tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post7765512622427997446..comments2024-03-29T04:58:54.003-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Unhinged DissentEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22452713219689614432011-04-21T10:20:05.085-07:002011-04-21T10:20:05.085-07:00I think that Ed's criticism of ID and VJ Torle...I think that Ed's criticism of ID and VJ Torley's argument betray the fundamental problem of Thomism: dualism.<br /><br />Once the Aristotelian position that all forms are substantiated in existent objects is taken ---that is, once the realm of Plato's Ideas is eliminated---then what is one left to do with the notion of God?<br /><br />The only answer is to make God 'transcendent'. While on the surface there appears to be nothing wrong with this at all (in fact, it appears to be no more than a straightforward understanding of God), nonetheless, an infinite distance has been opened up between God and the world. More or less, Ed Feser is simply elaborating upon this 'distance' in this post.<br /><br />All of this conspires to give us Feser's argument in reverse: i.e., since God is infinitely separated from the world, and since God is an intelligent being, then given that men are 'intelligent' beings, their 'ideas' too are infinitely separated from actual existing objects. Thus the rise of Descartes and Idealism. <br /><br />Ironically, Thomists are those most opposed to the Idealists; and, yet, to simultaneously maintain BOTH a belief in God and Aristotelean premises, we are forced to requires a completely separate "genus" for God, with the concomitant result being the introduction of an infinite separation between the world of ideas and the world of created objects.<br /><br />Now, if we accept Thomas' definition of man as a "rational animal", then, clearly, this rationality places us, at a minimum, into the angelic realm. That is to say, man, in his capacity for reason, now participates finds himself acting in an "incorporeal" realm, thus separating himself, as are angels, from the "corporeal" realm. Our rationality--the source of our ideas about anything--becomes, then, "otherworldly": that is, we've now arrived at Idealism, an almost infinite separation of ideas and matter (existent objects).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4039721935686972122011-03-24T07:41:07.957-07:002011-03-24T07:41:07.957-07:00In a nobler age, an eminent person's willingne...In a nobler age, an eminent person's willingness to sacrifice his life for an infant would have only added to his eminence. Does "women and children first" mean anything anymore!Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43981240498427760272011-03-23T07:41:22.625-07:002011-03-23T07:41:22.625-07:00Most gracious, Ben.Most gracious, Ben.Alan Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16470368958109056177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71961707459558004082011-03-23T06:56:23.987-07:002011-03-23T06:56:23.987-07:00>I think Alan Fox was just humorously observing...>I think Alan Fox was just humorously observing that he'd think twice before stepping into the same lifeboat as mine, that's all.<br /><br />In which case I now owe Mr. Fox an apology(& I offer it) & will smeg myself off in penance.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60545553918543773932011-03-23T02:09:21.459-07:002011-03-23T02:09:21.459-07:00Alan said: "I thought Christians (even Cathol...Alan said: "I thought Christians (even Catholics) claim some sort of moral high ground?"<br /><br />Nope. Catholics don't claim to be morally superior. However it is the atheists who say that 40 million Americans are 'good without God'. A Catholic following doctrine would never claim to be 'good' enough, we're all sinners.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29750503841537878522011-03-23T01:04:20.078-07:002011-03-23T01:04:20.078-07:00Hi Vincent,
You have it exactly right.
