tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post190109173986655747..comments2024-03-28T13:39:03.094-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: No urgency without hellEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger217125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14976894202175816972023-04-19T17:59:54.903-07:002023-04-19T17:59:54.903-07:00Foreknowledge with initiation is forecausation. Th...Foreknowledge with initiation is forecausation. The scientists knew exactly what mass of Plutonium Fat Man needed to to supercritical, knowing that the atoms would decide to split at the rate they did. When they armed the bomb, they forecaused a nuclear explosion on detonation. <br />Likewise, God knew exactly what disposition and circumstances humanity needed to become sinful, knowing that humans would decide to inherit sin the way you say we do. When God sent the serpent, he forecaused all sin. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21030035255154513702020-08-01T10:21:28.229-07:002020-08-01T10:21:28.229-07:00NA, that's a really stupid argument that Feser...NA, that's a really stupid argument that Feser certainly never made. David McPikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04997702078077124822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18573248861659127332020-07-31T07:35:20.067-07:002020-07-31T07:35:20.067-07:00A combined universalist-annihilationist-infernalis...A combined universalist-annihilationist-infernalist view seems to make the most logical, scriptural, and philosophical sense.<br /><br />1.Conscious torment for those who deserve it (although not forever).<br /><br />2.Annihilation at the end of it for the worst sinners.<br /><br />3.Salvation for the rest.<br /><br />There is urgency there what with the suffering in Hell being unimaginably horrible. God punishes people for their sins like he should. At the same time, God shows his mercy by eventually saving all except for the worst.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65440741704423385352020-07-30T04:29:31.010-07:002020-07-30T04:29:31.010-07:00Prof. Feser,
I've been a fan of your blog sin...Prof. Feser,<br /><br />I've been a fan of your blog since 14. I'm in college now, and just want to say thanks. I'm downloading your whole website currently.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2818722714843307982020-07-29T18:45:40.486-07:002020-07-29T18:45:40.486-07:00Fan of St Silouan wrote,
Latins were so concerned...Fan of St Silouan wrote,<br /><br /><i>Latins were so concerned about the theology of St Clement of Alexandria, that Pope Clement VIII effectively decanonised him"</i><br /><br />Clement's writings on the Christian life are among the best (and most beautiful) I've read, but I wasn't aware of this tidbit of history. Now I'm curious which part of his theology worried the Latins.<br /><br />I make reference to Augustine not to appeal to his authority, but to acknowledge the source of the ideas I'm trying to articulate. I'd be more than happy to learn from other theological traditions.Nemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15049785243711109947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70041047752817526332020-07-29T17:51:06.136-07:002020-07-29T17:51:06.136-07:00@Nemo, "From an Augustinian perspective"...@Nemo, "From an Augustinian perspective"<br /><br />So, the usual Eastern Orthodox attitude towards Augustine is – yes he is a Church Father and a Saint. The Orthodox commonly call him "Blessed Augustine"; while in the Latin West "Blessed" is a lower rank than "Saint", in the East "Blessed" and "Saint" are considered synonyms, and some Saints get given one title rather than the other for reasons of essentially random tradition. But, Eastern Orthodox tend to view him as being an unreliable theologian. (I think the Latin West adopts a somewhat similar attitude to some Eastern Fathers – for example, St Gregory of Nyssa; and Latins were so concerned about the theology of St Clement of Alexandria, that Pope Clement VIII effectively decanonised him, although he remains a Saint in some of the Eastern Catholic churches.)<br /><br />So, Eastern Orthodox – including such diverse figures as St Silouan and David Bentley Hart, and even including many Eastern Orthodox who have rather anti-universalist views – would generally find arguments "from an Augustinian perspective" not very convincing. Even the many Eastern Orthodox who agree with your conclusion would be unlikely to rely on Augustine to defend it.<br /><br />I think even among Eastern Catholics there are quite variable attitudes towards Augustinian theology. Some Eastern Catholics emphasise the harmony and continuity of the Eastern and Western theolgoical traditions, to the point that they are eager to listen to Latin theological writers such as Augustine and Aquinas. At the other extreme, you have the followers of the late Elias Zoghby, who insist that their theology is identical to that of the Eastern Orthodox, with the only difference being that (unlike the Orthodox) they are in communion with Rome; that strain of Eastern Catholicism is likely to view Augustinian theology in much the same way as the Orthodox do.Anonymous fan of St Silouannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33095283145386006852020-07-29T17:33:29.134-07:002020-07-29T17:33:29.134-07:00I didn't mean that he won the debate with Tim ...I didn't mean that he won the debate with Tim - I don't recall that I saw that one. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73647968003485290462020-07-29T17:32:21.188-07:002020-07-29T17:32:21.188-07:00Who put the cliff there?
