tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post5555171730809107316..comments2024-03-28T13:39:03.094-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Davies on the New AtheismEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22148767869520430522023-11-22T20:57:27.127-08:002023-11-22T20:57:27.127-08:00Why? There’s no biblical or apostolic quotes to ba...Why? There’s no biblical or apostolic quotes to back this up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40530567647236821842023-11-22T20:46:04.454-08:002023-11-22T20:46:04.454-08:00Obscure, little known tradition almost no Jew or C...Obscure, little known tradition almost no Jew or Christian has ever heard of Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82509246025831866362010-08-14T03:51:04.231-07:002010-08-14T03:51:04.231-07:00Woah. Brian Davies is a Christian right?Woah. Brian Davies is a Christian right?awatkins909https://www.blogger.com/profile/04272494240109130737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90016892658311657282010-06-17T06:46:31.334-07:002010-06-17T06:46:31.334-07:00"Incidentally, at least some Thomist as early..."Incidentally, at least some Thomist as early as the 16th century (if not earlier) believed that lions, etc., would definitely have been carnivorous, even if Adam had not sinned."<br /><br />Aquinas himself believed this:<br /><br />"Reply to Objection 2. In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state, have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by man's sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon. Nor does Bede's gloss on Genesis 1:30, say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some. Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals. They would not, however, on this account have been excepted from the mastership of man: as neither at present are they for that reason excepted from the mastership of God, Whose Providence has ordained all this. Of this Providence man would have been the executor, as appears even now in regard to domestic animals, since fowls are given by men as food to the trained falcon."<br />http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1096.htm#article1Alphonsusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36004938889376014702010-06-09T12:20:29.191-07:002010-06-09T12:20:29.191-07:00Incidentally, at least some Thomist as early as th...Incidentally, at least some Thomist as early as the 16th century (if not earlier) believed that lions, etc., would definitely have been carnivorous, even if Adam had not sinned. So...that puts the new problematic of a "pre-lapsarian" animal suffering (?) in some perspective. They posited this theological perspective without any significant threat from "science" or "darwinism" or what have you.Gaetanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14722914942511761947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19848769503599146782010-06-04T02:07:39.039-07:002010-06-04T02:07:39.039-07:00Once again I have 86'd a combox thread! ;)Once again I have 86'd a combox thread! ;)Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60183281723269904612010-06-02T21:22:55.359-07:002010-06-02T21:22:55.359-07:00I found the following in a review of _God Is Good,...I found the following in a review of _God Is Good, God Is GReat_ at Amazon and thought it stated well the "new" in New Atheism: <br /><br />"Atheism is no longer simply about `not believing' in a God or an intelligent designer. New Atheism has arrived and it has gone on the offensive. Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and others are now not just refuting the existence of God, spirituality, heaven or hell, they are proclaiming the message that to believe in a God, or in intelligent design is irrational and dangerous. The only sure and true `truth' that can be relied upon is science."Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44322951775315521722010-06-02T20:52:47.673-07:002010-06-02T20:52:47.673-07:00"Anyone who does noy know that ALL creatures ..."Anyone who does noy know that ALL creatures have the same embodied emotions has not studied ethologists like Marc Bekoff and Alexandra Horowitz or biologists like Darwin and Damasio."<br /><br />If Bekoff or Damasio were to claim that 'all creatures' have the same emotions, it would be time to strip them of their degrees and remove them from their academic posts. Even supposing that your use of 'creature' is non-theological, but means more or less 'animal,' the claim is still as obviously false as any empirical claim could be. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that ants have the same emotions that dogs, apes, or chickens do -- it seems hardly plausible to maintain that ants have any emotions at all. Nor would any serious theorist of the emotions maintain that even higher mammals all have 'the same' emotions -- even those who (controversially, though you wouldn't know it from Bekoff or Damasio, with their pretensions to scientific authority; but just read a good collection of essays on the emotions, e.g., Solomon's <i>Thinking about Feeling</i> for a sense of the real range of views on emotions) attribute extremely complex emotional states to dogs, for example, would generally acknowledge that there are kinds of emotion that those animals cannot experience because their conceptual capacities are not so developed as humans'. <br /><br />Your claim is only slightly less ridiculous than the sentimental cry that "all living things feel pain." Plants are alive; there is no reason to think they feel pain. There are reasons to doubt that many animals do, as well. I am extremely sympathetic to your basic point here, but it does you no service to cast it in ridiculously false terms.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67106950243314141152010-06-02T14:48:30.058-07:002010-06-02T14:48:30.058-07:00Vincent,
