tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post1753490214226485717..comments2024-03-18T15:57:33.286-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Wrath darkens the mindEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger182125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4091935367187594582019-05-01T11:55:41.328-07:002019-05-01T11:55:41.328-07:00An animating soul might not be immortal, but just ...An animating soul might not be immortal, but just a life force for the time. We might be too blissed to notice our old pets, anyway. I mean, the divine countenance of God vs Rover? Which will be more attractive to the eye? Hmmm. That's a tough one. Maybe we aren't fixed on His countenance non-stop, but just bathed in it non-stop and we get all back we gave up for Him. Who knows? Sentimentalism is a worldly crutch. Contemporary Catholics seem to need it, though. It's a positivist intemperance. Am I wrong? psieve2https://www.blogger.com/profile/06936845941099262693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58209813307319573242019-03-25T14:47:24.057-07:002019-03-25T14:47:24.057-07:00I am confused Mr. Crane? Where have I used foul la...I am confused Mr. Crane? Where have I used foul language on this thread? I don't see it?Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23315086426191362512019-03-24T17:09:45.489-07:002019-03-24T17:09:45.489-07:00"As I repeatedly pointed out to people - ALL ...<i>"As I repeatedly pointed out to people - ALL of Shea's brilliant insights throughout the years were cribbed - borrowed - outright stolen from other writers and speakers."</i><br /><br />TBH I think that's one of the good points about his works -- we have a word for novel theological insights, and it's "heresy".The original Mr. Xnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61491500646049757452019-03-24T09:31:35.007-07:002019-03-24T09:31:35.007-07:00If you have ever been on the receiving end of a so...If you have ever been on the receiving end of a sociopath or a narcissist you would call such behavior narcissistic abuse or projection. There are plenty of famous (TV, journalists, MEPs or other celebrities) fake Catholics like that in Ireland. Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41754920998456564162019-03-23T18:29:48.749-07:002019-03-23T18:29:48.749-07:00These are good questions, it shows you are taking ...These are good questions, it shows you are taking the issues seriously and working them out. To my understanding (and I welcome correction from those who are better at this): The form of water is the "same in kind" in all instances of water, and the form of human is the same in all instances of humans. It is distinct "in number" in the different instances, in virtue of being instantiated in separate matter. But what is meant by "same in kind" is a little ambiguous here: the fact that there is a sameness about this human here and that human over there is that there is a <i>universality</i> of the form "human-ness" which is that in virtue of which both can be said to BE humans. Thus saying they are the "same in kind" and that they "have the same form" is really two ways of expressing the same truth. It is precisely insofar as they share in common the form "human-ness" that we can know them as same in some sense. <br /><br />In a different sense: the capacity of the human mind to recognize that sameness in the two instances of dog is due to the fact that the human intellect can receive the form "dog-ness" in a NON-material way (by knowing "dog" we do receive the form but we don't <i>become</i> dogs ourselves). Thus there is a non-material aspect to the human knowing that is critical to our understanding of universals as universals. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72798990219479444772019-03-23T10:01:30.595-07:002019-03-23T10:01:30.595-07:00Could you please mind your language a bit? That wo...Could you please mind your language a bit? That would be fantastic. Thank you very much :)Randolph Cranehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16696593312319487318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28593070866307938592019-03-22T10:57:43.151-07:002019-03-22T10:57:43.151-07:00I hate Theistic Personalism so much........
