tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post2588230025194288144..comments2024-03-28T03:20:15.940-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Caught in the webEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger107125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4362418128456070442018-11-08T10:46:01.500-08:002018-11-08T10:46:01.500-08:00There are plenty of people we might consider "...There are plenty of people we might consider "conservative" who are now in favor of same sex marriage. There are too many to name; David Brooks and Ted Olson come to mind. <br /><br />With Sullivan, he considers himself or at least considered himself a "conservative" at one point. <br /><br />I think what disqualifies him from this label currently is he enthusiastically supported Obama. Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85171218035266305892018-10-21T16:15:02.156-07:002018-10-21T16:15:02.156-07:00Tragic news about Zippy. One of the best of the mo...Tragic news about Zippy. One of the best of the modern Christian thinkers.<br /><br />I can only presume that the lack of condolences here implies few knew his work. I recommend devouring his blog - one of the best evisceration's of liberalism you'll find. daedalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08106355548181279535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19478310533919042582018-10-14T07:59:24.434-07:002018-10-14T07:59:24.434-07:00I always think it is hilarious when I see the name...I always think it is hilarious when I see the name “P. M. S. Hacker”, ever since I first saw it that way (cited in TLS, incidentally); so now it takes me a little bit to recognize another rendering such as “Peter Hacker”.Thiago V. S. Coelhohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12820290613203484073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78143163349040928522018-10-13T18:35:58.134-07:002018-10-13T18:35:58.134-07:00OK...
If that is the case...then you accept that ...OK...<br /><br />If that is the case...then you accept that your statement:<br /><br /><i>you can expose false philosophy through true philosophy</i><br /><br />Is wrong.Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16577174474981453132018-10-13T03:04:21.964-07:002018-10-13T03:04:21.964-07:00And if you read what I wrote, you would realize I ...And if you read what I wrote, you would realize I never claimed He did.Timocrateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09193160283946135425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8199606420185615432018-10-12T21:04:33.256-07:002018-10-12T21:04:33.256-07:00Timocrates
When the Greeks wanted to approach the...<b>Timocrates</b><br /><br /><i>When the Greeks wanted to approach the Lord before His Passion, He said they should consider the natural world to understand His mystery and upcoming Passion: He did not quote the law or the prophets in their case.</i><br /><br />Charitably, your interpretation of scripture is incorrect. <br /><br />Christ did not speak to the Greeks. He spoke to Philip & Andrew who asked Christ if He would speak to the Greeks. Christ declined.<br /><br />You can read what Christ said: John 12:23-32<br /><br />If your read the text you will find that Christ did not meet with the Greeks.<br />Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76978973578408876832018-10-12T12:57:01.137-07:002018-10-12T12:57:01.137-07:00Philip, you can expose false philosophy through tr...Philip, you can expose false philosophy through true philosophy. There are a whole series of books in the OT that urge believers to seek after wisdom; why would God do this if the pursuit of wisdom was necessarily a "vain deceit?" When the Greeks wanted to approach the Lord before His Passion, He said they should consider the natural world to understand His mystery and upcoming Passion: He did not quote the law or the prophets in their case. This is what Aristotle calls "natural philosophy," which, he says, "is a kind of wisdom." This accords well with the words of our Lord.Timocrateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09193160283946135425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11515951658358530612018-10-12T09:11:18.033-07:002018-10-12T09:11:18.033-07:00Timocrates
Philosophically speaking then what is ...<b>Timocrates</b><br /><br />Philosophically speaking then what is the difference between:<br /><br />Timocrates:<i>Philosophy can help us to show the rationality of the Christian faith and religion and help us to develop arguments in its defense (apologetics) and even possibly arguments to the existence of God for those who may doubt the historical reliability of Scripture or the reality of miracles.</i><br /><br />And:<br /> <br />Apostle Paul: <i>Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.</i><br /><br />Philosophically, how are you going to reconcile this "seeming" contradiction in Scripture and Philosophy?<br />Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3161679015523201522018-10-12T01:30:00.928-07:002018-10-12T01:30:00.928-07:00Romans 8:13
For if ye live after the flesh, (the t...Romans 8:13<br /><i>For if ye live after the flesh,</i> (the things of this world is your concern, and you have no concept of eternity) <i>ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live."</i><br /><br />Take God at His <i>Word</i>.<br />Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61607166318336899782018-10-12T01:02:33.083-07:002018-10-12T01:02:33.083-07:00Cogniblog
