tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post7943888583476459005..comments2024-03-18T15:57:33.286-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: A second exchange with Keith Parsons, Part IIEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75096090864208167282014-05-18T18:33:09.254-07:002014-05-18T18:33:09.254-07:00@Mup Da Doo:
"As a friend of mine put it, Go...@Mup Da Doo:<br /><br />"As a friend of mine put it, God's morality is as foreign to me as Karl Marx's morality. I don't see why I should care about his purposes."<br /><br />Is your own pursuit of the good as foreign to you as Karl Marx's morality? Or did you just not read the post before replying?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39371356248501944062014-05-18T17:02:50.254-07:002014-05-18T17:02:50.254-07:00How does your version of teleology solve Hume'...How does your version of teleology solve Hume's problem? As a friend of mine put it, God's morality is as foreign to me as Karl Marx's morality. I don't see why I should care about his purposes.Mup Da Doonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44158639623412066452014-05-17T09:28:17.128-07:002014-05-17T09:28:17.128-07:00I just noticed this post. Too bad as it's an ...I just noticed this post. Too bad as it's an area I'm interested in, and I don't find the A-T position to be cogent. Morality is a tough nut to crack for anyone, though. I'll wait for another time.<br /><br />Excellent discussion, though.<br /><br />Vaal.Vaalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14896147903257500224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28260623659910745642014-05-16T11:52:54.014-07:002014-05-16T11:52:54.014-07:00Gyan: You have nearly answered your own question ...Gyan: You have nearly answered your own question with your observation that ‘It is easy to see the praiseworthiness of chastity both from classical and Darwinian perspectives’. So you recognize a social utility in pre-marital virginity.<br />Continuing from a Darwinian perspective, let me suggest another observation – do you now or have you in the past known many 12 to 18 year olds? How powerful is their <i>instinct</i> to wait for marriage? <br />Darwinian pressures have not selected for an instinct to chastity. Post pubescent virginity actually contradicts our instinct to procreate. Instilling a behavior that contradicts instinct is difficult, and is only achieved with a modest probability of adherence within cultures that have made such behavior a moral imperative.Alannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12053744348262522582014-05-10T11:16:23.244-07:002014-05-10T11:16:23.244-07:00Thank you so much Ed...God bless ya' & if ...Thank you so much Ed...God bless ya' & if you're married w/children - a Happy Mother's Day celebration is extended to you and yours sir!David Hustonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-606900474809430492014-05-10T10:26:50.707-07:002014-05-10T10:26:50.707-07:00David Huston,
There's a lot of stuff I didn&#...David Huston,<br /><br />There's a lot of stuff I didn't discuss in my exchange with Keith, because I had space constraints. But I've discussed, and defended, a version of the argument from reason in several places. You'll find it discussed in several posts here on the blog (do a search), and in my books The Last Superstition and Philosophy of Mind.Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24092800884929086012014-05-10T05:15:20.225-07:002014-05-10T05:15:20.225-07:00Mr. Feser:
Would you be kind enough, time permitt...Mr. Feser:<br /><br />Would you be kind enough, time permitting of course, to help me understand why the "Argument From Reason" -- i.e., the "AFR"/Dr. Victor Reppert's dissertation subject, thus rigorously refined & unashamedly promoted by himself for quite some time now -- whose philosophical progeny seems to have been traced back through C.S. Lewis (its original popularizer), James Bissett Pratt, Prime Minister Arthur Balfour, Kant & perhaps even Plato (as some would claim), doesn't seem to find any "air-time" in your exchange with Professor Parsons?<br /><br />Given Keith Parson's a priori metaphysical starting-point (or assumption) of neo-Darwinian macroevolutionary philosophy, my question(s), framed from the perspective my overall layperson's ignorance, would necessarily include Alvin Plantinga's now-famous "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" (or "EAAN").<br /><br />Is there some professional philosophical aversion you have for its non-use in your discourse, or do you simply find no place for "it" (AFR and/or EAAN) in an Aristotelian/Thomistic defense of Classical Theism? Your insight would be greatly appreciated by this layperson, who consistently studies to remain aware of these cutting-edge issues in our culture's so-called "religion & science wars!"David Hustonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83792499655807734722014-05-09T12:10:46.133-07:002014-05-09T12:10:46.133-07:00I'd just like to congratulate Dr. Feser for hi...I'd just like to congratulate Dr. Feser for his <i>Scholastic Metaphysics</i> being the #1 seller in metaphysics on Amazon. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3783877300774985632014-05-08T12:33:41.368-07:002014-05-08T12:33:41.368-07:00Great exchange. And I hope Ed plans on discussing ...Great exchange. And I hope Ed plans on discussing some Sean Carroll soon, since reading WLC's recent reply to Carroll about their debate shows Carroll insisting that A) physics comes before metaphysics and B) modern physics shows Aristotilean causation to be false.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33388765349045321622014-05-08T11:45:04.790-07:002014-05-08T11:45:04.790-07:00Has Hallquist said anything about Feser recently?Has Hallquist said anything about Feser recently?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-366607365042124552014-05-08T10:57:16.924-07:002014-05-08T10:57:16.924-07:00Maybe we can have a spin-off debate in which Parso...Maybe we can have a spin-off debate in which Parsons argues with the Uncredible Hallq over whether Feser provides arguments. That would make for edifying viewing.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22031827899672087192014-05-08T08:50:01.512-07:002014-05-08T08:50:01.512-07:00Casey, Feser does note that
"Now perhaps Kei...Casey, Feser does note that<br /><br />"Now perhaps Keith would not go so far as to attribute rights to animals, but is merely claiming that there are other moral reasons why we ought not to do absolutely any old thing we feel like doing to them, however cruel or wasteful. But the traditional A-T natural law philosopher will agree with him about that much. He would just deny that the reasons have anything to do with animals having rights, or with Darwinism."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-600148526083573982014-05-08T04:17:18.486-07:002014-05-08T04:17:18.486-07:00Why was virginity held to be praiseworthy in many ...Why was virginity held to be praiseworthy in many ancient cultures?<br /><br />It is easy to see the praiseworthiness of chastity both from classical and Darwinian perspectives but I could never understand the reason for moral praiseworthiness of virginity. . Gyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09941686166886986037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49739672849936353872014-05-07T22:52:29.246-07:002014-05-07T22:52:29.246-07:00Don't all creatures seek to avoid suffering an...Don't all creatures seek to avoid suffering and self harm? Don't they seem to obey a duty to flourish? Don't we then have a duty to allow them the maximum of what it is for them to flourish and also an obligation to avoid inflicting suffering on them? Doesn't this give them some sort of system of rights?<br /><br />Other animals lack the cognitive capacities, most importantly language, to create a system of ethical behavior for themselves but they certainly seem to possess the other crucial aspects of morality like empathy and understanding.<br /><br />Don't we then as the only creatures we know of capable of constructing a morality owe them a place in our system, one which emerges from a life world we share together?Caseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17864017395643935337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33481060774083654452014-05-07T21:37:38.266-07:002014-05-07T21:37:38.266-07:00Anonymous,
I concur. Hopefully these dialogues wi...Anonymous,<br /><br />I concur. Hopefully these dialogues with the good doctor Feser will open Parsons' eyes a bit.Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13774540413302893470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54153689071587045962014-05-07T19:04:06.694-07:002014-05-07T19:04:06.694-07:00I agree Carlos, although, again, Parson's cont...I agree Carlos, although, again, Parson's contributions to the debate have hardly shown that the atheist can be as contemptuous of contemporary theism as his earlier resignation from philosophy of religion suggested.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80456126350979161092014-05-07T15:16:43.813-07:002014-05-07T15:16:43.813-07:00It's refreshing to see a conversation between ...It's refreshing to see a conversation between a theist and an atheist to unfold so courteously, particularly ever since the dawn of the age of new atheism.Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13774540413302893470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54466908995690329212014-05-07T15:14:04.707-07:002014-05-07T15:14:04.707-07:00Do you mean the reverse?
