tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post2980180638027351688..comments2024-03-29T05:55:32.588-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Harlan Ellison’s evil godEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11596256353852445282010-10-29T12:19:27.150-07:002010-10-29T12:19:27.150-07:00@VoltaireX
Law's argument hadly stands up aga...@VoltaireX<br /><br />Law's argument hadly stands up against Aquins' reply, reallyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78965951625960291212010-10-25T16:35:12.765-07:002010-10-25T16:35:12.765-07:00Yeah Voltaire prefers his ad hominens more explici...Yeah Voltaire prefers his ad hominens more explicit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70701694193927625452010-10-25T13:56:03.461-07:002010-10-25T13:56:03.461-07:00@VoltaireX
Whatever.......
@Ilíon
who wrote:
&...@VoltaireX<br /><br />Whatever.......<br /><br />@Ilíon <br /><br />who wrote:<br />>You didn't really read what I wrote, did you?<br /><br />I reply: I did my best. I'm sorry it wasn't good enough for you. I wish you well. If there is confusion here it is likely because I am using a specific understanding of "person" as it refers to God. Sure God may be a person analogously but he can't be one unequivocally. At least for those of us who are militant Thomists.<br /><br />Cheers my friend.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32827754621672138282010-10-25T13:04:40.523-07:002010-10-25T13:04:40.523-07:00Ilion is being an internet bully.Ilion is being an internet bully.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1395021466833045842010-10-25T12:43:50.810-07:002010-10-25T12:43:50.810-07:00blog = blobblog = blobManuel Labornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59383958608469456902010-10-25T12:42:45.679-07:002010-10-25T12:42:45.679-07:00Voltaire X makes me think that the blog that wante...Voltaire X makes me think that the blog that wanted to scream finally got his mouth.Manuel Labornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37362986870480747582010-10-25T12:40:50.222-07:002010-10-25T12:40:50.222-07:00You didn't really read what I wrote, did you?You didn't really read what I wrote, did you?Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67299749890634127952010-10-25T12:31:09.205-07:002010-10-25T12:31:09.205-07:00Ilíon,
You can believe what you like. May God sa...Ilíon,<br /><br />You can believe what you like. May God save you my brother, but if I believe the Council of Chalcedon Jesus is a Divine Person (i.e. Hypostasis) only with two natures. To say He is a human person is the heresy of Nestorious.<br /><br />The "God of the philosophers" is the Biblical God as we can know Him by reason alone sans Scripture. I'm afraid Catholic Christians can't really believe otherwise.<br /><br />Speaking personally I'm glad God's love for me is merely an Act of His Will & not a mere Emotion. What's to stop an emotional God from having a Diva fit & throwing me out of Heaven if His passions take him?<br /><br />You can disagree but there we are. Even Mr. Wood who is a Theistic Personalist debated John Loftus & pointed out "evil god" arguments and arguments from evil in general have no force against a Classic view. Which is why Law might be grasping at straws and or wasting his time.<br /><br />Cheers brother.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49271167019551124312010-10-25T12:00:21.737-07:002010-10-25T12:00:21.737-07:00BenYachov: "I reply: God "loves" me...<b>BenYachov:</b> "<i>I reply: God "loves" me in that he wills I should freely embrace Him as the Ultimate Good. God is not a human person that cares if I endure temporal suffering on the way. God doesn't have human emotions in the Classic Concept. I'm sorry but those are the brute facts.</i>"<br /><br />It seems to me that this so-called "classical theism" is <i>at least</i> as defective as the allegeged defectivism of "personalist theism." AND, so far, I can't see any real difference between the "God of classical theism" and "the God of the philosophers" ... which is *not* the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.<br /><br />Sure, God is not a human person ... because human persons are the image/idol/shadow of his personhood. Yet, he *is* (and has always been) a human person: for Christ, who is God, is a human person.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32148557279528407702010-10-25T11:48:14.718-07:002010-10-25T11:48:14.718-07:00Since this is a long thread spanning many days, I ...Since this is a long thread spanning many days, I ought to have made explicit the context of my question whether Harris had really said that that it may be ethical to kill people due to the content of their beliefs (I knew he had, that's why I asked).<br /><br />The context is this -- on <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/10/harlan-ellisons-evil-god.html?showComment=1287953801846#c2244229380188511762" rel="nofollow">October 24, 2010 1:56 PM</a>, one of the Anonymoi posted this:<br /><br />"<i>Off topic, but did Aquinas really say the following:<br /><br />heretics "deserve not only to be separated from the church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death."</i>"Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43981917789713601372010-10-25T10:55:16.440-07:002010-10-25T10:55:16.440-07:00VoltaireX,
