tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post5711220859220824969..comments2024-03-28T12:18:51.521-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: The best New Atheist book?Edward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger166125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37366147550541161002019-02-08T09:51:33.220-08:002019-02-08T09:51:33.220-08:00"Berkeley did deny the existence of material ..."Berkeley did deny the existence of material objects"<br />Sigh. No he didn't.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84415551698939761022018-03-01T18:33:01.219-08:002018-03-01T18:33:01.219-08:00All the logic arguments of any merit are on the si...All the logic arguments of any merit are on the side of Theism - and that's precisely what we would expect given that percentage wise virtually every human being that had ever lived believed in Deity in one form or another. <br />In Christianity we do have historical evidence that essentially overthrew the Roman empire. It was as 3 Guatemalans rowed up on the shores of the United States and proclaimed "Lupa" rose from the dead and we just dropped our century's old beliefs & started worshiping a Guatemalan we never even seen. <br />If you put all the reasons together for atheism - which seem to be just enough to convince just about no one, comparably speaking ,(it's retention rate is what-15%?), who is gonna reveal truth to an atheist--a clump of dirt? Billions say a fact has been placed directly into their thoughts that cannot be unbelieved when they asked God for the truth. No one is claiming that qualifies us as winning the meaningless daily challenge to provide entertainment for the New Atheist. But it's not nothing. Certainly not less than Krauss'nothing ;). People like him not only misrepresent their own arguments but intentionally or through blind bias misrepresent the full basis for our beliefs. Consistently acting like we believe in an old man the sky or we're stupid or we have no good reasons are just new atheists way of lying to themselves to pad their convictions<br /><br />I think it's important to acknowledge this isn't a game for us. John Burgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06021462296956618398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77582385305217050522018-01-28T14:23:26.595-08:002018-01-28T14:23:26.595-08:00Ed, I'm reading your petulant review of Coyne ...Ed, I'm reading your petulant review of Coyne that you linked here. You take issue with how he defines faith as "belief without—or in the face of—evidence", but surely you know that that's a fair description of how many people believe. It would not be difficult to furnish you with examples. <br /><br />Simply put, when you say in the review that for scholastic theologians faith is assent to something that has been revealed by God" you seem to think you've got Coyne over a barrel. But the sad irony is "something that has been revealed by God" is itself a faith claim. <br /><br />It's also noticeable that in reviewing the book all about faith versus fact, you don't touch the subject itself with a barge pole. You don't commit yourself to saying "of course the Immaculate Conception is fact and not post hoc rationalization", for example. Any bare minimum of intellectual honesty should bring you to conclude there are many things -- many alleged revelations -- you do believe on faith. That is, things you believe without evidence. Saying you give assent to the IC because you believe the was "revealed by God" would be making Coyne's point. You don't have evidence the IC was revealed by God. The "Treasury of Merit" too seems like a theological Band-Aid unknown in the early church. To believe it is "revealed by God", but have no evidence for that, is to be guilty of what you rail against. You say he attacks a straw man, but it's a fair description of your belief that things are revealed by God. You even tacitly admit that you can't substantiate every (or any?) claim of revelation beyond reasonable doubt. And that's Coyne's point: we call that faith. Because it's not knowledge. <br />Stephen Galanishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14509266923792169486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26977383076750586572018-01-22T09:10:33.920-08:002018-01-22T09:10:33.920-08:00Yep, I can put my hand up. It wasn't the only,...Yep, I can put my hand up. It wasn't the only, or even main, consideration in my reversion to Catholicism but it was a factor.Highland Cathedralhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07519428794618769856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78099280063088782222018-01-22T05:12:15.106-08:002018-01-22T05:12:15.106-08:00Clearly, Ed.
