tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post3411040279504312195..comments2024-03-19T02:00:34.750-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Empiricism and sola scriptura reduxEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger328125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9741866312471773672015-08-22T11:01:34.925-07:002015-08-22T11:01:34.925-07:00Just for the record, the last paragraph in my comm...Just for the record, the last paragraph in my comment on August 3, 2015 at 2:52 PM gives an incorrect (and heretical) description of transubstantiation. For readers keen on historical Scholastic theology, it was first proposed by James of Metz (philosophically active in the first decade of the XIV century) and Durandus of St. Pourcain (c. 1275 – 1332), both of them Dominicans and "critical-Thomists", and was explicitely condemned by Trent session 13 canon 2, by the two occurences of "whole" when defining transubstantiation as "that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-".<br /><br />For further information:<br /><br />http://classicaltheism.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?pid=1918#p1918<br /><br />Johanneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05371418313799513738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59087760195127204662015-08-06T11:42:23.041-07:002015-08-06T11:42:23.041-07:00Yes, perceptive Reader, I anticipate your objectio...Yes, perceptive Reader, I anticipate your objection: are not rants also crazy if they overpersonalize everything, as though military alliances, the emergence of finance, civil legislation, the rights of freemen in cities, etc all shifted because Luther was stupid, proud or spiteful, or because the pope, his nuncio, or Tetzel were such s*ns of b*tches. But since we cannot find them to be aware of the development of doctrine, I think we must agree that they belong together-- deserve each other-- on the unaware side of the fence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51210604605543942382015-08-06T11:16:47.798-07:002015-08-06T11:16:47.798-07:00Timocrates, This is revisionist nonsense.
Revisio...Timocrates, <i>This is revisionist nonsense.</i><br /><br />Revisionist about what? Certainly not about history. Luckily you make it immediately clear that you are indeed talking about something else than history.<br /><br />Timocrates, <i>And pray tell what is more scandalous: the pope turning a blind eye to a scandalous abuse of indulgences in order to finance the construction and completion of a Church erected to the glorification of God, or people who find the Church financing the erection of a Church to the glory of God scandalous?</i><br /><br />So, you are concerned with "scandalous". My concern was only to make it clear what Luther (and, by extension, Protestants in general) found scandalous, as can be ascertained from historical facts. I have no personal opinion on which side is more scandalous. <br /><br />But <i>your</i> personal opinion has been duly noted. Thanks for sharing.E.Seignerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01675302180154802654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61500757527071205652015-08-06T11:06:51.111-07:002015-08-06T11:06:51.111-07:00Yes, Daniel. 'Working' popes who write sma...Yes, Daniel. 'Working' popes who write smart, more or less scriptural encyclicals, stand firm on moral questions, and evangelize at mass rallies do not look too bad through an evangelical lens.<br /><br />I should have said this a few hundred comments ago-- the consequential divide is not between sola scriptura and the papacy, but between those who do not recognize development and those who do. On the side of the divide unaware of history, any indeterminacy in either scripture or pope is a threat to a crystalline Church in the remote past that is always in danger of falling away from its original perfection; that is what Puritans following the 'regulative principle of worship' (worship using only the text of the Bible) and Feyerabend's Jesuits have in common. On the historically aware side of the divide, the bounded indeterminacy of both scriptural interpretation and the papal magisterium is not a bug in either but a feature in both-- they enable the Church to remain the same through all the adaptations necessary to its maturation, survival and spread. (As the Orthodox point out, our penchant for pitting scripture and magisterium against each other says less about either than about the West itself.) Just so, the crazy arguments have either been on the unaware side of that fence or across it.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74047027687536053102015-08-06T09:49:21.082-07:002015-08-06T09:49:21.082-07:00My apologies! The first paragraph above was intend...My apologies! The first paragraph above was intended to be in italics to show that I was quoting E. Seigner. The part beginning "This is revisionist..." is the beginning to my response to what E. Seigner wrote (and is included as the first paragraph).<br /><br />Sorry for any confusion.Timocrateshttp://classicaltheism.boardhost.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33441358921101356512015-08-06T09:47:02.773-07:002015-08-06T09:47:02.773-07:00@ E. Seigner,