Who put the road there?...<i>Who put the cliff there?</i> <br /><br />Who put the road there? <br /><br />A "road" implies that there is also "not road". If there is stuff that is "not-road" because it isn't fit to drive on, then there are rules for what constitutes "OK to drive on" and for what constitutes "not OK to drive on". Whoever put the road there has to be involved with those rules, yes? <br /><br />Then the question comes up: is it <i>wrong</i> for the road-builder to construct some not-road area, and then make a road near it that differs from not-road in that the road is OK to drive on, whereas the not-road is not OK to drive on? Or does that constitute a per-se violation of drivers rights, because by making a smooth road, he generates/employs a distinction between road and not-road? Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77056199166989040952020-07-29T16:40:36.750-07:002020-07-29T16:40:36.750-07:00Raghn Crow,
@Raghn Crow
>> Patrick, lot&#...Raghn Crow, <br /><br />@Raghn Crow<br /><br />>> Patrick, lot's of work linking to various worthies, and a polite comment to the Professor F. Thanks.<<<br /><br />No problem. But please read those works. I'll even send you an Amazon gift card for one.<br /><br />>> But has it crossed the mind of none of your mavens <<<br /><br />Yes, it *has* crossed their minds and mine as well.<br /><br />>> that one can simply NOT want what God is offering? That Hell might look attractive to certain folk -- would a man eaten up by carnal lust choose Heaven, full of beautiful people but NO lust, over Hell, full of lust the likes of which the lustful man has never remotely dreamed of? Also, honestly, what is God, anyway, an old bore who just won't take "NO" for an answer?<<<br /><br /><br />All of this has been addressed *repeatedly* by universalist proponents like Parry, Reitan/Kronen, Talbott, etc.<br /><br />I fully believe that you're sincere, and I might be willing to get into detail when energy permits, but in the meantime, I just ask that you try to conceive of *serious* universalist proponents as academics who have already thought about (and thought through) these kinds of objections. I promise the works I mentioned are worth engaging and wrestling with. <br /><br />I just wish Feser would spend as much time on these authors as he does on Dawkins and company. Patrickhttp://tacoseasoning.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1476599544749294002020-07-29T16:34:23.539-07:002020-07-29T16:34:23.539-07:00@Raghn Crow
>> Patrick, lot's of work l...@Raghn Crow<br /><br />>> Patrick, lot's of work linking to various worthies, and a polite comment to the Professor F. Thanks.<<<br /><br />No problem. But please read those works. I'll even send you an Amazon gift card for one.<br /><br />>> But has it crossed the mind of none of your mavens <<<br /><br />Yes, it *has* crossed their minds and mine as well.<br /><br />>> that one can simply NOT want what God is offering? That Hell might look attractive to certain folk -- would a man eaten up by carnal lust choose Heaven, full of beautiful people but NO lust, over Hell, full of lust the likes of which the lustful man has never remotely dreamed of? Also, honestly, what is God, anyway, an old bore who just won't take "NO" for an answer?<<<br /><br /><br />All of this has been addressed *repeatedly* by universalist proponents like Parry, Reitan/Kronen, Talbott, etc.<br /><br />I fully believe that you're sincere, and I might be willing to get into detail when energy permits, but in the meantime, I just ask that you try to conceive of *serious* universalist proponents as academics who have already thought about (and thought through) these kinds of objections. I promise the works I mentioned are worth engaging and wrestling with. <br /><br />I just wish Feser would spend as much time on these authors as he does on Dawkins and company. Patrickhttp://tacoseasoning.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50601381117651136612020-07-29T11:15:01.109-07:002020-07-29T11:15:01.109-07:00That's a poor argument against Universalism. A...That's a poor argument against Universalism. Atheists make the exact same inane point against theism as a whole: "you believe because it's more comforting to believe." Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13858873453982708283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43374541274478451142020-07-29T10:09:47.738-07:002020-07-29T10:09:47.738-07:00Dear Jacques: You write:
"Thankfully, you an...Dear Jacques: You write:<br /><br />"Thankfully, you and the other gleeful apologists for the depraved notion of everlasting torture are misrepresenting classical theism, because if your portrayal was at all accurate, then the appropriate response from us human beings is to ache, ache with all that we are for the death of such a God. Satan is preferable to such a God. Atheism is infinitely preferable, as well.<br /><br />Your "Christianity" is darkness repackaged as light -- the worst form of nihilism -- and if it were true, I myself would love nothing more than to go back in time two thousand years and crucify the sick bastard myself."<br /><br />Or, another option to consider might be that your perceptions are a trifle skewed? That you yourself are perhaps wrong? That your arm-waving tirade is a symptom which needs to be examined a bit?<br /><br />By the way, "Gleeful Apologist" would be a great screen-name.Craig Paynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12704935403289384848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37368209318585704022020-07-29T07:48:57.017-07:002020-07-29T07:48:57.017-07:00SP,
