tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post5613677021480998190..comments2024-03-18T21:06:42.546-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Trinity SundayEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2639445947450051292021-04-12T06:10:32.062-07:002021-04-12T06:10:32.062-07:00@Ed
I only ended up here today from trinities.org ...@Ed<br />I only ended up here today from trinities.org blog "Feser’s Negative Mysterian Defense of the Trinity" (February 9, 2010). <br /><br />I had always suspected that there is some connection between two "orthodox" (apparently unrelated and BTW totally unscriptural) beliefs, viz. the "trinity" and the "immortality of the soul".<br /><br />Although you still don't explain the connection, here, thank you for providing the first blog (to my knowledge, anyway), where they are both defended.Miguel de Servethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10811028181687074761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11820219461123502142010-02-11T18:53:00.240-08:002010-02-11T18:53:00.240-08:00Vlastimil Vohánka: "Bill Vallicella suggests ...<b>Vlastimil Vohánka:</b> "<i>Bill Vallicella suggests you can't be a mysterian about the Trinity and refute materialism at the same time.</i>"<br /><br />Reason/logic doesn't work in, or on, a vacuum: one can ratiocinate until the end of time and one will learn nothing if one starts with nothing. By the same token (for the former is but a special case of this), if one is missing some of the facts, then one can ratiocinate until the end of time and one will still not arrive at the truth.<br /><br />Further, we know for a truth that there are things we human beings cannot understand absent direct and subjective experience: we know that we can know all possible objective and/or empirical facts about a thing and yet never understand that thing until we (so to speak) touch it. Whether all minds have this limitation, we do, and we know we do.<br /><br />To give an example that most readers should be able to grasp: when I was a virgin, I did not understand the sex act; I don't mean that when I was a pre-pubescent boy, lacking the urges, I did not understand, I mean when I was an adult, possessing the urges, I still did not understand. To be sure, I knew, and from a young age, all the objective/empirical facts that everyone else growing up in our culture knows, but I did not <i>understand</i>: I was missing vital subjective fact(s).<br /><br /><br />In regard to mysterianism with respect to the Trinity and with respect to materialistic conceptions of mind, we might as well be speaking of apples and appliances.<br /><br />We know, <i>from the inside</i>, what it is like to be a limited and localized time-and-space-bound, embodied mind -- thus, we may reasonably expect that we can know (via reason operating on experience) that some claims about such minds are not, and cannot be, true.<br /><br />On the other hand, we do not know what it is like to be a non-limited, transcendent, non-embodied mind -- thus, we should expect that we do not, and never can, fully understand the whole truth about such a mind or minds, no matter how long we reason on the matter. We are missing, and will always be missing, some vital subjective fact(s).Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47155532685639858182010-02-10T00:43:19.921-08:002010-02-10T00:43:19.921-08:00Edward,
Bill Vallicella suggests you can't be...Edward,<br /><br />Bill Vallicella suggests you can't be a mysterian about the Trinity and refute materialism at the same time.<br /><br />http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/02/materialist-mysterianism.html<br /><br />VlastimilVlastimil Vohánkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13223710301816466736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11052445564658674972009-06-11T22:24:20.463-07:002009-06-11T22:24:20.463-07:00Hey Billy, why not instead of just spouting your e...Hey Billy, why not instead of just spouting your emotional response to my writing, point out where I errored. Start with my first post on this thread (let's see...comment #5), where I question (nay, doubt) Feser's claim that pure Reason can establish God's existence, His supposed attributes (ie, the "trinity"), and also uphold the inerrancy of Judeo-Christian dogma, including the supposed miracles of New Testament (including resurrection). gut Glueck. <br /><br />That's not a "radical atheist" viewpoint either, but actually quite standard (Hume, Kant, founding fathers) common, even to some believers, excepting rational theologians.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55942536110566376842009-06-11T18:13:00.665-07:002009-06-11T18:13:00.665-07:00I'm very tempted, Billy.
