tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post4810006294349381258..comments2024-03-29T02:29:03.388-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: The Unliterate HallqEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger115125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33448682744973547332012-03-27T08:29:09.558-07:002012-03-27T08:29:09.558-07:00I'm really starting to wonder if there is some...I'm really starting to wonder if there is some organization funding the idiocy of these New Atheist types. They can't really be that stupid can they? Oh, please tell me they're just play-acting for a check...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26198470233873088302012-03-26T06:52:38.375-07:002012-03-26T06:52:38.375-07:00Apparently, you did. It's called guilt-inducin...<i>Apparently, you did. It's called guilt-inducing peer pressure.</i><br /><br />Someone is mad because his parents made him go to Sunday school while he wanted to stay home playing videogames and picking his nose.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15216518047453184102012-03-25T09:13:40.144-07:002012-03-25T09:13:40.144-07:00>Apparently, you did. It's called guilt-ind...>Apparently, you did. It's called guilt-inducing peer pressure.<br /><br />Never saw that either. I hear stories of this Catholic super guilt Church but I have never seen it.<br /><br />If anything my local Church was all touchie feely.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82614665690948978392012-03-25T05:48:18.070-07:002012-03-25T05:48:18.070-07:00Thursday is actually kinda correct. In a sense. Th...Thursday is actually kinda correct. In a sense. The Mass is of course primarily the re-enactment of Calvary in an unbloody manner, and this is why we go to Mass as the Priest offers the sacrifice. At the same time, the Mass does 'teach' the faith [and I don't mean the sermon]. The Mass teaches Catholicism --- which is why Protestants find it repugnant and fallen away Catholics sometimes don't understand it, and why liberals want to change it. It teaches Catholicism, but not in the way we think of teaching where people are told xyz by the teacher and they believe it. It teaches Catholicism by it's very happening. So in that sense, Thursday is correct. I'd say though, that it's also true that those at Mass pretty much believe what goes on anyway, so the Holy Sacrifice of Mass is not teaching them something new it's just affirming what they do believe. It's not like someone goes to Mass day and day out and says "oh wow, I learnt something new today, I'm convinced of Catholicism thanks to all that indoctrination". <br /><br />The sermon itself is not technically part of the Mass (which is why the Priest removes his maniple during the sermon and sometimes his chasuble too) but even so, Thursday's point is true since the sermon is meant to be teaching us in the normal sense (teaching doctrine, spiritual edification, scriptural exegesis etc). Particularly during Missions or Pilgrimages sermons will be done with some specific focus in mind. So, a mission focusing on bringing lapsed Catholics back to the faith will definitely be trying to show, teach and convince. <br /><br />Of course, Thursday is incorrect in saying it is non-rational. I reject the assumptions and hidden meanings he may have attached to his little paragraph too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65929073082169275822012-03-25T02:59:33.389-07:002012-03-25T02:59:33.389-07:00Thursday,
"This is at best only a half-truth...Thursday,<br /><br />"This is at best only a half-truth. Church services are also there to shore up belief among those who may be falling away and to convert those who are interested but not yet committed. In doing so, they frequently use non-rational means of persuasion, including the very presence of the group.<br /><br />This is all common sense."<br /><br />Translation: This is what I think happens and so while I can't be bothered to check I'm just going to assume that that's how it all works.<br /><br />In actual fact, services are more about community building and education than they are about conversion and shoring up belief. The only part that isn't just a sharing of rituals with texts that we've all heard before is the sermon, and even here rarely is it about eliminating doubt but more about how to act Catholic/Christian in the world we live in.<br /><br />And where I grew up, if the sermons were too long people complained [grin].Verbose Stoichttp://verbosestoic.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7978044883513582122012-03-25T02:44:19.237-07:002012-03-25T02:44:19.237-07:00Thursday, Christian (indeed all traditional religi...Thursday, Christian (indeed all traditional religious) belief and experience is not simply a matter of starting from unbelief and in one day having perfect faith and then finishing one's journey towards God. It is a process of drawing ever closer to God. St.Gregory of Nyssa describes the truly religious and mystical life as an infinite progress into God.