tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post3757286807930642927..comments2024-03-28T03:20:15.940-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Review of HartEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger215125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15882198655540458152021-08-13T12:25:04.456-07:002021-08-13T12:25:04.456-07:00I agree, perhaps the Church should consider loosen...I agree, perhaps the Church should consider loosening its condemnation of transmigration. Not all will have grace in this life- why not give them another? This may seem naively simple on the face of it, but I've often found the rationalizations dismissing the possibility without deeper reflection to be convoluted.Koffeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11377583252113978393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27571418147418192252021-07-04T08:43:16.286-07:002021-07-04T08:43:16.286-07:00A propos your article how thomists see animals as ...A propos your article how thomists see animals as creatures that can't comprehend "abstract concepts, putting them together into complete thoughts, and reasoning logically from one thought to another", and you were asking for the papers on the subject. Well, there actually are papers and even books showing how elephants can grasp the concept of death, putting it into context, thinking about it, planning detours to literally cry over their dead ones bones, it's fascinating and very well documented. Not only elephants tho, there really are thousands of interesting papers documenting animal thinking patterns explicitly expressing their ability to not only grasp abstract, but to think about it subjectively and not only formulate a "complete thought", but run whole train of thoughts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10411266377623655222020-07-22T11:59:28.967-07:002020-07-22T11:59:28.967-07:00I think it's absurd to deviate from the probab...I think it's absurd to deviate from the probability judgment I presented. I think it's absurd to think God is equally attracted/disposed to both A and B, or that he wouldn't clearly prefer B over A. <br /><br />I think it would be absurd (very unreasonable or ridiculous) to think B is not the best option. Between getting a sinner to freely repent from his sins, be reformed, seek God and sainthood; and annihilating a sinner, I believe it's clear that it's much better to reform and have the sinner turned into a saint than having him annihilated. Disagreeing with this is absurd (very unreasonable or ridiculous) to me; I don't think an argument should be necessary (though it might be provided). Turning a sinner into a reformed saint is better than annihilating him. <br /><br />That being the case, and God being omnirational, I think it's very likely that God would always choose B over A whenever that option is available. Atnohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13138424784532839636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39212947123290281592020-07-22T11:36:04.731-07:002020-07-22T11:36:04.731-07:00I was wrong. The reply was from Dr. Hart was actua...I was wrong. The reply was from Dr. Hart was <i>actually</i> ad hominem, not bording on ad hominem. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82289933333229410462020-07-21T19:41:49.421-07:002020-07-21T19:41:49.421-07:00Thanks Atno.
If indeed God's objective is to ...Thanks Atno.<br /><br />If indeed God's objective is to create saintly persons and desires that all would become saintly persons even though God knows that how an individual uses his freewill could frustrate that desire, and if God has no obligation not to annihilate those who hardened themselves in selfishness through their freewill, why would such a siutation be absurd (absurd means very unreasonable or ridiculous) for God to annihilate the rest (simply by stopping to sustain their existence at some future time) while welcoming the saintly ones into the New Heavens and the New Earth?<br /><br /><br />Regards,<br />johannes hui reasonablehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14971948580051107601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11605094108727567012020-07-21T18:42:01.477-07:002020-07-21T18:42:01.477-07:00To simplify:
Imagine there is a person, whom we m...To simplify:<br /><br />Imagine there is a person, whom we might call Joe. Joe is a sinner, and God has the following options:<br /><br />A) God can annihilate Joe, ceasing to sustain him in existence; or<br />B) God can bring Joe to freely repent from his sins and choose to worship and love God, practice virtue, etc., so that God might eventually bring him to heaven for eternal bliss.<br /><br />I'm saying that when faced with these options, it's probable that God is very likely to choose B over A. God would rather reform and save sinners and turn them into saints than annihilate them. <br /><br />In conjunction with that, I am also saying that God (being maximally resourceful) has the means to go with B at least for the vast majority of people. Atnohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13138424784532839636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36102226755587964662020-07-21T13:59:01.645-07:002020-07-21T13:59:01.645-07:00Albinus wrote,
