tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post477205334452661504..comments2024-03-18T21:06:42.546-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Inaugural open threadEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger211125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7378456528422492017-06-23T19:16:13.463-07:002017-06-23T19:16:13.463-07:00Hi all! Does anyone know of any initiative that ai...Hi all! Does anyone know of any initiative that aims to harmonize Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy with traditional Chinese philosophy -- at least as regards ethics, social and political philosophy? By traditonal, I mean the likes of Confucius, Mencius, Lao Tzu, and others.<br /><br />For a start I've sensing Thomistic philosophy is gaining good ground.<br /><br />http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/12/14165/<br />http://summatheologiae.studium-piusx.org/ <br /><br />I believe initiatives to reach out to the Chinese are really important, as China seems poised as an emerging political and intellectual power, not to mention their ever broadening sphere of influence in Asia. Hope you guys could help me out! Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04846055498202862359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44453853741541446402017-06-22T20:10:21.304-07:002017-06-22T20:10:21.304-07:00Your post has really touched me. Your selfless ca...Your post has really touched me. Your selfless care for him will become clear to him. At some point, he may ask why you are caring for him. Maybe then you could point to our Lord God who loves and cares for him more than even you and your wife do. Blessings. Sandyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10886798929047398733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60995503668983956412017-06-19T15:06:28.467-07:002017-06-19T15:06:28.467-07:00Hi Dr. Feser,
In chapter 13 of the Summa Contra G...Hi Dr. Feser,<br /><br />In chapter 13 of the Summa Contra Gentiles, Aquinas rehearses two arguments against an infinite per se causal series. Although you've discussed the second argument at length, I've recently become interested in the first argument Aquinas presents, to the effect that an infinite per se causal series would entail the absurdity of infinite motion in a finite time. That infinite motion in finite time is *in fact* absurd is said to have been demonstrated by Aristotle in the Physics, book 6.<br /><br />Could you recommend a resource where this demonstration is further developed or commented on? The impossibility of infinite motion in finite time seems intuitively plausible. But I can't wrap my head around Aristotle's demonstration in a manner that doesn't appear clearly mistaken. <br /><br />In particular, consider the claim, "For if we take a part which shall be a measure of the whole time, in this part a certain fraction, not the whole, of the magnitude will be traversed, because we assume that the traversing of the whole occupies all the time" (Physics VI, chapter 7). This line seems eerily reminiscent of Leibniz's argument against infinite wholes, which (as I understand) Russell refuted in his Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy.<br /><br />Granted, Leibniz is not Aristotle, and the two shouldn't be conflated. Still, it's hard to see what _else_ Aristotle could be getting at here. Any thoughts or pointers would be great!<br /><br />Peace,<br /><br />DougDoughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13913416161990493841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7047491156766893362017-05-18T02:53:34.206-07:002017-05-18T02:53:34.206-07:00Dear Dr. Feser, I am a "beginner philosopher&...Dear Dr. Feser, I am a "beginner philosopher" and, at the moment, I consider myself "platonic" or belonging to "realist phenomenology" but intent on learning the foundations of the Aristotelico-Tomista school. I'm reading, with great interest and good fun, his book "The Last Superstition". In the first chapter on Aristotle it is said that "the form abstract of matter exists only in the intellect", this does not seem like a form (forgive me the word game but I'm an italian too dependent on the google translator) of conceptualism? Grazie for the great work!Theophiliushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01950090517602251638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66131848729936711292017-05-09T08:55:35.082-07:002017-05-09T08:55:35.082-07:00I would add Norman Geisler can't be seen as Ca...I would add Norman Geisler can't be seen as Calvinist, even if he believes is one :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7724368908803337692017-04-30T06:51:10.999-07:002017-04-30T06:51:10.999-07:00That's logical of course. Conversion to the Ca...That's logical of course. Conversion to the Catholic faith is different for different people though. Most people probably have very false notions of philosophy if any. We have to admit the volume runs 99% the wrong way when it come to philosophy. Historically, most have been converted by direct appeals to the faith. <br /><br />The Apostles simply said they had Great Tidings and a picture of the humanity through which God had chosen to speak to us and work redemption. <br /><br />I value the work of this blog and all good philosophy. Still, knowing God exists is not worshiping him. It is not religion, which is a relation and requires personality on both sides. While the Church will always insist that God's existence can be demonstrated rationally, and has been done, this is not to say that many have ever done it in ignorance of revelation (or indeed if any have ever done it free from error). <br /><br />Miguel Cervanteshttp://ordenbarroco.