J, I have tolerated ...I'm very tempted, Billy.<br /><br />J, I have tolerated your logorrhea for some time because I prefer as far as possible to moderate with a light hand. But you're testing my patience.<br /><br />So, J, please, keep your comments (a) on topic, (b) more brief, and (c) less frequent, or they may have to end alogether.Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64751865302899706302009-06-11T17:06:28.536-07:002009-06-11T17:06:28.536-07:00Ed F., I think that you might consider just cannin...Ed F., I think that you might consider just canning J from your discussions. Take this discussion, for example. Not one single point he has made in a dozen posts really has anything to do with the Trinity. <br /><br />While he occasionally hits upon a point that could bear some discussion, that point rarely has anything to do with the matter at hand, and it is always embedded in a veritable snow-storm of nonsense, ignorance, and pure gibberish. <br /><br />He is a two-bit anti-philosopher using your blog for his soapbox. I am unable to read through the trash he generates (and others patiently deal with correctly but uselessly (at least insofar as they might intend to convince J) ), so I might miss what other beneficial conversations might be present in and around his junk.Billynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31516643927851450382009-06-11T01:16:19.285-07:002009-06-11T01:16:19.285-07:00Here are some thoughts by "Mariano" whic...Here are some thoughts by "Mariano" which are relevant to what I'd said earlier about the reality of morality leading to the realization that God is a plurality -- <a href="http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/06/on-flying-spaghetti-monster-invisible_05.html" rel="nofollow">On the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al., part 4 of 4</a><br /><br />"<i>Judaism and Islam hold to strict monotheism while Christianity holds to Trinitarian monotheism.<br /><br />Judaism’s and Islam’s theology may have at least two problems: their gods may lack something and there is a problem in the realm of morality. Being strictly monotheistic gods an argument that could be made against them is that they may have created humans (and angels and animals) because they lacked something, namely relationships.<br /><br />Let us take a moment to state that the gods of Judaism and Christianity are the same God yet, fully revealed in Christian theology. Let us therefore focus on Islam’s god for a moment.<br />This particular god, being single and solitary from all eternity, is not a personal being or rather, not a personable being. Since it lacks eternal relationships it either created beings in order to have relationships with them or, as is more obvious in Islam’s theology, it is simply not interested in having personal relationships with humans.<br /><br />Moreover, since it lacks eternal relations and does not seek personal relations its moral system amounts to arbitrary dogmatic assertions. This particular god is commonly referred to as “capricious.” Since relation is not intrinsic to its nature, neither is morality.<br /><br />When we consider the God of the Bible—the God of Judaism as fully revealed in Christian theology—we find a being that is one God in three “persons” who are coeternal, coexisting and coequal, </i>one what and three whos as it has been stated.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3004069192536581829" rel="nofollow">[1]</a><i> This God is not alone in eternity and is thus not lacking relation. Relation is intrinsic to this God and so is morality (or rather, ethics, the very ethos), it is a very aspect of God’s nature or character. Thus, this God’s ordained morality is neither arbitrary nor some external entity to which God is subject.</i>"Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11776157767483663622009-06-10T15:41:41.703-07:002009-06-10T15:41:41.703-07:00I do like the reaction to Mackie however (who also...I do like the reaction to Mackie however (who also had read that scoundrel Hume). Merely say MACKIE on many catholic blogs, and the regs fall apart, start insisting on parallel worlds, the barely recognized field of modal logic, and so forth. The only people who believe Plantinga defeated Mackie on the evidential POE seem to be, yes, people on catholic blogs (tho' a few calvinist nuts do as well, apparently). Of course, if an Afterlife existed (rather unlikely) there might be answer to the POE. Maybe not. If you grant possible worlds (ridiculous, if not madness really), who's to say they are not WORSE than the Earth itself? All nuclear wars, all the time, per Paingod.