It seems like most Fundamentalist Athe...VoltaireX,<br /><br />It seems like most Fundamentalist Atheists types you assume denial of "gods" makes you automatically "rational" & it is clearly inconceivable to you that there really isn't any such thing as a <b>one size fits all</b> polemic against Theism in General.<br /><br />>but the real issue is having the believers prove a monotheistic and loving God exists. <br /><br />I reply: God "loves" me in that he wills I should freely embrace Him as the Ultimate Good. God is not a human person that cares if I endure temporal suffering on the way. God doesn't have human emotions in the Classic Concept. I'm sorry but those are the brute facts.<br /><br />Deal with it.<br /><br />>It's a variation on Russell's teacup analogy:<br /><br />I reply: Which is an invalid analogy since a teapot is an <b>isolani</b>. The Classical Theistic God by definition isn't an isolani. <br /><br />see here. <br />http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/russell/<br /><br />Last Time I checked Prof Vallicella thinks the Catholic Church is a "corrupt institution" so he isn't bias to our side per say.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-92181000109673750612010-10-25T10:29:09.129-07:002010-10-25T10:29:09.129-07:00why, that's just the absence of Good, not [sic...<i>why, that's just the absence of Good, not [sic] really "evil".</i> <br /><br />But evil really <i>is</i> the absence of a good. <br /><br /><i>The usual jesuit tricks.</i><br />or<br /><i>claiming JHVH was really pissed off at those schvarzies</i> <br /><br />Make up your mind: Jesuits or Jews?TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6815828739734452552010-10-25T09:24:06.068-07:002010-10-25T09:24:06.068-07:00Professor Feser you are now officially on youtube,...Professor Feser you are now officially on youtube, <br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsuW3h2HAIIAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10004628647406038582010-10-25T09:16:23.469-07:002010-10-25T09:16:23.469-07:00The fullness provided by Harris himself:
The link...The fullness provided by Harris himself:<br /><br /><i>The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. <b>Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.</b> This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.</i><br />-- The End of Faith, pp. 52-53<br /><br />He also says, at<br />http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/<br /><br />"I am not alone in thinking that there are potential circumstances in which the use of torture would be ethically justifiable."<br /><br />"As I argue in <i>The End of Faith,</i> one can easily imagine situations in which even a very low probability of getting useful information through torture would seem to justify it — the looming threat of nuclear terrorism being the most obvious case."TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73815917991821763752010-10-25T09:11:24.236-07:002010-10-25T09:11:24.236-07:00It seems "VoltaireX" is trying to do dou...It seems "VoltaireX" is trying to do double duty. (1) Assert(without proof) that if there is a God then he must be of the post-enlightenment Theistic Personalist variety & then turn around and use the standard (& I might even concede, to give em a fighting chance, semi-successful) New Atheist polemics against said "god". <br /><br />This is as tedious as one fundie Atheist's sad attempt to convince me Genesis <b>must</b> be interpreted literalistically & not figuratively or allegorically (even thought there is a Patristic Historic Basis for it) so he can prove Genesis is false because it is "non-scientific".<br /><br />Tedious! I am a Classic Theist! If the Classic Theist God does not exist then there is no God & I could care less about the moral status of a hypothetical Theistic Personalist "god" I don't believe on classic grounds can exist in the first place. <br /><br />Get over it!BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73649157581494816442010-10-25T07:42:21.774-07:002010-10-25T07:42:21.774-07:00Ilion,
The Sam Harris quote is accurate: he discu...Ilion,<br /><br />The Sam Harris quote is accurate: he discusses it on his own website here:<br />http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/<br />some way down the page.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26184665960413167962010-10-25T06:17:12.133-07:002010-10-25T06:17:12.133-07:00I must say I find it interesting that the formidab...I must say I find it interesting that the formidable Brandon seems to have some sympathy for Harris, at least insofar as Harris tries to transcend the supposed "is/ought" dichotomy. Everything I've read by Brandon on Harris over at Siris seems to have that sympathy, at least on that issue. I wonder what Brandon thinks of the thought of Harris in general?<br /><br />Curious question, not critical. Brandon is so far out my intellectual league, he's playing a different sport. Him and Chastek. Man, those two are intimidating.