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75421557278614680932017-04-27T07:52:14.255-07:002017-04-27T07:52:14.255-07:00Perhaps we focus on general classical theistic apo...Perhaps we focus on general classical theistic apologetics first, before making the case for revealed religion. Getting many young people to a state of vulnerability where they will feel and admit a need of God will be a miracle in itself. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08964398048283535279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65405082023077339752017-04-21T15:36:04.111-07:002017-04-21T15:36:04.111-07:00" ‘Person’ signifies that which is most perfe..." ‘Person’ signifies that which is most perfect in all of nature, viz., that which subsists in a rational nature. Hence, since everything that involves perfection should be attributed to God—given that His essence contains within itself every perfection—it follows that the name ‘person’ is appropriately said of God. However, it is not said of God in exactly the same way in which it is said of creatures; rather, it is said of God in a more excellent way—just like the other names which, having been imposed by us on creatures, are attributed to God." <br />St. Thomas Aquinas.Miguel Cervanteshttp://ordenbarroco.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86427368100288422652017-04-21T12:33:21.342-07:002017-04-21T12:33:21.342-07:00I had a look at the exchange to which you refer. I...I had a look at the exchange to which you refer. It's difficult to believe that a Thomist blog seems to want to walk away from the idea of a personal God. To quote St. Thomas Aquinas:<br /><br />" ‘Person’ signifies that which is most perfect in all of nature, viz., that which subsists in a rational nature. Hence, since everything that involves perfection should be attributed to God—given that His essence contains within itself every perfection—it follows that the name ‘person’ is appropriately said of God. However, it is not said of God in exactly the same way in which it is said of creatures; rather, it is said of God in a more excellent way—just like the other names which, having been imposed by us on creatures, are attributed to God." If anyone errs on the side of anthropomorphism, it is enough to point it out. However any attempt at recruiting the Angelic Doctor to the ranks some kind of non-personalist "theism" is a hopeless cause. He worships the God of Moses.<br /><br />If some religious people have odd notions about God it would certainly not be the first time. If some philosophers also have strange ideas on the topic that wouldn't be news either (the history of philosophy seems to be that of a long trail of active minds with compulsive mistake syndrome - which is why I like St. Thomas so much as he demonstrated that when it comes to religion, philosophy is a great servant and a terrible master). The Church has used the term Persona since the earliest centuries. There are anathemas for rejecting it. Today when the main errors concerning the spiritual and religion revolve around rejecting or questioning a personal God, it's not the time to go soft. <br /><br />Thomistic philosophy is not part of any "classical theism versus theistic personalism" argument. When was this doctrine promulgated? Nor did St. Thomas Aquinas see his mission as continuing any Aristotelian "classical theism". He did celebrate Aristotle's feat in describing the contours and necessity of something he could only grope for in the dark, but celebrated even more the possibility of revealing the technicolor picture given to us through the history of God speaking directly to mankind. Yes, Aristotle's God is not very personal, not being spoken to and not speaking to those "it" sustains. But what has that got to do with Thomism or the Church?Miguel Cervanteshttp://ordenbarroco.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11453712756768286832017-04-18T17:43:52.554-07:002017-04-18T17:43:52.554-07:00I am a young reader with a series of questions abo...I am a young reader with a series of questions about celibacy. I am also a brazillian reader which means it will take a while before I can get my hands in one of Prof. Feser's books and see if they have been answered already.<br /><br />1. Is it a moral choice if a homosexual person chooses to abstain from sexual relations (this is a valid question, I think, to anyone dealing with a not straight sexual orientation) and live her life dedicated to other things? Or should said person marry another even if not sexually attracted to him/her? <br />2. Is celibacy only permissible if one decides to become part of the clergy?