So far, Rosenberg is the one to beat...Clearly, Ed.<br /><br />So far, Rosenberg is the one to beat. Obvious early on, in reading him.<br /><br />Much gratitude for your mega-review of his book. I'll be studying it closely soon.machinephilosophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07715878687266064548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89370369422051080432018-01-22T01:35:30.844-08:002018-01-22T01:35:30.844-08:00Have there been any reviews here of Thomas Nagel&#...Have there been any reviews here of Thomas Nagel's ' Mind and Cosmos '? Definitely worth considering, since Nagel has had a great deal of contempt heaped on his head by the atheist community, in particular Coyne and PinkerAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16430931382664183661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5877758613727434022018-01-22T01:29:22.388-08:002018-01-22T01:29:22.388-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16430931382664183661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50715910861279525082018-01-12T01:25:38.151-08:002018-01-12T01:25:38.151-08:00The worst part is that they don't realise that...The worst part is that they don't realise that they (at best so far as they're concerned) have to embrace a platonic view of realism in order for science to be 'true and good'. A view which is completely incompatible with their materialism. Just another mad Catholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10503510474554718305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58625593152522301432018-01-10T10:20:02.554-08:002018-01-10T10:20:02.554-08:00This may seem out of the blue, but is your name a ...This may seem out of the blue, but is your name a G.K. Chesterton reference?<br /><br />-An occasional lurkerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51785226333283346992018-01-09T04:31:39.636-08:002018-01-09T04:31:39.636-08:00Anonymous,
I do indeed argue that Ross's cla...Anonymous, <br /><br />I do indeed argue that Ross's claim about the indeterminacy of physical processes is devastating to final cause (if one believes Ross, which I don't). I've seen no argument from anyone which makes those concepts compatible. However, that is just a side effect of Ross. My main objection to “Immaterial Aspects of Thought” is that Ross merely begs the question. I spent most of my time making that argument.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-92188845580462804692018-01-08T13:56:05.253-08:002018-01-08T13:56:05.253-08:00I have found a series of two very good lectures on...I have found a series of two very good lectures on the thought of Berkeley <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LM8M6lqc8M&t=348s" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P6nNM0aLWo" rel="nofollow">here</a>. They are given by noted Christian philosopher and teacher Arthur F. Holmes, and are really worth a listen. The second lecture is of particular interest for Holmes responds to objections, and the discussion touches on themes such as the problem from evil, the metaphysics of incarnation and of the resurrection of Christ, the problem of other minds – all from the perspective of Berkeley’s metaphysical idealism. Highly recommended. Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32168760966505966832018-01-08T09:25:42.137-08:002018-01-08T09:25:42.137-08:00Dianelos,
Why did the Anglican church not pick up...Dianelos,<br /><br />Why did the Anglican church not pick up on Berkeley? Well now, prepare for some religious factionalism!<br /><br />Looking back Protestantism - or, at the very least, state Anglicanism - was basically a gateway drug to atheism. You can see this in the development of German Protestant theology (William Lane Craig has a nice overview in his 'Reasonable Faith'). Basically, they started to embrace 'historical criticism' and turned Christianity into a nice bunch of stories. From here it was one step (Craig doesn't go this far, but it's obvious if you know the scene) to David Strauss, Bruno Bauer and then, through him, Karl Marx.<br /><br />Anyway, unlike in Germany where they 'rationalised' the faith, in Britain Protestants didn't really try to give rational accounts of their faith. Occasionally they would point to natural scientific evidence and interpret it in light of faith (Paley's argument, which I am not altogether hostile to) but the desire for a metaphysical explanation evaporated as the desire for metaphysics evaporated - a direct result of the English Reformation, in my opinion. England became a land where they sloganized to themselves that they were "altogether very practical people".<br /><br />The Anglican church is a pure state institution. Only one stepped removed from the Church of the Supreme Being set up by the Jacobins. It is there to reinforce state power, not to keep a check on it. And so Anglicans tended to be high on emotive rhetoric and propaganda and low on scholarly debate. I'd imagine by the mid-19th century most Anglican intellectuals had accepted the philosophy of David Hume and stitched it together with half-baked readings of the German historical school.<br /><br />No metaphysics allowed!<br /><br />Admirable project. I really want to see a reconciliation between Berkeley and the Scholastics though.<br /><br /><br /><br />TheIllusionisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17642837989235595346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57494166869849878922018-01-08T09:09:57.893-08:002018-01-08T09:09:57.893-08:00So if Rosenberg and his book win the Pulitzers for...So if Rosenberg and his book win the Pulitzers for Best Author and Best Book in the New Atheism category, who might be the nominees for the awards for *Worst* Author and Book in the New *Theism* category?<br /><br />Or, put it another way: who among the vast range of contemporary “religious” writers — in fact let’s focus on ostensibly *Christian* writers — are the ones that clear-thinking theists should most wish would just shut up and stop giving the rest of us a bad name? Robertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44620116814562953092018-01-08T02:07:26.850-08:002018-01-08T02:07:26.850-08:00Theillusionist,
Perhaps you’re right. I could ne...Theillusionist, <br /><br />Perhaps you’re right. I could never understsand the enmity between the Christian denominations, after all all truth comes from God. Still, you explain why the Catholic church did not embrace Berkeley’s bright idea. But why not the Aglican church which is no less brainy?<br /><br />As for why philosophy has not embraced Berkeley’s idea I basically agree: it was mere fashion. Berkeley worked at a time where theism was becoming philosophically unfashionable. Since today the tide is turning, perhaps we are in for a resurgence of metaphysical idealism. I predict that theistic philosophers of a freethinking bent will first realize the sheer power and rationality of metaphysical idealism. And many recent developments and in particular the metaphysical implications of the quantum order will give them more ground still. My own project for all it may be worth worth is to build on the philosophy of Berkeley and the theology of Hick. Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60318113088489639762018-01-07T15:03:11.884-08:002018-01-07T15:03:11.884-08:00@Callum,
