tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post1211298928915924243..comments2024-03-28T21:43:44.433-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: The trouble with William PaleyEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74730525288250706562017-01-27T04:35:25.300-08:002017-01-27T04:35:25.300-08:00Dear Sir,
I have been reading several of your pos...Dear Sir,<br /><br />I have been reading several of your posts and find them careful and helpful; thank you. I think I am beginning to "get" the sense of what you are affirming, from Aquinas and others, about Divine Simplicity, where by "get" I mean not just follow points but sensing the weight and the virtue of finding out more. However, there are sometimes statements which seem to completely throw the whole discourse, such that one suddenly has a worry that a vacuum has opened up. An example is in the quotation from F. J. Martin, where he says,<br /><br />"there is nothing that God is up to, nothing he needs to get done, nothing he needs to do to get things done"<br /><br />I had to read the passage several times before I think I understood what Martin is affirming. I get the point about wanting the set-up, "A for the sake of B" rather than wanting B, and having to rely on A. However, if I quoted this passage I would immediately want to reassure the reader that you are not saying you consider God to be utterly disinterested (in the Thomasian analogy way of speaking). Suppose someone asks themselves, "might God be trying to help us take leave of racial hatred, and promote fair trade?" and this was the sort of thing they are thinking about as they read, "there is nothing that God is up to, nothing he needs to get done". I think it would be good if you offered a bit more to help such a reader.<br /><br />Yours sincerely,<br /><br />Andrew Steane<br />(I am a physics professor in Oxford)<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08959617820904963636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15173755711453686662015-09-16T08:07:21.705-07:002015-09-16T08:07:21.705-07:00How can you know a person if youre not on talking ... How can you know a person if youre not on talking terms with them? <br />You want to know God? Talk to him. <br />People are not philosphies or theorems, and neither is Christ. <br /> <br />take it from your hero:<br />"Shortly before Thomas died, his friend Reginald of Piperno implored him to finish his works. Thomas replied, "I cannot, because all that I have written seems like straw to me.""<br />Christ called it "hay, wood, and stubble.." St.Paul referred to it as "dung". when we go out of the cave and see the sun for the first time nothing else will suffice ever again. <br />https://youtu.be/gZLzTLvWZH4 <br /><br />live long and prosper<br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15963750453445133409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63912902074635166672009-12-25T08:38:32.632-08:002009-12-25T08:38:32.632-08:00I "worked my way through" to faith in Ch...I "worked my way through" to faith in Christ at university. A simple self-developed argument from design was a stepping-stone. I saw a cartoon, and reasoned that no one would believe the cartoon existed without a cartoonist; I then reasoned from the lesser to the greater, that I, vastly more complex and valuable, also must be the product of a Creator.<br /><br />The next step, of course, was to inquire about who this Creator might be.<br /><br />I believe that the Holy Spirit was instrumental in all of this.<br /><br />So, I would not rule out the practical apologetic value of an argument from design.BallBounceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776039024486455199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76942929476121864682009-11-10T08:30:35.144-08:002009-11-10T08:30:35.144-08:00Nicely said, Prof. Feser. I agree with you to the ...Nicely said, Prof. Feser. I agree with you to the extent it's compatible with Orthodox Judaism.David Frymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02715435893541813786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69046748035790600742009-11-08T14:31:20.797-08:002009-11-08T14:31:20.797-08:00Thanks Ed
I asked about the robustness of A-T bec...Thanks Ed<br /><br />I asked about the robustness of A-T because it is the thesis of Jesuit philosopher Fr. Ja,es Felt that it is not sufficiently robust. He has written a book 'Coming TO Be' in which he proposes keeping the theological components of A-T but adopting Whitehead's 'philosophy of organism' to explain how natural changes occur.<br /><br />I do not wish to hijack any one of your blogs, but wonder if you might address Fr. Felt's efforts at such an improved Thomictic metaphysics - perhaps in a separate blog?<br /><br />Thanks.Burlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33966479741925844722009-11-06T18:05:43.008-08:002009-11-06T18:05:43.008-08:00Anonymous,
Well, yes and no. If it's just a...Anonymous, <br /><br />Well, yes and no. If it's just a matter of saying "The order of the world points to a divine intelligence," that's true enough. But to show why it's true, it needs to be spelled out in a philosophically rigorous way, and the A-T (Fifth Way) way of doing so is correct while the Paley way is just wrong. As Aquinas says, we should never use bad arguments, first, because they're bad, and second, because they give infidels an excuse for scoffing.Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66142858454622328002009-11-06T18:02:41.512-08:002009-11-06T18:02:41.512-08:00Burl,
No, for Aquinas angels are forms without ma...Burl,<br /><br />No, for Aquinas angels are forms without matter, and come into being by direct creation. Re: the evolution of material creatures, A-T would allow some kinds but not others. E.g. the human soul, being a subsistent form, could not have evolved or in any other way originated from purely material processes. Also, the difference between inorganic and organic phenomena, and between vegetative and animal life, is traditionally understood in A-T as a difference in kind rather than degree, so that it is hard to see how those transitions, anyway, could occur via purely Darwinian means.Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75639617694412288522009-11-06T17:56:07.939-08:002009-11-06T17:56:07.939-08:00Hi Alex,