<br />3. Is it immoral for an unmarried or celibate person to make use of herbs like Vitex agnus-casta (chasteberry) or others to keep sex drive at a minimum? <br />4. What does natural law has to say about some other substances such as calming teas, tobacco or even marijuana?<br />5. If the use of certain substances to decrease stress is morally permissible, why isn't the same thing true to the occasional masturbation (even if one can do it without ejaculating - this exists)?<br />6- Are there any moral implications if a Thomist or a Catholic decides to be friends with a gay, or an atheist, or an atheist gay?<br /><br />Boy, these questions sound weird. But I'd really appreciate if somebody would answer.Luis Takahashihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07956108466431212995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69895698023944051922017-04-18T11:53:05.161-07:002017-04-18T11:53:05.161-07:00Dear Dr. Feser,
I have just finished reading ...Dear Dr. Feser,<br /><br /> I have just finished reading your essay on the defense "Old Natural Law", and your books "The Last Superstition" and I am currently reading "Aquinas: A Beginner's guide". I am Catholic and these books are really helping me defend God and coming to understand it more rationally. The reason I comment is I enjoy looking at the other point of view and argument just so I can feel better at my position. I Looked at this one atheist website called "Atheism and the City" and the mans review of TLS. I am wondering if you can answer some his objections or if anyone else from this website can. The author of the website says that evoultion of the penis and its shape dismantles Edward Feser's Catholic Sexual Morality argument for final causes. The penis is shaped that way so it is able to beat out sperm of other men who had sex before. Since I don't have a great understanding all of this, I need an explanation of why he is wrong. Thank you for all your work you have done so far. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65127705980398605692017-04-15T05:04:38.787-07:002017-04-15T05:04:38.787-07:00I should add that, among contemporary Protestant t...I should add that, among contemporary Protestant theologians, there are two who are classical theists and admirers of Thomas Aquinas' philosophical theology (though, obviously, not of his Catholicism): Dr. Norman Geisler and Dr. R.C. Sproul. Interestingly, each of the individuals I've mentioned (in this post and the last) seem to have been Calvinists of one or another variety. The Augsburg Confession (1530), the Lutheran confession, also affirms classical theism. So Lutheran, Calvinist and Baptist theologies are all explicitly adherent to classical theism. Isaac Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16937401369944406640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2268453726775989032017-04-15T04:33:10.897-07:002017-04-15T04:33:10.897-07:00I have recently been re-reading Dr. Feser's ex...I have recently been re-reading Dr. Feser's exchange with Stephen Law (and others) as regards classical theism, theistic personalism and, particularly,the issue of whether classical theism has been the mainstream view of God in in theology. Dr. Feser noted that classical theism is the mainstream view within Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, but there seemed to be some question as to whether this has also been the mainstream view within Protestantism. Law and Co. seemed to be exploiting this loophole a little by implying that classical theism is a bit geriatric to be taken seriously. More out of curiosity than anything (I m not a Christian myself), I've done some research and found that classical theism is also the mainstream view among major Protestant theologians, as well, insofar as one might regard view as 'mainstream' within Protestantism. John Calvin was definitely a classical theist, and one of the most influential Protestant thinkers of all time. Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge and B.B. Warfield (three of the greatest theologians to come out of Princeton University) were all classical theists, though Warfield and Hodge seem to be more influenced by Cartesian epistemology that Scholasticism. Furthermore, classic doctrinal statements of Protestantism, such as the Belgic Confession (1561), the Westminster Confession (1646) and the Baptist Confession (1689) also assert the classical theistic view of God. So, within Protestantism, as well as within Orthodoxy and Catholicism, classical theism has been the mainstream view right up until the beginning of the twentieth century. I suspect that the reason for the rise of theistic personalism within Protestant churches is because, in the twentieth century particularly, focus on Confessions or statements of faith declined dramatically - in favour of a more populist preaching. The Charismatic churches, and the prosperity gospel churches, which are incredibly popular and influential (even subtly influencing versions of Protestantism that reject both explicitly), don't really focus on careful indoctrination in the Christian faith, relying on emotion, and even regarding 'indoctrination' as a kind of brainwashing. This is not true of all Protestant churches, but it seems to be true of 'mainstream' churches or megachurches. In such an emotion-controlled atmosphere, it is not surprising that there is an emphasis on God as 'like us', and a rejection of philosophical descriptions of God as 'inhuman' - and therefore not appealing.Isaac Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16937401369944406640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-600399313210681422017-04-14T10:04:08.281-07:002017-04-14T10:04:08.281-07:00Dear Prof. Feser,
