Tuesday, March 9, 2021

Aquinas on video

Many readers will be familiar already with the Thomistic Institute’s outstanding Aquinas 101 series of videos, which provide brief introductions to a wide variety of topics from Aquinas’s thought.  The Institute has now announced a new video series, Aquinas 101: Science and Faith, which will explore topics such as evolution, neuroscience, miracles, quantum mechanics, psychology, scientific method, reductionism, and the like.  The series begins on March 16, and the videos will be released weekly.  And on March 10, the trailer for the series will premiere and the Institute will host a live Q & A.

The Thomistic Institute also makes available a wide variety of other excellent video materials.  And while we’re on the subject, I should also call attention to a similar but different project, the superb iAquinas series of videos, which are in English, French, and Spanish.  Hours and hours of worthwhile viewing!

141 comments:

  1. Very happy to know this. Look forward to watching these videos.

    :)

    Cheers!

    johannes

    ReplyDelete
  2. The dominicans are really using the internet right. Aquinas 101 is great and this series on sciencie has a lot of potential. Hope they can teach a lot of people with this series and help weaken the fideistics.

    Speaking of good content, how would you see someone translating some of your articles, Dr. Feser?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Articles HERE, blogposts :)

      The academic stuff is another history, i guess.

      Delete
  3. During the long Christmass shutdown/break, I went throughout the intro 101 mini lessons with my older sons (12, 13, and 15). Really great stuff. Some are very easy to grasp, others require discussion. We got up to video 55 or so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You really know how to give your young kids a good time at Christmas don't you Daniel! Still, best to indocrinate them into the cult as soon as possible.

      Delete
    2. Right on, Daniel. I think I'll make a large "Anonymous" donation today.

      Delete
    3. Oh dear, I did not anticipate that. I will have to make a VERY large donation to the Richard Dawkins Foundation and to The Centre for Inquiry to compensate!

      Actually, I was pulling Daniel's leg a bit. His posts are always polite, interesting and well thought out, even though I often disagree with them, so I generally enjoy reading them. You are a dangerous right wing nut-job though.

      Delete
    4. Thanks TN! I should really give them a big donation as well. They've had a really big impact on my guys.

      Thanks for the kind words Anonymous.

      Delete
    5. Really cool discussion on Neuroscience and the Aristotelian conception of the soul here:

      https://thomisticinstitute.org/all-content/wgsrtnt45g49fb2

      So much good stuff on the Web Site! I'm going to have to look at more of Daniel De Haan's content.

      Delete
    6. Daniel 6.34am

      You are welcome.

      Delete
  4. Hello does anyone have any material you'd recommend that counters existential interia?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey there Yovany!

      I would recommend you to check it out the amazing Aristotle's Revenge book. Ed did an incredible work there. There is at least 100 pages talking about that issue on inertia.

      Just to timidly sumarize it a bit: there is no real problem between what Aristotle and Aquinas says (i.e everything that is moved is moved by another) and the Newtonian inertia because the two former Philosopher's talk about movement (or rather saying change) in an larger sense - not only in local motion sense.

      I hope that it helps.

      May God bless you!

      Regards from Brazil.

      -Vinícius Tadeo.

      Delete
    2. I was unaware that he addressed existential inertia in that book. I just brought his Five Proofs and book on Aquinas but I'll add that book to the list. Thanks.

      Delete
    3. Careful! Aristotle's Revenge does *not* cover existential inertia. It covers whether the Newtonian principle of inertia contravenes an Aristotelian philosophy of nature. Two different topics with similar terminology.

      Delete
    4. I see. Well I can still buy because it does go over several fields of science. I am curious though friend do you have any resources that do go over existential inertia from a Thomistic perspective.

      Delete
    5. Woops, that was the Newtonian inertia one. I posted the wrong link.

      Delete
    6. @Daniel

      I remember failing to find this article before, thanks!

      Delete
    7. Joe Schmidt wrote an interesting paper where he argues that Feser's Aristotlelian proof assumes the falsity of existential inertia. I'm not sure it succeeds, but it's an interesting read nevertheless.
      https://philpapers.org/archive/SCHEIA...

      Delete
    8. Oops, I didn't correctly copy the link.
      https://philpapers.org/archive/SCHEIA-20.pdf

      Delete
    9. Feser defended his 1st proof against Graham Oppy on the youtube channel, Capturing Christianity. Oppy appeals to existential inertia. But, I think Feser successfully responded to him. Ultimately, if I folllowed correctly, Feser made Oppy dig very deep to explain this appeal, and ultimately Oppy seems to have to embrace nominalism, a weak form of mereological nihilism, and ultimately brute facts in the end to uphold it. If you have to go that extreme to uphold existential inertia, its a seriously problematic idea.

      Its worth watching.

      Delete
    10. Honestly I would love to see Joe vs Ed, especially since Joe plans on launching a counter attack on the Aristotelian proof.

      Delete
    11. Although I was not able to find a free version of the ACPQ article from Ed (and I didn't fork over the 20 bucks to get it from the paywall) I believe one of the points he makes in the article is to deny Existential Inertia in favour of the doctrine of divine conservation. Has anyone read the article who can comment?

      Cheers,
      Daniel

      Delete
    12. @Daniel

      Here's the paper

      https://isidore.co/misc/Res%20pro%20Deo/American%20Catholic%20Philosophical%20Quarterly/Existential%20Inertia%20(Feser;%20ACPQ).pdf

      Delete
    13. Joseph C. Schmid, in the journal paper mentioned by BenG, argued:
      “Consider the account according to which O-at-t-1 explains the existence of O-at-t. In this case, we avoid vicious explanatory circularity, since we are not explaining the form of O-at-t by the matter of O-at-t (or vice versa); instead, we are explaining O-at-t by O-at-t-1, which amounts neither to self-causation, nor to self-explanation, nor to vicious explanatory circularity.”

      We can put forward examples to show that Scmid’s idea seems false.

      A person’s mirror reflection is not sustained by the reflection itself after the reflection has begun to exist. The reflection-at-(t-1) is unable to enable the reflection-at-(t). In fact, the reflection-at-(t-1) is irrelevant to the existence of reflection-at-(t). It is the person standing in front of the mirror at time t that enables the reflection to exist at time t.

