tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post418023859295803804..comments2024-03-29T02:29:03.388-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Aristotle on MedvedEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4027290166484323492017-10-05T17:46:31.147-07:002017-10-05T17:46:31.147-07:00You're opinion of Shermer is spot on. Nice guy...You're opinion of Shermer is spot on. Nice guy but a terrible debater and not very well prepared. I saw him debate John Lennox on youtube and I almost felt bad for Shermer because he was so ill-prepared and presented 8th grade arguments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14914913421945276682017-10-04T17:29:38.996-07:002017-10-04T17:29:38.996-07:00While as a person, as far as I remember, Michael S...While as a person, as far as I remember, Michael Shermer seems to be a very ncie fellow, I always experienced his posts and articles to be very subpar, quality wise. Presupposing materialism, attacking simplistic pictures of God, committing many fallacies.<br /><br />Does my memory fault me? Should I give him another chance?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80242745768622937332017-10-04T00:09:21.085-07:002017-10-04T00:09:21.085-07:00To be fair, JohnD, WLc is mostly concerned with Pl...To be fair, JohnD, WLc is mostly concerned with Platonism. He doesn't define realism in the sense that Feser does (similarly, when Feser quotes Welty who interacts with Craig, Welty describes his argument as divine conceptualism). <br /><br />I believe WLC even said he has nothing per se against scholastic realism on his website. Callumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15175263766263579648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43284483798105190372017-10-03T17:32:17.930-07:002017-10-03T17:32:17.930-07:00This example strikes me less as "fideism"...<i>This example strikes me less as "fideism" than as a parallel (maybe a second-order?) means of adjudging truth.</i> <br /><br />It strikes me as "faith", properly understood, which is distinct from fideism. When I have faith in God and in Jesus and in the Church He established, I also have faith in the dogmas she teaches, even when I don't "see" the rationale perfectly. Admitting that "there might be some aspect of what the Church says that I, in my limitations, am not competent to judge" is the required humble part of faith. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22862405587074291942017-10-03T11:51:40.757-07:002017-10-03T11:51:40.757-07:00At the very beginning of my class (back in the day...At the very beginning of my class (back in the day), I began with distinguishing the proper objects of the sciences a la Aquinas (Division & Methods of Sciences). This quelled a lot of wasted time on advocates of Sciencism. Ghttp://www.flamingoart.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73020826017526365002017-10-02T16:29:23.367-07:002017-10-02T16:29:23.367-07:00You know what would be refreshing? A "debate&...You know what would be refreshing? A "debate" or conversation where the ill-informed host doesn't interject the moment things start getting interesting. I can't tell you the number of debates I have seen where the two debaters start going back and forth on a important issue and the host comes in and says they can't do that. The host implies that they are wasting time by doing that! It's insane that it is considered wasting time to have a rigorous debate. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59975411348603136832017-10-02T16:24:33.411-07:002017-10-02T16:24:33.411-07:00I had the same feeling. The callers really ruined ...I had the same feeling. The callers really ruined it and the host wasn't very helpful.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73397313378817264212017-10-02T16:04:25.225-07:002017-10-02T16:04:25.225-07:00Yeah that started out ok and then derailed didn...Yeah that started out ok and then derailed didn't it? Maybe save the Tom Price updates until after the interview!!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05840355352890886406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29173172822967032742017-10-02T15:47:22.583-07:002017-10-02T15:47:22.583-07:00lol what the heck did I just listen to? I almost f...lol what the heck did I just listen to? I almost feel sorry Ed and Michael Shermer had to endure that.Kielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15905861091652423451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86871703539153740472017-10-02T12:07:44.062-07:002017-10-02T12:07:44.062-07:00Yes on his wedding day something to do with a radi...Yes on his wedding day something to do with a radio that had value to his wife or something. Not that he started believing in the paranormal or anything. Its even a little touching, but then the internet trades in mockery. Callumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15175263766263579648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90499721454164808182017-10-02T11:31:34.777-07:002017-10-02T11:31:34.777-07:00Yes, I'm a classical theist. I'd just call...Yes, I'm a classical theist. I'd just call myself a Scholastic rather than any more specific label.<br /><br />I'm not hostile to Thomism, far from it, though hold that some of its major claims re epistemology,mind-body relation, principle of individuation and free will. I'm just against the closed attitude towards non-Thomists arguments and other aspects of Philosophy of Religion.<br /><br />Ironically I am closer to Scotus than Thomists on certain questions (I focus more on modality as the basis of metaphysics, hold individuation to be a primitive of Kind-Instances and hold a non-imagist account of cogition of singulars). I'd put my general approach to Natural Theology more down to Leibniz, though as has been remarked he sat on Scotus shoulder much as did Thomas on Aristotle's.OA Policenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29891416567876286172017-10-02T09:45:50.391-07:002017-10-02T09:45:50.391-07:00I'm not sure that failure to find an argument ...I'm not sure that failure to find an argument persuasive is quite the same thing as disbelieving it.<br /><br />For example: there are certain Catholic dogmas whose reasoning eludes me, or that strike me as less than fully convincing. However, if I am convinced on separate grounds that a) the Catholic church is what she claims to be, and b) the church has to right to teach infallibly on those subjects that trouble me, then I'd have reason to infer that there's something to its arguments on those subjects that I'm overlooking, but that I might eventually come to discover. Here, logic suggests that however it currently seems to me, I haven't fully sifted the arguments.<br /><br />This example strikes me less as "fideism" than as a parallel (maybe a second-order?) means of adjudging truth.Dictatortotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69296855447340504362017-10-02T08:52:06.953-07:002017-10-02T08:52:06.953-07:00Didn't Shermer author an article a few years b...Didn't Shermer author an article a few years back about some spooky experience he had where he said he admitted it made him think a bit more about things beyond this reality? And that lead to his article being mocked by some of his fellow atheists?Tim Lambertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63330817483220713372017-10-02T07:11:26.896-07:002017-10-02T07:11:26.896-07:00@OA Police,
Wait, are you a classical theist?