I have greatly enjoyed reading ...Dear Prof. Feser,<br /><br />I have greatly enjoyed reading your blog and your book Philosophy of Mind. I am about to order The Last Superstition. For someone unacquainted with medieval and ancient philosophy and their contemporary "revivals" this is all very fascinating to me.<br /><br />But there is one thing that I think you have, perhaps, not explored quite as much as might be warranted, namely the issue of drugs. It seems to me that you offer no justification for the categorical immorality of the use of certain substances. There are several reasons for why I see this as problematic:<br /><br />1.There is nothing inherently traditional about an anti-drug attitude. Indeed, banning intoxicating substances is actually a relatively modern phenomenon. And in several cases, it had more to do with the specific users and their background: For example, the laws against opium in late 19th century California were targeted against Chinese immigrants, and the reasons had more to do with economic and labor struggles than the drugs themselves. Same with the "cocaine negro fiend" stereotype and the Mexican pot smoker later on, not to mention the expanded war on drugs later on in the 60s and then later in the 80s. The point is, I see nothing in tradition, natural law or revealed religion to warrant the outright ban or the categorical condemnation of the use of any substances. Throughout most of human history, this would have seemed absurd to most people. Indeed, even in Victorian England, opium in oral form was legally available to everyone widely used for all sorts of purposes, while problematic use was actually at very low levels: Maybe this had something to do with the character of the people at the time?<br /><br />2.The issue of what a "drug" is in the first place. For example, we now know that, with the exception of alcohol, we already naturally produce opiates, cannabinoides, etc, which are actually very similar to those drugs that are ingested. So when someone is talking about drugs, there is usually much conceptual confusion.<br /><br />3.Perhaps the main issue is that *how* a drug is used is a lot more important than any essential characteristic of the drug itself. See, for example, Norman Zinberg's Drug, Set and Setting, where he described the drastically different consequences that can result even from the use of the same drug, depending on the individual and on the social context.<br /><br />Any thoughts on this?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3463537878449791652017-04-13T06:25:28.637-07:002017-04-13T06:25:28.637-07:00Thanks Tony,
I've got some reading to do! I w...Thanks Tony,<br /><br />I've got some reading to do! I wasn't aware of the nuances between nature, person, suppositum, hypostasis, etc. I have a dictionary of Scholastic philosophical terms and Dr. Feser's book on Aquinas sitting at home so hopefully I can 'decode' some of the section from the Summa that you linked to.<br /><br />I'm just beginning to glimpse the complexities involved with the incarnation. In order to understand what it means for God to become man, you first need to understand what it means for God to be God (something we can never fully do) as well as what it means for us to be human. Then you need to find some way to account for how those two things can become one while retaining the fullness of what they are separately. Quite a task indeed! As one of the central mysteries of the Christian faith, I should have assumed that it would be a very deep well.Matt H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14651084390473731094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21294483906241928712017-04-12T17:51:36.129-07:002017-04-12T17:51:36.129-07:00Matt, you can try St. Thomas's account of the ...Matt, you can try St. Thomas's account of the union. <br /><br />http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4002.htm<br /><br />Without pretending to speak for Thomas, certain things are clear, even though we cannot claim to comprehend this (it is a mystery, and we shouldn't expect to get too far). <br /><br />There is only one subsistence in Christ. Normally, when a human person is generated, there is a human subsistence and a human nature which is the nature of that individual person. (The definition of "person" is "an individual subsistence of a rational nature.") With the generation of Christ's humanity, though, instead of the creation of a new subsistence, Christ's already existing divine subsistence (the second Person of God) took on human nature. Hence Christ is <i>not</i> a human person, he is a divine Person, but in 2 natures. <br /><br />The amazing thing about the union is that both natures