You made some reasonable statements in your p...SP,<br /><br />You made some reasonable statements in your previous post, before it deteriorated into a diatribe against a strawman god of your own imagination. It's a pity that moments of rational thought don't last long with you, as you've fallen back into question-begging and strawman arguments in your last post. <br /><br />Frankly, I had expected better from you. You have a choice to act like a rational person - you've shown that you're capable. If not, I'll choose not to respond any further to your comments.Nemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15049785243711109947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55429381360596336382020-07-29T06:47:48.031-07:002020-07-29T06:47:48.031-07:00Nemo,
"Having foreknowledge is knowing what w...Nemo,<br />"Having foreknowledge is knowing what will happen, which is different from what must happen. "<br />No, you have that back to front.<br /><br />Perfect foreknowledge requires that only 1 thing can happen, the thing that is known perfectly.<br /><br />If something else can happen then the foreknowledge is not perfect.<br /><br />"The probability of the ball falling in that spot is less than 1"<br />No, the probability of the ball falling in the spot that it does in fact fall is 1.<br /><br />You, as a human being, do not have that post event knowledge certainty prior to the event, so you abstract the process and assign probabilities in your mind prior to the event.<br /><br />However, once you assert perfect foreknowledge then that ball must fall where it is predicted to fall with a probability of 1, else the foreknowledge is not perfect.<br /><br />"God has given us the free choice of will to choose from a wide variety of options, while He also knows all the choices we will ever make in life."<br />Incoherent.<br /><br />You just contradicted yourself, which is necessary to be a Christian, because Christianity is inherently self contradictory.<br /><br />If god knows now that you will do X later then you must do X later with a probability of 1 and there is a 0 probability you will do anything else later. Thus, any perfect foreknowledge in the universe requires that the entire universe is entirely deterministic and free will is necessarily an illusion.<br /><br />Your god knew prior to creation that most of the beings he created would end up being tortured for all eternity.<br /><br />Oh, but those beings had a choice, you say, and they chose to rebel against god, so they chose hell for themselves, you say.<br /><br />So, right, suppose your child rebels against you, then the proper thing to do is put her in a cage, squirt some lighter fluid on her, and set her on fire, correct? I mean, you love her, and she made a choice to rebel against you, so she chose to be burned alive, right?<br /><br />And when she screams in agony and begs to be let out of the cage you say "nope, this is your fault, you chose to be in that cage being burned because you chose to rebel against me, your loving parent".<br /><br />And every day, and every night for all the years to come you squirt some more lighter fluid on her and tell her you love her as you set her on fire and blame her for choosing to be burned in a cage.<br /><br />There is your loving hell god.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27352663663545925332020-07-29T03:23:01.914-07:002020-07-29T03:23:01.914-07:00Obviously, god created hell, god created sin, god ...<i> Obviously, god created hell, god created sin, god created evil, and god is responsible for all the evil he created, which is to say all the evil in the universe, and god is responsible for the eternal suffering of billions of souls, and he could have created otherwise, so he created eternal suffering for billions with malice of forethought while he could have created otherwise.<br /><br />Obviously, your god is the most evil being in the universe. No other being is more than a spec of evil compared to the overwhelming evil of the Christian god and his grotesque debauchery that is his freely created eternal hell of suffering for billions.</i><br /><br />In this case God created and controls moral judgement and any condemnation of God is the fulfillment of God's plan and designs. The person condemning evil God is the puppet and executor of evil God's plans.Breadrollnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65903935661006199852020-07-29T03:11:00.506-07:002020-07-29T03:11:00.506-07:00@Anon,