What about for the damned though? ...Albinus wrote,<br /><br /><i>What about for the damned though? What's preventing them from choosing God after their body is restored at the resurrection?</i><br /><br />I'm also curious about the Thomistic answer to your question.<br /><br />One simple answer could be this: God will be the same at the resurrection as He is now. If "the damned" didn't choose Him in this life, what would cause them to change hereafter?<br /><br />Of course, the premise here is that, in order to for a person to reject God, he or she must have some direct knowledge of Him, not second-hand or false teaching about Him. All men have some knowledge of God, and so no one can use ignorance as an excuse before the Judgment Seat.<br /><br />It is a pity. There are over 200 comments already, and we haven't touched upon the real substance of either side of the argument yet.Nemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15049785243711109947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23172304254953921282020-07-21T10:49:08.935-07:002020-07-21T10:49:08.935-07:00After DBH’s reply, guess Dianelos’ hope of product...After DBH’s reply, guess Dianelos’ hope of productive discussion won’t happen :D I have to side with Hart on this issue, the review showed complete lack of knowledge of the contents of the book (which I have read twice) and the closing remarks were terrible. Tuukkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03479296238025057029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20696199504231332642020-07-21T09:38:23.454-07:002020-07-21T09:38:23.454-07:00Oops! I see that Jon and Anonymous have beaten me ...Oops! I see that Jon and Anonymous have beaten me to it!Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65608740915307955032020-07-21T09:36:51.999-07:002020-07-21T09:36:51.999-07:00David Bentley Hart’s reply to Ed Feser’s review:
...David Bentley Hart’s reply to Ed Feser’s review:<br /><br />https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2020/07/21/the-edward-feser-algorithm-how-to-review-a-book-you-have-not-read/Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16749186403961113362020-07-21T08:21:08.731-07:002020-07-21T08:21:08.731-07:00Thanks Atno.
If indeed God's objective is to ...Thanks Atno.<br /><br />If indeed God's objective is to create saintly persons and desires that all would become saintly persons even though God knows that how an individual uses his freewill could frustrate that desire, and if God has no obligation not to annihilate those who hardened themselves in selfishness through their freewill, why would such a siutation be absurd (absurd means very unreasonable or ridiculous) for God to annihilate the rest (simply by stopping to sustain their existence at some future time) while welcoming the saintly ones into the New Heavens and the New Earth?<br /><br /><br />Regards,<br />johannes hui Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61002772482802469582020-07-21T08:10:53.471-07:002020-07-21T08:10:53.471-07:00https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2020/07/21/the-edwar...https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2020/07/21/the-edward-feser-algorithm-how-to-review-a-book-you-have-not-read/?fbclid=IwAR2kDFeHhgBHQqf7iFqgx2am9dYL0EQd1Rm_UGaOu7Nll2K80ETp12uodlwAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32000030862892031312020-07-21T06:34:11.381-07:002020-07-21T06:34:11.381-07:00https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2020/07/21/the-edwar...https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2020/07/21/the-edward-feser-algorithm-how-to-review-a-book-you-have-not-read/amp/?__twitter_impression=trueJonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09466709894410515608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29068949191556789982020-07-21T06:32:51.135-07:002020-07-21T06:32:51.135-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09466709894410515608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90781989602466631822020-07-20T14:07:57.629-07:002020-07-20T14:07:57.629-07:00Tony,