The actual version of indulgences ...@ E. Seigner,<br /><br /><br />The actual version of indulgences was as practised by Johann Tetzel. Luther's debaters saw no problem with that. The wider population of Germany was in uproar because Germans were made to finance the Pope's new cathedral via sales of indulgences. Luther's debaters saw no problem with that. Luther's debaters saw only doctrinal problems with Luther, not moral problems with themselves.<br /><br />This is revisionist nonsense.<br /><br />And pray tell what is more scandalous: the pope turning a blind eye to a scandalous abuse of indulgences in order to finance the construction and completion of a Church erected to the glorification of God, or people who find the Church financing the erection of a Church to the glory of God scandalous?<br /><br />Now charity can be either primarily spiritual works (such as setting aside time to pray for someone) or corporeal (such as almsgiving, providing food, shelter, comfort, clothing, assistance with physical chores or burdens of labour, etc.). Such works are redemptive and win divine favour when done for the right reasons or at least sufficient reasons (e.g. out of love of God and neighbor or more imperfectly out of fear of hellfire or divine punishment/disfavour). The sale of indulgences allowed people to give some corporeal work (almsgiving) to the work of the Church which is meritorious (and why Luther new theology of sola fidei could not stand it). It also implied and rested on contrition or guilt for sin and a distinction between eternal and temporal punishments due to sin/iniquity (something else Luther could not personally tolerate as these again implied guilt and the need for penitence and contrition). To be sure, in a certain sense almsgiving is the weakest substitute for charitable works though, of course, everyone can see that good money can be put to very good use and help provide sustenance and maintenance for the Church and the poor and the helpless even outside the Church. It can also be used to build new Churches or repair old ones.<br /><br />Now to be scandalized at brazen abuse of the indulgence system is legitimate to a point; however, such people likewise can and do cause scandal themselves when they imply that charitable works or providing to maintain the corporeal needs of the Church and facilitate her mission is itself somehow an abuse or scandalous or even displeasing to God. Of course it is not. Nor does it matter if those collecting the goods abuse or otherwise use those goods badly or poorly, e.g. inefficiently - this does not take away from the merit of the one who gives or cause some kind of defect their original intention. Timocrateshttp://classicaltheism.boardhost.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53492671257675234022015-08-06T08:20:10.220-07:002015-08-06T08:20:10.220-07:00So, Sola Scriptura is rubbish, but it's our ru...<br />So, Sola Scriptura is rubbish, but it's our rubbish!<br /><br />I still can't get over the statue of Ulrich Zwingli in front of the Wasserkirche Church in Zurich.<br /><br />Someone who made a career on removing the statues of the Saints gets a statue himself...<br /><br />Not dissimilar to someone who made a military career on defending a revolution against the king, only to become the emperor himself.<br /><br />I think I found who the first progressives were.<br />Sergenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22265894910887479162015-08-06T07:12:46.895-07:002015-08-06T07:12:46.895-07:00P.S.: Another problem might be that under the ROI ...P.S.: Another problem might be that under the ROI analysis, the Relation of Ideas theory becomes <i>itself</i> a mere relation of ideas.<br />(Epistemology ends up self-defeating so often that it should be the first thing that gets checked.)Arthurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23793607023389782002015-08-06T07:09:35.604-07:002015-08-06T07:09:35.604-07:00I am curious about mathematics and logic: at first...<i>I am curious about mathematics and logic: at first glance, they would seem to be just what Hume is thinking of in terms of "relations of ideas"...</i><br /><br />Randomly thinking of Gene's question, which I was also interested in...<br /><br />I think one problem with the 'Conceptual analysis' or 'relation of ideas' theory of mathematics is that it makes mathematics no more rational than entirely <i>made up</i> stuff.<br /><br />Presumably a Relation of Ideas theorist would tell me that '2+2=4', say, is merely a Relation of Ideas with no necessary bearing on anything. The trouble seems to be that this makes '2+2=4' no more rational than, say, 'The Loch Ness Monster is purple'. Isn't that, too, merely a 'relation of ideas' in just the same way?<br /><br />Mathematics becomes no more rational than Cryptozoology under the ROI analysis. So why do scientists bother to use mathematics in their calculations? They might as well factor the Loch Ness Monster or, dare I say, Russell's Teapot into their theories for all the good it would do.<br /><br />...All of which suggests, of course, that there is something wrong with the Relation of Ideas analysis.<br /><br />Granted this is only my first stab at tackling this and I'd be interested in what others have to say.Arthurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3502017670158583862015-08-06T04:57:15.355-07:002015-08-06T04:57:15.355-07:00Anonymous,
Who can say that John Paul the Great i...Anonymous,<br /><br />Who can say that John Paul the Great is the Anti-Christ.<br /><br />Furthermore, there are Evangelists now who are arguing that the Pope of Rome has an honorary role as "official spokemen for Christians," something more like the contemporary Orthodox position. They are Protestants no longer Protesting ;-)<br /><br />Christi pax.Daniel D. D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40714800137693348092015-08-05T21:04:04.671-07:002015-08-05T21:04:04.671-07:00Step2,
We Catholic Christians basically believe t...Step2,<br /><br />We Catholic Christians basically believe that Christ gave a share of His authority to the Apostles and their Successors corporately, that is, it is excersied as a whole. However, we also believe that although Peter and his sucessors also share in the corporate authority of God with the rest of the Apostles and their Successors, we also believe that Peter and his Successors were granted His authority individually.<br /><br />So basically, whatever powers the Holy Spirit gives to the Apostles as a group (including Peter), he also gave to Peter as an individual, which is why Christ specifically changes Simon's name to identify him with the Rock, the foundation of the Church.<br /><br />Christi pax.Daniel D. D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72467628173816508132015-08-05T17:38:22.338-07:002015-08-05T17:38:22.338-07:00Thanks, Greg. I hope Feser posts again soon...