Fair enough, at least given a narrow con...Hi Alex,<br /><br />Fair enough, at least given a narrow conception of "naturalism," which is no doubt most people's conception these days. Maybe the conception will expand if more people become convinced by Paley-style arguments. ("Well, OK, maybe there's a demiurge somewhere, but he's still just one 'natural' being among others and has no religious significance" etc. Indeed, that's pretty much what atomists like Democritus thought.)Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27692288900915879212009-11-06T11:37:48.417-08:002009-11-06T11:37:48.417-08:00Thanks for saying what I've always thought abo...Thanks for saying what I've always thought about this "tinker toy" wielding God of fundamentalism. Where's the might and the mystery?Julie Simon Lakehomerhttp://juliesimonlakehomer.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74210349381268284672009-11-06T08:31:49.449-08:002009-11-06T08:31:49.449-08:00Still, it's worth noting that the Paley argume...Still, it's worth noting that the Paley arguments can be valuable as an ad hominem: if you accept (as almost all naturalists do) a mechanistic view of nature, you ought not be naturalist, if the argument works.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63247631941600088462009-11-05T14:14:21.392-08:002009-11-05T14:14:21.392-08:00I said, "...precisely the point that you disa...I said, "...precisely the point that you disapprove of: they play from the position [i.e., use the presuppositions] of 'the other side'" <br /><br />Ed says, "It seems to me that you are missing the point... specifically, the <i>methodological and metaphysical presuppositions</i> of Paley-style arguments"<br /><br />I now say "uh-huh." :-)Doughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16197663817396506388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20955455427288697312009-11-05T13:56:01.317-08:002009-11-05T13:56:01.317-08:00Ed
Is A-T hylomorphism robust enough to explain e...Ed<br /><br />Is A-T hylomorphism robust enough to explain evolution of life, which is a concern for ID? Would Aquinas say angels evolve?Burlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6813449886934501012009-11-05T13:11:52.589-08:002009-11-05T13:11:52.589-08:00I'm just glad I have a knock-down argument aga...I'm just glad I have a knock-down argument against my Quetzalcoatl-worshipping friends now.Maolsheachlannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09406722311993627528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9052526777397818982009-11-05T10:10:36.700-08:002009-11-05T10:10:36.700-08:00Nice post. I agree that the A-T method provide th...Nice post. I agree that the A-T method provide the <i>strongest</i> proofs for the existence of God as classical theism depicts him, and,for people of a sufficient intelligence, they ought to be presented. That said, I do think that the average Joe would have a very hard time comprehending the fine subtleties of A-T, and with this in mind, some apologists find it more effective to conjoin one of these "design" arguments with a case for Jesus' resurrection. Though it will probably never get the layman to an understanding of God as "pure actuality," it will at least affirm the general tenets of Christianity. Surely that is not an approach devoid of value?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23784794973753880272009-11-05T08:35:03.570-08:002009-11-05T08:35:03.570-08:00Doug,
It seems to me you are missing the point. ...Doug,<br /><br />It seems to me you are missing the point. As I've said, my objection is, specifically, to the <i>methodology and metaphysical presuppositions</i> of Paley-style arguments. I do not object to attempts to show that the sorts of things you're referring to cannot be explaining naturalistically. Quite the opposite, actually. As an Aristotelian, I (obviously!) agree that life cannot be reductively explained in terms of purely mechanistic processes. I also agree that the Big Bang is plausibly explicable only in terms of divine action (because I agree with Craig's kalam cosmological argument, even if I don't think it is as fundamental as other theistic arguments).<br /><br />John,<br /><br />I like Time Bandits too -- but as sci-fi, not as theology! ;-)Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51483125813797432522009-11-05T06:30:22.351-08:002009-11-05T06:30:22.351-08:00Superb post, Ed. I've long thought the argumen...Superb post, Ed. I've long thought the argument design, in Paley's terms, should be dumped altogether.<br /><br />I'm going to be reviewing a couple of new evolution books (including Dawkins' latest) and your recent posts--including this one--on teleology have been invaluable.<br /><br />BTW--Time Bandits is a great movie.John Farrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18280296574996987228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61036599205303127332009-11-05T04:41:24.486-08:002009-11-05T04:41:24.486-08:00Arguments from design are not intended to be "...Arguments from design are not intended to be "proofs". Nor are they arguments from ignorance. They simply draw attention to the three "enduring gaps" that are called out in Genesis chapter one with the word "created". <b>1</b>: God <i>created</i> the heaven and the earth. This gives us a clue that we won't be able to explain the Big Bang using the tools available to us. Surprise! We can't. <b>2</b>: God <i>created</i> life. Once again, abiogenesis is a discipline with very little going for it beyond speculation. The more we know about the cellular machinery, the less feasible the speculation becomes. <b>3</b>: God <i>created</i> man in His own image. Indeed, the more we hear that man is "just" another ape, the more the scaffolding of that argument (i.e., the internet, publishing, podcasts, video, language, etc) defeat it. <br /><br />Granted the arguments are not as strong, nor as persuasive as the A-T tradition, but the point that they have in their favor is precisely the point that you disapprove of: they play from the position of the "other side".Doughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16197663817396506388noreply@blogger.com