I welcome your contributions. But as som...@Anon, <br /><br /><i> I welcome your contributions. But as someone who, for many years posted on a variety of message boards on a variety of topics, I look back on it now as a sheer waste of time. It was intellectual arm wrestling. It felt good at the time to "take down" someone, but what did it all matter? What did it all mean? Nothing.<br /><br />But go at Feser's acolytes. They deserve it. You get under their skin, and that's good </i><br /><br />Seeing Stardusty's posting for many years he comes across as an autist. Autism is definitely correlated with atheism and IRC sometimes obsessive behavior. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41755158197686622072020-07-29T00:07:37.277-07:002020-07-29T00:07:37.277-07:00A sin objectively grave that is mitigated by passi...A sin objectively grave that is mitigated by passion or habit can make what would be a mortal sin only a venial sin. A man caught up in the "heat of the moment" does not have full knowledge or deliberation in his acting, so he can't sin mortally in that state. Perhaps afterwards he can when he's returned to his senses and confirms his guilt by being unwilling to amend. Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13858873453982708283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19874822503997084952020-07-28T22:29:36.221-07:002020-07-28T22:29:36.221-07:00David McPike wrote,
The real problem with the cli...David McPike wrote,<br /><br /><i>The real problem with the cliff analogy seems to be that these days the person heading towards the cliff/hell generally doesn't believe in cliffs/hell</i><br /><br />I would think that anyone with a modicum of self-knowledge would realize that he or she is presently living in hell. The real problem is not whether the person believes hell exists, but whether he or she is willing to accept the way of delivery provided by Christianity.Nemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15049785243711109947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63175725481025317112020-07-28T21:59:52.875-07:002020-07-28T21:59:52.875-07:00Tim Finlay,
You wrote, "But a fetus is one w...Tim Finlay,<br /><br />You wrote, <i>"But a fetus is one whose life has begun."</i><br /><br />In the context of this discussion, I understand "life" to begin at birth, but I take your point. Perhaps I should have said the biomolecules that constitute the zygote.Nemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15049785243711109947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27621045261982921022020-07-28T21:38:36.507-07:002020-07-28T21:38:36.507-07:00...gallimaufry...? Props, DBH.
Mt 13:52: "Th......gallimaufry...? Props, DBH.<br /><br />Mt 13:52: "Then He said to them, “Therefore every scribe instructed concerning the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his thesaurus things new and old."David McPikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04997702078077124822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25824140744134800102020-07-28T21:35:24.141-07:002020-07-28T21:35:24.141-07:00SP,
I'll address the one point in your long-...SP, <br /><br />I'll address the one point in your long-winded response I think is relevant, and ignore the rest. Spare me the tirade, if you wish to continue this conversation.<br /><br />Having foreknowledge is knowing what <strong>will</strong> happen, which is different from what <strong>must</strong> happen. <br /><br />To give an example, I'm reminded of a movie involving time travel: A person travels to the future and knows exactly where the ball will fall on a roulette. The probability of the ball falling in that spot is less than 1, but the person can know for certain that the ball will fall exactly there. <br /><br />Similarly, God has given us the free choice of will to choose from a wide variety of options, while He also knows all the choices we will ever make in life.<br /><br />None of us knows what it is like to have "perfect knowledge". I'm only explaining what is reasonable and coherent to me, nothing more nothing less. I expect readers to judge for themselves and correct me if I"m wrong.<br />Nemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15049785243711109947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76903178573775581162020-07-28T21:29:58.751-07:002020-07-28T21:29:58.751-07:00The real problem with the cliff analogy seems to b...The real problem with the cliff analogy seems to be that these days the person heading towards the cliff/hell generally doesn't believe in cliffs/hell. So it's not that scare tactics are cynical and manipulative; it's that they're ineffective, because in light of the actual dialectical situation they just beg the question against the person who is headed for perdition and so won't impress him to change course. Not that such a person is likely to bother about whether he's reasoning soundly, any more than DBH or John Milbank do; but practically speaking it's still a conundrum. Indeed, the "inner transformation through the beauty of love"-people might have a point, in that the person headed for perdition certainly needs an inner transformation so that he is able see that perdition is something possible for him and/or that his <i>Todestrieb</i> is worth overcoming. So the question is just, what's the better way to bring about the transformation, i.e., to provide the occasion for the working of grace? The universalism people seem very much to think that teaching universalism is the better way (often based on their own experience) and they often seem pretty exclusively pragmatically oriented (they don't much care about the transcendent truth of the matter).David McPikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04997702078077124822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89407431824773357652020-07-28T20:50:20.973-07:002020-07-28T20:50:20.973-07:00But a fetus is one whose life has begun. And in on...But a fetus is one whose life has begun. And in one of your posts, you indicated that Judas is in a worse state than "one which hasn't yet begun."