Class...I hate Theistic Personalism so much........<br /><br />Classic Theism rulez!<br /><br />Carry on.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61549499357495865782019-03-21T14:13:16.214-07:002019-03-21T14:13:16.214-07:00This might sound harsh - and is seriously politica...This might sound harsh - and is seriously politically incorrect - but we should not be Islamicizing Heaven by thinking it consists of a bunch of nice things we enjoy here in this life - even people, let alone lower creatures with whom no real friendship can exist. I always notice that nobody's ever concerned to see his lunch risen again in Heaven, just animals (and plants?) we care about emotionally. God is not like that - He is not a respecter of persons, nor of animals, nor of plants... In any event, we must be ready to move far, far beyond the Islamic vision of Heaven. God is much more than a gift-giver - the Father is the inheritance which the Prodigal Son really longs for, not the gold, and not the fattened calf either.CRShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00718816249512853346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56406053261114151122019-03-21T09:24:42.629-07:002019-03-21T09:24:42.629-07:00Whether or not non-rational animals go to heaven i...Whether or not non-rational animals go to heaven is not really the topic of this thread.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12784311042253728802019-03-21T08:56:49.785-07:002019-03-21T08:56:49.785-07:00JoeD, he seems to have begun back during the Water...JoeD, he seems to have begun back during the Waterboard/Harry Potter days. There was also heated debate over the A-Bombs of WWII. In each case, he framed the debate as either being stupid and/or evil, or agreeing with him. Then he made the statement once in a post that there was a time when - by his own account - he considered American conservatism and the gospel to be in the same boat. Perhaps it came as a shock to him that the two were not always the same. He began speaking more of people at Patheos, and I don't know when he first met her, but he began posting more gushing praise for Simcha Fisher (who he more or less has praised in a 'Simcha - drunk or sober' sort of way). It was then, c. 2007/2008 that he really began to conclude the GOP was just as bad as the Democrats, and Conservatives as inclined toward being as bad as Liberals. Which probably could be argued in some way at some point - all have sinned after all. But somewhere during the later Obama years, after he ducked out of blogging and then came back, when he was at Patheos, after he began his Facebook account, he began to swing radical Left, and went down the tubes he's dwelt in since, becoming almost everything he once condemned, and attacking those who still cling to things he once called good and virtuous. That's as best as I can remember. David Griffeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06629314279592541401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13213942613643414312019-03-21T07:55:42.387-07:002019-03-21T07:55:42.387-07:00@David,
Quote:"I don't think Mark was d...@David,<br /><br /><br />Quote:<i>"I don't think Mark was devoid of worth from the beginning. But clearly something went horribly wrong."</i><br /><br /><br />I haven't really been following Shea for any significant amount of time, but when exactly did Shea start to spiral though? Was it during the last election? Was it before that?<br /><br />JoeDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1681757262526436722019-03-21T03:29:08.867-07:002019-03-21T03:29:08.867-07:00Don, I heard that. Was not surprised, and Mark wa...Don, I heard that. Was not surprised, and Mark was not the only Catholic on Patheos who joined the lies and calumny and then made little to no attempt to make it right. I'd say Patheos itself, with few exceptions, is a hotbed of sin, blaspheme, heresy and outright hatred of Christ and Christ's followers. And that's just on the Catholic page. David Griffeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06629314279592541401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45363516695396150612019-03-21T03:27:39.726-07:002019-03-21T03:27:39.726-07:00Lazarus Gethsemane, I mean that the sin-hole that ...Lazarus Gethsemane, I mean that the sin-hole that Mark slipped into could happen to anyone. I don't think Mark was devoid of worth from the beginning. But clearly something went horribly wrong. I no longer go to his sites, desiring to avoid the near occasion of sin that they are. Nonetheless, last I checked, his contributions were of almost no worth now. What few lights of Gospel he might reference were completely smashed by the lies, slander, sin, and advocacy for or defense of unthinkable evil and horror from the political movement he now endorses. Nonetheless, as in all sin, I must remind myself that it could happen to me if I'm not vigilant. Which is why, among other reasons, I stopped going to his sites. David Griffeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06629314279592541401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88637968447601447912019-03-20T20:32:52.467-07:002019-03-20T20:32:52.467-07:00Dr. Pruss,
God's knowledge is eternal and tim...Dr. Pruss,<br /><br /><i>God's knowledge is eternal and timeless. God knows reality perfectly. Thus, reality is such that it can be known perfectly from an eternal and timeless point of view. If the B-theory is true, then reality can be known perfectly from an eternal and timeless point of view. But if presentism (or A-theory more generally) is true, there are additional objective facts ("the changing ones") beyond those that can be known from an eternal and timeless point of view.</i><br /><br />Thank you, this makes things clearer for me. Earlier you also wrote:<br /><br /><i>God's knowledge is not *fundamentally* propositional knowledge. Nonetheless, for any true proposition, God knows that proposition.</i><br /><br />While I agree, I would also say that the fact that God knows all propositions doesn't mean He knows them distinctly. Likewise, the fact that God knows the "now-ness" of each successive moment doesn't entail that He knows each moment distinctly. In the example I used earlier, God doesn't need to know me-qua-infant as a separate act of knowledge from that of knowing me-qua-adult. Or in other words, God doesn't need to know successive states successively in order to have perfect knowledge of them. <br /><br />Sri Naharhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17331851104846456479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23593809223378233702019-03-20T12:29:18.477-07:002019-03-20T12:29:18.477-07:00@Alexander Pruss