F...Thanks, Greg. I hope Feser posts again soon... <br /><br />For the record, pre-Reformation medieval apocalyptic (cf Savonarola, Joachim di Fiore) did often feature popes, both as the Anti-Christ of the Book of Revelations and as the Angel Pope who, with the angelic hosts, was going to punish the corrupt, vanquish the Turks, rule in Jerusalem, and usher in the Millennium. (The Avignon schism ended too soon for the ultimate comic book series featuring both...) And lingering echoes of that tradition in the C16 popular imagination aided Protestant invective. But all politics is local, and those echoes sounded different in the rhetoric of German pamphlet wars, the bizarre Anabaptist stronghold of Muenster, the aftermath of the St Bartholomew's Day massacre in Paris, the slaughter of Waldensians in the Piedmont, or sober debate in Oxford about the contemporary meaning of Revelations. A core principle is not so dependent on circumstances.<br /><br />Anti-papal invective that I have run across has been strongest where Protestants, being the victims of what we now regard as persecution, turned to scripture for consolation, and there found it bound up with Christ's final victory at Armageddon. This implicitly casts their oppressor in the role of the Antichrist at the end of days. One can hear the identical rhetorical trope in the anti-papalism of Traditionalist Orthodox (eg I.M. Esphigmenou on Athos) who honor as martyrs Greek monks burned alive by Crusaders for not saying mass in Latin. <br /><br />Of course, the 'bad guys' in these events saw themselves as doing a grim sacred duty, much as the Puritans did when they hanged eight Quakers in C17 Boston. It seems unlikely that many sane people in today's world, Protestant or Orthodox, seek consolation amid persecution from the thought that Francis is the Anti-Christ soon to be overthrown. Some may hope that he is a sort of Angel Pope come to fix everything, but that is another matter.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74685080816734304252015-08-05T17:02:36.061-07:002015-08-05T17:02:36.061-07:00Sorry, that Peter argument was facetious.Sorry, that Peter argument was facetious.Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53155220716548253932015-08-05T16:51:32.274-07:002015-08-05T16:51:32.274-07:00@Greg
First, it is nuts to try to attribute anti-C...@Greg<br />First, it is nuts to try to attribute anti-Catholic sentiment to all the Protestant sects. Some may be more suspicious of Catholics than others but one of the natural consequences of diverse ecclesiastical authority is that there isn't one uniform policy regarding Catholicism.<br /><br /><i>But Peter denied Christ three times, so Peter was evil.</i><br /><br />If you are going to go in that direction why not go to to Matthew 16:23? It is a little more authoritative and emphatic, and also a strong indicator of fallibility. What I wonder though is if Catholics believe Peter was already the pope at that point or if the mantle came later when the Apostles were imbued with the Holy Spirit?<br /><br />I have only skimmed through the comments on this post, and so apologize if this point has already been made, but I am unsure what authority the Reformers could legitimately appeal to if not to Scripture under their own interpretation.Step2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17057236966638755922015-08-05T14:42:40.850-07:002015-08-05T14:42:40.850-07:00@ Scott
But if, as you say, "Protestants all...@ Scott<br /><br /><i>But if, as you say, "Protestants all agree that the Catholic Church cannot be right - because the Pope is evil," and this is the "actual issue that lies at the very heart of Protestantism," then why would Protestants be interested in "reconciliation" with institutionalized evil?</i><br /><br />The Protestants might avail themselves of this argument: If Catholicism was true, then Peter was pope. But Peter denied Christ three times, so Peter was evil. And if Catholicism is true, then there are no evil popes. So Catholicism is false.<br /><br />@ Anonymous<br /><br /><i>When should I look for the next Feser post?</i><br /><br />There's no schedule, but he posts roughly weekly.Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82558981240357325322015-08-05T14:41:41.859-07:002015-08-05T14:41:41.859-07:00Guys, I think you're feeding a troll.