      Similarly, a coffee beverage’s existence at time (t) is not enabled by its existence at time (t-1). That coffee beverage at time (t) is enabled by the existence of water and coffee powder (both mixed together) at time (t). If between time (t-1) and time (t) all the water in the cup has been evaporated, then there will be no coffee beverage at time (t); there will only be dry coffee residue exist in the cup. The coffee beverage at time (t-1) has no relevance to, and no enabling-power on, the existence of coffee beverage at time (t).

      Similarly, a fire’s existence at time (t) is enabled by the existence of oxygen around it at time (t). If there is no oxygen around the fire at time (t), then the fire ceases to exist at time (t). The fire at time (t-1) has no power and no relevance in the enablement of the fire to continue existing from (t-1) to (t).

      :)

      Cheers!

      johannes y k hui

      Delete
    14. I forgot to mention that Joseph C Schmid was raising the above point to argue against Feser on Existential Inertia. Schmid argued for the plausibility of an entity actualised at time (t-1) is able to actualize its existence at time (t).

      Delete
    15. I have a question: Could one argue for God's existence on the basis of the possibility of existential causation?

      1) If nothing contingent existed, it would be possible for something contingent to be CAUSED to exist

      2) Causation is specifically inherently rooted in a deeper actuality, since act grounds potency

      3) So there is an actuality of some sort that grounds the causative possibility of the sheer existence of things.

      Of course, that actuality exists necessarily.

      This is somewhat similar to the weak-PSR that starts out with the possibility that contingent existence has an explanation, but doesn't try to make a modal shift whereby a possible necessary being becomes necessarily existing through conversion of possibility and necessity in their modal operators.

      Also, this argument doesn't seem to require the thesis that something is possible if it can also be caused, which is what Alex Pruss defends; namely that modal possibility is grounded in being causable in some way. In fact, you could admit brute facts and that things can exist with no cause here - so long as it's also possible for the existence of things to be caused as well, the argument goes through.

      What do you think?

      Delete
    16. JoeD

      If one does not believes in a necessary thing already then there is no way that you can make this person believe 1. This because for the person there would be no prior actuality to generate the contingent thing. To someone like that, there can be no casuality if there is no contingent things, so 1 is false.

      You could argue to 1 being true, but i believe that you would need the PSR for that and you don't want to depend on it, so i don't know how to defend 1 if you give the other person all this liberty. How would you respond if someone just said "yea, 1 is false"?

      Delete
    17. @Talmid, Well the whole objection to 1 would have to be to deny even the conceptual possibility of causation in that case. But I don't see how that's a good way of avoiding it because all prior discussions about God presuppose the coherence of the concept - nobody objected to the coherence of the idea, only whether or not God exists.

      The atheist would have to deny the very conceptual possibility of causing existence, which is a more direct way of denying theism which most if not all atheists so far haven't even tried to do - they just go for brute facts, not the denial of the very coherence of existential causation, which would ironically make brute facts somewhat intelligible since their actuality can't be causal and has to be without cause - though one could say the existence of things has a non-causal explanation, in which case the atheist would have to deny that contingent existence could even possibly have an explanation, making brute facts ironically more intelligible due to the metaphysical necessity of bruteness applying to existence.

      And I don't see why we would need the PSR for this - the whole premise is based on the mere possibility of causation in the same way one can appeal to the mere possibility of explanation for contingent existence in weak-PSR comsological arguments.

      The premise is in no way undermined if one allows that the existence of things could be actualised without a cause for no reason - or any other brute fact.

      Delete
    18. JoeD

      Well, i think that most people that do not believe in necessary beings already would easily doubt the possibility of existencial causation, if they are smart enough to understand your argument, that is. Sure, most would only doubt it in order to escape the argument, but that happens. For a example of a denial of the possibility of creation: i remember Cosmic Skeptic, in his dialogue with Dr. Craig, trying to appeal to mereological nihilism to argue that nothing we see in our experience is created. On this view, there are only mereological simples that get arranged on diferent ways, so nothing begins to exist.

      Since you allow brute facts, the atheist can argue that matter and energy begun to exist as a brute fact and that what we perceive as things coming to being is just a illusion, so there are no examples of existencial causation. The atheist can also be a sort of idealist and argue that Mind-at-Large existence is a brute fact and that what we perceive as things coming into being is but changes on MaL subjetive states.

      These views are... creative, i know, but they are legitimate ways that the atheist can respond. While mereological nihilism is pathetic and self-refuting, i don't see how you can refute the idealist unless you use the PSR or something like the cosmological arguments used by people like Aristotle or Aquinas*, so your argument would pretty much be useless. While it can make a atheist think, they have ways to escape the conclusion.

      *for in these cases you got a essentially ordered casual series, even brute facts can't help the atheist here!

      Delete
    19. If brute facts are possible, a necessary enitity is impossible.
      Because in that case there is no contradiction in a world with one brute fact and nothing else. In order world, a world with only one brute fact is a possible world in which a necessary being does not exist, hence there is no necessary being because a necessary being exists in all possible worlds.

      Delete
    20. @Talmid, Well I think this response just confuses things - the question is one of causability, not creation. The atheist won't and can't deny the reality of causation as such since he accepts many things are caused or have explanations, even if he wants to push mereological nihilism - heck, we don't observe things coming into existence for no reason or things happening for no reason either, yet the atheist has no trouble arguing for that.

      It doesn't really matter if there are no examples of existential causation, since only the possibility is needed to make the argument work - and it's not like the atheist can argue that possibility can only be derived from observing concrete realisations of things.

      Delete
    21. JoeD

      I'am a bit confused, does your argument depends only on the possibility of casuality in general or the possibility of existencial causation, like your language from before seems to suggest?

      If the argument depends on existencial causation, things coming into being, them something like mereological nihilism is pretty relevant, for there would be no examples of the needed concept. While the lack of examples is no proof that the concept is impossible, the atheist can argue that conceivability is not enough to establish that existencial causation is possible, so he has no reason to accept that it is.

      If the argument depends on casuality in general, them maybe the atheist can appeal to a b-theory of time to argue that there is no real casuality, for nothing changes.