<br /><br />(Ed is too, but in a different way. Just finished Aquinas, and I have to say I finally began to understand something of the ethics of Aquinas, which had been impenetrable to me before. Great job, Ed!)PatrickHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14900989121664110822010-10-25T06:12:14.550-07:002010-10-25T06:12:14.550-07:00Harris seems particularly vulnerable to the Matrix...Harris seems particularly vulnerable to the Matrix argument since like many moderns, he thinks happiness is not only well-being, but self-conscious well-being. We're happy when we feel good...and we know we feel good.<br /><br />Hence the desirability, from a Harris point of view, of a virtual-reality paradise as the ultimate goal of his scientific morality.<br /><br />And of course, by his reasoning, we would have no right to refuse the gift of virtual bliss, since all other values grow from the value of self-aware well-being.<br /><br />And yes, Harris did make the remark about killing people for having certain beliefs. That is a direct quote, I believe, since I remember reading those same words in EoF (although I may have read it in an essay).PatrickHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65083725057875665382010-10-25T01:03:03.454-07:002010-10-25T01:03:03.454-07:00Shoot, even I have pet trolls, and I'm no one....Shoot, even I have pet trolls, and I'm no one.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55961458422777504092010-10-24T23:45:15.521-07:002010-10-24T23:45:15.521-07:00Voltaire types much like another sockpuppet of a s...<i>Voltaire types much like another sockpuppet of a sockpuppet nut typed on here.</i><br /><br />Oh Lord, you're right. Bwahaha. I was wondering that, but yeah.. Ed's got a pet troll, it seems.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17513035370721852392010-10-24T23:22:45.715-07:002010-10-24T23:22:45.715-07:00Off topic, but did Sam Harris really say the follo...Off topic, but did Sam Harris really say the following?<br /><br />"<i>Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.</i>"Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11443904329461613882010-10-24T23:00:49.082-07:002010-10-24T23:00:49.082-07:00Jinzang at 4:45 PM:
Exactly! From what I have re...Jinzang at 4:45 PM: <br /><br />Exactly! From what I have read so far (not the book, but related materials), it's just utilitarianism with a laser beam attached to its forehead. <br /><br />If overall "well-being" is the moral compass bar none, then why not support a dictator who intends to subjugate the entire human race IN ORDER TO lock it into a Matrix-style global Orgasmatron? He would thereby ensure ongoing bliss for pretty much all sentient beings. Yet, clearly, the Empire of Bliss does not seem at all like a moral/virtuous/good situation. Hence, the cleft between morality and summed bliss over a population immediately rips wide open again. If Harris counters that there are other goods, such as "autonomy" or "dignity," which must balance out such an excess of bliss, then he has simply re-entered the great moral debate, with strongly Aristotelian leanings, and brings nothing new to the debate. <br /><br />Well, nothing new besides a laser beam on his forehead and an awesome Ben Stiller impersonation.Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17625742831481349602010-10-24T20:51:18.600-07:002010-10-24T20:51:18.600-07:00Hey wait!!!!
Voltaire types much like another sock...Hey wait!!!!<br />Voltaire types much like another sockpuppet of a sockpuppet nut typed on here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37138570282800890382010-10-24T20:49:08.752-07:002010-10-24T20:49:08.752-07:00Voltaire,
you're embarrassing yourself.Voltaire,<br />you're embarrassing yourself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27732637595754422212010-10-24T19:12:18.090-07:002010-10-24T19:12:18.090-07:00and while HE's story may be somewhat relevant ...<i>and while HE's story may be somewhat relevant one of the best literary examples of the EPOE would be...Voltaire's Candide, written in response to Leibniz's "classical theism"</i><br /><br />What's more, Voltaire's "Candide" (did you even read it?) isn't known for taking on 'classical theism' re: Leibniz, but principally his claim that we live in the best of all possible worlds. Did Voltaire think there was so much evil in the world that God was clearly a monster?<br /><br />Perhaps you're not familiar with how Voltaire went to his grave:<br /><br /><i>In February 1778, Voltaire returned for the first time in 20 years to Paris, among other reasons to see the opening of his latest tragedy, Irene. The 5-day journey was too much for the 83-year old, and he believed he was about to die on February 28, writing "<b>I die adoring God, loving my friends, not hating my enemies, and detesting superstition.</b>" However, he recovered, and in March saw a performance of Irene where he was treated by the audience as a returning hero.[7] He soon became ill again and died on 30 May 1778. His last words were: "For God's sake, let me die in peace."[13]</i><br /><br />Adoring God. I suppose Voltaire would vote 'not guilty'.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.com