The two thieves

Christ was not crucified alone.  Of those who died with him, Luke’s Gospel tells us the following:

There were also two others, criminals, led with Him to be put to death.  And when they had come to the place called Calvary, there they crucified Him, and the criminals, one on the right hand and the other on the left… Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, “If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us.”  But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation?  And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.”  Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.”  And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:32-33, 39-43, NKJV)

On the tariff crisis

Like many others across the political spectrum, I’ve been alarmed at the extreme tariff policy President Trump announced last week, which was met by a massive drop in the stock market.  As with almost everything else he does, the policy was nevertheless instantly embraced with enthusiasm by his most devoted followers, who have glibly dismissed all concerns and assured us that we are on the cusp of a golden age.  If this does not sound like the conclusion of careful and dispassionate reasoning, that is because it isn’t.  Whatever the outcome of Trump’s policy, the flippant boosterism with which it has been put forward and defended is contrary to reason.

On pride and vainglory

Pride, as Aquinas defines it in De Malo, is “the inordinate desire for pre-eminence” (Question 8, Article 2). With Augustine and the Christian tradition in general, he teaches that it is “the greatest sin” and indeed “the root and queen of all sins.” Its immediate effect is “vainglory,” which is the vice of habitually seeking to call attention to one’s own imagined excellence. And the daughters of vainglory, Aquinas tells us (Question 9, Article 3), are disobedience, boasting, hypocrisy (by which Aquinas means a tendency to magnify one’s glory by reference to “imaginary deeds”), contention, obstinacy, discord, and what he calls the “audacity for novelties” or predilection for bold actions that will call attention to oneself by bringing “astonishment” to others.

Scholastic regress arguments

Many are familiar with arguments to the effect that an infinite regress of causes is impossible, as Aquinas holds in several of his Five Ways of proving God’s existence.  Fewer correctly understand how the reasoning of such arguments is actually supposed to work in Scholastic writers like Aquinas.  Fewer still are aware that the basic structure of this sort of reasoning has parallels in other Scholastic regress arguments concerning the nature of mind, of knowledge, and of action.  Comparing these sorts of arguments can be illuminating.

Immortal Souls on the Classical Theism Podcast

Recently I was interviewed at some length by John DeRosa for the Classical Theism Podcast, about my book Immortal Souls: A Treatise on Human Nature. You can listen to the interview here.

Catholicism and immigration

My article “A Catholic Defense of Enforcing Immigration Laws” appears at Public Discourse.

Liberalism’s catastrophic spider

In my latest essay at Postliberal Order, I argue that, whatever Kant’s own intentions, the Kantian rhetoric of autonomy and respect for persons has allowed modern liberalism to cloak a radical subversion of natural law and Christian moral theology behind the veil of “human dignity.”

Life, Reproduction, and the Paradox of Evolution

My article “Life, Reproduction, and the Paradox of Evolution” appears in a special issue of the journal BioCosmos devoted to exploring the nature of life. (And fear not, dear reader, the articles are open access rather than behind a paywall.)

Mackie on Pascal’s Wager

I’ve never been a fan of Pascal’s Wager.  But there’s a bit more that one might say for it than is often supposed.  For example, the objections J. L. Mackie raises against it in his classic defense of atheism The Miracle of Theism, though important, are not fatal.  Let’s take a look at the argument, at Mackie’s objections, and at how a defender of Pascal might reply to them.

What proceeds from Hart (Updated)

Epilogue 2/22: As those who have read the updates to this post will have learned, David Bentley Hart has apologized for the offending remarks and has had them removed from the documentary.  He has also let me know that the interview was recorded years ago, that he did not remember that it included those remarks, and that he would not have allowed them to remain in it if he had remembered them.  Accordingly, I retract my statement that he "has no honor."  He has shown himself to be honorable indeed, and I happily accept and appreciate his apology.

Every time a truce between David Bentley Hart and me has been broken, it has been broken by him.  And more than once, friendly and fence-mending exchanges in private have been followed by a public shivving on his part.  The man has no honor.  In a new documentary, he casually remarks that “Feser… really is a person for whom Christianity is mostly about, you know, killing people or, or you know, it’s about beating them.”  The surrounding remarks are no less nasty.  (Readers who don’t want to watch the entire thing can fast forward to about 57 minutes into it.)

Immigration and academia on The Tom Woods Show

This week I appear on The Tom Woods Show to discuss the immigration debate, the state of academic philosophy, and other matters.

Trump’s Gaza proposal is gravely immoral

Today my critique of Trump’s Gaza proposal appears at the National Catholic Register.  Friends, whether you agree or disagree, I urge you to allow your opinions on this grave matter to be molded only by dispassionate reason and moral principle rather than anger and partisanship.

Just war principles and the Mexican drug cartels

In my latest article at Postliberal Order, I argue that under certain conditions, U.S. military intervention in Mexico against the drug cartels would be justifiable according to the principles of traditional just war theory.

Catholics and immigration on No Spin News (Updated)

Those who follow me on Twitter/X will know that I posted there heavily last week about the controversy over Catholicism and immigration.  This evening, I appear on Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News program to discuss the controversy.  O'Reilly Premium Members can watch the segment here.

UPDATE 2/5: You can now watch the interview here.

More on Immortal Souls

The latest feedback on Immortal Souls: A Treatise on Human Nature.  At Twitter/X, theologian Ulrich Lehner writes: “A wonderful book. Sharply sharply argued, readable, and always illuminating.”  Szilvay Gergely kindly reviews the book in the Hungarian magazine Mandiner.  From the review: “Feser… can argue surprisingly effectively and convincingly… If you considered the immortality of the soul (and the whole person) to be an unsupported myth, then Feser shows that this is not the case.”

The ethics of invective

It’s often said that while sticks and stones can break our bones, words can never hurt us.  But it isn’t true.  Were we mere animals it would be true, but we’re not.  We are rational social animals.  Hence we can be harmed, not only in ways that injure the body, but also in ways that bring distress to the mind and damage our standing with our fellow human beings.  These harms are typically not as grave as those involving bodily trauma, but they are real harms all the same.  Indeed, mockery and the loss of one’s good name can even be felt by one who suffers them as worse than (at least some) bodily harms. 

A report from the Great Los Angeles Fire

On the extent, causes, and lessons of the disaster, in my latest article at Postliberal Order.