      I know that these views are all bizarre, but philosophers will try everything before they change their minds, so expect stranger responses.

      Delete
    22. It depends more on the possibility of existential causation - which I don't think the atheist can deny simply by saying conceivability isn't possibility, as he already accepts the possibility and indeed reality of brute facts or brute actualities simply because they are conceivable, even though they can't be established via example at all.

      And I don't think b-theory would be sufficient to get rid of all causality, as even in an eternalist 4d Block view the various temporal parts of objects can still be said to be atemporally causally related - as causality isn't just limited to temporal categories, but can also be applied timelessly in a strictly logical or causal sense.

      Delete
    23. Yea, i agree that the atheist can't deny one thing possibility and them accept another thing possibility for no reason and i don't see a good argument for separating the two, so it seems that i can't find a flaw here. If anyone else want to try, you are welcome. We have to test this thing, for it seems pretty solid.

      Maybe the atheist could, like Walter does above, use the possibility of brute facts as proof that there is at least one possible world where there are no necessary beings, which would imply the reverse ontological argument, showing that there is no necessary beings(AKA: no God). But i admit that i don't understand how brute facts imply a possible world where only brute facts exist, so i will not try to defend that one.

      About b-theory, i agree that you would have casuality in it too, thought maybe not in a way that a modern mind would accept, i forgot to put the part where the atheist would have to argue against there being other types of casuality :)

      Delete
    24. Talmid

      "I admit that I don't understand how brute facts imply a possible world where only brute facts exist"

      It's easy to see why the existence of brute facts mean that a world with only brute facts Is there, if brute facts are possible a logical contradiction in a possible world with only brute facts? I don't see any contradiction, so that seems to be a possible wolrd. Hence there is no necessary being because there is at least one world in which said being does not exist.

      Delete
    25. @Walter

      Two points:

      1. A thing being logically possible does not means that there is a possible word where it does happens, at least if the concept "possible world" talks about real possibilities. There is no logical contradiction in fire freezing my hand but that is metaphysically impossible, so there is no possible world where this happens.

      2. A world where there are only brute facts would be a world where the necessary being does not exist, a world where the being whose non-existence is impossible does not exist, a contradiction. That is why i never understood the appeal of the reverse ontological argument.

      Delete
    26. Tamid
      The concept of possible worlds talks about possibilities. if something is possible, it exists in at least one possible world.
      If fire freezing on's hand is possible, then there is a possible world in which fire freezes one's hand.

      Your second objection begs the question.

      Delete
    27. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    28. @Walter

      "If fire freezing on's hand is possible, then there is a possible world in which fire freezes one's hand."

      Exactly. It is not, so there is no possible world where that happens. I would say that the brute fact existing alone would be in the same situation, but that is the theme of our discussion.

      "Your second objection begs the question."

      Only if assuming that there is a possible world where the being that has to exist in all possible worlds does not exist does it too. I think, i don't see a diference, but that can be my fault.

      Delete
    29. @Walter

      "If fire freezing on's hand is possible, then there is a possible world in which fire freezes one's hand."

      Exactly. It is not, so there is no possible world where that happens. I would say that the brute fact existing alone would be in the same situation, but that is the theme of our discussion.

      "Your second objection begs the question."

      Only if assuming that there is a possible world where the being that has to exist in all possible worlds does not exist does it too. I think, i don't see a diference, but that can be my fault.

      Delete
    30. @Walter

      "If fire freezing on's hand is possible, then there is a possible world in which fire freezes one's hand."

      Exactly. It is not, so there is no possible world where that happens. I would say that the brute fact existing alone would be in the same situation, but that is the theme of our discussion.

      "Your second objection begs the question."

      Only if assuming that there is a possible world where the being that has to exist in all possible worlds does not exist does it too. I think, i don't see a diference, but that can be my fault.

      Delete
    31. Talmid

      So, you deny that brute facts are possible. Fine, but that's not what I am talking about.

      Delete
    32. I do deny them, but i'am not assuming that they are false here. What i'am saying is that from "brute facts are possible" it does not necessarily follow "there is a possible world where only brute facts exist". At least i cant see why one would have to entail the other.

      Delete
    33. Talmid

      Brute facts are facts that have no explanation whatsoever.
      If brute facts are possible, then you cannot deny that there are possible worlds with brute facts.
      Now, give this, what is impossible about a world that only contains one brute fact?

      Delete
    34. A necessary being existence. If it exists, them this possible world is not possible at all.
      Since we can only believe that this is actually a possible world if we believe that a necessary being can't exist,them you can't argue from the possibility of this world to the necessary being non-existence.

      This means that the existence of brute facts does not means by itself that there is no necessary being. This would only be the case if a there where a possible world where only a brute fact exist, and if you did believe in that them you would already believe that there are no necessary beings. So a necessary being and brute facts can happily co-exist.

      Delete
    35. But... you know, Walter, i guess that you are going into the right direction. On JoeD argument, we end stage 1, where the being is proved, with a generic necessary being, here, there is no contradiction between a necessary being and brute facts.

      But on stage 2, where is argued that the necessary being is the God from classical theism, it is argued that the being sustains the whole world and that He controls all, so there would be no event that is not willed and sustained by Him, aka, no brute facts. This means that once we arrive at stage 2 we find that these two are imcompatible after all! Since the argument assumes that brute facts are possible, them it fails.

      @JoeD, any thoughts on this?

      Delete
    36. Talmid

      "A necessary being existence. If it exists, them this possible world is not possible at all."

      But that is question-begging. The reason why I say that a world with only one brute fact is possible is not because I believe that a necessary being can't exist, it is because, given that a brute fact has no explanation, there is no reason it cannot exist in the absence of anything else. hence a world with only a brute fact is possible.

      Delete
    37. But from the concept of brute fact you can't infer that a world with only a brute fact is possible, for its possibility also depends on there being no necessary beings. While the impossibility of there being a necessary being is not the reason why you believe in BFW possibility, it is a precondition of it.

      This means that you can't use BFW as evidence of necessary beings non-existence. Not than that matters, for i think that i found a bigger problem with the argument, as can be seen above.