<br /><br />Discursive thought is not the only mean whereby we come to know and to be. Intellectual, imaginal, and mystical knowledge exists above reason (as the Schoolmen, as well as the Scriptures, Fathers, mystics and Hesychasts maintain), and various forms of knowledge, such as the emotional, sensory, and intuitive, exist below reason. Whatever limitations there are to these latter, lower than rational, forms of knowledge, they have a validity and role to play on their own level, and are a not insignificant part of genuinely human experience. So to simply point out that other than rational elements are involved in common Christian activities and services is not necessarily to be able to devalue them all as irrational.Westcountrymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14604565103836807803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85125534329993825162012-03-25T02:42:30.353-07:002012-03-25T02:42:30.353-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Westcountrymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14604565103836807803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27127937438565468112012-03-24T22:11:40.208-07:002012-03-24T22:11:40.208-07:00> I must have missed something in the past 43 y...> I must have missed something in the past 43 years of being Catholic.<br /><br />Apparently, you did. It's called guilt-inducing peer pressure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45081314797631516292012-03-24T21:33:51.570-07:002012-03-24T21:33:51.570-07:00>This is at best only a half-truth. Church serv...>This is at best only a half-truth. Church services are also there to shore up belief among those who may be falling away and to convert those who are interested but not yet committed.<br /><br />Obviously you are not Catholic. I have never seen what you describe at Mass. Father assumes everyone there already believes otherwise they would stay home.<br /><br />>In doing so, they frequently use non-rational means of persuasion, including the very presence of the group.<br /><br />I must have missed something in the past 43 years of being Catholic.<br /><br />>This is all common sense.<br /><br />No it's not.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84368600236650879822012-03-24T21:22:18.989-07:002012-03-24T21:22:18.989-07:00You go to Mass because you already believe in Cath...<i>You go to Mass because you already believe in Catholic Christianity. Not to be convinced to believe in Catholic Christianity.</i><br /><br />This is at best only a half-truth. Church services are also there to shore up belief among those who may be falling away and to convert those who are interested but not yet committed. In doing so, they frequently use non-rational means of persuasion, including the very presence of the group.<br /><br />This is all common sense.Thursdayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13002311410445623799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35557992686418407102012-03-24T16:16:49.909-07:002012-03-24T16:16:49.909-07:00Anon @ 3:54: I submit that if there is no ration...Anon @ 3:54: <i> I submit that if there is no rationally compelling case to be made in favor of religious doctrines, then they [atheists] are right... If it exists and is compelling, why is it not heard about more often?</i> <br /><br />It is not necessarily the case that "if there is no rationally compelling case to be made in favor of religious doctrines, then the atheists are right." Logically, they could BOTH be wrong, just for example. Here's one way (among others): if man really is literally <i>nothing</i> but a collection of atoms, like Rosenberg and his confreres believe, then there is no capacity to reason about abstract things like "truth", and all attempts at reasoning are simply illusory. Thus the atheists attempts are illusory, and they are wrong just like the theists. <br /><br />Alternatively, some religious doctrines could be true even when there is no rational proof of them <i>available to us right now.</i> Being true isn't the same as being provable at our current state of evidence. <br /><br />Alternatively, some religious doctrines could be true but <i>fundamentally</i> of a higher order of being and reality than scientific truth (like the Trinity), and therefore not subject to scientific proof. <br /><br />But the real problem is that your question is not the right question to ask. Intelligent Christians don't think that religious doctrines ought to be provable, or "rationally compelling". Even the most rational of Christians insist that there is something MORE in the content of what is held by faith than what one has compelling rational evidence for - THAT'S what FAITH is about. Instead, your question should focus on a more limited scope for rational evidence: It should be established by rational argument that <i>belief (i.e. the act implied in faith)</i> is the sort of act that is suitable and appropriate for rational beings like man. <br /><br />And there are such rational arguments. They tend to involve premises that stem from classical philosophy and metaphysics, two fields of study in which atheists - especially Gnu atheists - are notoriously unlettered. So they are catastrophically unprepared for actually judging the rational arguments being made.