finished the relevant sections of the Psychology chapter of Aquinas, those mentioning the view of Aquinas that in thought and/or observation the mind possesses the form of the object being thought of or observed. Does this mean that mental events, while being immaterial aspect, are at least analogous in substance (in Aquinas' sense) to the object about which the event is directed toward? Would Aquinas have partially agreed with Russell that,"sense data could exist apart from a conscious subject which was aware of them"? I realize that Aquinas wouldn't agree fully with this statement, as he held that the intellect was fundamentally immaterial, but, given that he held that the form of objects thought or observed are held in substance by the intellect, to what extent would he agree with Russell?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79913222656629988982019-01-20T19:03:16.382-08:002019-01-20T19:03:16.382-08:00If it's inescapable, then it's more than j...If it's inescapable, then it's more than just implied. I would say that it does not drive us necessarily to conclude that God has a twisted sense of humor, let alone any sense of humor at all. <br /><br />A deficiency in a created being is not the same as a deficiency in the Creator. The only way a deficiency in the creation must mean a deficiency in God is if the creation equates to God. The creation is not God. Therefore, a deficiency in B, B not being A, does not lead us to logically conclude a deficiency in A.<br /><br />If you look at a car in a scrap heap that has no hope of rolling down the highway, and from that conclude that Ford made a car that cannot be driven, you are using faulty logic.<br /><br />I don't believe mankind ever existed on earth in a state in which we did not defecate. But my point is not to tell you what I believe; it's only about what is or is not necessitated by logic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67074596688340870122018-12-09T03:04:06.071-08:002018-12-09T03:04:06.071-08:00Oh boy, ignore that other comment I made. Tbh, I d...Oh boy, ignore that other comment I made. Tbh, I don't know what to believe anymore. But I will try to read this long ass article.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00501900778516739095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42259161794070458932018-12-09T02:45:13.317-08:002018-12-09T02:45:13.317-08:00This article was pretty long so I will read it lat...This article was pretty long so I will read it later but I am seeking God. Plus I know this comment section is old but, wow! This Christian name Ecuardo (I think) is making me think that I should stay believeing in God. But I'll read the article later (the problem is that I didn't undertand it...too much big words for a 14 year old)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00501900778516739095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51139787124169872472017-07-02T05:24:13.762-07:002017-07-02T05:24:13.762-07:00Excellent testimony of your journey from atheism t...Excellent testimony of your journey from atheism to theism. As a fellow believer and avid reader of the ancient classics, I have to agree with your conclusions. My own doctoral work was in theology (soteriology) but I cited numerous philosophical works that shaped my thinking--especially as they related to the redemptive work of Christ. I enjoyed reading this blog and your latest piece on Aquinas (which actually led me here). Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13987319556430526296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68021535327641851202017-07-01T13:54:32.052-07:002017-07-01T13:54:32.052-07:00(MinTee)
"Going straight to the incoherence ...(MinTee)<br /><br />"Going straight to the incoherence of sola Scriptura implies that we cannot argue from Scripture, and that just is not true."<br /><br />Scripture is not incoherent when it's authority is from God. When it is "Sola Scriptura", meaning it stands on it's own authority, then it is incoherent (incoherent- unclear, confusing (Google Dictionary)), as its purpose (telos) becomes lost. What would the point of the Bible be if God rejected it? What authority would it have if God rejected it?<br /><br />Of course, proponents of Sola Scriptura would then argue that its authority came from God, and that it is all one needs. The problem then comes in the questions: "How do we know it is from God?" "How should each part of the Bible be interpreted?" Worse off, the Bible explicitly says to not follow "Sola Scriptura" essentially.<br /><br />You are right though in pointing out that one can argue from Scripture, though some of the questions I gave above would have to be dealt with. As a Catholic, the idea of a Catholic (Universal) Church appears to be one valid solution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83166913455319952092016-12-23T09:08:06.244-08:002016-12-23T09:08:06.244-08:00This disgust is a result of what C.S. Lewis calls,...This disgust is a result of what C.S. Lewis calls, "A cause to be uneasy..."<br /><br />The recognition of there being a supreme moral law, a supreme moral law giver and our having been in wrong standing with this moral law giver. The love ad admiration we have towards the cGod of classical theism is in response of His response during our being in wrong standing of his law. Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10484198339648546320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46053783884427574622016-02-01T10:30:09.866-08:002016-02-01T10:30:09.866-08:00Well, we still have no definition and thus no evid...Well, we still have no definition and thus no evidence for any god, so it doesn't matter what part of the "story" you attempt to discuss, the god thing is still just a work of fiction.TedTheAtheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11733509264831639494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25384529175619522782012-08-06T15:14:30.433-07:002012-08-06T15:14:30.433-07:00You are mistaken Bartholomew.