      Delete
    38. It's not the concept of a brute fact, it is the possibility of a brute fact.
      And it's not a precondition, it's an entailment.

      Delete
    39. "Brute facts are facts that have no explanation whatsoever."

      So you lot are talking about metaphysical brute facts and not epistemological ones eh?

      Also which PSR are we assuming (or negating in the back round)? The Scholastic version of the PSR or the Rationalist one?

      Because those distinctions are important.

      Delete
    40. Son of Ya'kov

      It's my understanding we are talking about metaphysical brute facts and we are also assuming for the sake of the argument that the PSR is false.

      Delete
    41. That half answers my question (& I thank you for that BTW). Which version of the PSR are you assuming is false?

      The Rationalist version (Which Scholastic persons tend to reject) or the Scholastic version?

      Delete
    42. All of they, actually. JoeD argument is designed to people that do not accept any version, i guess.

      @Walter

      Again, from the possibility of brute facts it does not follows that BFW is possible. You first has to establish that there is no necessary beings.

      Delete
  5. Hey Ed it is very nice to see you talking about them and I hope you are doing well!

    Oh, and just a tip: if you guys subscribe to Aquinas 101 free course lessons they make introductions for some topics like Free Will, God's Nature, Being and Metaphysics and a lot more. And you can even make some questions about the topic if you didn't understand the content very well just by clicking on the ''ask a friar'' bottom.

    Thanks for all your amazing work Ed.

    Dominus Vobiscum!

    Regards from Brazil.

    -Vinícius Tadeo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can ask questions? Will this be a live course or prerecorded, I want to know since I signed up

      Delete
    2. Hey again, Yovany!

      Yes, you can ask questions (just click on the "ask a friar" at the bottom of the lesson. The course is prerecorded, but it is pretty explanatory.

      The course from Aquinas 101 goes a little bit like this: you get an email with an specific lesson of the week (e.g human actions) and then there is a video from the Thomistic Institute talking about it. If you roll down the lesson you will find a "supplementary content" video (it contains some lecture about the topic too) and if you continue to scrolling down then you get to the part that Aquinas addresses some objections and formulate adequate responses.

      Off: Sorry about that part with existential inertia. I skipped the part of existential.I was in a hurry. Fortunately our fellow friend already mend my mistake and indicated the properly content.

      God Bless you my friend!

      Delete
  6. Having been introduced to St Thomas by the books of Ed Feser, I am in my 3rd Volume of 4, Companion to the Summa by Walter Ferrel; Volume 1 was purchased used whereas Volumes 3-4 are published by Revelation Insight Publishing 2010 that includes an prelude to each chapter. I can then drill down within the details Summa more effectively.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Patronizing Thomistic Institute: very good.

    Patronizing the book burners at Youtube (and big tech): very not good.

    Thomistic Institute content is also available on Soundcloud, and, of course directly from their website.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The future is very bright for the Thomistic Institute and other organizations doing the right thing, now that modern imbecility--on a slow march for centuries--has now gone parabolic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well put. I would amend that by saying that "modern imbecility--on a slow march for centuries--" has now gone exponentially ballistic.

      Delete
    2. We are just getting started burying your long forgotten, faith dominated , super-oppressive dystopia, believe me. If you really think that the Thomistic Institue has any kind of future other than as a cultist organisation being overwhelmingly ignored by wider society, you are even more deluded than I imagined. We will not return to your priest dominated hell hole, where all aspects of life are governed by the dictats of fairytale thinking and the need to respect supposed teleology. This is an existential issue and we will not let that happen, physically if need be. However, that is unlikely, as wherever people are properly consulted they overwhelmingly reject your side of the argument on every issue whether it is gay marriage, abortion or voluntary euthenasia.

      You and your ilk, and your institutions , are anachronisms that are just not wanted anymore.

      Delete
    3. Yawn. What utter cringe.

      Delete
    4. 23:59: Religious people very likely believe what they do because of non-rational factors.

      00:00: Religion and opression are literally the same LMAO

      Delete
    5. Marchog

      If you people had the courage of your convictions you would be out on the streets, protesting against the evils of same sex attraction and transgenderism, and warning of the mortal dangers of contraception and masterbation. But you are nowhere to be seen! Please get out there and wave your crucifixes high - you will then see by the response what we all think of your medievalism.

      Delete
    6. Am guilty of cowardice, no doubt.
      But YOU had the courage of YOUR convictions, you wouldn't hide behind the generic "unknown" as your identity here.

      Delete
    7. Don't be idiotic Bobsterino. If I gave myself a different, more personalised moniker, or indeed used my real name, how would I be any less concealed? The only way that I could truely identify myself is if I dished out my name and address, which no one in their right mind would do on a thread like this for obvious reasons. So 'Unknown' is quite obviously just as good as 'Bobsterino'.

      My point still stands. You medievalists rage against our sexual and other freedoms, and speak of our age as being one of unparalleled depravity, with its naturalism, gay rights and marriage, transexualism, contraception and couldn't care less attitude to sexual auto-relief ( the list goes on ), but where is your activism against it? If you had the courage of your convictions you would be organising marches, demonstrations and street protests against these supposedly unparalleled evils that obsess you so much. But.....nothing. The theist Daniel said in a recent post that it was time to stop being nice and to call it all out. Well I could not agree more - pick up your crucifixes and take to the streets, so that the rest of us can give you all the rude awakening that you deserve.

      Delete
    8. "We will not return to your priest dominated hell hole, where all aspects of life are governed by the dictats of fairytale thinking and the need to respect supposed teleology. This is an existential issue and we will not let that happen, physically if need be."

      Cringe. I mean, I assure you that I don't care. Most people I know who share my views also don't really care about "taking over society" or whatever, so you can sleep peacefully knowing you won't ever need to "get physical" with any one of us.

      We know that society is unlikely to conform to our beliefs. We just want to do our best to try to make limited positive changes in politics, law, etc. with what we believe (like everyone else - we just happen to believe the Good is to be found in other paths) and to reach others individually. To have more individuals living lives we consider virtuous.