I'v...<i>Guys, I think you're feeding a troll.</i><br /><br />I've reluctantly begun to suspect so.<br /><br /><i>A Protestant prayer for those of you starting RCIA: may your journey be spiritually fruitful, and may your unsuspecting teachers be well-prepared ;-)</i><br /><br />Heh. Thank you.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26312142057239725212015-08-05T14:30:16.692-07:002015-08-05T14:30:16.692-07:00Guys, I think you're feeding a troll.
Glenn, ...Guys, I think you're feeding a troll.<br /><br />Glenn, you may be interested in the article that I mentioned to Daniel. Google this-- Donald Fairbairn, Patristic Soteriology: Three trajectories. Talking about theosis, Fairbairn usefully distinguishes a trajectory through SS Irenaeus, Athanasius, Cyril from the better known trajectory from Origen through SS Gregory, Maximus, Gregory.<br /><br />A Protestant prayer for those of you starting RCIA: may your journey be spiritually fruitful, and may your unsuspecting teachers be well-prepared ;-)<br /><br />When should I look for the next Feser post?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68537095252864991602015-08-05T13:16:17.461-07:002015-08-05T13:16:17.461-07:00E.Seigner:
And in real life, we have seen that th...E.Seigner:<br /><br /><i>And in real life, we have seen that the disagreement has not been resolved, no matter how many times you demonstrate that Sola scriptura is self-refuting.</i><br /><br />Disagreement over what? That some Popes and Church officials have behaved immorally? Who did you think was disagreeing about that? And why do you think a post specifically about the shortcomings of <i>sola scriptura</i> should turn aside to address it?<br /><br /><i>As for me, I can clearly see that the parties involved don't care about reconciliation. That's just a fact that the world must live with.</i><br /><br />On the contrary, the Church cares a great deal about reconciliation. She would regard it as an occasion for great joy if the numerous Protestant sects, or indeed any of them, were suddenly to recognize the authority of the papacy and enter into full communion with Rome.<br /><br />But if, as you say, "Protestants all agree that the Catholic Church cannot be right - because the Pope is <i>evil</i>," and this is the "actual issue that lies at the very heart of Protestantism," then why would Protestants be interested in "reconciliation" with institutionalized evil?<br /><br />Are you somehow suggesting that the Church will come to <i>agree</i> with that claim, or that it even <i>could</i> agree with that claim without ceasing to be the Church?<br /><br />For even an individual Catholic, never mind the Church, even to entertain such a proposition might be many things, but "reconciliation" is not one of them. That you can't clearly see this is, I suppose, a fact that the world must live with.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41752370945260069472015-08-05T12:11:21.133-07:002015-08-05T12:11:21.133-07:00@ E. Seigner
But it follows straightforwardly tha...@ E. Seigner<br /><br /><i>But it follows straightforwardly that the disagreement cannot be resolved by ignoring the real issue.</i><br /><br />Well, unless by real issue you mean "the issue which must be addressed in order that the disagreement be resolved," then, no, I disagree. The historical cause is not relevant if - whatever it is - it led Protestants to form churches with a self-refuting doctrine. For if the Protestant churches hold a self-refuting doctrine, then they are ruled out. As has been pointed out, that's all the argument cares to show, and it's not missing any component if it sets aside historical analysis.<br /><br />IOW, who cares if the coherency of sola scriptura was historically the main issue? If you're trying to decide between A and B, and you believe B to be self-refuting, that's terribly useful information. It doesn't matter if it was an "easy target," if showing the self-refutation was pretty straightforward. It also doesn't matter if lots of people tenaciously hold B for some other reason.<br /><br />It's not as though pressing the moral question would resolve the disagreement either. It didn't do so during the Protestant Reformation; it's not as though there was uniform conversion in the Holy Roman Empire to Protestantism. And it's not as though there aren't Catholic historians who write about the Reformation. They just aren't writing in this thread because, again, they don't need to.Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63101319893427311872015-08-05T11:20:36.660-07:002015-08-05T11:20:36.660-07:00Greg, Say the moral question is more important fro...Greg, <i>Say the moral question is more important from the Protestant perspective. It doesn't follow that "the disagreement between Catholicism and Protestantism is fundamentally a moral issue" in the sense that it can only be resolved in principle by answering the moral question.</i><br /><br />But it follows straightforwardly that the disagreement <i>cannot be resolved</i> by <i>ignoring the real issue</i>. And in real life, we have seen that the disagreement has not been resolved, no matter how many times you demonstrate that Sola scriptura is self-refuting. <br /><br />If you want to resolve the disagreement, you don't attack the easy target, i.e. some logical flaw which never was the main issue. As for me, I can clearly see that the parties involved don't care about reconciliation. That's just a fact that the world must live with.E.Seignerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01675302180154802654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82093718738296172492015-08-05T11:02:05.794-07:002015-08-05T11:02:05.794-07:00E.Seigner,