<br />That was the confusion. Tim Finlayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201408382802035324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67809781975141948712020-07-28T20:26:40.036-07:002020-07-28T20:26:40.036-07:00Nemo,
"No, knowing someone's action befor...Nemo,<br />"No, knowing someone's action beforehand is not the same as forcing them to take it."<br />You are conflating human knowledge with god's knowledge prior to creation.<br /><br />I assume you will agree, you are not god, correct?<br /><br />"I know the sun will rise tomorrow"<br />No, you do not know that because, and again I assume you will agree, you are not god. You are not omniscient. You do not have certain knowledge of the future.<br /><br />Perhaps a large object will strike the Earth and there will be, for all of what used to be Earth, literally, no tomorrow.<br /><br />"Two friends know each other so well that each can tell what the other will say or do in certain situations,"<br />No they don't, they only infer by inductive reasoning what they think will be likely to occur in certain situations.<br /><br />Nemo, it would really do you some good to tighten up your reasoning, a lot, I think.<br /><br />"foreknowledge is not preordination."<br />Yes, it is. <br /><br />You have not thought this through very much at all, have you?<br /><br />On perfect foreknowledge there is only one possible future, the future the omniscient one has foreknowledge of.<br /><br />On perfect foreknowledge, god's omniscience, the probability of those events occurring is 1, and the probability of other events occurring is 0.<br /><br />OBTW, the one with perfect foreknowledge is not required to be the actor, only the knower. The causal mechanism might be independent of the perfect knower, in general. <br /><br />On a perfect knower those future events deterministically must happen, even if the knower does not make them happen, in general.<br /><br />But that is not your Christian god. God is said to be antecedent to all of creation, and to be the cause of all creation, and to have had perfect knowledge of all he would create before he created any of it, and could have created anything in any manner of his free choice.<br /><br />Obviously, god created hell, god created sin, god created evil, and god is responsible for all the evil he created, which is to say all the evil in the universe, and god is responsible for the eternal suffering of billions of souls, and he could have created otherwise, so he created eternal suffering for billions with malice of forethought while he could have created otherwise.<br /><br />Obviously, your god is the most evil being in the universe. No other being is more than a spec of evil compared to the overwhelming evil of the Christian god and his grotesque debauchery that is his freely created eternal hell of suffering for billions.<br /><br />You should get on your knees and thank David Bentley Hart for showing you an honorable path away from your present worship of the most evil being in the universe, your hell god.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91393883185247884252020-07-28T19:38:04.977-07:002020-07-28T19:38:04.977-07:00Tim Finlay wrote,
'Distinguish between "...Tim Finlay wrote,<br /><br /><i>'Distinguish between "had never existed" which was my phrase and "the one which hasn't yet begun" which was your phrase, "one" in context clearly meaning "life".'</i><br /><br />It would be more interesting to distinguish between a Thomist and an Augustinian. :) I wonder if Dr. Feser has written a post on the subject...<br /><br />Back to the question:<br /><br />A fetus has not been born, but he or she certainly exists. So that's one way to distinguish between "has never existed" and "has not been born". I'm saying that Judas' life is better than the former but worse than the latter. Better than the former, because being is better than non-being, but worse than the latter, because an evil life is worse than a life that has the potential to be good.<br /><br />Another way to distinguish between the two is in John 3, the story of Nicodemus,<br /><br /><i>3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?”<br />-- John 3:3-4</i><br /><br />These two statements suggest to me that, when Jesus talks about "being born", he is talking about transferring between two states of existence, not between existence and non-existence.Nemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15049785243711109947noreply@blogger.com