Humans have been gr...You are mistaken Bartholomew. <br />Humans have been granted a Free Will to enable them to make choices (God is not interested in boring mindless robots). <br />But with Free Will come responsibilities … and consequences for either good or bad.<br /><br /><br />This planet was never originally created by God to be a hell-hole. It was intended to be paradise. <br />The hell-hole was in fact shaped by humans succumbing to the “falleness” of sin and falling straight into the manipulative hands of Satan and his false promises.<br />Does Satan have mankind’s welfare at heart? No. <br />But mankind keeps making the same old mistake of being enticed by “hollow pleasures” of materialism, etc and through the sin of ultimate arrogance of "behaving as if he was his own creation". <br /><br />Therefore the fault lies with mankind - first with the Original Sin (of extreme arrogance) and then with mankind continuing to choose sin. But sin has “very unpleasant consequences“ - even in this life: with mankind continuing to succumb to sin, as never before in history, mankind is continuing to yield to Satan’s temptations which are leading to humankind’s eventual SELF-destruction. The operative word being SELF-destruction.<br /><br />So no, it is in fact Satan (who also had a Free Will and who, unrepentant, chose the sin of arrogance) - who has a sadistic sense of humor… and has so many humans unwittingly signing their OWN death warrant - for themselves and for the planet.<br /><br />Still don’t believe it?<br />Ask yourself - what kind of behaviour brings about …<br />AIDS? over-indulgence? <br />Romans 1, verses 18-32, clearly spells out that there will be a penalty within one’s own body for the sin of sexual irresponsibility - (the ultimate greed)?<br /><br />Famine?<br />The World Health Organisation has identified conflict, war (borne of ego, greed, etc. and the flight of people from traditional farmlands) - as causing THE greatest threat to the production of food and ability of people to feed their families.<br /><br />The unprecedented collapse of many species of animal and fish and plants?<br />Greedy over-fishing? … so that traditional fishermen must put their lives in danger in having to venture further and further for ever-decreasing catches.<br />Indiscriminate use of Pesticides? … and the collapse of many insect species (eg bees) and putting at risk the necessary cross-pollination so necessary for plant life? … putting at risk the once-pristine rivers and fish species?<br /><br />And these are just a tiny handful of examples of how mankind himself is “fouling his own nest”; destroying the very life-giving sources he will soon regret.<br /><br />So the finger-pointing should be directed at MANKIND himself and at his OWN stupidity … and his OWN inexcusable arrogance in ignoring the Ten Commandments (summarised in the words of Jesus: “love one another as I love you“.<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />Truth-seekerTruth-seekernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74093373568498450552012-08-06T15:05:38.261-07:002012-08-06T15:05:38.261-07:00You are mistaken Bartholomew.