      It's a modest and very realist goal; the very existence of the Thomistic Institute and the people it reaches is already an example of that. So it's just that, honestly; it's no big, epic civilizational crash or whatever. We are more interested in the world to come - in the afterlife - anyway. You're overreacting, and I don't really know why. We'll just try our best to shape politics and culture according to our what we believe is good, and we'll try to lead more virtuous individual lives. Anything more than that is delusional - like you.

      Delete
    9. Agreed with Unknown above.

      Delete
    10. Unknown 6.07PM and Daniel

      You believe that the world is now awash wish extreme depravity, thanks to the adoption of liberalism as a political philosophy by much of it, and constantly rage against naturalism, same sex attraction and marriage, transgenderism, masterbation, contraception and the rest of it. At the same time you hold that your predecessors were instructed by God to go forth and save sinners in a great commission, and it is clear on your view that the modern world is breeding these in truely vast numbers and consigning endless millions to hell. You damn well ought to be fighting against this in every way possible, and seeking radical political change as an ultimate objective along the way. This should utterly preoccupy you. Your obvious cowardace in the face of all you despise nauseates me.

      The most egregious example of this is in the case of abortion, which you conceptualise and present as the willfull murder of innocent children on an industrial scale. So what does the Catholic Church do about this, other than preach and recommend voting for this politician rather than that ? Absolutely nothing! If there was any issue which would legitimise wide scale civil disobedience and societal disruption to halt it would be the slaying of millions of innocent children. But.........nothing.

      In your own terms, you should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves.

      Delete
    11. "where is your activism against it? If you had the courage of your convictions you would be organising marches, demonstrations and street protests against these supposedly unparalleled evils that obsess you so much. But.....nothing. "

      One of the main problems here is that you are wrong. There are massive marches for life. There are protests. One woman I know in Canada has spent the last three decades since Canadian anti abortion legislation in jail for violating bubble zone. My way of protesting the evils of abortion is to have a large family of seven kids. I have also attended pro life rallies.

      But the media give us no coverage. Being prolife is also becoming more dangerous as assaults against prolifers are becoming more common place. These assaults stem from the moral indignation you are so clearly displaying here on this forum. For example, I have nowhere advocated for violence. Not once. And yet on this thread you have talked about using physical violence against people with my views.

      I am ashamed of my culture that could tolerate such evil and I am doing what I can to fight it. But I will not resort to violence. Violence only leads to more evil.

      Delete
    12. I have talked about confronting you physically on the streets if you properly agitated there for an end to our liberal way of life and freedoms. This would be a united front of all liberal, progressive, freedom loving people including youth. It would only come to violence as a very last resort. I do not believe that it would go so far, as you would be swamped and the narrative would turn against your medievalism very quickly. But if it did become nasty, well , that is just how intractable political differences are generally settled i'm afraid.

      I deplore your pacifism in the face of what you consider to be a monsterous evil Daniel. Violence is sometimes necessary in order to prevent or quash a much greater evil, the standard example being the fight against Nazi Germany in WW2, or according to some the use of nuclear weapons against Japan. Yet you will not raise a finger against what you see as the ongoing murder of children on an industrial scale. What kind of warped morality is that?

      Delete
    13. So let me get this straight - you want us to resort to violence so that you can properly destroy our movement? LOL ????

      No, I'm afraid we will not go down that road. Instead we will remain that constant prick of conscience causing you to have nightmares, causing you to question the moral hell you call progress. You will seek to destroy us, as anyone in the grips of evil seeks to destroy those who want to bring them into the light of truth. But truth itself cannot be erased. And years from now when your culture of death is only memory, they will liken you to Nazi Germany who exterminated the Jews, euthanized the elderly, aborted their babies, and killed their mentally ill or retarded. That is a very sad thing. The 20th and 21st centuries will be known as the era of death and moral chaos.

      Instead, we will continue our marches for life and our crisis pregnancy centers. We will continue to care for the poor and the elderly. We will continue to minister the the cast off dregs of your society, those who have been raped by your enlightened and liberated thugs, those who have mutilated their bodies in the insane idea that they can change their biological gender. We will be there as the prick of conscience, but also with the extended hand of mercy to pick up the pieces and the casualties of your insane world view. And we will pray for our enemies. We will strive to love them by witnessing to the truth.

      Unlike you, we also realize that the struggle against evil does not exist primarily in the external world, but exists within every human heart. We have a wounded human nature, and facing that evil within our own nature is hard to bear. Impossible even, unless we turn towards a savior. That savior is Jesus Christ. And his kingdom is not of this world. Our homeland does not exist in this life, but has its roots in this world. We seek an eternal kingdom.

      The big problem with today's world is that this apocalyptic vision is imminent. You folks seek final solutions to your problems here, in this life. And so you tolerate wars of extermination, gulags, and reeducation camps. You seek the kingdom of heaven here and now, no matter what the cost. And your primary tools to achieve this perfect society is killing others, either through abortion, euthanasia, dropping nuclear bombs on innocent civilians, and the list goes on.

      But the reality is that there is no final solution to evil in this life, except the one procured for us by Jesus Christ on the cross and by his subsequent resurection. We must follow him and take up our cross and do what we can. The greatest evils occur when we attempt to throw down or crosses in favor of easy and evil fixes to our problems.

      I don't hate you Unknown. I don't seek your extermination. I hate the world view you inhabit, but I don't hate you. I sincerely wish to help you out of your darkness. But that is something beyond my power. So I pray for you instead. And I witness to the truth.

      Delete
    14. Daniel

      That really was a hysterical ragbag of accusations you threw at me ( I tolerate wars of extermination, gulags and extermination camps apparantly, and my culture of death will one day be likened to the Nazis no less ). I simply do not see mysef in your bizarre description. In fact, as a long standing and very active trade unionist at work, and social activist more generally, you could not be more off the mark.

      My calling out your pacifism in the face of what you see as the continuing abortion holocaust really got your goat did it not?

      I do not hate you at all either Daniel, but I will do everything I possibly can through my activism to defeat you politically.

      Delete
    15. Wee lamb you hate anybody to the slight right of Rashida Talib.

      Yer need for a totalitarian leftist government is sad.

      Delete
    16. Hi there Yaky.