It is not a theistic nor a Thomistic do...<b>Cogniblog</b><br /><br />It is not a theistic nor a Thomistic doctrine (for Grace is not an attribute of God in these theories)…<br /><br />God has responded to your struggle, is responding to your struggle and will respond to your struggle thus:<br /><br />God's Grace is always grater, and will always go farther than sin … but that’s not license.Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61505437629355286912018-10-11T21:31:18.937-07:002018-10-11T21:31:18.937-07:00You can't appreciate that much of God's la...You can't appreciate that much of God's law in the Bible is also natural law? You can't appreciate that much of its morality is evident but that the weakness of our present state requires what we can know by reason to be right or wrong to be reaffirmed even with divine authority? <br /><br />Philip, if someone were to say to you geometry is one thing but Euclid is another and geometry should not be identified with Euclid, you'd be quite mistaken to think Euclid's maxims and principles of geometry were false simply because we know the name of the name who best formulated them. Moses and the prophets moral teaching and teaching generally overlaps with philosophy and philosophical learning; that doesn't make either false nor does it imply a multiplication or addition to the scripture. Of course we should hear Moses and prophets - but a Jewish person could charge you with contradiction by claiming that by heading Jesus you are going beyond the Scripture and commandments by asking the Jew to listen not only to Moses and the prophets <b>but Jesus too</b>.<br />It's one thing if your just learning and are frustrated by Aristotle's enormous body of philosophical work; it's large, difficult and complicated. That doesn't mean its necessarily false or wholly false, however. But sometimes I think you are just being obtuse. Notice that in part thanks to my philosophical studying and work I was able to point out a contradiction in your own point; namely, that your interpretation of the scripture involves yourself opens yourself to the charge of contradiction as a Christian. Philosophy can assist us in not falling into such situations by training us to think critically and interpret carefully and wisely; it also helps us to reconcile seeming contradictions in the Scripture also.<br />Philosophy can help us to show the rationality of the Christian faith and religion and help us to develop arguments in its defense (apologetics) and even possibly arguments to the existence of God for those who may doubt the historical reliability of Scripture or the reality of miracles.Timocrateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09193160283946135425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41974909317944540642018-10-11T15:01:02.129-07:002018-10-11T15:01:02.129-07:00@Craig Payne, thank you for the kind comment. I do...@Craig Payne, thank you for the kind comment. I don't understand why I have such severe anxiety and anguish right now. I pray but I am wondering whether the Lord is ignoring them. I am also struggling against same-sex attraction and afraid of how the Lord will respond to such a struggle.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33321035682943779982018-10-11T13:03:34.856-07:002018-10-11T13:03:34.856-07:00Dear Cogniblog: If your last sentence is addressed...Dear Cogniblog: If your last sentence is addressed to the rest of us, I do not think that we can directly "make it stop" or give you peace. Your peace lies in God. Remember always and repeat to yourself as necessary, "It is because of the Lord's mercy and lovingkindness that we are NOT consumed, because His tender compassions fail not" (Lamentations 3:22).Craig Paynenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84536571779361058032018-10-11T08:26:48.598-07:002018-10-11T08:26:48.598-07:00Timocrates
You state:
...people will abuse even t...<b>Timocrates</b><br /><br />You state:<br /><i>...people will abuse even the Scriptures by twisting their meaning and interpretation or by providing specious arguments...</i><br /><br />What? Like this?<br /><br /><b>"if they hear not Moses and the prophets and Aristotle," </b><br /><br />Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56016352326749341752018-10-10T11:00:12.736-07:002018-10-10T11:00:12.736-07:00I second this motion. God is ontologically good ...I second this motion. God is ontologically good and or metaphysically good. But God is not morally good. Or more precisely God is not a moral agent. Or even more precisely then that God is not a moral agent or morally good in the unequivical way a morally good human being is as a moral agent.<br /><br />Solves the Problem of Evil for me.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18186337728910912092018-10-10T06:58:45.156-07:002018-10-10T06:58:45.156-07:00@ Philip,
I understand what you mean by "if t...@ Philip,<br />I understand what you mean by "if they hear not Moses and the prophets and Aristotle," however, philosophy as such seeks certain basic, fundamental and ultimately undeniable truths as a foundation upon which to base our thinking and beliefs that is in accordance with objective reality. We are naturally hardwired, so to speak, for the truth: no one seeks to be deceived or desires to be in error about the reality of things. Of course, this does not prevent people from holding to a kind of cognitive dissonance wherein they claim to believe one thing but in practice manifestly do not believe it "when it matters," e.g. when it would affect their personal well-being or jeopardize their lives. So, for example, a radical skeptic might think we live in some sort of Matrix but would rarely (if ever) would such a person walk in front of a speeding train or standing in front of one try to stop it through some fort of telekinesis.