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45203756008510887962009-06-10T15:17:57.671-07:002009-06-10T15:17:57.671-07:00That's the naive reading of Hume: claiming tha...That's the naive reading of Hume: claiming that an ultimate cause may be unknown, or unverifiable does not equal saying there is no cause. For that matter, modern physics does offer many instances of events (like gas molecules in a container) which do not occur in some regular billiard-ball fashion, thus refuting that old mechanist mantra "every event has a cause". Heisenberg wrote on this, and rejected most western metaphysics, and indeed he sounded rather Humean (and Hume, while not a Heisenberg had a fairly decent understanding of probability issues). Rudy Carnap also had read his Hume (actually I would contend Carnap understood Hume better than most so-called analytical sorts, Popper and Russell included).Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-724760000921039842009-06-10T14:48:09.114-07:002009-06-10T14:48:09.114-07:00J,
Hume said what he said about causality, about ...J,<br /><br />Hume said what he said about causality, about the possibilities of events taking place without cause, etc. The ramifications for a Humean approach to the world with regards to science is clear - and it's disastrous. Which is why people prefer to take their Hume unevenly - apply his skepticism and metaphysics on a subject they want to combat, but not what they want to support. The inconsistency is obvious, and frankly, inexcusable.<br /><br />Yes, J, possible worlds DO count - and no, I do not err. Mackie's perspective has been beaten down time and again, and Mackie's defenders have never been able to cope with justifying the existence of good or evil on their own worldviews to anything resembling a cohesive level. As an internal critique of Christianity (or, honestly, just about any other faith) Mackie failed then, and fails now.<br /><br />Actually, America was founded by Christians and deists - the latter of whom were heavily and positively influenced by Christianity. (See Jefferson, perhaps the most skeptical of the deist founders, and his attitude about Christ's teachings even with his miracles removed.) The idea of a deity - an active one who imbued this world with God-given rights - was key to the founding vision. Anyway, the fact that you're trying to bait me with insults left and right, hoping I lash out at you, indicates you've really got nothing of value to add here. Especially when your contributions amount to little more than "Well Philosopher-X disagrees with you and I think he's right even though I can't rightly explain his view!" Demonstrably so when you make reference to how "good acts should count more than faith" - it's unfortunate that "good acts" don't reasonably exist on a naturalist or modern atheist worldview.<br /><br />I'd thank you for demonstrating the poverty of the atheist position yet again. But then, as someone who apparently accepts the rational case for a deity/deities - just not a Christian one - you've already demonstrated how vacant the New Atheist claims in particular are. ;)Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50453150551848765742009-06-10T13:20:41.550-07:002009-06-10T13:20:41.550-07:00oops: that's "Good" only in non-bel...oops: that's "Good" only in non-believer's sense, of course, like whatever tickles your fancy. <br /><br />Either way, Crude, the supposed objective Justice that christians supposedly value hasn't stopped centuries of warfare and bloodshed has it. Again, even Hitchens & Co. has addressed this (ad nauseum). Maybe my ethics-o-meter's off, but I don't find Cardinals (or muftis, either) giving their benediction to concentration camps too copacetic.