      I see that your reading and comprehension skills are of a very low order, as what I defend are the freedoms of our current liberal democratic system. Why would you think that I have a need for a totalirarian leftist government, unless of yours you are some kind of fascist and believe that is what we already have in the UK and most of Europe!

      Delete
    17. Hello again Willie

      I must admit that I did not know who Rashida Talib was, but having read up on her I am very impressed. I had no idea that you had people of such callibre in your Congress.

      And yes, on balance, I would say that I am politically to the left of her!

      Delete
    18. >I must admit that I did not know who Rashida Talib was, but having read up on her I am very impressed.

      Called it! totalitarian leftist!

      >what I defend are the freedoms of our current liberal democratic system.

      I just don't believe you ladd. Leftist lie like devils.


      >And yes, on balance, I would say that I am politically to the left of her!

      Called it! Totalitarian alert!

      Delete
    19. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    20. You make me chuckle Yaky, with your two personas ( do you suffer from some kind of psychiatric or neurological syndrome ? ).

      My comments at 9.44pm were hardly meant to be taken seriously.

      Delete
    21. Or are you being haunted by disembodied intellects , or maybe you've just been on the pop!

      Delete
    22. Don't ye have a wee Antifa meeting to attend. Don't forget yer black mask an hood.

      BTW what other organization wears hoods to conceal their identity? Just saying.....

      Delete
    23. Naah, Antifa are a bunch of pussies. Far too right wing and pusillanimous for my liking.

      Burned any heretics or other deviants from the true and Holy at the stake recently willie? Listen to those voices in your head......

      Delete
    24. Funny you have to reach back hundreds of years to mock Catholics and I only have to point to last summer to hit leftists......


      Poor wee lamb.

      Delete
    25. Mass child abuse and paedophilia hy your clergy and its cover up at the highest levels is a bit more contemporary.

      As you know full well, grouping all leftists under the same umberella and then impugning them for some offence or other, as if they are a homogeneous bunch, is not just illogical but also unjust. Not that I have a clue why you are linking an inhabitant of the uk with Antifa and goings on in the US. Perhaps those disembodied intellects that you imagine populate the universe have been moving you to evil thoughts again. Penance is called for Willie.

      Delete
    26. Are you talking about yer lefty friends in hollyweird with the pedophillia and sex abuse? The people who fund you lot?


      Wee hypocrite.

      >rouping all leftists under the same umberella and then impugning them for some offence or other, as if they are a homogeneous bunch, is not just illogical but also unjust.

      vs

      >ass child abuse and paedophilia hy your clergy......Burned any heretics or other deviants from the true and Holy at the stake recently willie?

      Yep wee hypocrite. You got the "We have always been at war with East Asia & Eurasia is our allies" Orwellian mojo down pat.

      Awe wee Lamb.

      Delete
    27. Ha, ha - you are obviously completely bonkers, but you make me chuckle.

      Delete
    28. That is yer best comeback? Awe wee lamb.

      PS Don't bend over around Kevin Spacy and stay oot of his basement laddie.

      Delete
    29. It wasn't meant to be a 'come back'.

      As regards Kevin Spacy, I am more concerned to keep my kids away from the local priests , who must be so sexually frustrated at not being able to legitimately satisfy even themselves ( on pain of hell ) that even my dog would tremble to be near them.

      Delete
    30. Except Public schools have a worst sex abuse record than do Priests so the message you are giving me is yer not so much concerned about yer kids getting molested as long as the right sort of Roman does it....

      Thus yer ok with it as long as it is done by a Public School teacher or celebrity.

      Myself I am old fashioned. I don't want any weirdos near me kids. Like you and unlike you..

      Delete
    31. Being concerned about one possible source of child sexual abuse does not preclude me from being concerned about others too!

      As regards schools, here in the UK child safeguarding is central to their organisation and activity, as stipulated by law and subject to inspection. We all receive extensive training in the area, and are vigilant in looking out for any signs and indications of child sexual or other abuse, with a statutory duty to report any suspicians to the safeguarding lead immediately. The idea that a school would cover up abuse in order to safeguard its reputation, or move perpetrators to other institutions in order to avoid scandal, is ludicrous. But then again, we are communists over here arn't we, as is further evidenced by the fact that we have a very large socialised healthcare sector and do not allow citizens to turn their homes into armed fortresses or parade around the street tooled up with deadly weaponary.

      Delete
    32. I might add that the paedophile priest scandal in the ' one true church ' did at least have a couple of silver linings, in that it highlighted the issue of child sexual abuse more generally- so motivating safeguarding legislation in the area - and it further trashed the already tawdry reputation of your church in a way that no campaigns by secularists could possibly have aspired to.

      Delete
    33. Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal....
      Nuff said....


      Nothing like a PC rape culture where you let young girls get violated because yer afraid of being called racist eh?...

      Then there is Jimmy Savile.....

      Yeh socialist run countries are just SO SAFE for wee girls...not.

      >The idea that a school would cover up abuse in order to safeguard its reputation, or move perpetrators to other institutions in order to avoid scandal, is ludicrous.

      Yet that what ye have done? Wee sociopaths the lot of ya...typical leftist rape apologist and hypocrite.


      Lefty pervert!

      Delete
    34. BTW wee lefty rape apologist...

      Care to explain yerself?

      Child sexual abuse in schools often an open secret, says inquiry-The Guardian.

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/17/child-sexual-abuse-in-schools-often-an-open-secret-says-inquiry


      Shocking scale of sexual abuse at UK boarding schools revealed by ITV documentary

      https://www.itv.com/news/2018-02-18/shocking-scale-of-sexual-abuse-at-uk-boarding-schools-revealed-by-itv-documentary

      Note the socialist nutter said "The idea that a school would cover up abuse in order to safeguard its reputation, or move perpetrators to other institutions in order to avoid scandal, is ludicrous."

      Sociopath and a wee hypocrite.

      BTW as for all the UK teachers violating the wee wains..if they only let teachers marry and allow the wee gays to be teachers obviously this would never happen.....ROTFLOL!!!

      Awe wee lamb!

      Delete
    35. Hi Willie

      I'm not going to reply fully to your deranged rant, which strikes a new low for you , but I hope that all your Thomist friends remember and take note of it.