What about for the damned though? What's...Tony,<br />What about for the damned though? What's preventing them from choosing God after their body is restored at the resurrection?Albinushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03569576207090703708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62940316901806606292020-07-20T13:52:44.184-07:002020-07-20T13:52:44.184-07:00As I understand the Thomistic view: the human pers...As I understand the Thomistic view: the human person has a capacity for sense and imagination. In the <i>ordinary</i> working of that capacity, the body and soul cooperate to have a <i>functioning</i> sense or imagination. The eye has to work, and the retina, and the optical nerve, and the optical center of the brain for processing, AND the soul has to apply its faculty for seeing. For imagination, the brain is a necessary part of the normal function. When the person dies, there is no <i>normal</i> pathway available in which the dead person can see, or imagine. However, the <i>faculty of soul</i> remains. Therefore, God can, in the case of a saint (for example) enable the person to still function by using sight and imagination, by supernaturally providing the missing activity normally provided by the body. Thus a person in heaven or purgatory can see and hear and imagine because God sidesteps the lack of a body. The same applies to the person in Hell, I suppose, but I am not sure why God would apply a supernatural aid for them to see or imagine - though I suppose He can. <br /><br />There is a second reason a person in Heaven cannot sin, besides the lack of a body: once they have the Beatific Vision, seeing God "face to face", not through created forms and thus limited, but seeing Him as He really is in Himself, the saint then sees <i>in a way that cannot be hidden or not present to the mind</i> that there could not possibly be any better good than God, so it is impossible for the saint to avert his gaze to some other good as if it might be preferable. Once the human will is thus suffused with that which <i>manifestly</i> fulfills human desire in every possible way, there is no way for the human will to stray. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60374795342515250602020-07-20T11:27:45.034-07:002020-07-20T11:27:45.034-07:00Hart will respond, and I quote "DBH's res...Hart will respond, and I quote "DBH's response to Feser's review [snip] will be posted on Eclectic Orthodoxy either Tuesday or Wednesday". I really hope some productive discussion may issue. We are all theists and lovers of the truth. <br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1406563876043692592020-07-20T10:04:50.785-07:002020-07-20T10:04:50.785-07:00This is the dumbest review I have read of Hart'...This is the dumbest review I have read of Hart's book. Dianelos Georgoudis hits the nail on the head in the combox. I'm profoundly disappointed in Feser here. Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07986574890999225207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83033182506018081242020-07-20T08:50:42.317-07:002020-07-20T08:50:42.317-07:00LOL and now John Milbank has decided to show up an...LOL and now John Milbank has decided to show up and expose how radically "orthodox" he is too:<br /><br />https://twitter.com/johnmilbank3/status/1285068967883792385?s=19iwpoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17751879308012191778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73443004425735524632020-07-19T21:55:25.184-07:002020-07-19T21:55:25.184-07:00Salaah wrote,
"if any sort of good God exis...Salaah wrote, <br /><br /><i>"if any sort of good God exists, then "God is infinitely good and chose, in the absence of coercion or necessity, to create a world where he knew that certain of his creations would ultimately experience eternal agony" is almost certainly false" </i><br /><br />Conversely, if any sort of Justice exists, then the proposition that God would create a world where the innocent and the wicked are treated alike is certainly false. Hart’s notion of universal salvation, which proposes the same happy ending for Hitler and the victims of the Holocaust, is an outrage to all notions of justice known to men.<br /><br />Righteous indignation aside, if I understand him correctly, Hart is not arguing that people will not endure agony -- they may very endure agony for over a billion years, but the agony will eventually end. <br /><br />The obvious question then becomes: if punishment is immoral, why does God punish sinners at all? if it is moral, why is it immoral to punish unrepentant sinners for eternity?<br /><br /><i>people consistently doubt/reject/give up Christianity... How is this good fruit?</i><br /><br />The fact that many people reject the deity of Jesus doesn't prove that the Christian belief is wrong. In the same vein, just because many people give up Christianity because of certain teaching doesn't mean the latter is not true. After all, people are not the supreme arbiter of Truth, even whey they all agree, not to mention people disagree on these issues.Nemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15049785243711109947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66741875059731424872020-07-19T19:22:00.373-07:002020-07-19T19:22:00.373-07:00I've said it before, and I'll say it again...I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the amoral picture of God that some have defended based on Davies completely abandons analogical language in favor of equivocal language, and is a metaphysical mess. As Esmond put it, God is different in kind from men, but it is like this through being greater than man; by the very principle of proportionate causality all perfections in man must be present in God. Davies makes it seem as if God is entirely unlike the virtuous, however, which is nonsensical. <br /><br />(Also reminder that we need theodicy).Atnohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13138424784532839636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51208485608821490042020-07-19T13:12:46.090-07:002020-07-19T13:12:46.090-07:00Classical theism says that God is greater than man...Classical theism says that God is greater than man and of a different kind than man. Which is undoubtedly true.