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18103303909189029652009-06-10T13:06:58.151-07:002009-06-10T13:06:58.151-07:00Reading Hume as ultra-skeptic is naive. By pointin...Reading Hume as ultra-skeptic is naive. By pointing out that empirical knowledge is not necessary he did not mean that it is non existent, or did he mean to cast ultimate doubt about science, knowledge, etc. Contingencies, right (as even Leibniz had claimed). <br /><br /> He's dealing with the ramifications of Newtonian physics (and induction and probability, really). For that matter, Newton, like Galilleo was not exactly following the catholic fathers. Then Einsteinian physics updates that supposed Newton absolute: Hume, applied. <br /><br />You also error in thinking that the Evi.Problem of Evil has been resolved, by Plantinga, or anyone. Possible worlds don't count: in science, or logic, or "metaphysics." A world without plagues, wars, crime, corrupt clergymen, rabbis, imams, etc. might be possible--so might be Tolkien's fairylands-- but we have no knowledge of them, so they are really not even admissable, except in seminaries. Yes, give thanks to the Almighty for those blessed kingdoms that we cannot perceive! <br /><br />The theist might say to the Mackie-like doubter that the POE will be resolved in the hereafter. That holds about as much water as like saying Tolkien-land exists, somewhere, or karma, Dante's inferno, etc. Mere metaphor bashing, really. <br /><br />And asserting that only believers can refer to ethics, Justice, the Good is nearly a Himmler like manipulation. The Constitution a counter example to that claim. We don't need padre's Triscuit on Domingo-day to realize that Himmler, altar boy (or ex altar boy) was Eeevil incarnate. Even a few boxes of holy crackers won't change that. <br /><br />Anyway, shouldn't good acts count more than faith? Even the catholics seem to say that-- except for the cracker bit. Sans cracker, miracles, er, confession, Mary-worship, a few other points, and I generally agree with the padres.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61036002634419810742009-06-10T12:12:18.918-07:002009-06-10T12:12:18.918-07:00J,
Who said anything about show of hands (Oh ye w...J,<br /><br />Who said anything about show of hands (Oh ye who proceeds to count hands)? And who ever said science cannot be done without recourse to *theology* of all things? It can't be Aquinas and the scholastics, who thought the greeks (among others) had great insights about the natural world despite being non-Christian. Now, *metaphysics* do underscore science - and frankly, the metaphysics of Aristotle, Aquinas and others are in a vastly better position compared to, say, the metaphysics of Hume. Would you enjoy hearing scientists say "Well, we detecting an anomaly, but of course we can never be sure such things have a cause"? And teleology is a necessary part of a complete explanation - not the entire explanation itself. The neo-Aristotilean complaint isn't that efficient causes are used in explanation - it's the improper and typically deceptive ignoring of formal and final causes where the complaints come in, even as they're used (With explanations that "Sometime, we swear, we won't have to speak to teleology!")<br /><br />And hinting? I *explicitly* made reference to the complaints about evil, which (particularly for atheist materialists) can't be much more than an emotional plea. You want to assert Mackie won, that's fine - I'll assert Mackie and company have had their asses handed to them repeatedly on the topic, from pretty much every religious tradition around, and from agnostic perspectives. Hitchens looks horrible when taken to task on this point. I'm sure your mileage varies.<br /><br />As for deism - I'm not concerned with what you'll personally agree to. But one more time: If you cede the case for deism, even polydeism, you're cutting the New Atheists off at the knees in particular, and atheism in general besides. One more time: The real debate isn't between theists and atheists. It's between theists of various stripes. Most atheists won't even make a positive claim about God for fear of having to do what they see as a hopeless task: Defend their view.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12576010350410286412009-06-10T11:06:33.370-07:002009-06-10T11:06:33.370-07:00It's not dependent on a show of hands, Crude. ...It's not dependent on a show of hands, Crude. The western intellectual tradition (apart from western yahoo tradition) from like Hobbes forward has been contra-scholastic, notwithstanding the germans (and then arguably Kant's not really defending Christianity either). Obviously science has done well without recourse to any theology (Laplace I believe said, he had no need for the God hypothesis or something). In terms of useful knowledge, secular science has done quite well. Modern medicine stripped of all the old teleology and essences works. Prayers don't (where are they prayers to stop North and South Korea, and China, UN, US from going to battle. <br /><br />Ooops--hinting at ye olde Problem of Evil (evidential version if you like--the LPOE somewhat vacuous): another fairly compelling--nay, spot on-- counter-argument in the Against column. JL Mackie won that chessmatch, regardless of the modal hype of the Plantinga sorts. <br /><br /><br />I might agree to a modified, "process" sort of Deism (polydeism??), mostly just for kicks: Hegelian christianity meets the Buddha, with some quantum physics tossed in. Alas, Hegel's still situated likedown near the ice lake of Hell according to papists, I believe.