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81294794675567067902012-03-24T15:46:46.220-07:002012-03-24T15:46:46.220-07:00Anonymous, I'm sure your comments will have Dr...Anonymous, I'm sure your comments will have Dr.Feser crying into his breakfast cereal.Westcountrymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14604565103836807803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49198266756099428432012-03-24T12:03:15.062-07:002012-03-24T12:03:15.062-07:00Just stumbled upon this blog. Mr. Feser is clearl...Just stumbled upon this blog. Mr. Feser is clearly in love with himself, but he's also a hateful little man.<br /><br />He seems to have a very dedicated following of minions, though, so he doesn't even have to defend his petty disqualifications.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20735933234184872532012-03-24T10:06:25.461-07:002012-03-24T10:06:25.461-07:00The Westcountryman writes in part:
"The Gnus...The Westcountryman writes in part:<br /><br />"The Gnus are undoubtedly, and not surprisingly unreflectively, left of centre in almost all cases I'm aware of. Indeed, it is hard to understand a irreligious bent that could be both conservative (I mean by this not just warmed up 19th century liberal economics ..."<br /><br />That's an important point which is often made implicit, or taken for granted. But which, if we are to be led to an understanding of the "GNU" phenomenon, or the modern liberal claims of interpersonal entitlement, cannot be explicitly stated too often.<br /><br />Take a collection of GNU "metaphysical premises", or axioms if you like, and list them for yourself.<br /><br />Now I know that some among the anti-religious readers of Feser's blog will feel justified in crying "Strawman!" at this, that, or some other element which may appear, but the fact is that the collection of anti-religious people taken as atheistic political progressives, share a significant number of physical and anthropological assumptions which is easy to list, and easy to verify, simply by reading their own essays.<br /><br />Hell, most of us were schooled in them at university. Internalize enough of them and you metamorphose into a political progressive, it seems.<br /><br />The collection obviously includes: Man as meat machine, mind as brain, brain as meat computer; the illusion of objective meaning and the illusion of consciousness and identity; metaphysical monism, hard determinism, values relativism or nihilism, and the the instrumental nature and limits of a reasoning power fundamentally in service of the unconscious; and ultimately, the supreme importance of recognizing the relative unimportance of humanity, and the great importance of the non-human, in an overall pointless universe destined for ultimate heat death, or obliterating collapse ... Amen brother.<br /><br />We've all seen it all before.<br /><br />The "mystery" (for it's no real mystery at all) is how they manage manage to "deduce" from their axioms, those collectivist leaning social solidarity *imperatives*.<br /><br />The fact is that although they talk as if they deduce, they don't. And although they deploy rhetoric as if they are presenting imperatives, they are not.<br /><br /><br />Oh a few, like Robert Wright scramble to serve up an evolutionary psychology brew which will they imagine, kind of, sort of, produce the same psychologically comforting, if objective-lite, effects as teleologically derived morals once did. <br /><br />But for the most part it's just a matter of those bespectacled Cheetos chomping basement dwellers of blogging lore pushing their glasses up their snub noses, and after placing their faces in your face, engaging in various forms of primate posturing and threat display.<br /><br />And that is supposed to convince you, I guess, that although they don't on their own account have "souls", nor intrinsic value, nor even instrumental value as far as you may be concerned; and although they do not make very useful or noble, and certainly not trustworthy, allies, nonetheless, you should sacrifice a great deal of your own interests to theirs. <br /><br />Though on their own say so, their interests are ultimately from a cosmic point of view, pointless anyway.<br /><br />You should do it because ... uh .. Well, because gosh darn it, they're just so worth it. <br /><br />And because they *want*. And because they want you to care about what they want, and what makes them feel "good"; which is to say of course, feelings of pleasure and significance.<br /><br />Just don't ask why you should care about what they care about - absent any implied threat of violence from them if you don't - and everything will be alright.<br /><br />Otherwise you had better prepare for a GNU chimp attack.DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13804617058075193262012-03-24T07:22:40.461-07:002012-03-24T07:22:40.461-07:00To anonymous @ 3:54 am:
Your question, why isn...To anonymous @ 3:54 am:<br /><br />Your question, why isn't the reasoned case for religion heard more often?, is a great one. I do think there's a culture-wide narrative going on, according to which you believe religion on the basis of faith, and you believe in science on the basis of reason, and that religion and science are opposed, and that faith and reason are opposed. I recall hearing William Lane Craig talk about how a journalist contacted him to talk about religion, and when it became clear that Craig accepted evolution, the journalist lost interest. A young-earth creationist ended up taking Craig's place.Bobcathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04797941051438316014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49312126871370970022012-03-24T07:07:22.922-07:002012-03-24T07:07:22.922-07:00Anon, of the top of my head, one can argue that in...Anon, of the top of my head, one can argue that in the very least the Church is a guardian of established values (even the ones most of us agree on - value of human life, importance of protecting the weak, etc) and an inertial force which can add stability in general and confound those movements which could be too extreme but which could come to power due to populist support - and we have examples of that in the Church standing up to Communism and Nazism. Adding another player, such as the Church complicates things for all politicians. Where it counted, the Church has stood for freedom and equality, while the track record of secular organisations has them all over the spectrum among the heroes and villains.<br /><br />As a further example I can add the fact that in France, most Catholics vote for centrist to right wing parties, but very few vote for extreme right parties. This may not be entirely to your liking but at least it is a buffer of sorts against the most extreme of views, and helps prevent or in the very least hampers the worst people from coming to power.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12970472930981692632012-03-24T06:33:27.708-07:002012-03-24T06:33:27.708-07:00Ed,
I wonder what you think of pastor Dennis Ter...Ed, <br /><br />I wonder what you think of pastor Dennis Terry introduction of Rick Santorum in this church meeting ( <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2emBxDOY7g" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2emBxDOY7g</a> ).Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50935709611357946752012-03-24T06:06:52.589-07:002012-03-24T06:06:52.589-07:00A "fundamentalist" used to be a conserva...A "fundamentalist" used to be a conservative protestant, almost always of a premillennial dispensationalist type.<br /><br />I don't see any merit in extending the term, but it's probably too late.Neil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25832106997017564692012-03-24T03:54:58.326-07:002012-03-24T03:54:58.326-07:00It is true that the organizers of the Reason Rally...It is true that the organizers of the Reason Rally think that being unreligious is the only way to be rational. I submit that if there is no rationally compelling case to be made in favor of religious doctrines, then they are right. (Here I am rejecting non-evidential views of faith such as Reformed Epistemology and accepting Dr. Feser's own view that even faith claims must be derived from evidence -- that one is never obliged to close one eyes and "believe really hard" to have faith.) Therefore, the best way to counter their idea would be to present a rational case for the faith claims that the Reason Rally organizers say are antithetical to reason. Just SHOW that religion is rational to believe in. Give arguments for the Catholic Church being what it claims it is, for example. (What would such an argument look like? If it exists and is compelling, why is it not heard about more often?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84343262575163975292012-03-23T18:09:05.047-07:002012-03-23T18:09:05.047-07:00The Gnus are undoubtedly, and not surprisingly unr...The Gnus are undoubtedly, and not surprisingly unreflectively, left of centre in almost all cases I'm aware of. Indeed, it is hard to understand a irreligious bent that could be both conservative (I mean by this not just warmed up 19th century liberal economics, but actual, social and cultural conservatism) and want to do away with religion in the way Gnus do. <br /><br />Even a little bit of a genuinely conservative impulse should make them think twice about uprooting all that is religious, or mythological, or non-scientific from human society.Westcountrymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14604565103836807803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-867309565839209482012-03-23T17:54:18.142-07:002012-03-23T17:54:18.142-07:00The New Atheists, and older prototypes like Russel...The New Atheists, and older prototypes like Russell (who is not even a true philosopher in the ancient sense, let alone a great one) simply show they do not understand discursive thought when they make these burden of proof arguments. <br /><br />Discursive thought relies on (1) valid premises, and (2) valid reasoning from these premises.