      I had no idea we were discussing the grooming of young girls for abuse by disroportionately Asian men in Rotherham, or the activity of Jimmy Saville. Nor did I realise that the UK was a socialist country, run as it is by a Tory administration. Finally, when you originally mentioned schools, I immediately thought of the great mass of them , which in the uk are state schools such as the one I teach in, and not boarding schools. Of course, I deplore child abuse wherever it occurs, but what happens in some boarding schools is not something I have to think about in relation to my kids fortunately ( good socialist that I am ).

      You can go back to your booze now Willie, and I would advise a trip to the Catholic witch doctor for absolution from multiple sins, lest you unexpectedly expire and find yourself in YAHWEH's frying pan!

      Delete
    36. Awe We Lamb! The pedio apologist is wee upset 'ee got called on his double standards. Lack of self awareness & the wee moron thinks the Tories are real "conservatives" not Bushites with posh rp accents!

      State sponsored schools in the UK are just sooo safe EXCEPT WHEN THEY ARE NOR....

      Holland Park teacher jailed for sex abuse of pupil in grounds of school
      https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/holland-park-teacher-jailed-for-sex-abuse-of-pupil-in-grounds-of-school-a4281016.html

      Gee if only UK teachers in state schools could marry or allowed to be wee gay this would never happen...

      Wee Hypocrite and a wee perv!


      More safety in "state" UK schools...

      https://www.boltburdonkemp.co.uk/abuse-claims/where-does-abuse-happen/schools/

      https://www.safeline.org.uk/abuse-or-banter-sexual-harassment-and-abuse-at-school/

      Quote"6 out of 10 girls in the UK have been sexually abused at school according to a recent government report."

      Gee if only women could be teachers in UK State schools and if only UK Teachers could marry and if only they let the wee gays be teachers this would never happen. :D

      Pathetic! I think I can smell shite!

      Delete
    37. Ha, ha - well, the Tories may be socialists by your standards Yaky, but that just shows how divorced you are from reality. But wait, we knew that already. I mean, you think the universe is full of completely undetectable disembodied intellects, and no doubt spend much of your time jabbering to some of them.

      I am not 'a wee upset' about anything you say, because you are clearly deranged and so someone I feel pity and compassion towards.The ridiculous slang and patter that you drift in and out of - again indicating psychological abnormality - just makes me belly laugh out loud at you! You are entertaining Yaky, because you are ludicrous.

      Six out of ten girls have been sexually abused in English schools , I ask You knowingly conflate such things as sexual comments made by fellow students with the physical sexual abuse by adults that we are talking about here. Both are unacceptable, but one is much worse and is the topic of discussion here.

      As to much of the rest of your ravings, they are largly incomprehensible. Time for your medication now Willie.

      Delete
    38. Yer moving the goal posts and making excuses for being an apologist for perv behavior is beyond entertaining.

      I can forgive that but the double standards and lack of self awareness is just too good!
      Not to mention the stupidity. In the age of google and search engines making jackarse statements like "The idea that a school would cover up abuse in order to safeguard its reputation, or move perpetrators to other institutions in order to avoid scandal, is ludicrous."is beyond parody.

      Because this is what happens. I need only one example and the net can provide me with hundreds.

      Awe wee lamb. I dina know what yer smoking but it must be some good shite.

      Delete
    39. Oh, the other Yaky is back now - at least he is half comprehensible. You must have sobered up overnight.

      I think that anyone reading through
      this worthless exchange - which started off with you proclaiming
      ( completely without justification ) that I hate 'anyone to the slight right of Rashida Talib' and have a sad need for a totalitarian leftist government - will easily see that I am hardly an apologist for child sex abuse and that it is you who have been shifting the goal posts and topic of conversation in a most bizarrre and apparantly unstable manner.

      What irked you early on were of course my comments about the sexual behaviour of your witch doctors . Now while not tarring them all with the same brush, it is a fact that your clergy has been the subject of a truely colossal scandal, in which legions have been shown to be the perpetrators of physical sexual abuse against children going back years, and that this has generally been systematically covered up. In the one true church and by the representatives of YAHWEH on earth no less! Your need to defect from this and shift the conversation elsewhere is quite reprehensible.

      The plain fact is that if you take a bunch of men and deprive them of all sexual outlets ( including perfectly normal and natural autorelief - on pain of hell ), then many ( virtually all in the case of the younger ones, who are thankfully an increasingly rare commodity for you now as your recruitment crisis escalates ) will become enormously sexually frustrated, and this will spill over into opportunistic predetory behaviour, assisted by the availability of young subjects and the absurd awe and high regard in which your men in black frocks are frequently held.

      It is perfectly obvious that the sexual - not to mention romantic - depravation in which you hold your priests is extremely unhealthy, and that being a 'bride of Christ' does not cut it. Well , perfectly obvious to anyone not sozzled by Catholic indoctrination and a need to defend every dot and tittle of it with zeal.

      May your denial long continue, and here too is a toast to the traditionslists in the church - may they achieve every victory and success. Because your church is bleeding members and increasingly failing to maintain its priestly police force , and the more it remains rooted in the past and unable to sensibly adapt, the more these things will accellerate.

      Delete
    40. Awe wee lamb. Yer meltdown is delicious.

      Delete
    41. Your facilitation of clerical abuse through support of the conditions that spawned it is nauseating, as is your unwillingness to acknowledge it. I will comtinue to keep my dog on a short lead when the men in frocks are about ( and i'm not talking about your compats Yaky! ).

      Delete
    42. Says the pedo apologist who ignores secular UK cases of institutional child abuse in entertainment, public and private schools etc..

      Awe wee lamb hypocrite.

      Delete
    43. Fortunately, the great mass of the public know where it's at with your church - homophobic, mysogynistic, archaic and full of sexually frustrated throwbacks to a world long gone, which is why it is bleeding members, increasingly unable to recruit witch doctors, and spurned by the young. I am actively involved with child protection issues in my work place , but as the post celebrates the work of a Catholic apologetic and front organisation, it is your tawdry church which concerns me here.

      What do you proactively do to safeguard children Rab, in oppose to endangering them by promoting medievalism?



      Delete
    44. Yet you don't know of the extensive sex abuse problem in the UK secular and entertainment institutions and you claim it doesn't exist?