You're a pleasure to converse with e...Vincent,<br /><br />You're a pleasure to converse with even when someone disagrees with you. Highest compliments to your civility as well as your manner of reasoning.<br /><br />Incidentally - I also really enjoy your apologetics page. Why isn't it linked off your main webpage? I stumbled across it while googling once, and it seems like you'd want to make it more easily available given the effort you've put into it.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48784068790216108432010-06-02T14:40:13.265-07:002010-06-02T14:40:13.265-07:00Crude,
Thanks for your post. You asked:
"Wo...Crude,<br /><br />Thanks for your post. You asked:<br /><br />"Would you prefer a God who forbade terror and/or grief from ever occurring - despite His being able to, ultimately, soothe and save the terrified and console the grieving - and thereby render such beings as unworthy of existence? Because oddly, that seems to be the vastly less just option."<br /><br />You make an excellent point. I guess I would say that if terror and grief can be healed, then they don't make the Problem of Evil insoluble. What bothers me more is the notion of irreparable emotional harm. Two anecdotes about cats will suffice to illustrate my point.<br /><br />(1) My Masters supervisor used to own a cat. He then acquired a snake - a python, I think. One evening, the snake surprised the cat when it suddenly shot up, towering over the cat. The cat got such a fright that its spine got permanently locked into one position, making it unable to run or walk properly again. The cat, I have heard, was never the same after that - it seemed to have been permanently traumatized by the experience.<br /><br />(2) A cousin of mine owned a female cat that used to sleep outdoors at night. One night, she was savaged to death by three neighborhood dogs that attacked her from all sides. Think of the cat's terror in its final moments, and you'll see what I mean. What a way to go.<br /><br />In an earlier post, I mentioned grief in elephants. What if the mother had pined to death, for instance, after the loss of her calf? That would be another case of irreparable harm, on an emotional level.<br /><br />That's why Codgitator's article, "The Groaning of Creation: God, Evolution, and the Problem of Evil" at<br />http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7049/is_1_61/ai_n31375133/ struck me as interesting. Perhaps God can heal these wounds, after all. <br /><br />Codgitator: <br /><br />Thank you very much for your last post. What you wrote about the Fall is similar to what Professor William Dembski discussed in his recent book, "The End of Christianity," so it made perfect sense to me. I'm also inclined to believe that the Fall of Adam had retroactive repercussions.<br /><br />I'd just like to thank Crude and Codgitator for the interesting exchange of ideas.Vincent Torleyhttp://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/index.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48112690500492383122010-06-02T02:54:43.020-07:002010-06-02T02:54:43.020-07:00Unlike someone who claims an intimate love relatio...Unlike someone who claims an intimate love relationship with God, but cannot describe anything of it, I can have a deep mutually affectionate life with my dogs, explain what it is like, and be understood by another.<br /><br />Stephen Webb wrote his book on the theology of the peaceable kingdom in response to his heartfelt companionship with his dog. <br /><br />Anyone who does noy know that ALL creatures have the same embodied emotions has not studied ethologists like Marc Bekoff and Alexandra Horowitz or biologists like Darwin and Damasio. <br /><br />JP II had a deep affection for creatures that went hand-in-hand with his phenomenological views of the body and its relatedness to nature. His theology of the body and Merleau-Ponty's focus on the same are inevitable consequences of our shared body structures with all creatures.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12395288730554564972010-06-02T02:14:11.047-07:002010-06-02T02:14:11.047-07:00Sorry, Vincent, not Victor!Sorry, Vincent, not Victor!Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90748585000251241572010-06-02T02:13:37.300-07:002010-06-02T02:13:37.300-07:00Victor T.:
Without, alas, replying to your quest...Victor T.: <br /><br />Without, alas, replying to your questions specifically or in any great detail, I want to present once more my Keefian-patristic "hermeutical" lens for all such questions. If we (all) don't get clear on our basic theological modus operandi, we're just talking past each other. “Not that there’s anything wrong with that…” heheh<br /><br />The profoundest meaning of creation in Christian revelation is not that it is an autonomous canvas on which God creates the rest of the world (like an eternal chessboard with movable and interchangeable pieces), but that the Fall was <i>a metaphysical dimension of the creation itself by the primal free defection of Adam</i>, as the metaphysical <i>prime analogate</i> for all mankind (mankind which is, in turn, the microcosmal prime analogate of creation itself). Adam's nature was based on and active IN CHRIST and his sin was therefore against the Logos in the one creation wrought by that same Word. Original sin means that the same metaphysical, and therefore transtemporal, loss of beatitude is active in us in our very constitution, which is also rooted in Christ and thus also an (Adamic) deviation from Him. Hence, original sin is not so much a bill of goods we all sign when we are born, but more like a harmonic/holographic defect in our constitution which reverberates throughout our being and the rest of the world into/out-of which we are created. <br /><br />The point is that the metaphysical order of Adam-in-Christ determines, in an omnitemporal, universal way, the whole scope of manifest activities in creation (i.e., the concrete horrors and woes we are discussing). You could loosely imagine the problem as being 'metaphysically retroactive', in the sense that Adam's corruption of creation, as its head, extended 'backward' from a metaphysical vantage/pivot point to corrupt all of creation in a secondarily temporal way. In the fundamentalist conception, Adam was created at time t1, fell at time t2, and then everything went to shit as we now know it (t2+n). But a theology cognizant of real archeology and basic biological exigencies (the like of which we are discussing), is enabled to see how the ugly pre-history of the world is a reflection of the immanent (not subsequent!) fallenness of creation in Adam-in-Christ. This does not mean that the Church waited for science to give it a sounder exegesis, but it does mean certain exegeses are much less viable insofar as theology seeks the harmony of all truth. Indeed, in a way, it took various sciences this long to catch up with the patristic, cosmic exegesis of creation, but that is a historical point. The philosophical-theological point of interest is that “the world as we know it”, in its temporal and biological lineaments, <i>is but a function of the world as created in Christ and then corrupted by Adam in a timeless metaphysical ‘instant’.</i> Had Adam not fallen ab origine (metaphysically, not temporally speaking), biological pre-history would indeed look like we seem to want it to look: idyllic and vegan. Since Adam’s fall reverberates in a (rectilinear) metaphysical way for all of creation, however, life history looks much more, well, fallen. This is not to collapse creation in to redemption, but it is to find them both rooted in Christ and the primal “encounter” between mankind in Adam and Christ in Adam. <br /><br />Does this make any sense? <br /><br />Best,Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48201803356959543522010-06-02T01:13:44.897-07:002010-06-02T01:13:44.897-07:00VJTorley,
My own thoughts: To 1 and 2, qualified ...VJTorley,<br /><br />My own thoughts: To 1 and 2, qualified yeses. Yes, someone can write that horses 'whinny with terror'. I just finished playing a round of Team Fortress 2, where the characters in game begged and pleaded for someone to extinguish them, since they were engulfed in flames. Was there misery there?<br /><br />Note that I'm not outright denying that there is something going on mentally with a horse or an elephant involving thought, or pain, or possibly other emotions. At the same time, I'm not going to accept that elephants feel grief, horses terror, or animals companionship just because an author is capable of writing that this was their impression, or because even I myself am capable of projecting this onto an animal's behavior. People can project a lot of things - like how earthquakes and volcanoes are nature or earth itself taking revenge against humanity.<br /><br />But that aside, I have no problem accepting grief and terror as part of God's plan for creation, inasmuch as these things are meant to be experienced yet ultimately extinguished. The alternative is to embrace the idea of a God who would never allow pained, grieving, or terrified creatures into existence to begin with, despite all these horrors being things God could triumph over.<br /><br />So I'd have to ask a question right back at you: Would you prefer a God who forbade terror and/or grief from ever occurring - despite His being able to, ultimately, soothe and save the terrified and console the grieving - and thereby render such beings as unworthy of existence? Because oddly, that seems to be the vastly less just option.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71787443521296905142010-06-02T00:05:22.012-07:002010-06-02T00:05:22.012-07:00Codgitator,