I intend ...Hi Vincent,<br /><br />You have it exactly right.<br /><br />I intend to get to Japan one day as I have promised to take a trip with my daughter when I am retired. I will look you up then.<br /><br />It ever you find yourself in the south of France do likewise :)Alan Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16470368958109056177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44788262246183608512011-03-22T21:17:03.313-07:002011-03-22T21:17:03.313-07:00I think Alan Fox was just humorously observing tha...<i>I think Alan Fox was just humorously observing that he'd think twice before stepping into the same lifeboat as mine, that's all.</i><br /><br />Gracious of you to downplay it so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7257811865968068962011-03-22T18:40:31.665-07:002011-03-22T18:40:31.665-07:00Ben Yachov,
I think I've figured out what Ala...Ben Yachov,<br /><br />I think I've figured out what Alan Fox was getting at. If you go to my post at http://www.uncommondescent.com/<br />intelligent-design/newborn-babies-<br />not-persons-and-not-fully-human-<br />p-z-myers/ and scroll down to comments 30, 31, 32 and 35, you'll see that in lifeboat dilemmas, I favored saving the baby over saving some eminent person or some famous artist, I'd save the baby first, any time. I think Alan Fox was just humorously observing that he'd think twice before stepping into the same lifeboat as mine, that's all.Vincent Torleyhttp://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/index.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5624696715963693262011-03-22T18:31:24.885-07:002011-03-22T18:31:24.885-07:00Alan Fox,
I don't know what it is that you...Alan Fox,<br /><br />I don't know what it is that you're supposed to have said, either. It sounds like a huge misunderstanding. Anyway, I hope we can remain on good terms, and if you're ever in Japan and feel like having dinner, call me up.Vincent Torleyhttp://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/index.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5724897358190418492011-03-22T18:30:43.768-07:002011-03-22T18:30:43.768-07:00Alax Fox quote"On the other hand, I am not so...Alax Fox quote<b>"On the other hand, I am not so sure about being cast adrift in an open boat with him and a newborn infant."</b><br /><br />Then you link to him critiquing PZ Myers who is morally undisturbed by mutilated fetus. <br /><br />Where you not implying VJ didn't believe in the person-hood of infants? If not then why are you afraid to be with him in an open boat with one?<br /><br />The only natural conclusion is you are implying VJ is a danger to babies.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12437417008191669452011-03-22T14:02:49.713-07:002011-03-22T14:02:49.713-07:00I thought Christians (even Catholics) claim some s...I thought Christians (even Catholics) claim some sort of moral high ground? It is simple, surely. Someone tosses out a charge of slander. Surely they can support it, can't they?Alan Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16470368958109056177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88242240351233869302011-03-22T13:52:33.611-07:002011-03-22T13:52:33.611-07:00Yes, someone please spell it out to Alan. He's...<i>Yes, someone please spell it out to Alan. He's slow, and it may require finger puppets.</i><br /><br />Just a link will do. You do know hoe to link, I presume, or could someone else do it?Alan Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16470368958109056177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76529982410659501472011-03-22T13:49:41.643-07:002011-03-22T13:49:41.643-07:00Regarding the issue of slander: forget about it. W...<i>Regarding the issue of slander: forget about it. Water off a duck's back.</i><br /><br />But, what was the slander? As I was accused of it, It would be nice to know what it is that I am supposed to have written that was slanderous. Surely this is not unreasonable.Alan Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16470368958109056177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41174956052819536142011-03-22T08:20:12.772-07:002011-03-22T08:20:12.772-07:00>Another thing that might help is refraining fr...>Another thing that might help is refraining from expressions of schadenfreude when a Darwinist biologist kicks the ID movement. <br /><br />Let me be clear. The Atheist Evolutionist criticism of ID is in my experience pure S***! The Theistic Evolutionist sans Thomism criticism is equally s***. Only the Thomists can effectively and rationally critique ID.<br /><br />Forget Miller! Forget Coyne! It all about Aquinas!BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79259778468194636152011-03-22T07:50:53.054-07:002011-03-22T07:50:53.054-07:00>Maybe I was raised the old-fashioned way, but ...>Maybe I was raised the old-fashioned way, but I was taught that any kind of rude or otherwise uncomplimentary language directed at, or about, a member of the female sex, is ungentlemanly behavior.