Humans have been gr...You are mistaken Bartholomew. <br />Humans have been granted a Free Will to enable them to make choices (God is not interested in boring mindless robots). <br />But with Free Will come responsibilities … and consequences for either good or bad.<br /><br /><br />This planet was never originally created by God to be a hell-hole. It was intended to be paradise. <br />The hell-hole was in fact shaped by humans themselves succumbing to the “falleness” of sin and falling straight into the manipulative hands of Satan and his false promises.<br />Does Satan have mankind’s welfare at heart? No. <br />But mankind keeps making the same old mistake of being enticed by “hollow pleasures” of materialism, etc and through the sin of the ultimate arrogance of behaving as if he was his own creation. <br /><br />Therefore the fault lies with mankind <br />- first with the Original Sin (of extreme arrogance) <br />- and then with mankind continuing to choose sin. But sin has “very unpleasant consequences“ - even in this life: with mankind continuing to succumb to sin, as never before in history, mankind is continuing to yield to Satan’s temptations which are leading to humankind’s eventual SELF-destruction.. The operative word being SELF-destruction.<br /><br />So no, it is in fact Satan (who also had a Free Will and who, unrepentant, chose the sin of arrogance) - who has the sadistic sense of humor… with so many humans unwittingly signing their OWN death warrant - for themselves and for the planet.<br /><br />Still don’t believe it?<br />Ask yourself - what kind of behaviour brings about …<br />AIDS?<br />Romans 1, verses 18-32, clearly shows us that there will be a penalty within one’s own body for the sin of sexual irresponsibility - (the ultimate greed)?<br /><br />Famine?<br />The World Health Organisation has identified conflict, war (borne of ego, greed, etc. and the flight of people from traditional farmlands) - as being THE greatest threat to the production of food and ability of people to feed their families and THE greatest cause of famines.<br /><br />The unprecedented collapse of many species of animal and fish and plants?<br />Greedy over-fishing? … so that traditional fishermen must put their lives in danger in having to venture further and further for ever-decreasing catches.<br />Indiscriminate use of Pesticides? … and the collapse of many insect species (eg bees) and putting at risk the necessary cross-pollination so necessary for plant life? … putting at risk the once-pristine rivers and fish species?<br /><br />And these are just a very small handful of examples of how mankind himself is “fouling his own nest”; destroying the very life-giving sources he will soon regret.<br /><br />So the finger-pointing should be directed at MANKIND himself and at his OWN stupidity … and his OWN inexcusable arrogance in ignoring the Ten Commandments (summarised in the words of Jesus: “love one another as I love you“.<br /><br />Cheers<br />Truth-seekerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74883979274417344282012-08-03T16:05:31.213-07:002012-08-03T16:05:31.213-07:00Hi Bradley Falaise here,
I would ask you this: ...Hi Bradley Falaise here,<br /><br /> I would ask you this: what is prior to notions subscribed to? (Notions of god or no god etc.).<br /> I submit to you that subscription to notions is not the point. <br /> Rather, the point is that part of you which underlies but does not participate in phenomena of sense or mind, the part that is ever present within you (as new testament: god is within you), which is complete, needing nothing and is unchanging silent tranquility. <br /> This, I submit, is the true goal of religious internal enquiry. And once realized, the whole world is realized as its product, mind and sense and including any individuality or personhood.<br /> Notions subscribed to may reflect this experience, but without this experience mere subscription to notions is intellectual exercise and not more. <br /> I urge you to examine within to find the gold there. Notions vary. Find that which is unchanging<br />and pure beneath each moment, and prior to thought and notion. <br /> Seek it out and you will find that you are part of eternity itself, the most sublime experience that may be had. From this experience you will ever after speak with authority on God and man and creation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10577908131853277502012-08-02T16:39:59.001-07:002012-08-02T16:39:59.001-07:00For anyone still interested - thanks for all the r...For anyone still interested - thanks for all the recommendations! I went to Amazon and - after reading the reviews - finally settled on "Return to Rome: Confessions of an Evangelical Catholic" by Francis J. Beckwith.<br /><br />It seemed, from the reviews, to be a very balanced, thoughtful book. I'm hoping it shines some light on the things I've been questioning about Catholicism lately.Liberteurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17878796551917615050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24169641416208798412012-07-30T16:26:56.970-07:002012-07-30T16:26:56.970-07:00Well, I know that Dr. Feser has had some pretty di...Well, I know that Dr. Feser has had some pretty disparaging things to say about Luther and various Protestant teachings from time to time. It seems (to me anyway) that his criticisms are based on caricatures of Protestant teachings and not on a thorough study. He often accuses gnu-atheists of doing that with Thomism (and rightly so) so I'm a bit surprised to see him do the same when it comes to Protestant theology.<br /><br />Of course I could be all wet - but that was my original intent when I opened this line of questioning at the start of this thread. Unfortunately I overreacted to something BenYachov said and derailed it.Liberteurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17878796551917615050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37962708537586586562012-07-29T19:26:03.286-07:002012-07-29T19:26:03.286-07:00Daniel Smith: I feel like this subject is a bit to...Daniel Smith: <i>I feel like this subject is a bit too touchy for this blog so I'm not going to pursue it any farther.</i><br /><br />Well, I don't think the subject is touchy — just certain people. And it's not even an issue that should be unexpected, given the different meanings that can be applied to the term "catholic". Originally, the "catholic" (or "whole") Church was used to refer to <i>the</i> Church rather than <i>parts</i> of the Church (e.g. the Church at Antioch, the Church at Corinth, etc.). One might anticipate that using the same term as a way to distinguish some Christians from others could lead to a certain confusion. Of course, it's no coincidence that the Catholic Church got that name, and the Catholic [though not "catholic"!] position is that as an institution distinct from Protestants or Orthodox it actually is the seat of the one, true Church's authority; that historical argument for the Catholic Church is one that cannot be brushed aside; but at the same time, neither is it self-evident.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33566483122717400752012-07-27T18:06:08.107-07:002012-07-27T18:06:08.107-07:00@Mr. Green
FYI you may read my response to Smith&...@Mr. Green<br /><br />FYI you may read my response to Smith's hypocrisy in the comments box over at his blog in case you missed it.<br /><br />http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2802903789794976991&postID=5445381165789718164<br /><br />Please however post any responses you have over there.<br /><br />This distraction has gone on long enough.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54989209833778992032012-07-27T16:58:18.369-07:002012-07-27T16:58:18.369-07:00Thank you Mr. Green.