      Awe wee lamb hypocrite.

      Delete
    45. I have not mentioned UK entertainment institutions and completely disagree that we have any such systematic problem in our state schools, though you can always find examples in such a huge area, and can misrepresent things if you define abuse in a ludicrously wide manner.

      As you well know, child safeguarding has been top of the political agenda over here in recent years, following the sex abuse scandal of your brides of Christ ( he clearly does not satisfy ) and a few high profile cases of celebs like Rolf Harris and Jimmy Saville. But you have deliberately mistepresented the situation in an effort to distract from the completely predictable behaviour of a section of your sexually and romantically deprived and frustrated clergy, who cannot even relieve themselves on pain of hell. I mean, who would have though that such a situation might be 'problematic'. Not much evidence of inspiration and guidance from the Holy Spirit there eh?

      Do you or have you left your own young kids alone with the men in frocks Yako, or sent them of on religious retreats or to other religious boarding 'experiences'? Just wondering.

      Delete
    46. Again loving this hypocritical meltdown. Awe wee lamb.

      Delete
    47. Have you or do you leave your kids alone with the men in frocks then Yako? Just aaking.

      Delete
    48. Yer a pedo apologist and a creepy wee lamb.

      Yer last post proves you defend pedophilia. Rooting for my kids to be molested.

      Delete
    49. Ha, ha - 'a creepy we lamb!' You must be rooting for that yourself if you do not care who they are left alone with or where. Social services should investigate you.

      Hope you had the bottom inspectors round to check them out following your laxity. Just saying.

      Delete
    50. BTW this is the left.

      https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2021/03/29/woke-hero-philosopher-michel-foucault-raped-children-as-young-as-8-years-old/

      Delete
    51. Your unwillingness to answer a simple question speaks volumes. Your kids aee the poor we lambs.

      Delete
    52. PS Do you still see any of them or did they flee your booze sozzled, bible-bashing presence long ago?

      Delete
    53. You asked a creepy inappropriate question about my own children's private areas and yet you attack the Church for pedophilia?

      Let that sink in. Awe wee lamb.

      Delete
    54. Mmmm , these private areas are in your perverted mind Yako. I cannot see the question you imagined I asked, in oppose to one regarding your actions.

      Take it that you have been grossly negligent with your kids then. Not surprised really.What should we expect but blind idiotic trust and deference from one such as you. Poor kids.

      Delete
    55. Perv boy wrote:
      >Mmmm , these private areas are in your perverted mind Yako. I cannot see the question you imagined I asked, in oppose to one regarding your actions.

      vs

      >Hope you had the bottom inspectors round to check them[my kids] out following your laxity. Just saying.

      At this point yer not even trying not to lie. At this point you will write a very long epistle in
      response which I will ignore and sign off with...

      Awe wee lamb.

      Delete
    56. You are clearly a moron digging yourself into a hole Yako.

      You accused me of asking a question about your children's genitalia, as if I had an unhealthy interest in them specifically, whereas I actually asked if you'd had your children looked over following your probable irresponsible behaviour and laxity. That is a completely different emphasis as you well know.

      No wonder you drink so much and are so psycholohically unstable - the guilt must be unbearable and require millions of Hail Mary's as penance. No wonder you don't have a good relationship with your kids, psycho.

      Delete
    57. Called it! "Bottom inspectors" is a "different emphasis". Perv!

      Awe wee lamb.

      Delete
    58. Er, it is an admitedly crude way of emphasising in what aspect you should have got them checked out, not a question about your ( supposed ) children's 'private areas' dumbo.

      And I do not mind being called a pervert at all by you sad, sexually repressed religionists. I love all manner of consentual non-procreative sex, and can't get enough of it. You should take the crucufix off your bedroom wall and let yourself go sometime - you might enjoy it!

      Delete
    59. Awe Wee perv lamb!


      Yer the guy here with the British accent. I am the other guy.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUAK7t3Lf8s

      Delete
    60. Can't be arsed to look at that. Is there someone going 'Oche aye the noo Jimmy' on it 'cos that would be you. By the way, is it true that your national dish is Fried Mars Bar?

      You should join Opus Dei and get down to a spot of self flagellatiom - that might help with the guilt you obviously feel for not safeguarding your ( supposed ) kids properly.

      Delete
    61. Do you have any kids really, and if so, do you see them very often? Just asking.

      Delete
    62. What, your household? Sorry to hear that.

      Delete
  9. Interesting blog post by Mike Flynn on "Whether the scientific revolution was uniquely Western" here :

    http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2009/12/return-of-age-of-unreason-part-ii.html

    ReplyDelete
  10. The videos look interesting. Dr. Feser when can we expect your next book?

    ReplyDelete
  11. To the unkown trying to respond to JoeD 2.17pm on the Lacordaire thread, after a certain number of posts, blogspot hides any new posts. You have to go to the very bottom of the thread and click on Load More to get the rest of the posts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Daniel, I had no idea! I have read many accounts about vanishing contribution on this site, and the frustration this can causes - especially when tbe contribution is long - so I just assumed that was happening to me.

      Delete
  12. Can't be bothered to look, but if I am the one with the British accent, you.must be the one going 'Oche aye the noo Jimmy". By the way, is it true that your national dish is fried mars bars?

    So, I take it that you have been a poor guardian to your ( supposed ) we ones, putting them at risk from the sexually frustrated and deprived men in frocks, otherwise why shy away from my questions. You could always join Opus Dei and flagellate yourself in penance. I believe they have group sessions too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ha, ha - sorry Unknown, I meant to reply to the psycho Son of Yakov.

      Delete
    2. ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

      This is too good.

      Delete
    3. Bloody 'ell Yako, you are very easily entertained, and have a low threshold for amusement.

      Checked up on your kids recently?

      Delete
    4. I think I broke the lefty.....yep.

      Delete
    5. You are hilarious sometimes, but not very perceptive and clearly deluded.

      Just been reading about this cilice thing that you people like to wear. You have quite a flourishing BDSM scene in your church havn't you, as well as a paedophile priest one.

      Delete
    6. What , you after you latest corporal mortification session?

      Delete