Thank you very much for the links. I&...Codgitator,<br /><br />Thank you very much for the links. I'd like to ask people for their thoughts on the following issues which were raised in the article, "The carnivorous nature and suffering of animals" by Robert Gurney at http://creation.com/the-carnivorous-nature-and-suffering-of-animals :<br /><br />(1) Is terror part of God's original plan for His animal creation? I believe Charles Darwin wrote that herds of horses, when surrounded by packs of wolves, whinny with terror - presumably because they know what's coming! Pain I can understand as part of God's plan, but what about terror? <br /><br />(2) Are grief and distress part of God's original plan for His animal creation? The author of the article writes that elephants show signs of severe grief and distress when their young are killed by predators. Is this grief part of God's plan? <br /><br />What do people think?<br /><br />To those who are inclined to deny that animals are capable of feeling such emotions: would you also accept that pets are, by the same token, incapable of enjoying the companionship of their owners (companionship being something even more sophisticated than terror and grief), and that friendship their owners claim to enjoy with them is therefore an illusion - which means that owing a pet is basically a waste of time and a waste of love? What are your thoughts on this matter?Vincent Torleyhttp://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/index.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6169108427031443472010-06-01T21:43:46.845-07:002010-06-01T21:43:46.845-07:00A few links for fresh blood:
"The Groaning ...A few links for fresh blood: <br /><br />"The Groaning of Creation: God, Evolution, and the Problem of Evil": <br />http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7049/is_1_61/ai_n31375133/ <br /><br />"Darwinism, Animal Suffering and Theology": http://theologicalscribbles.blogspot.com/2008/11/darwinism-animal-suffering-and-theology.html<br /><br />Dr. W. L. Craig on Animal Suffering: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7215<br /><br />"The carnivorous nature and suffering of animals": http://creation.com/the-carnivorous-nature-and-suffering-of-animals<br /><br />"Creation, suffering and the problem of evil": http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i3/suffering.asp<br /><br />To reiterate what I said about a "Keefian" reading of this dilemma, I would like to say again that "the good creation" is IN CHRIST and is to be judged by its pristine metaphysical origin in Him as the Creative Word, not on the basis of how much animal pain allegedly "preceded" Him. His immanence in the world suffuses all spacetime and is radically and wholly present in the Eucharist, which is itself the human mode of encountering creation, which is an eternally present act of the One God by the One Word in the One Flesh. Christ was not "deployed" after a few million years to "rectify" the "horrors" God was "watching take place." Rather, the animal pain and entropy we are discussing is inscribed in the very Flesh of the Incarnate Word IN THE PRESENT IN EVERY EUCHARIST (which is of course one with Calvary AND with the descent of the Creative Spirit on a chaotic material world). His redemption informs the very world out of which, presumably, His earthly lineage/linemanets evolved, but at the same time, His divine power as the Logos grounds both the creation and redemption of that same world in one act of the One Flesh. That's awfully dense, I know, but, again, you can search my blog (Keefe, Keefian) for more details and, better yet, read Fr. Keefe's _Covenantal Theology_. <br /><br />Best,Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1762044233285118712010-06-01T20:12:01.534-07:002010-06-01T20:12:01.534-07:00Cheers Warren.:-)Cheers Warren.:-)BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7028798616920768062010-06-01T20:08:38.422-07:002010-06-01T20:08:38.422-07:00BY,
I must say that I'm really impressed to s...BY,<br /><br />I must say that I'm really impressed to see a Thomist who mentions Azathoth.... :-)Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13623170987747998335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84014218380123328872010-06-01T19:35:51.884-07:002010-06-01T19:35:51.884-07:00Of course if I may anticipate a rejoinder. Some s...Of course if I may anticipate a rejoinder. Some smartypants might ask "How would you like it if you only had a mortal sensitive soul & knew you would not go to Heaven"?<br /><br />To which I reply "Well then there would not really be a `Me' to object to this alleged shabby treatment on the part of the Deity nor would I have an intellect to contemplate that fact".BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4156463721069373832010-06-01T19:31:44.406-07:002010-06-01T19:31:44.406-07:00>your notion is not only cruel...