BTW I hope I didn't come off...@Alexander Pruss<br /><br />BTW I hope I didn't come off as too aggressive & that I was trying to attack you. I just deeply hate Theistic Personalism and I get a bit carried away.<br /><br />Cheers.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40306711629830364972019-03-20T12:04:59.225-07:002019-03-20T12:04:59.225-07:00@Alexander Pruss
A Theory and B Theory are bogus ...@Alexander Pruss<br /><br />A Theory and B Theory are bogus & inadequate anyway. <br /><br />http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/philtheo/temporal/temporal2.htm#ch10<br /><br /> So your argument is moot as is the false Theistic Personalist "deity" you imagine trying to know things timelessly and failing to do so in epic fashion.<br /><br /> You are in effect trying to imagine how a "timeless" solitary being who is equivalent to us only more Uber & omni-Magical might timelessly know events and that is 100% the wrong way to do it.<br /><br />Take this analogy to heart. (since that is the proper way to talk of God and not this unequivocal horse poop).<br /><br />God cannot ride a bike but that does not mean God is not omnipotent. God cannot know what time it is now as a human being knows it or as it would be impossible for a timeless human being to know it . God is not a creature. God is not "a being" alongside other beings. God is Other.<br /><br />God cannot ride a bike because bike ridding involves "a being" who is a physical singular entity sitting on it and pushing the pedals. Sure God could supernaturally move the Bike from point a to point b but that would not be literally riding it. Sure Jesus could ride a bike but his Human Nature would be doing the Yomen's work not his divinity directly. So God cannot ride a bike. But Omnipotence means having all powers. There is no "power" to make the Ground of All Being into "a being" alongside other beings to perform some task only such beings can do. Just as there is no power to make 2+2=5 or "a rock so heavy..can't lift it..blah blah.." and so forth. Such a power doesn't describe anything.<br /><br />God is not in time like any other being is in time because God is not a being nor is God in anyway like a singular being who might be outside of time.<br /><br />Your argument can only be applied to a Theistic Personalist so called "deity". A Theistic Personalist deity who is outside of time cannot know what time it is now. But to say a Classic Theistic God (who is eternal and timeless by definition) doesn't know what time it is now is as meaningful as saying God cannot ride a bike. Which He can't. <br /><br />Classic Theism rules. Theistic Personalism blows chunks.<br /><br />On the Reality of Temporal Succession<br />http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/philtheo/temporal/temporal.htm<br /><br />Sri Nahar has the right idea.<br />Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48928715578475159222019-03-20T10:02:16.337-07:002019-03-20T10:02:16.337-07:00God's knowledge is not *fundamentally* proposi...God's knowledge is not *fundamentally* propositional knowledge. Nonetheless, for any true proposition, God knows that proposition. God knows that the sky is blue, that Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo, that I will have dinner tonight (assuming I will), etc. <br /><br />In particular, when I was infant, it was correct to say:<br /> (1) God knows that I am an infant.<br />And now it is correct to say:<br /> (2) God knows that I am not an infant.<br />This is not a problem on the B-theory. But on presentism, it implies a difference as to the content of what God knows.<br /><br />Here's another way to put it. God's knowledge is eternal and timeless. God knows reality perfectly. Thus, reality is such that it can be known perfectly from an eternal and timeless point of view. If the B-theory is true, then reality can be known perfectly from an eternal and timeless point of view. But if presentism (or A-theory more generally) is true, there are additional objective facts ("the changing ones") beyond those that can be known from an eternal and timeless point of view.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77266603480651311092019-03-20T09:32:49.147-07:002019-03-20T09:32:49.147-07:00Dr. Pruss,
I prefer to think using, well, concret...Dr. Pruss,<br /><br />I prefer to think using, well, concrete examples instead of conventions like "Wednesday", so kindly bear with me as I parse what you said.<br /><br />On the presentist construal of temporal facts, <br /><br />(1) I was an infant X years ago.<br /><br />(2) I am an adult now. <br /><br />Now if we were to speak of Divine knowledge as being a species of propositional knowledge, then what you have said would be true. However, God's knowledge of things is their cause (as Pseudo-Dionysius wrote), and He knows things before they exist (per St. John Damascene) and as Aquinas wrote, Divine knowledge is more like practical knowledge, i.e., knowledge-how. Thus, God's knowledge of me-qua-infant is His act of actualizing the same, and so also with His knowledge of me-qua-adult. Now, why should God's acts of actualizing me in either stage of my life be in time? Surely insofar as He is timeless, His acts too are timeless. There is no temporal succession between the Divine acts of actualizing me at various stages of my life, and one might even say that they're all the same act, and only the effect of the act varies with time. Sri Naharhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17331851104846456479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84973710263050359392019-03-20T07:54:33.230-07:002019-03-20T07:54:33.230-07:00If there is an objective present (as anti-eternali...If there is an objective present (as anti-eternalists say), then yesterday the following statement was true: <br />(1) God knows that it's not Wednesday. <br />But today the following statement is true:<br />(2) God knows that it's Wednesday.