I feel like this subject is ...Thank you Mr. Green.<br /><br />I feel like this subject is a bit to touchy for this blog so I'm not going to pursue it any farther.<br /><br />I'm sorry if I've offended any Catholics here with my barbs aimed at BenYachov. He got under my skin (as I got under his!)Liberteurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17878796551917615050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8970230508036743152012-07-27T16:54:17.591-07:002012-07-27T16:54:17.591-07:00Brian: Daniel Smith, this is incorrect. Just drop ...Brian: <i>Daniel Smith, this is incorrect. Just drop it!</i><br /><br />Consider it dropped.Liberteurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17878796551917615050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53369059436001445872012-07-27T13:25:23.376-07:002012-07-27T13:25:23.376-07:00Alat: Daniel Smith, Your comment of 4:33 is ground...Alat: <i>Daniel Smith, Your comment of 4:33 is ground for shame.</i><br /><br />Stuff and nonsense. Daniel asked some perfectly reasonable questions to which BenYacov responded quite uncharitably, even though others had already responded calmly and rationally. In the comment you refer to, Daniel explained why he found the original post shocking and notes BY's hallmark rudeness. If anyone should feel ashamed, it is BenYachov. The fact that some of his posts are polite and informative does not excuse his bad behaviour the rest of the time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31479052104175213612012-07-27T08:18:31.604-07:002012-07-27T08:18:31.604-07:00Anon at 7:08 PM,
Thanks for digging up this quote...Anon at 7:08 PM,<br /><br />Thanks for digging up this quote. I knew that Popper didn't endorse positivism--he was, in fact, instrumental in the <i>destruction</i> of positivism. I hope it will help clear up Touchstone's mistake, though.rank sophisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01644531454383207175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90964713516839971982012-07-27T06:50:08.983-07:002012-07-27T06:50:08.983-07:00Daniel Smith,
I left a response to you on your bl...Daniel Smith,<br /><br />I left a response to you on your blog.<br /><br />Stop sucking up the oxygen.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89155153456131544342012-07-26T21:13:02.412-07:002012-07-26T21:13:02.412-07:00"Of course there's salvation for non-Cath...<i>"Of course there's salvation for non-Catholics - you just need to understand the finer points of Catholic doctrine to know that by 'the Catholic church' we mean 'the body of Christ' which may include non-Catholics."</i><br /><br />Daniel Smith, this is incorrect. Just drop it!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45136145391136028032012-07-26T19:08:35.565-07:002012-07-26T19:08:35.565-07:00I just looked through The Logic of Scientific Dosc...I just looked through The Logic of Scientific Doscovery by Popper, because I could not come to believe that Popper would endorse the reidiculous claims made here by this nominalst/empiricist fella. Straight from the horse's mouth:<br /><br />"Note that I suggest falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation, but not of meaning. Note,<br />moreover, that I have already (section 4) sharply criticized the use of the idea of meaning<br />as a criterion of demarcation, and that I attack the dogma of meaning again, even more<br />sharply, in section 9. It is therefore a sheer myth (though any number of refutations of<br />my theory have been based upon this myth) that I ever proposed falsifiability as a<br />criterion of meaning. Falsifiability separates two kinds of perfectly meaningful statements:<br />the falsifiable and the non-falsifiable. It draws a line inside meaningful language,<br />not around it."<br /><br />This indicates the very limited scope of the falsifiability criterion, which is just fine as a mere tool and should never be elevated to the status of dogma as it is so often mistakenly done such as in this particular case.<br /><br />I hope with this, the nonsense will come to an end. Nail, coffin and all that!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com