Prior to what George LeSauvage had to ...E.Seigner,<br /><br />Prior to what George LeSauvage had to say, one Anonymous had this to say (more than 100 posts ago):<br /><br />"It is fair to say that, on all sides, events outpaced the capacity to understand them, and nearly everyone involved made some ghastly misstep."<br /><br />No one has disagreed with this comment from Anonymous, and at least one of the persons with whom you have been arguing had thanked him for having made it.<br /><br />Have a good day, sir.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49121362904670881852015-08-05T10:48:44.555-07:002015-08-05T10:48:44.555-07:00@ E. Seigner
If the Jesuit critique is meant to p...@ E. Seigner<br /><br /><i>If the Jesuit critique is meant to provide a logical refutation of the Protestant doctrine of Sola scriptura - and nothing else -, it succeeds. However, from the Protestant perspective, there's something else far more important. The disagreement between Catholicism and Protestantism is fundamentally a moral issue, but the Jesuit critique never took this into account, not historically, and not today either.</i><br /><br />I guess I don't really understand your insistence. Say the moral question is more important from the Protestant perspective. It doesn't follow that "the disagreement between Catholicism and Protestantism is fundamentally a moral issue" in the sense that it can only be resolved in principle by answering the moral question. If the Protestant position on sola scriptura really is self-refuting, then who cares if their response is just to insist the moral question again? Who cares why, historically, they came to hold sola scriptura? The reason the Jesuit critique wouldn't take that component into account would simply be that it doesn't need to.<br /><br />Then it also remains an open question whether the doctrinal component is negligent. Glenn has quoted Luther in his debate with Erasmus, insisting that it was the doctrinal and not the moral question that was central.Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69177961955606937372015-08-05T10:38:35.351-07:002015-08-05T10:38:35.351-07:00Glenn, Reason #1: You pointed out that Dr. Fester&...Glenn, <i>Reason #1: You pointed out that Dr. Fester's ((refutation of Sola Scriptura) or (demonstration that Sola Scriptura is self-refuting)) "does nothing to address 'X'", and I countered by pointing out that it was not meant to address 'X'. Yet there you go, responding to my counter-point by trumpeting 'X' yet again (and as if that which is not relevant to the OP can be made relevant to it by a repetitious blaring of a trumpet).</i><br /><br />We are disagreeing about the nuances of X. In my view, Dr. Feser's posts are about the Jesuit critique against Sola scriptura. If the Jesuit critique is meant to provide a logical refutation of the Protestant doctrine of Sola scriptura - <i>and nothing else</i> -, it succeeds. However, from the Protestant perspective, there's <i>something else far more important</i>. The disagreement between Catholicism and Protestantism is fundamentally a moral issue, but the Jesuit critique never took this into account, not historically, and not today either. <br /><br />Glenn, <i>Reason #2: [...] Does it displease you that your idée fixe might be viewed by others as an absurdly common point? Are you fearful that if it is viewed by others as an absurdly common point your idée fixe might thereby be devalued? Who knows? I certainly don't.</i><br /><br />If my idée fixe is an absurdly common point recognised by everyone, then I should have been met with immediate understanding as soon as I chimed in. The opposite is the case. The statement "The Pope is Anti-Christ" is absurdly simple, so it's kind of curious why the Jesuit critique doesn't address it directly. I can conclude that the Jesuit critique is incapable of discussing moral issues...E.Seignerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01675302180154802654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26213386167602030532015-08-05T10:33:27.472-07:002015-08-05T10:33:27.472-07:00Sorry for the typos, I meant to ask how would you ...Sorry for the typos, I meant to ask how would you answer the proximal indeterminacy problem and I would especially like to know how might a non-reductive physicalist answer the same problem. I encountered the problem in the eliminitivism without truth II post. <br /><br />Thank you. <br /><br />--KevinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46629253604811221202015-08-05T10:29:45.965-07:002015-08-05T10:29:45.965-07:00Hello Edward Feser,
I know this question is off t...Hello Edward Feser,<br /><br />I know this question is off topic but I cannot e-mail this question to you.<br /><br />How you answer the proximal/distal indeterminacy problem? I would also like to know how non-reductive physicalist could answer the proximal/distal indeterminacy problem?<br /><br />-- KevinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com