tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post6691060205418988141..comments2024-02-29T04:15:06.480-06:00Comments on Life, the Universe, and One Brow: Scientific jargon does not support the Fifth WayOne Browhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-74853836010649865682009-09-30T03:12:49.577-05:002009-09-30T03:12:49.577-05:00'Scuzi for rants. I'm not obsessed over Fe...'Scuzi for rants. I'm not obsessed over Feser, or his Aquinas revival. Obviously he's an intelligent person, but he's a scheming, deceitful, extremely conservative person. And the aged Thomistic weltanschauung does not hold together, whether in terms of science, logic, or political model.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-90920179808918176482009-09-29T16:25:06.482-05:002009-09-29T16:25:06.482-05:00De nada.
Note that Doc Feser now just deletes a...De nada. <br /><br />Note that Doc Feser now just deletes any commenter who dare to criticize Aquinas. <br /><br />Those consumers who just discovered Feser's odd neo-scholasticism might peruse some of his older conservative schtick on Right Reason. He sounded like an Ayn Rand sort of quack-libertarian for years (Miss Rand also fond of a right-wing reading of the holy Stagirite), and then must have had some sort of conversion, and decided the xtian Right needed some back up from the Domincan Bros version of catholicism--sort of a few steps to the right of Pat Buchanan. <br /><br />Feser's reading of Aquinas is itself questionable. I don't have time to go through the sludge of the Summa (rather supernatural sludge as well, which Feser downplays), but even the Angelic Doctor had a certain tolerant side (as did St Augie, sort of St Tom's papa)--Aquinas opposed the divine right of Kings for one, and allowed for overthrowing tyranny. He alludes to Averroes as the Commentator, and Aristotle as The Philosopher. <br /><br />Feser sees Aquinas through his machiavellian lenses--it's not so much a matter of truth, but of ideology; catholic orthodoxy will still work for Feser's brand of conservatism. Note also Feser's allusions on his blog to Garrigou-Lagrange, a french cleric (and neo-Thomist) who blessed Petain and the vichy, and was pals with some of the german bishops who approved of the nazis. That's Feserism: Garrigou-FeiserJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-55010354351038677862009-09-29T13:19:19.370-05:002009-09-29T13:19:19.370-05:00J,
Thank you for the additional background and pe...J,<br /><br />Thank you for the additional background and perspective. I'm thinking and learning quite a bit these last few days.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-57162116917066867022009-09-27T17:27:54.918-05:002009-09-27T17:27:54.918-05:00Another trick of Feser consists in a subtle Ad Auc...Another trick of Feser consists in a subtle Ad Auctoritas (maybe not that subtle). He routinely insists all those wicked empiricists and experimentalists, starting with Hobbes, etc overlooked Aristotle's causes, and were therefore not looking at the whole picture, or something. That is not entirely accurate. <br /><br />The move towards experimentalism and observation demanded a break with Aristotle's four causes: Feser thinks that was a great loss, when in fact many important discoveries (like Galilleo, and Newton) followed from that break with Aristotle.<br /><br />Furthermore, it was a break with dogma--instead of assuming Aristotle's causes held a priori, the empiricists decided to sort of "look and see", and found out that knowledge grew out of observation itself, without the Final Cause, or mysterious "substance" (which Paddy Feser still upholds) and metaphysics. That wasn't entirely new--Bill of Ockham had suggested as much. <br /><br />The Aquinas chestnuts may be interesting (actually a bit spooky), but it's not accurate to say thinkers and scientists just ignored them. Even in King James' time, the catholics held to Aristotle and ptolemy, and considered Copernicus and Kepler heretical, and had no problem burning copernicans at the stake (like Bruno). Galilleo and Hobbes reacted to that dogmatism. Descartes did as well, but he was still friendly to the Church (or perhaps obedient).Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-87032925386367989102009-09-27T16:01:49.515-05:002009-09-27T16:01:49.515-05:00Actually, Aquinas put forth five arguments (though...Actually, Aquinas put forth five arguments (though Aristotle had sort of initiated them), and the first three are definitely related to the billiard-ball causation I allude to (motion, cause, contingency, etc). There are minute differences, and the usual scholasticism (act, potency, etc) , but they are analogical, not necessary (the clerics tried to give a necessary, deductive argument with the Ontological chestnut). <br /><br />Kant did not accept the arguments for G*d, though he did grant the Design argument had a certain force. The point on infinity vs finitude was from IK's First Antinomy.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-90258498488276448332009-09-27T15:40:41.207-05:002009-09-27T15:40:41.207-05:00J,