<br /><br />The New Atheist, burden of proof arguments 'work' by arbitrarily taking their own premises as axiomatic whilst treating those of the theist as reasoned conclusions.<br /><br />They also work by drawing a strange distinction between negative and position claims. As if a negative claim about whether or not God exists or whether it is likely did not include positive claims about the kind of evidence and knowledge we human have and can have on the issue, and vice versa. <br /><br />The idea the burden of proof is on the theist is one of the most widespread, yet spurious claim of intellectual debate out there.Westcountrymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14604565103836807803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60325621755924917462012-03-23T10:55:13.079-07:002012-03-23T10:55:13.079-07:00New Atheists are also obsessed with the Political ...New Atheists are also obsessed with the Political & are often kneejerk left-wingers or liberals.<br /><br />At least I don't know of any right wing Gnus( I don't discount their existence). <br /><br />Thought I know of some right wing Atheists like SE Cupp or David Stove. I do know of ex-Atheist but politically liberal fans of Feser like Richard. <br /><br />Also Herbert McCabe whom Brian Davies cites profusely, was a brilliant Thomist & very conservative in his Thomism yet favored Marxist Liberation Theology and thought Women Priests would be a good idea.<br /><br />At this point I tell the Gnu if I stop believing in God why should I become a leftist?<br /><br />People can & may still be conservative even if they deny all gods & liberal Alan Comes says he believes in God.<br /><br />So there you have it.BenYachovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34278693221466963772012-03-23T10:19:33.182-07:002012-03-23T10:19:33.182-07:00You're poppin wheelies, OFloinn.
"Think,...You're poppin wheelies, OFloinn.<br /><br />"Think, don't chant!<br />Think, don't chant!<br />Think, don't chant!<br /><br />Give me a T, don't chant!<br />Give me an H, don't chant!<br />. . . "<br /><br />Out of respect for Joey Skaggs, I'll be at the rally with my "It's OK To Assume Self-Referential Inconsistencies" sign with some show-stealing working girls assisting.machinephilosophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07715878687266064548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31975772835214254732012-03-23T08:43:34.824-07:002012-03-23T08:43:34.824-07:00To me, what marks the New Atheism is its intense f...To me, what marks the New Atheism is its intense focus on the (purported) conflict between science and religion. Almost all of them are either scientists annoyed at what they see as religious encroachment into their areas, or are at best philosophers that take a very strong naturalist position when it comes to philosophy. Since the focus is so very scientific, the problems that the others have cited just follow:<br /><br />1) Most of them are not philosophers or theologically inclined, and so they have a strong tendency to get philosophy and theology wrong.<br /><br />2) They'll be prone to scientism because their main concern is preserving scientific knowledge and primacy in at least some areas.<br /><br />3) Because they view it as an ongoing conflict they will feel the obligation to be very vocal and very confrontational.Verbose Stoichttp://verbosestoic.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63047260309810761992012-03-23T08:37:31.124-07:002012-03-23T08:37:31.124-07:00Arthur,
Well, burden of proof arguments don't...Arthur,<br /><br />Well, burden of proof arguments don't arise much in philosophy because the conclusion is generally less interesting than the process, so philosophers generally always start with their argument -- as if it proves something -- and have people point out the flaw in the arguments. But the notion of burden of proof that atheists tend to rely on is not a bad one, as it relates to someone making a claim and then saying that if you can't prove it wrong then it should be believed universally. This is often a strawman of the position -- the position is usually more like "If you can't prove it wrong, then it's okay for me to continue believing it until you do" -- but that's not a problem in and of itself. Where atheists go wrong is in assuming that they NEVER have the burden of proof, meaning that they quite often make quite grandiose claims that when they are asked to support their claims they retreat to the position that they don't have the burden of proof.<br /><br />This would all be elminated if we could just make those atheists understand that strong atheism clearly has a burden of proof, and so atheism in and of itself is not a position that can never have the burden of proof.Verbose Stoichttp://verbosestoic.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com