...@OA Police,<br /><br /><br />Wait, are you a classical theist? <br /><br />For some reason I get the suspicion you may be a Scotist.JoeDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33847099767464555772017-10-01T23:23:18.721-07:002017-10-01T23:23:18.721-07:00Aristotle also convinced me....Aristotle also convinced me....Shehzad Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15212178341162219701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67373506188886071862017-10-01T16:59:46.317-07:002017-10-01T16:59:46.317-07:00The thing about the Aristotelian argument is that,...The thing about the Aristotelian argument is that, once you have proved the existence of an unmoved mover, it then requires you to engage in considerable argumentation to get to a personal God anything like that of the Abrahamic religions.<br /><br />On the other hand, though it may take more initial argumentation, the Augustinian proof goes right to the necessity of an ultimate mind.Thursdayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13002311410445623799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71274614680184917542017-10-01T14:45:53.228-07:002017-10-01T14:45:53.228-07:00'The power of the 22nd Thomistic Thesis compel...'The power of the 22nd Thomistic Thesis compels you! The power of the 22nd Thomistic Thesis compells you!<br /><br />I doubt he would have much time for it.<br /><br />I wish Thomists had jumped on the Kripke-boat and stopped using the term A Priori.<br /><br />(Interestingly Modal Perfection Arguments, of the type put forward by Godel and Maydole, may constitute disproofs of Analogical predication0 OA Policenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64800991064008548032017-10-01T14:10:12.815-07:002017-10-01T14:10:12.815-07:00I guess what I am saying is (cue music) don't ...I guess what I am saying is (cue music) don't stop believing.Craig Paynenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11048051625206719972017-10-01T14:08:38.001-07:002017-10-01T14:08:38.001-07:00Dear Anonymous: One aspect of this is the meaning ...Dear Anonymous: One aspect of this is the meaning of the word "certainty." I can be certain of God's existence, let's say from personal experience. I think it was Kierkegaard who said something like "How can there be no God when I know that He has saved me?" However, that doesn't entail 100 percent locked-down logical certainty. As Aquinas writes, that kind of 100 percent certainty changes faith into knowledge. If A = B and B = C, I don't "have faith" that A = C; I "know" it.<br /><br />So even fideism can be "rational" to hold, although perhaps many fideists do not think so. Is this perhaps a part of what Vatican II means by knowing with certainty? My faith in God is supported by rational praeambulae, even if it isn't an absolute logical demonstration such as what Anselm was aiming for?Craig Paynenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26713507556769750012017-10-01T13:43:15.669-07:002017-10-01T13:43:15.669-07:00I'm wondering what Professor Feser thinks of K...I'm wondering what Professor Feser thinks of Kurt Godel's conjectural proof of the existence of God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19430395710916773272017-10-01T12:47:28.320-07:002017-10-01T12:47:28.320-07:00Let's say someone believes in God but doesn...Let's say someone believes in God but doesn't find any of the arguments in favor of his existence persuasive. Should such a person stop believing, then? If not, how is that different from fideism?<br /><br />I would note that when Vatican I declared that God can be known by reason with certainty from created things, it used the verb "can" not "has been." So I take it one isn't obliged to accept a particular historical argument for God's existence if one remains unconvinced of its soundness. One might think that we must wait for the restoration of pre-fallen, uncorrupted reason in order to know God in such a way. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34892944151090804692017-10-01T10:00:51.516-07:002017-10-01T10:00:51.516-07:00I second Bradley's query above.I second Bradley's query above. JohnDhttp://www.classicaltheism.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56973226484424516242017-10-01T08:34:34.588-07:002017-10-01T08:34:34.588-07:00Re: "But I think that the real heavy lifting...Re: <b> "But I think that the real heavy lifting would have to be done to show that realism about universals actually entails them being grounded in an intellect." </b><br /><br />JoeD, I know we've talked about this before, but just wanted to throw in my two cents again. I think the harder part of the argument is going to be showing the realism of universals in the first place. Especially given that William Lane Craig has just spent 10 years studying the literature and come out with big books that advocate anti-realism. <br /><br />His arguments deserve a response to anyone promoting the Augustinian argument. JohnDhttp://www.classicaltheism.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21383358797729095682017-10-01T08:18:19.721-07:002017-10-01T08:18:19.721-07:00JoeD,
I actually think the argument entails the ...JoeD, <br /><br />I actually think the argument entails the PSR once you get to realism and then dismiss platonism due to it's issues. Consider that we have to explain neccessary mathematical and logical truths (plus the necessary truth of some proposition being true). With Aristotelian realism, these mathematical truths, say, can only exist in the properties of the physical world or in intellects. Say the skeptic argues that the material world ultimately explains such neccessary truths (appealing to an eternal, unchanging block universe say) then he cannot appeal to the existence of the universe as a brute fact. It would have to be necessary (as Ed notes quoting Welty). But that entails the PSR. When I come to think about it, even Platonic realism may entail the PSR, but I havent thought about it in much depth. <br /><br />Though the Augustinian proof doesn't rest on the PSR I think it entails it once you get to at least Aristotelian realism. Callumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15175263766263579648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6634977582798217192017-10-01T03:06:36.294-07:002017-10-01T03:06:36.294-07:00Re your last paragraph, it doesn't refer to un...Re your last paragraph, it doesn't refer to universals per say but what you outline is basically Scotus Cosmological Argument.OA Policenoreply@blogger.com