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71867602823217531042009-06-10T10:54:30.492-07:002009-06-10T10:54:30.492-07:00J,
If you think it's the case that the column...J,<br /><br />If you think it's the case that the column against > column for, you're apparently in quite a tiny minority. Again, I can only reference the positions atheists actually take - and hands down, even among the most outspoken atheists, they struggle desperately to avoid making a positive claim. And it clearly seems to be due to strong atheism being committed to claims more outlandish than theists, more uncertain, and more presumptive. Arrogance has nothing to do with it. You think Dawkins cares about seeming arrogant? Hitchens? Dennett? Have we already forgotten the whole "Brights" routine? It's about the difficulty of defending atheism, and the ease of being in the position of having nothing to defend but being able to constantly be on the offensive, even if the position isn't rightly occupied.<br /><br />Second, you say the theist/theologian cannot "prove" immateriality/immortality. Let's say I grant that - wonderful. As Van Inwagen has said, there have been practically no settled issues in philosophy ever since it's been in existence - "proof" is sorely lacking. But theists, at a minimum have great arguments and reasons to put stock in a variety of viewpoints, from basic deism, developed theism, idealism, various dualisms (some stronger than others, in my view), etc. The periodic table and experimental science are compatible with all these views, so their presence is rather moot. In fact, the successes of science boosted the theists' claims while caused trouble for the atheist's for a number of reasons. But one in particular deals with what Russell once talked about regarding the powers of design and mind - his argument effectively makes it such that every scientific and engineering advance by humans is additional proof against atheism.<br /><br />Finally, the founding fathers, believers, and once upon a time some atheists also recognized the "dangers" of atheism or secular pursuits. To put it in perspective, Pol Pot and Stalin were very, very aware of and loud about the dangers of religious fundamentalism. The danger of being outspoken about one evil and blind to so many others is sadly apparent throughout the 20th century. And honestly, if you're going to come down on Ilion for what you claim is an argument based on emotion, you're going to have little business defending Hitchens (who, bizarrely, makes ranting about evil and morality a centerpiece of his theism-tirades) or Dawkins (who has expressly endorsed a "do anything but discuss things with them rationally" tact towards approaching religious issues).<br /><br />You say Aristotle's view has some 'materialist aspects'. So would, frankly, any dualist view - they embrace two "kinds of things" at work in the world by their very position, so of course they will be amenable to certain types of physical description. And as for whether Aristotle's views can rightly be combined with Christianity, keep in mind that A) Neither Aquinas nor Christians need to accept every specific thing Aristotle said. We don't even need to accept every specific thing *Aquinas* said, and B) None of this helps atheism. If Hegel is right, if George Berkeley is right, if panentheists are right, if Aristotle is right, etc, some form of theism is correct, and atheism is incorrect. Again, Ed once said on this blog something to the tune of "The real intellectual struggle isn't between atheists and theists. It's between Christians, Muslims, Jews, Platonists..." etc. I'd further add that even if mormonism is right - which has a very "materialist" metaphysics, and takes positions contrary to most classic theisms - then atheists are incorrect.