<br /><br />Then to be consistent she should act like a lady and stay out of a discussion only men should partake in since we are the rational sex & she is a member of the emotional sex.**<br /><br />(**Of course I don't believe that for a second. I'm not a sexist.) <br /><br />Also pursuant to these old fashion morals we hold her too does she have either her husband's or Father's permission to speak publicly on these matters?<br /><br />Alright enough satire. Why does Ms O'Leary have carte blanche right to uncharitably slam guys like Dr. Bechwith, Dr. Feser and Thomists just because they are critical of ID super Paley mojo?<br /><br />Because she is a woman? Besides both my parent taught me to respect women. I didn't think asking "What's your problem" was the moral equivalent of questioning her chastity or intelligence.<br /><br />VJ you are still killing me.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83079386977999135942011-03-22T05:19:56.212-07:002011-03-22T05:19:56.212-07:00"I was taught that any kind of [,..] uncompli..."I was taught that any kind of [,..] uncomplimentary language directed at, or about, a member of the female sex, is ungentlemanly behavior."<br /><br />If a woman wishes to engage in battle on the field of ideas -- and I see no reason why one couldn't or shouldn't -- why should she be treated as if incapable of taking care of herself? If her knowledge is lacking on some pertinent matter, obliquely tiptoeing around it (buying her books!) seems ... counterproductive.jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09580301021186572527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5595198850277789762011-03-22T01:41:24.023-07:002011-03-22T01:41:24.023-07:00Hi everyone,
Regarding the issue of slander: forg...Hi everyone,<br /><br />Regarding the issue of slander: forget about it. Water off a duck's back. <br /><br />What worries me a lot more, though, are remarks directed at Denyse O'Leary, who happens to be a friend of mine.<br /><br />Maybe I was raised the old-fashioned way, but I was taught that any kind of rude or otherwise uncomplimentary language directed at, or about, a member of the female sex, is ungentlemanly behavior.<br /><br />For those who are concerned about her knowledge of Thomism: I suggest that sending her a copy of Ed's "Aquinas" (from which I quoted in a recent post on Professor Anthony Grayling), with Ed's autograph on the flyleaf, might work wonders.<br /><br />Another thing that might help is refraining from expressions of schadenfreude when a Darwinist biologist kicks the ID movement. I know that most Thomists would never dream of gloating in such circumstances, but unfortunately, a few have done so, in Ms. O'Leary's presence. That has upset her, and I know that for a fact.<br /><br />My two cents.Vincent Torleyhttp://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/index.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47292397107089196982011-03-21T17:35:52.780-07:002011-03-21T17:35:52.780-07:00There is still the issue of where this "sland...<i>There is still the issue of where this "slander" you accused me of resides. I would be most grateful if you could point it out.</i><br /><br />Yes, someone please spell it out to Alan. He's slow, and it may require finger puppets.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75997684987331756072011-03-21T17:01:54.058-07:002011-03-21T17:01:54.058-07:00Go in peace. Anyway now that that is settled VJ is...<i>Go in peace. Anyway now that that is settled VJ is still killing me......Killing me.</i><br /><br />There is still the issue of where this "slander" you accused me of resides. I would be most grateful if you could point it out. <br /><br />Thanks in advance<br />AlanAlan Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16470368958109056177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-38581713742739318582011-03-21T09:51:34.942-07:002011-03-21T09:51:34.942-07:00Crude,
You just pretty much summed up what is goi...Crude,<br /><br />You just pretty much summed up what is going on.<br /><br />The problem is God working though natural processes vs God acting supernaturally.<br /><br />And or<br /><br />God guiding the universe vs the universe has no guide.<br /><br />But philosophically I resist the idea a godless universe would be random. A godless universe governed by quantum super-determinism wouldn't really be random. But then again Darwinism would be meaningless as well.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79151081930536275482011-03-21T08:26:14.275-07:002011-03-21T08:26:14.275-07:00Tony: I think what you mean, Mr. Green, is that gi...Tony: <i>I think what you mean, Mr. Green, is that given a historical record of change and development of species out of prior periods when none of the current species existed, GIVEN those changes, then IDer better be an explanation of the intelligence behind the process, rather than merely behind the actual current result. </i> <br /><br />I should specify what I mean by "ID", since (as Crude indicated) poorly-defined terms are responsible for so much confusion in this area. I am referring to ID as the proposed scientific principle by which a physical process can be determined likely to happen by chance or by design. (This is the most relevant and most useful definition, and I really wish anyone who wants to draw (completely legitimate) philosophical implications from the scientific aspects would explicitly point that out, every time, so as to cut down on pointless arguments.)