I agree with you and UnBeguiled that the physi...J,<br /><br />I agree with you and UnBeguiled that the physics is old and the argument is ill-founded, but Dr. Feser's argument is not of the type of a pool-table behavior you describe. Rather, as a poor summation, his argument seems to be that, for any cause to have an effect, that effect must first exist, and it can only exist in the mind of some God. Which physics he is using is not really relevant to that argument.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-69859822378601191932009-09-27T10:46:12.362-05:002009-09-27T10:46:12.362-05:00Steven Hawking I am not, but I do think Feser, fol...Steven Hawking I am not, but I do think Feser, following Aquinas (and Aristotle) generally relies on the older, mechanical physics. The Big bang is obviously a monumental problem, one theologians are not generally capable of addressing (holy creation of matter, batman). Even Kant more or less said don't worry your pretty head about it (for one, infinite series are not contradictions). <br /><br />The First Cause arguments are generally along the lines of what we might call the Great Pool Table Breaker analogy, really (or marble shooter, etc). Say you walk into a pool hall, and see balls rolling on a table, and a great break--pools going into pockets, etc. But you see no one with a cue, no one at the table. You would probably assume a person, a great shot, just broke the table. That may be plausible. But you really don't know that. Some kids may have just tossed balls on the table, or a robotic device deposited them from the ceiling, etc. That may seem far-fetched, but any inference about causes that you do not perceive are merely analogical; and the problems are greatly compounded given millions of centuries.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-15329228639825647092009-09-27T10:34:40.565-05:002009-09-27T10:34:40.565-05:00Unbeguiled,
I read a great deal of that exchange,...Unbeguiled,<br /><br />I read a great deal of that exchange, and I think there was some truth that you were missing the point of Dr. Feser's argument.<br /><br />I agree metaphysical demonstrations are difficult to show wrong by resorting to physics. However, they often succumb to metaphysical ctitiques.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-69441514981765367232009-09-25T20:08:22.949-05:002009-09-25T20:08:22.949-05:00"heads I win, tails you lose"
Feser is ..."heads I win, tails you lose"<br /><br />Feser is adept at this rhetorical ploy. When I posted about a grievous error in his book, he responded that even if he got the facts wrong in his argument, the argument would still work.<br /><br />He retreats into his "metaphysical demonstration", which seems to mean an argument which in principle cannot be wrong.GarageDragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11399828220100913111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-6708096503976937162009-09-24T15:43:36.570-05:002009-09-24T15:43:36.570-05:00I'm an atheist and skeptic, and I'm fairly...I'm an atheist and skeptic, and I'm fairly sure I have not adopted anything mystical like the occult or the woo of Bill Maher. However, I agree that the Coynes and Myers often go too far. I have no objection to anyone holding any sort of religious beleif, as long as they don't expect me to share it.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-92228004773024262792009-09-24T15:28:12.081-05:002009-09-24T15:28:12.081-05:00The proper approach lies somewhere between Coyne a...The proper approach lies somewhere between Coyne and Feser, I think. The dogmatic creationists--including neo-scholastics like Feser--certainly offend me. Some rabid atheists, however, especially those with university educations, error in caricaturing all religious thinking as right-wing or reactionary, primitive, etc. I don't think that's always the case. There are right-wing atheists; yet there are progressives who may attend church. Simple belief, even in say the Design Argument, does not really constitute an intellectual crime. Only when the faith becomes a type of zealotry or hysteria is it a problem (so I'm not sure I agree with the Dawkinistas who say faith does more harm than good...). <br /><br />Non-faith, or naive atheism could be a danger too--my own experience has led me to discover that many so-called atheists and skeptics, even the hard-minded scientific sort, replace their sunday school with something weirder--the occult, or eastern mysticism, etc. Not always, but that does happen. You would be astounded at the number of the little goth freaks now crawling around in El Lay. <br /><br />Christianity, however irrational it may appear to academics, provides some people with comfort of a sort. When Marx called religion the opium of the masses, he did not necessarily mean that was the most horrible thing in the world; he meant that the world was so horrible for some unfortunate souls that their only relief was through religion. So call that the Argument via Consolation or something...Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-20063019284062220292009-09-24T14:33:46.477-05:002009-09-24T14:33:46.477-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.com