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78692264449033942652009-06-10T10:53:49.588-07:002009-06-10T10:53:49.588-07:00Edward--"The Father is God" is a reflect...Edward--"The Father is God" is a reflection of our understanding of God. Likewise, with the "Son is God." Our sense of Trinitarianism closely approximates "is a reflection of," in truth. Trinitarians cannot use "is" as an identity relation. One God is one Being. We need this clarity of expression. Perhaps Cartwright's ten other possible construals bring us toward this clarity. Discussing unintelligibility inevitably brings in the issue of faith, in my view. So, agreed, the Trinity must be classified as a mystery. We can conclude that that is why God has appeared on earth, as written in the Bible, to provide empirical evidence to justify our faith. Adam and Eve failed pure faith. There wouldn't be a Son in the Trinity if it were not for God coming first. Dismiss Gyula Klima. Do you think God had Gyula in mind when He designed this enormous edifice, the earth and man's place on it? Semantic analysis, in that light, is just a pleasant whirlwind exercise. Again, "mysterianism" is faith, so God can do anything is essentially the fundamental proposition we have to start with. Consciousness is a red herring.Frederic Kolmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72326111524142786762009-06-10T10:38:45.377-07:002009-06-10T10:38:45.377-07:00That's to say, "another Against column.&q...That's to say, "another Against column."<br /><br />Really, Crude, biblical ethics per se, as outlined in the Sermon on the Mount should not just be rejected out of hand. Alas, Christendom's not overly concerned with the code expressed in the Sermon on the Mount, generally preferring like the Book of Revelation ("the ravings of a maniac," as Jefferson called it). or the war prayers of Ezekiel, etc. For that matter, I don't think Team Aristotle and Team Abraham (including Kid Galilee) really see eye to eye, regardless of Aquinas or Augustine's grand visions. (Ezra Pound did not think so). We should remember that late Aristotle was an empiricist, early biologist, etc.. and did not lack materialist aspects, however vulgar they might seem to believers. While I don't pretend to have mastered the system, I would rate the Aristotelian realism closer to an immanent view--even slightly spinozaistic--rather than Christian transcendence (or dualism, perhaps). Hegel's process thinking--not lacking in evolutionary aspects--also follows from Aristotle (and Spinoza for that matter).Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50868325332476523852009-06-10T08:04:51.999-07:002009-06-10T08:04:51.999-07:00Crude--
There are key differences between skeptic...Crude--<br /><br />There are key differences between skepticism, agnosticism and atheism One could arrange columns--say, reasons for and against Gott's existence. I am pretty convinced the column Against's > column For's. Some might choose to doubt, whereas others move to atheism--I think there are sufficient reasons for "robust agnosticism", especially in regards to monotheism, but would agree a definitive claim of atheism may be a bit arrogant. <br /><br />The theist/theologian cannot really prove immateriality/immortality, first off. He can suggest it, or point out the problems with empiricism/physicalism/"vulgar" Darwinism, but proof of soul he has not--. The periodic table and experimental science in general leaves little room for "substance" and the rest of the scholastic schema. <br /><br /><br />Against column concerns the dangers of religious fundamentalism-- That was noted by Hume, the founding fathers and many others--even believers. At least Hitchens understands that point.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49666116152029185652009-06-10T05:32:39.310-07:002009-06-10T05:32:39.310-07:00Here are the thoughts of "KairosFocus" o...Here are the thoughts of "KairosFocus" on the Trinity: <a href="http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/Shamrock_Principle.htm" rel="nofollow">The Shamrock Principle</a>Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14299466150017144392009-06-10T02:47:52.098-07:002009-06-10T02:47:52.098-07:00I love it when people substitute "christ"...I love it when people substitute "christ" for "x". When they do it, it always amuses me watching them.<br /><br />Like this guy:<br />http://theintelligentzone.blogspot.com/search?q=google+mapsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68575818759364274602009-06-09T22:44:28.780-07:002009-06-09T22:44:28.780-07:00Beg pardon, two typoes.