<br /><br />However, God is not <i>contrary to</i> man. <br /><br /><br />Ya'Kov, you are asserting the latter, and doing so renders all of theology vacuous. I am greater and of a different kind than a plant, but I am not contrary to a plant -- all the essential attributes of a plant are contained in me. Hart actually takes Davies to task in the book on this "not an ethical agent" point. It is a gross misunderstanding of classical theism.<br />Esmondnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4461175046059336352020-07-17T20:44:28.404-07:002020-07-17T20:44:28.404-07:00A few comments on the Catholic Herald article (I c...A few comments on the Catholic Herald article (I could say a lot more, but I will limit myself). "If we say that the punishment Christ threatens is not really everlasting, then we also have to say that the reward he promises – in the same breath, and using the same language – is not everlasting either". You know what, some universalists don't actually have a problem with that. Some universalists believe that the reward promised by Christ is not the ultimate final state of humanity, but rather a prelude, a preliminary, a preparation for it. If both heaven and hell are finite and temporary, then the later may be a detour that some take on the way to the former, with even the former just a journey, a passing, a passage on to something even greater. (I think that, maybe, heaven is in some form of time, and at its end we step out of time altogether and into eternity.)<br /><br />"The reason is that the intellect’s attention can be pulled away from what it judges to be good and worth pursuing only by the senses and imagination, and these go when the body goes" – if loss of the senses and imagination causes the will to become fixed, why wouldn't their subsequent restoration at the resurrection of the body cause the will to become unfixed? Also, should we really believe that the dead (whether saved or damned) are lacking in imagination until the bodily ressurection? And are the dead (whether saved or damned) awaiting bodily resurrection blind and deaf? My late grandmother used to tell me that once she died she hoped to be looking down on me from heaven; I don't think she meant that entirely literally – I am sure she didn't think heaven is literally up, that is just a figure of speech; I never asked her, but I guess she probably believed it was somehow beyond this physical universe – but I doubt any Thomist ever told her that she'd be without sensation or imagination either. I think many Christians believe the dead can "see" us, even if not with physical eyes, but a form of sensation nonetheless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73657166978793996932020-07-17T18:57:45.149-07:002020-07-17T18:57:45.149-07:00Why is it hard?Why is it hard?Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55432802442042293982020-07-17T16:47:54.963-07:002020-07-17T16:47:54.963-07:00This debate has been repeated among many blog site...This debate has been repeated among many blog sites. I fear that many of you are deeply infected by the heresies of the Enlightenment, Liberalism and the consequent rejection of the universal effects of Original Sin in every person born on earth, the main sin being "non serviam".<br /><br />One is surrounded by "nice", "good" people who live polite, civilised lives, many involved in "good works" through their whole lives. Yet, they will not serve. They have deep within their hearts the age-old rebellion against God. Even those who struggle through life in living with God, still have the scars of that rebellion - even the saints themselves.<br /><br />At death I can imagine a conversation between Our Lord and one of these "nice" souls. "I have done all these good works and have not committed any great sins". And Our Lord's answer? "You present me with an array of works as excuses, which I have given you the grace to do, and yet I have called you all your life to raise your heart to Me, to pray, to give up your enjoyments at least one day a week for Me, and you have refused Me. And right now you are still resisting the Sacrificial Love of the Cross for love of Me. Go, I do not know you!"<br /><br />So, this debate may be the wrong way around: few are chosen, many condemned. "Will I see faith on earth when I return?"Michael Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13585186138802946930noreply@blogger.com