Well I'll be, another superhero movi...@Callum,<br /><br />Well I'll be, another superhero movie fan!<br /><br />Which do you think is the best (not your favourite) MCU movie? DeusPrimusEstnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23355577282063969702018-01-07T14:10:28.531-08:002018-01-07T14:10:28.531-08:00Dawkins reduced science to a freaking meme. He'...Dawkins reduced science to a freaking meme. He's a skeptic.Timocratesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83164224447058939662018-01-07T13:01:12.680-08:002018-01-07T13:01:12.680-08:00This seems to me to be the position of most unthin...This seems to me to be the position of most unthinking modern people. Science - by which they mostly really mean technology - is absolute truth; morality and, indeed, all questions of value and judgement - are relative. I'm no philosopher, but someone once told me that Kant had this idea, that value is a kind of second story <i>imposed</i> by us on 'brute fact.' Don't know if that is a fair view of Kant or not, but it seems to me what most people (unconsciously, not worked out deliberately) to think.<br /><br />jjJohn Thayer Jensenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04511440643740805165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50013112254889061242018-01-07T11:50:59.656-08:002018-01-07T11:50:59.656-08:00One notable thing about the New Atheists is that w...One notable thing about the New Atheists is that while the majority of them are moral relativists, e.g Coyne and Dawkins, they hold science up as an absolute value, e.g., Coyne and Dawkins. And precisely what they value in science is the fact that it's true--faith vs. fact. But that's completely inconsistent with their professed relativism, to hold up truth as an absolute good. Obama remarked that American hicks cling to their guns and religion; well, New Atheists are the hicks of Western Civ. clinging to its founding metaphysic: omnia vincit veritas.Foobobble the Absurdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05727881978451493648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84833946260270507242018-01-07T10:25:59.679-08:002018-01-07T10:25:59.679-08:00The thomist solution of course!!!The thomist solution of course!!!Jaimehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15636155049496953832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3817202954328356302018-01-07T08:50:25.637-08:002018-01-07T08:50:25.637-08:00As Chesterton said in Orthodoxy "The madman i...As Chesterton said in Orthodoxy "The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason."<br /><br />This is the thing that, perhaps erroneously, prejudices me against delving too deeply in rationalist thinkers. The emphasis on the reliability of common sense as a touchstone of any sound philosophy that you find in Aristotle and Aquinas is what attracts me to their writings. <br />Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17479435356630882897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22153151633511773472018-01-06T19:39:56.732-08:002018-01-06T19:39:56.732-08:00"For though each starts from erroneous premis..."For though each starts from erroneous premises (in my view, anyway), each also makes the premises seem plausible, and also plausibly draws out their (often bizarre) implications." I wonder if the same could not have been said of Charles Manson, or Jim Jones, or the Unabomber, or any other sincere madman.Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04843514873861242426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54693171043770642582018-01-06T17:49:40.856-08:002018-01-06T17:49:40.856-08:00I appreciate what you're saying Annoyn, but on...I appreciate what you're saying Annoyn, but once you start down that roads you begin to undercut your own position (very much like Descarte) and allow the poison of modernist metaphysics into your philosophy. <br /><br />Better in my view to realize that the nihilist position is essentially (if somewhat modified to take the findings of modern science into account) that of the ancient atomists and deploy the arguments of our forefathers against them. Just another mad Catholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10503510474554718305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15692834409560167442018-01-06T14:45:49.123-08:002018-01-06T14:45:49.123-08:00he doesn't believe that doors, windows and the...<i> he doesn't believe that doors, windows and the like really exist, but only fundamental particles held by fields in door and window like patterns. </i><br /><br />I don't think that is correct, his view is more like that of Peter Van Inwagen's, He not a complete nihilist. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57659863989999864322018-01-06T12:55:39.603-08:002018-01-06T12:55:39.603-08:00@DG
I think the explanation is much simpler.
The...@DG<br /><br />I think the explanation is much simpler.<br /><br />The Catholic Church weren't interested because he was a very active Prot -- and a member of the Church of Ireland, no less, a doubly illegitimate church that greatly threatened a large Catholic population.<br /><br />The Enlightenment types that Berkeley were criticising -- together with the shallow society wags that Berkeley parodied as 'minute philosophers' (amazingly funny parody in Alciphron, worth the cost of entry alone -- and very similar to Feser's attacks in his New Atheist book so check it out) -- were simply not interested in anything that pointed towards a like a rational proof of God. So they dismissed it in line with Samuel Johnson's ridiculously stupid 'I kicked a rock' nonsense and then turned toward Hume who plagiarised Berkeley's theory, introduced truly absurd elements and toured it in the salons of a France chomping at the bit for regicide and the seizure of church property.<br /><br />Thus Berkeley remains today a footnote in an undergrad class on Hume and no one engages with the strongest, later versions of his metaphysics or ask if there are any lessons that might be taken away from them.TheIllusionisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17642837989235595346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31606916404308338242018-01-06T12:17:28.843-08:002018-01-06T12:17:28.843-08:00Berkeley's immaterialism boils down to: matter...Berkeley's immaterialism boils down to: matter is a phenomenon, and Kant's noumena are fictive. What's "nuts" about that?joel in gahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13004657844162781647noreply@blogger.com