I reply: I r...>your notion is not only cruel...<br /><br />I reply: I really cannot fathom how the Thomistic view can be seen as cruel(I assume cruel to animals). It seems to me it is a mercy that animals do not have rational souls & therefore do not experience suffering the way beings with rational souls do. This is because their suffering would be metaphysically & conceptually increased by an order of magnitude. Plus add to that animals are not regarded as having an Afterlife because their souls are mortal. That is just insult to injury.<br /> So it seems to me if all that where true it would really make God out to be a monster. A Maltheistic Azathoth like deity who created animals to suffer as we humans do & deny them eternal life to boot. Yikes!<br /><br />How much better they have mere mortal sensitive souls without intellect so their suffering is no more than matter being damaged by matter. It's a kindness.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72647248681514400182010-06-01T19:20:14.787-07:002010-06-01T19:20:14.787-07:00>He did not bring up immortality. Sometimes, to...>He did not bring up immortality. Sometimes, to be progressive, a large institution moves slowly and ambiguously. Leaders and CEO's of this big outfits are notorious for couching their message for fear of being understood.<br /><br />I reply: So in effect he didn't teach anything that contradicts the A-T narrative. At this point IMHO you are exercising a little bit of wishful thinking. But it is clear to me that your initial claim has no substance.<br /><br />>I believe he is using early O.T. to ground his theology that the souls of all creatures are alike.<br /><br />I reply: Catholics historically & unanimously believe doctrine should be formulated using both Scripture & Tradition not Scripture Alone. Thus it seems very unlikely the late Pope (who is a Thomist in his own right) would formulate such a novelty based on the OT alone.<br /><br />>This predates the A-T description of a 2-souled cow and a 3-souled man. (And that unfortunate angel on your shoulder who, alas, has but 1 soul).<br /><br />I reply: Catholics believe in the Development of doctrine and not the retrograding of doctrine. I'm sorry but if I read Rabbi Kaplan or Rabbi Ari Khan reason dictates I should understand their words from the perspective of Halakhah(i.e. the Traditional rules of Jewish interpretation). Given that John Paul II of happy memory was a member of the Lublin Thomist school of thought his words logically should be seen in that light & not according to your personal novelties.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47889325698003859292010-06-01T16:56:40.905-07:002010-06-01T16:56:40.905-07:00"How is it possible to be so certain of such ..."How is it possible to be so certain of such theological specifics as how all kinds of A/T souls function now and in eternity, but you are not able to explain what is is like to have a oersonal experience of God?"<br /><br />That is like saying "How is it possible to be so certain of fifth dimensional object and flux across them, but you are not able to count all prime numbers?"Woppodienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9002224175425676432010-06-01T16:19:45.548-07:002010-06-01T16:19:45.548-07:00TheOF
How is it possible to be so certain of such...TheOF<br /><br />How is it possible to be so certain of such theological specifics as how all kinds of A/T souls function now and in eternity, but you are not able to explain what is is like to have a oersonal experience of God?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59464252371586497272010-06-01T14:40:26.055-07:002010-06-01T14:40:26.055-07:00Anon seems to think that the soul is a substance i...Anon seems to think that the soul is a substance in itself; but it is a form conjoined to a material in an act of existence. If triangles were alive, Chastek once wrote, "geometric figure" would be its body and "three-sided" would be its soul. Would the three-sidedness of =this= triangle persist if the geometric figure were obliterated? <br /><br />Even the human soul perishes for the most part, since the human soul includes the inanimate form [gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear, and radiative powers], the vegetative soul [homeostatic, growth/development, metabolic, and reproductive powers], and sensitive [animal] soul [sensitive, perceptive, emotional, and motive powers]. All these perish since they are anchored in matter. The portion of the soul that survives is the rational soul. This does not mean the power to resolve syllogisms. It means the ability to form conceptions [by reflecting on perceptions] and to desire these products of the intellect.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8777029796491928312010-06-01T12:23:02.370-07:002010-06-01T12:23:02.370-07:00I believe he is using early O.T. to ground his the...I believe he is using early O.T. to ground his theology that the souls of all creatures are alike.<br /><br />This predates the A-T description of a 2-souled cow and a 3-souled man. (And that unfortunate angel on your shoulder who, alas, has but 1 soul).<br /><br />He did not bring up immortality. Sometimes, to be progressive, a large institution moves slowly and ambiguously. Leaders and CEO's of this big outfits are notorious for couching their message for fear of being understood.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com