<br /><br />Furthermore, Philip, one should not underestimate the reality of sophistry. Ask any trial lawyer or judge why it is important to study something of philosophy and logic or rhetoric: quite frankly people will give the most obtuse and confusing arguments to save their skins or prevent justice. Similarly people will abuse even the Scriptures by twisting their meaning and interpretation or by providing specious arguments that a person untrained in critical thinking would have the greatest difficulty overcoming. Indeed, widespread doubt has been sown in the West for centuries using sophistic arguments to either internally divide Christians (I mean Christians dividing Christians) or by secularists employing arguments against faith.<br /><br />Admittedly Aristotle's philosophy ought to be treated as one philosophy produced by one culture in a certain cultural and historic context; however, that does not mean he and his followers and those who later adopted and adapted his philosophy (Christians such as Saint Thomas Aquinas) did not hit at certain truths that agree with and in a sense give literally independent reason to consider and even adopt the Christian religion and faith.Timocratesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75027193404736891622018-10-09T21:29:36.785-07:002018-10-09T21:29:36.785-07:00I feel like I'm being slowly tortured and cons...I feel like I'm being slowly tortured and consumed and I don't know why. Currently the only explanation that makes sense to me is "the Lord's wrath." Please make it stop and give me peace.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60248028602543234622018-10-09T20:16:53.951-07:002018-10-09T20:16:53.951-07:00Hello Dr. Feser,
I just read Brian Davies's bo...Hello Dr. Feser,<br />I just read Brian Davies's book "Thomas Aquinas on God and Evil," and I was wondering if you can kindly make a post about the problem of evil considered from a Thomistic perspective? Would you say that given Davies' position, the entire business of looking for a morally sufficient reason is wrongheaded? Thank you very much.Ryannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13498706512444649952018-10-08T12:40:27.677-07:002018-10-08T12:40:27.677-07:00Prof Feser, could you recommend any recent books t...Prof Feser, could you recommend any recent books that reflect your current views as a traditionalist conservative/limited government conservative? I'm more or less on board with Ben Shapiro, but still learning - especially with regard to natural law/rights and common good. And confused by how to make sense of conservatism with all the talk of integralism, socialism, post-trump conservative decline etc. Thank youYoung Catholic Convertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76340094734937694712018-10-08T07:05:05.534-07:002018-10-08T07:05:05.534-07:00If 'reality' competes, then what is the &#...If 'reality' competes, then what is the 'environment' that 'selects'?TheIllusionisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17642837989235595346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77615668354712792012018-10-07T20:50:09.380-07:002018-10-07T20:50:09.380-07:00Tony, thanks for the clarification. It seems to me...Tony, thanks for the clarification. It seems to me that these cases are not specifically religious though.<br /><br />These could apply for days like New Year's Day and parking for sports certain sports events.Billyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14579200479132033014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71290353446570133842018-10-07T18:48:33.738-07:002018-10-07T18:48:33.738-07:00Awesome replies there Tony. Well done.Awesome replies there Tony. Well done.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32372769431411908232018-10-07T13:43:57.639-07:002018-10-07T13:43:57.639-07:00If I may play devil's advocate here: One advan...<i>If I may play devil's advocate here: One advantage of the multiverse theory for an atheist is that all possible universes are instantiated.</i><br /><br />Jonathan, this is only ONE of the varieties of "multiverse" that are hypothesized. There are others that don't hypothesize this. <br /><br />In any case, "possible" as in "all possible worlds" is not well-defined here. See my comment here: <br /><br />https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2018/09/10th-anniversary-open-thread.html?showComment=1538091253123#c915694575834877910<br /><br />Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86397404065616815622018-10-07T13:16:50.220-07:002018-10-07T13:16:50.220-07:00So, it should become a tyranny of the majority? If...<i>So, it should become a tyranny of the majority? If the majority religion recognises a tax on citizens who are not of said religion, does the government have an obligation to impose this tax? If they don't, they will be inadvertently accommodating the minority religions against the majority.