First, instead of Augusti...Beg pardon, two typoes.<br /><br />First, instead of Augustine, it should be Aquinas. Second, Dawkins is 99.9% sure there is no God. As for whether he thinks he's a God, I'm unsure, but many of his admirers treat him close to such.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43378673023699655092009-06-09T22:42:47.356-07:002009-06-09T22:42:47.356-07:00J, you can play off Aristotle as "not a Chris...J, you can play off Aristotle as "not a Christian" as much as you like - all of us are aware of that, as is Augustine. You can also insist that that the arguments given, if they do get a person as far as God, does not get a person as far as Christianity or Catholicism. Again, we're all aware, and Ed makes this point himself, explicitly and repeatedly.<br /><br />One big problem is that if any God exists, the game is over - some form of theism is right, and atheism is incorrect. So Hume would only get you so far on this one either way. What's more, atheists who claim that no God exists have the burden of proof on them - and frankly, the fact that so many of them desperately attempt to wiggle out of said claim says quite a lot about the (lack of) strength in their position. (Witness Dawkins, who in essence says he's 99.9% sure he is no God, but the .1% uncertainty means he's technically a soft atheist and therefore is not making a claim.)<br /><br />Further - Russell, agent of the devil? Have you read Ed's book? Have you even read his blog posts? He's specifically praised various atheists (Quentin Smith, even Russell himself I believe, certainly on philosophy of mind issues at least) for making better arguments and conducting themselves in a respectful manner. He comes down hard on Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens precisely because of their rhetoric and bad arguments. Frankly, a number of atheists have done the same.<br /><br />Incidentally, J, are you an atheist?Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20183555257630137012009-06-09T18:55:40.113-07:002009-06-09T18:55:40.113-07:00We all *know* that there exists an objective and t...<i>We all *know* that there exists an objective and transcendent morality. </i><br /><br />Idion again doing his Father Coughlin imitation (...or is it perhaps Lucky Luciano). Why bother even with platonic chestnuts when everyone just knows the Moralitay Ghost sits on high, jus' because. <br /><br />Even the authentic Rational Theologian should object to that sort of intuitive, emotional appeal, but Feserites, when pressed, are happy to intone dogma along with the calvinist sorts of biblethumpers. <br /><br />Dan S: I agree there are many subtleties to the greek rationalists, then one might sway the same about ancient hindus, or other religions. At the same time the philosophers' religious ideas do not seem that related to the God of the New Testament. Aristotle was beloved by roman senators and Caesars themselves. Marcus Aurelius upholds the Aristotelian code: that's not the message of New Testament is it. <br /><br /><br />Either way, the classical arguments are I believe empirical, or quasi-empirical, and not necessary or analytical (that holds for the ontological argument as well, I believe. There are a few more details, but existence is not a predicate--mere words do not bring things (especially Gods) into existence)). Even if we grant the plausibility of say the Design argument, there are other considerations (why a Designer who creates species that go extinct, birds without wings, other poor adaptation--- and why doesn't He offer more conclusive evidence of His existence???). Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy, however whimsical also relevant--we might not be able to prove atheism (ie prove a negative existence claim given a very large domain), yet theists make the "anomalous" claim, and have the burden of proof. I imagine EF says something about that, or calls Russell an agent of the devil or something, but the point holds.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20703244567585472612009-06-09T18:54:29.096-07:002009-06-09T18:54:29.096-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83696705354749379272009-06-09T18:24:30.776-07:002009-06-09T18:24:30.776-07:00[continued]
So, either we must deny that morality...[continued]<br /><br />So, either we must deny that morality really exists, or we must affirm that morality really exists and is necessarily grounded in (or, consists of) the interpersonal relationships among and between a plurality of non-contingent persons.<br /><br />Now, a non-contingent person is a <i>necessary being</i>; but is it not that to speak of a plurality of necessary beings to propose a paradox, a self-contradiction, an oxymoron? Admittedly, we are now well into that area of thinking about God at which our own limitations may betray us.<br /><br />Now, if there is indeed a plurality of non-contingent persons and yet there cannot be a plurality of necessary beings, then it must be the case that the necessary being, who is one, is nonetheless a plurality of persons.<br /><br /><br />So, it seems to me that we may resolve the conundrum of morality in one of three ways:<br /><br />1) Simply deny that morality exists at all; deny that we have moral obligations to others, deny that others have moral obligations to us.<br /><br />2) Grasping the <i>coherent</i> horn of the Euthyphro dilemma: affirm that morality exists, deny that there is a plurality of non-contingent persons, and assert that morality consists only and exactly of the arbitrary commands of the necessary being to the contingent beings.<br /><br />3) Recognizing the false nature of the Euthyphro dilemma: affirm that morality exists, affirm that there is a plurality of non-contingent persons, and assert that morality is grounded in (or, consists of) the interpersonal relationship(s) of the non-contingent persons; and, specifically, that morality is love.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.com