<br /><br />Certainly, all sorts of things require intelligence that may not be discernible scientifically, or that may not have any scientific process to discern, or that may be demonstrable via philosophy instead of science. But to apply ID to biology, we need a biological process to study, and then we can try to determine whether said process is likely to happen purely by chance (given what we know of how biological processes work). And the only biological processes interesting enough and disputed enough (in terms of chance vs. design) are theories of evolution.<br /><br /><br />BenYachov: <i>That is not the impression I get from the EXPELLED movie.</i><br /><br />Can you cite an example? I don't recall anyone in <i>Expelled</i> arguing for six-day creationism or anything like that. There are many atheists who certainly seem to think that evolution vindicates atheism, but of course that works only if evolution wasn't planned out from the start (as Crude also says, ID-types typically refer to that as "Darwinian evolution", i.e. unguided). Artifice is irrelevant (it comes out of treating ID science under a typical modern view of science, but as Prof. Feser keeps pointing out, any actual <i>science</i> in ID is fine — you can always recast it using a Thomistic view of science). <br /><br />To say that life did not develop by natural secondary causes is a God-of-the-gaps argument, not an ID argument. There's no miracle involved in shuffling a deck of cards and having them come out exactly sorted by suit and value, but if I did that, you would surely accuse me of stacking the deck somehow. I could have invoked God to miraculously cause cards to change position in violation of ordinary physics, but I bet you wouldn't conclude that — you'd just think I used natural secondary processes to manipulate the deck by design. Similarly, the point of ID is to examine the natural process by which life is purported to have evolved and determine whether those natural process were "stacked" or not.Mr. Greennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68362649000392121332011-03-20T22:05:34.129-07:002011-03-20T22:05:34.129-07:00Ben,
That is not the impression I get from the EX...Ben,<br /><br /><i>That is not the impression I get from the EXPELLED movie. Many ID people seem to think Evolution somehow vindicates Atheism.</i><br /><br />I think there are plenty of ID sympathizers who are anti-evolution in the broad sense. But there are also a number of ID thinkers who either think evolution is compatible with ID (Mike Behe, Dembski himself, etc) or whose version of ID explicitly relies on evolution (One great example here is <a href="http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">Mike Gene</a>).<br /><br />I think the problem here is that ID proponents often rail against "Darwinism", and they usually define Darwinism to mean not just evolution, but an evolutionary process that is absolutely unguided in any way. (Not even God knows what evolution will produce, etc.) A definition that a few prominent "pro-evolution" types also subscribe to. (Mike Ruse, Jerry Coyne, etc.)<br /><br />That's one of the downsides of the debate. The confusing use of terms.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-92211366790686097842011-03-20T19:43:16.743-07:002011-03-20T19:43:16.743-07:00edit:
Well in principle i can't exclude the po...edit:<br />Well in principle i can't exclude the possibility <b>GOD</b> might have chosen to artifice various life forms. But the point is He doesn't have too. He can work threw secondary natural causes.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5349823366928300052011-03-20T19:39:48.420-07:002011-03-20T19:39:48.420-07:00Alan Fox
>If I have slandered, misrepresented o...Alan Fox<br />>If I have slandered, misrepresented or offended Dr Torley in any way, I unreservedly apologise and retract. <br /><br />Go in peace. Anyway now that that is settled VJ is still killing me......Killing me.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72703037911340489412011-03-20T19:37:17.258-07:002011-03-20T19:37:17.258-07:00@Mr. Green
>Nor to ID. I get the impression tha...@Mr. Green<br />>Nor to ID. I get the impression that you think "intelligent design" is opposed to evolution or something, but of course it's not. In fact, it depends upon it.<br /><br />That is not the impression I get from the EXPELLED movie. Many ID people seem to think Evolution somehow vindicates Atheism. As for ID being compatible with Catholicism. Well in principle i can't exclude the possibility might have chosen to artifice various life forms. But the point is he doesn't have too. He can work threw secondary natural causes.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.com