<br /><br />The eternalist B-theorist can say that this does not imply any change in the content of what God thinks, because tensed sentences are relative to a time, so that yesterday's "it's not Wednesday" meant something like "On March 19, it's not Wednesday" while today's "it's Wednesday" means something like "On March 20, it's Wednesday". And there is no contradiction between these two statements, so God can believe both eternally.<br /><br />However, the presentist thinks "It's Wednesday" is objectively true: it tells us a non-relational, non-indexical fact about reality itself. And he also thinks that "It's not Wednesday" is objectively false. So, the A-theorist can't just say that (1) and (2) are eternally and unchangingly true.<br /><br />So the presentist has to say that the content of God's knowledge changes. I don't like this. (But it's not as bad as it sounds. It does not actually imply the heresy that *God* changes, because the content of God's knowledge should be held to be partially constituted by reality extrinsic to God (otherwise one gets in trouble with divine simplicity and the contingency of divine creation).)Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45348776544813625882019-03-19T23:42:56.974-07:002019-03-19T23:42:56.974-07:00Surely the nature of anything is immaterial; natur...Surely the nature of anything is immaterial; nature being an immaterial principle. <br /><br />Similarly, I don't understand why animal souls are held to be different from the human soul. A soul, being a principle of life, is, by definition, incorporeal, be it animal or human. Gyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09941686166886986037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88201840779736014442019-03-19T17:55:57.103-07:002019-03-19T17:55:57.103-07:00Given that it's Jerry Coyne that we are talkin...Given that it's Jerry Coyne that we are talking about, I would agree that the charity involved here is misplaced. <br /><br />In fact, I don't see why we should even waste further time discussing him. Never argue with (or about) fools. Sri Naharhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17331851104846456479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25194256124231680602019-03-19T17:44:03.869-07:002019-03-19T17:44:03.869-07:00Alex,
Yes, you are being overly charitable. Nor ...Alex,<br /><br />Yes, you are being overly charitable. Nor am I merely speculating, because I've read what Coyne has actually written on this. It's pretty clear that he just thinks it's silly for Hart and I to be debating this issue at all. It isn't that he's got some deep philosophical reason for thinking that God could resurrect a dog or whatever. It's that he thinks that talk about religion, the afterlife, souls, etc. is just stupid and not worth going on about. Standard sophomoric New Atheist dismissiveness. That's all it is. <br /><br />And yes, there is a presumption that if an argument can be given some plausible reading, then we should prefer that reading. But that is a presumption that can be overridden if we have independent reason to think that a person is really just being silly and not in fact giving some interesting argument in a clumsy way. And Coyne is about as clear a case as possible of someone who, where philosophy and theology are concerned, has a long track record of attacking straw men, mouthing off, and otherwise being childish. Sometimes a troll is just a troll.<br /><br />Kurt,<br /><br />I agree that that's a better analogy. However, it still doesn't really apply in this case. As I say, Coyne's beef is really just that he thinks it's dumb to debate the issue at all. As far as I can tell, it's not that he's got some sentimentality about animals that makes it especially offensive to him for a theist to say that they don't go to heaven. It's just "Ha ha look at these dummies actually discussing this!" That's all.Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14715041198910069392019-03-19T17:40:24.275-07:002019-03-19T17:40:24.275-07:00A view on which there is an objective present has ...<i>A view on which there is an objective present has to hold that the content of God's knowledge changes.</i><br /><br />No, because God's knowledge of a thing is His act of causing that thing to exist. And the act of actualizing me-qua-infant is not temporally prior to actualizing me-qua-adult, for instance. It is not even clear if they are two really distinct acts, in fact. <br /><br />In this sense, God's knowledge is rather like Aristotle's articulation of the moment of change -- it unites the past and present states of an object, and might even be given a temporal location, but is not in itself in time, strictly speaking. Thus the flow of time is what emerges as God actualizes various incompatible potencies of various objects in a teleologixtele ordered fashion. Sri Naharhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17331851104846456479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84000880990756864932019-03-19T17:14:55.348-07:002019-03-19T17:14:55.348-07:00@Alexander Pruss,
2) But either way creation cha...@Alexander Pruss,<br /><br /><br />2) But either way creation changes. Creation by nature is changeable, yet God is clearly distinct from creation and the changing of creation doesn't affect Him at all. <br /><br />Whether it's change in the present, or in successive states, the nature of creation doesn't affect God's knowledge such that He too changes.<br /><br />JoeDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43044810507407287732019-03-19T17:13:08.643-07:002019-03-19T17:13:08.643-07:00Maybe a better analogy is someone who is pro-abort...Maybe a better analogy is someone who is pro-abortion and yet is clearly triggered by sex-selective abortion. It is strange that someone would criticize sex-selective abortion when abortion as a whole is thought permissible, but I think why sex-selective abortion is criticized is because it is perceived as sexist. In short, abortion is not wrong, sexism is. So Coyne is basically saying "dogs don't go to heaven" is speciest.Kurthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15238763490814436424noreply@blogger.com