Choosing a thing that ...Do you mean the reverse? <br /><br />Choosing a thing that appears to be good but is not good isn't a good choice. <br /><br />Choosing a thing that appears to be good, precisely insofar as it is understood to be good, isn't "irrational" as such. It is a bad choice when the appearance of good is not coordinate with the reality of good. But a "bad choice" because of something outside the reason doesn't make the choice irrational. <br /><br />In any case, choosing something under the aspect of good, when on a deeper level you know full well that the appearance of good is not backed up by the reality, is certainly a kind of irrationality - the kind that is immoral. But is obviously possible. <br /><br />Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48630966624083762042014-05-07T11:33:12.465-07:002014-05-07T11:33:12.465-07:00@Gene:
I wish it were that simple. But, there'...@Gene:<br /><br />I wish it were that simple. But, there's a difference between choosing against what only appears to be good, and what is in fact good. While the former is obviously irrational, the latter is not. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81810784646276422442014-05-07T11:04:02.313-07:002014-05-07T11:04:02.313-07:00Steven, you have essentially just asked "Why ...Steven, you have essentially just asked "Why would it be irrational to act against reason?"<br /><br />Well, that is what irrational *means*!gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84060743141437934922014-05-07T07:31:41.866-07:002014-05-07T07:31:41.866-07:00The metaphysics of naturalists always contradicts ...The metaphysics of naturalists always contradicts the ethics of naturalists. Not only is naturalism inconsistent with neo-Aristotlean thought, but naturalism is also incompatible with utilitarianism, which is often a preferred ethics for naturalist types. You cannot seek the greatest good of the greatest number if there is no such thing as the good. If you try to define the good as what most people prefer, then you don't have real objectivity because what people prefer differs from one time and place to another. If most of the people in your society think it would be preferable to get rid of the Jews (and we know this has happened) then there would be nothing wrong with this. In fact, carrying out ethnic cleansing operations would be the virtuous thing to do. There is no moral objectivity in a naturalist world.Jonathan Lewishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16544588222060966241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22751376444831395482014-05-07T07:10:39.728-07:002014-05-07T07:10:39.728-07:00Regarding non-human animals, it's noteworthy t...Regarding non-human animals, it's noteworthy that what a moral agent needs to do, on Keith's view, is conceive of the good in some way and then string together hypothetical syllogisms to attain it. But rational and linguistic capacity are essential to doing this. To point out that we share a lot of DNA and share some moral feelings does not get to the crux of what Aristotelian naturalist takes a moral agent to be.Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54603482237545025522014-05-07T07:05:55.634-07:002014-05-07T07:05:55.634-07:00If practical reason were inherently directed at th...If practical reason were inherently directed at the good, why would it be irrational to choose against the good? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72876608277737005412014-05-07T03:25:42.920-07:002014-05-07T03:25:42.920-07:00In writings of some naturalist philosophers there ...In writings of some naturalist philosophers there are strange idea that Darwin (or scientist after him) discover that human beings are similar to animals or that man share many attributes with animals. It is very strange idea! Does anyone believe that French peasant from 13th century really don't realize that his body have similar parts with pig, horse, that he moves, eat, sleep like just animals? <br /><br />This attitude is probably result of bad understanding of Christian beliefs - some atheists probably believe that Christians believe that humans are some king of beings totally separated from nature. But this is of course totally wrong. Christians (and other theist alike) believe that humans are part of the Creation and that they have many similarities with other creatures (including of course that they are all part of God's creation). Milošhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07415201615175187675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-38378607313365142382014-05-07T03:06:31.536-07:002014-05-07T03:06:31.536-07:00It is very interesting that someone even try to gr...It is very interesting that someone even try to ground morality in natural evolution - morality (and freedom also) include non-reducible teleology and there is no such think in Darwinian world. But there are more problems for Darwinian grounding of morality and those problems are epistemological in nature. How someone know what is good/bad, obligatory/non-obligatory in Darwinian world? I can imagine world where I don't know anything about evolution, biology or whatever but still have moral beliefs. Naturalist can appeal to magic and say that evolution teach as this or that. <br /><br />Also, I believe that appeal to evolution of human kind don't have any sense in this debate because important question is does moral facts are reducible or non-reducible or more specifically can we eliminate them in our description of reality (including human behavior of course). If we can moral realism is false and speaking about moral facts is just useful fiction, one more language game. But if we can not moral realism is true, with all irreducible teleology which give us good reason to believe that Darwinian naturalism is false. Milošhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07415201615175187675noreply@blogger.com