remain DISTINCT without remaining separated. Christ's human nature is full and complete: a human body and a human soul, with a human mind and will. That will has its proper acts, which are intimately joined to the acts of the Divine will, but distinct. <br /><br /><i>Whatever was in the human nature of Christ was moved at the bidding of the Divine will; yet it does not follow that in Christ there was no movement of the will proper to human nature, for the good wills of other saints are moved by God's will, "Who worketh" in them "both to will and to accomplish," as is written Philippians 2:13. For although the will cannot be inwardly moved by any creature, yet it can be moved inwardly by God, as was said in I:105:4. And thus, too, Christ by His human will followed the Divine will according to Psalm 39:9; "That I should do Thy will, O my God, I have desired it." Hence Augustine says (Contra Maxim. ii, 20): "Where the Son says to the Father, 'Not what I will, but what Thou willest,' what do you gain by adding your own words and saying 'He shows that His will was truly subject to His Father,' as if we denied that man's will ought to be subject to God's will?"</i> <br /><br />One aspect of this position is important for Christ as our example: it was necessary for Christ to be truly human, in order to set an ideal example for us. If by the union of humanity to the divine He became some <i>other kind of thing</i>, all we could say about his actions is that "they are proper for that sort of entity, but not necessarily for humans." But as he is in his human nature fully and entirely human, with human soul, intellect, will, sense, appetites and passions, his human actions speak directly to proper human behavior. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78767345857602680172017-04-12T10:28:41.363-07:002017-04-12T10:28:41.363-07:00Well, I can guess how Feser and other Thomists her...Well, I can guess how Feser and other Thomists here would respond to some of Carrier's points. His talk of universals as 'patterns', his dependence on cognitive science (with its talk of 'virtual models') his claim that reason is 'just computation', etc. I was hoping for their take on the way Carrier specifically makes his points.DrYogamihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08426423741048374038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10332183689516855972017-04-12T08:08:17.128-07:002017-04-12T08:08:17.128-07:00I think that my hang-up is probably centered on no...I think that my hang-up is probably centered on not having an understanding of what the hypostatic union is. If I’m getting this correctly, then it is ok to speak separately of the God and man aspects of the God-man without necessarily pulling the union apart. Divinity and humanity did not synthesize into some third category that is neither human nor Divine. Instead, they blended into something that is all at once both Divine and human. <br />This is hard for me to grasp or even know where to begin. It would seem that something that is both human and Divine would also be neither. But that is blatantly contradictory and leads me to assume that my understanding of any of the terms/factors in play here has not risen above my pre-analytic assumptions. Can someone recommend a good beginner’s resource for understanding the hypostatic union? If the answer is “start with a 101 course in theology and get to this stuff later” then that works too! <br />Matt H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14651084390473731094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22220751290461717542017-04-11T18:16:13.349-07:002017-04-11T18:16:13.349-07:00@ pity,
St. Augustine and St. Thomas account tha...@ pity, <br /><br />St. Augustine and St. Thomas account that Jesus had a human rational soul with a human intellect, as well as having the divine intellect: <br /><br /><i>On the contrary, Augustine [Fulgentius] says (De Fide ad Petrum xiv): "Firmly hold and nowise doubt that Christ the Son of God has true flesh and a rational soul of the same kind as ours,...<br />Secondly, it is inconsistent with the purpose of Incarnation, which is the justification of man from sin. For the human soul is not capable of sin nor of justifying grace except through the mind. Hence it was especially necessary for the mind to be assumed. Hence Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 6) that "the Word of God assumed a body and an intellectual and rational soul," </i> <br /><br />So, I think that in respect of His divine intellect, His wisdom is analogical to ours. In respect of His human intellect, His wisdom is said univocally with ours. It seems strange, but the mysterious hypostatic union keeps them straight. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19632292019498989572017-04-11T08:37:01.070-07:002017-04-11T08:37:01.070-07:00I’m wondering if anyone here can give me some feed...I’m wondering if anyone here can give me some feedback on some ideas that have crossed my mind that have to do with analogical predication and Jesus<br /><br />Here’s the basic thrust of it. When we speak of God properly, we acknowledge that what we say is true analogically and doesn’t apply to God in the same sense that it applies to us. So when I say that God is wise, what I really mean is that God has (or better, is) that which our wise-ness participates in. Whatever Divine wisdom is, it is not simply what we call wisdom multiplied by infinity. Now when I speak of Jesus, if I say that he is wise must I also be speaking analogically? I feel like I’m stuck with saying that Jesus is wise both univocally and analogically at the same time. It doesn’t feel right to say that he was wise univocally in his humanity and wise analogically in his divinity because that seems to tear the hypostatic union in two. <br /><br />I guess then that my basic question is what mode of predication do we use when we speak of Jesus as God-man? After that, I wonder what value there is in speaking of those aspects of Jesus that we can rightly speak of univocally. That the man Jesus was kind, wise, passionate, humble, etc. in our senses of the words must mean something (if indeed we can speak of him in those ways). At the least, the humanity of Jesus gives us something to relate to while we are under the limits of an earthly life.<br />Matt H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14651084390473731094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14089177791708630102017-04-11T07:12:15.817-07:002017-04-11T07:12:15.817-07:00Thanks for the link. "Argument from reason&q...Thanks for the link. "Argument from reason" is not based on sound reason, rather, a series of false assertions. Carrier does a fine job accounting for 9 propositions on the naturalistic view and then applies those accounts to show how the arguments from reason are thoroughly unsound.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76256351111580966722017-04-09T15:00:37.717-07:002017-04-09T15:00:37.717-07:00Dr. Feser,
I've got a question about death. M...Dr. Feser,<br /><br />I've got a question about death. Melissa Moschella wrote an interesting article in JMP in 2016 in which she argues that "total brain death" is death because it indicates the complete loss of the material basis for the capacity of self-integration and sentience, meaning that the body is no longer suitable for rational ensoulment. But as a Catholic, I can't help but hear the words of Pius XII regarding the neurological criteria for determination of death and cautioning physicians to err on the side of life. Moschella's argument makes sense, but I am not sure if it can sufficiently dispel the arguments against the neurological criteria based on reasonable doubt (the neurological criteria are debated by some within the medical community, albeit a smaller number than those who advocate for it). What are your thoughts on this?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15455152206320021271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54140067591836715262017-04-08T01:22:18.492-07:002017-04-08T01:22:18.492-07:00I can't say I agree with Tony, although I have...I can't say I agree with Tony, although I haven't read the entire thread. <br />An appeal to revulsion assumes that the persons would find something unpleasant, which they might not. This argument seems subjective. If you want to go down that line of argumentation I would appeal to the ends and consequences, but I wouldn't encourage this argument necessarily.<br />The argument I would use would be to do with the distinction of various types of relationships and their different dynamics based on modern research. I also am concerned about the redefinition of marriage because of how it will affect children, how it is an injustice in regards to a normal relationship with their natural parents and how many in the LGBT lobby only want to redefine marriage so as to use it as a legal hammer to harass anyone who dares to think outside of their worldview. Really if you look into the history of the whole redefinition of marriage the whole thing takes on a very sinister tone. Think about it, did they not have the same status with civil unions already? The claim becomes a bit odd wouldn't you say that they did not have "equality" when you consider that. Also equal dignity and sameness are two different things.Prime Matternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81777538569644672722017-04-08T01:07:54.316-07:002017-04-08T01:07:54.316-07:00ID is not a metaphysical claim despite its cosmolo...ID is not a metaphysical claim despite its cosmological ramifications. It is largely mathematical.<br />It is the intellect and reason that are immaterial, not all of what might be termed "mind" because A-T proponents do not deny that the brain has a real and necessary function in human cognition and sense experience. Although even material forms can act with some independence of matter. Prime Matternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87352385047171523472017-04-07T06:15:46.938-07:002017-04-07T06:15:46.938-07:00It'd be interesting to see the take on Richard...It'd be interesting to see the take on Richard Carrier's attack on Reppert's Argument from Reason<br /><br />https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/reppert.html#afmcDrYogamihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08426423741048374038noreply@blogger.com