</i> <br /><br />Billy, here is what I meant when I used "MUST" rather than "should". When 95% of the people are going to take Day X off for religious purposes as a holy day, and 1% are each going to take Day A, Day B, Day C, Day D, and Day E, the government may as well declare a national holiday for Day X, and there is no similar need for Days A through E. Even if it goes ahead and makes <i>allowance</i> for people who OTHERWISE would have to work on their holy day to take it as a special day of religious observance. <br /><br />Another (this actually used to happen in my hometown): On 6 days of the week, double-parking on a city street is illegal and will be ticketed. On Sunday morning, double parking is allowed within 2 blocks of the Catholic Church, which has insufficient local parking. The police even show up to help untie traffic. By and large the double parking doesn't block traffic significantly, because by and large the crowds are INSIDE the church and aren't being hampered by the limitation on lane space. The local Baptist church doesn't have much parking either, but there is no need to double-park because there aren't enough Baptists to clog the lanes. (Maybe in some southern town these roles are exactly reversed?) <br /><br />Both of these are reasonably understood as "accommodations" to the predominant religion simply because of its predominant status. But neither one is objectionable on "separation" or first amendment grounds. <br /><br />I am suggesting is that it is perfectly legitimate for a state to put these sorts of things into a formal, regularlized condition, so that the state treats the predominant religion as (at a minimum) the "first among equals" broadly across many spheres of activity. <br /><br />I recognize that this sort of thing would sit poorly as the operating standard in a <b>federal</b> regime in which the subsidiary states each had different predominant religions, or in which the population is highly pluralistic throughout. But remember that our First Amendment was perfectly well able to countenance that the individual states each had their own <b>established religion</b> when we started out in 1789. I am limiting the concept to a sovereign state that IS predominantly one religion. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70480967632452782802018-10-07T11:57:52.170-07:002018-10-07T11:57:52.170-07:00Son of Ya'Kov, thanks for some excellent comme...Son of Ya'Kov, thanks for some excellent comments and home truths. <br /><br /><i>That is an interesting idea but how would you pull it off? </i> <br /><br />I don't know for right now. I don't have a proposal. <br /><br />In 1946, the separation of of the Asian subcontinent into the two countries of India and Pakistan by religion <i>tried</i> to do it, but they did indeed have massive disruptions and injustices. Earlier in history, much of what had been the Holy Roman Empire managed to be effectively divided into states (or sub-states) that were mostly one form of Christianity, while their neighbors were another form. Admittedly, there were wars over this, but they were <i>between</i> states more than internal civil wars, and the primary divisions mostly occurred by reason of the top-down decisions of their princes. Mostly. I don't recommend this at this time. <br /><br /><i>Also we Catholics have to try to convert others to the Truth. If a Catholic State puts the kibosh on proselytizing within it's boarders would not the Prots States have to do the same? </i> <br /><br />I DO think there is a solution to this. First of all, recall the behavior of Christian missionaries when they were sent out to distant lands. More often than not, their initial attempt was to make contact with the reigning leader and make a case for Christianity, or at least to make a case for <i>permitting</i> the Christian missionaries to work in the region, to "set up shop". <br /><br />Secondly, remember too that Protestantism is a <i>deformity</i> of the true fullness of Christianity, which is found in Catholicism. As such, in principle Protestantism <i>does not</i> do well in a straight up fair comparison with Catholicism. As a historical matter, Protestantism initially had successes mostly where Catholicism had been badly deformed by degenerate practices, or where Protestant leaders used <i>unjust and improper</i> means of persuasion to get people confused about what the Church actually teaches. (Witness: the number of Protestants who STILL think that the Catholic Church worships Mary, or that the sale of indulgences is acceptable). <br /><br />Hence, as is conformable with Dignitatis Humanae, Catholic missionaries can quite happily be content with (a) allowing their efforts to take some time to go forward in a new culture (it doesn't have to get rolling today); and (b) allowing the naturally just and proper testimony of truth to support Catholic teaching, without unjust methods of persuasion (in addition to the support of miracles which God adds in his own Providence, but Dignitatis Humanae points out that <i>God has not stinted</i> in this respect). Thus Christian missionaries can accept a slow process of gaining acceptance for their proselytizing as being in accordance with the just demands of fair and honest persuasion, methods fitted to the proper human orientation to truth rightly embraced. Not all religions can claim the same. <br /><br />I think that the demands of religious liberty for Catholic missionaries moving into a non-Catholic country would be satisfied by the authorities demanding the Catholic missionaries submit to a series of examinations / tests / investigations by their leading lights in the local religion, i.e. in LIMITING the exposure to their "experts" and not to the general public, to allow God to make good on his power to enable the truth of His Light to shine forth. (Cf: Pharoah making Moses stack up against the priests of the Egyptian gods, with Moses coming out well on top. Same also with Isaiah and the priests of Baal.) And yes, a Catholic country should be willing to do the same in reverse to foreign missionaries of a different religion - for Catholicism will hold its own just fine in such a debate. Catholicism has <i>nothing to fear</i> from just and honorable means of persuasion in debate with others. And Catholic proselytizing can submit to a slow and orderly introduction to a culture, done with partial respect for that culture's existing norms (except, I guess for such horrific ones as the Aztec ritual mass murder). Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.com