I would disagree. I think he’s a solid thinker and generally respected in the field. That’s not to suggest that his works are perfect, irrefutable, unbiased, or correct, but he is a solid contributor in his field. I don’t always grok what he describes and I don’t have the background to unpack various nuances, so it is definitely worth reading others, pro & con, as well.
1 Like
I think he is too - he’s well respected and writes clearly. But is that enough?
Oh look, a village atheist on a Christian forum attacking classical defenses of theism without actually reading them or knowing what they say or argue. Feser does one and two in spades. Three was not the goal of a philosophy book arguing for God’s existence and establishing divine attributes. You don’t even have to go beyond Feser’s more formal summary of his first argument in the book to see this:
Unique:
- But there could be such a differentiating feature only if a purely actual actualizer had some unactualized potential, which, being purely actual, it does not have.
- So, there can be no such differentiating feature, and thus no
way for there to be more than one purely actual actualizer. - So, there is only one purely actual actualizer.
Still exists:
- But being purely actual, it lacks any such potentials.
- So, it is immutable or incapable of change.
- If his purely actual actualizer existed in time, then it would be
capable of change, which it is not. - So, this purely actual actualizer is eternal, existing outside of
time.
It is 100% clear you have not seriously dialogued with or understand what a Thomist understanding of God looks like to say something so egregiously false. These flow naturally out of the same arguments that establish God exists (or in your view “something.”). For example, in Fesers second argument, the Neo Platonic Proof, the same conclusion is reached about “uniqueness” and “still existing” –the latter of which which is a round square when it comes to God.
- So, there cannot be more than one absolutely simple or noncomposite
cause.
THE NEO-PLATONIC PROOF 81 - If he absolutely simple or noncomposite cause were changeable,
then it would have parts which it gains or loses—which,
being simple or non-composite, it does not have. - So, the absolutely simple or noncomposite cause is changeless
or immutable. - If the absolutely simple or noncomposite cause had a beginning
or an end, it would have parts which could either be
combined or broken apart. - So, since it has no such parts, the absolutely simple or noncomposite
cause is beginningless and endless. - Whatever is immutable, beginningless, and endless is eternal.
Do I need to show how his third argument, the Augustan proof leads to the same argument for uniqueness and necessary existence as well? Seems like you have a juvenile understanding of Thomas and critique it from an echo chamber that just reacts to what it think the arguments claim (caricatures). I ask you again, why do you prowl on a Christian forum knocking down and attacking Christian thought?
I didn’t know this forum was meant to be a venue for atheists to repeatedly spread doubt about Christian theism.
Vinnie
1 Like
If you had anything worthwhile to say you wouldn’t need to open with an insult.
I suspect you don’t understand what you’ve copied.
You could prove me wrong by explaining:
Why can’t there be two or more undifferentiable purely actual actualizers?
Why does something that exists in time have to be capable of change?
Why doesn’t God being outside of time and being incapable of change mean that the Bible is incorrect?
You are not worthwhile to me. I am not interested in someone sowing doubt against Christian theism on a Christian forum whose goal is to reconcile sacred scripture with modern science. My goal is the reconciliation of sacred scripture with modern science. That is why I come here. You don’t fit in with my purpose for being here and therefore, I have little interest in dialoguing with you. Biologos is a public forum with many lurkers. I respond for the benefit of others reading this and also myself.
And since you edited your post to add this:
It’s only the formal summary. You already professed to know what Feser argues and dismissed his work out of hand when it’s more and more obvious you have not dialogued with it or him. My advice, read it. He goes through detailed explanations of where the formal summary comes from. Maybe it would be of benefit to see what a top Christian philosopher actually argues as opposed to whatever you think you heard on r/atheism or the secular web.
That is a fair question, but what does it mean for the Bible to be incorrect in your view? Our understanding of the purpose of scripture may be very different.
Vinnie
Then stop floundering about objective morality and Feser’s proofs, and stop ignoring what your ‘sacred scripture’ says.
Then stop replying to me. Either you have little interest in dialogue, or you want answers to your questions. You can’t have it both ways.
… but you didn’t.
I recommended the book to a Christian on a Christian forum. You dismissed it out of hand claiming to know what it’s about and it was proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt, you were talking out of our behind. Read the book that you are so certain is wrong despite not knowing what it says.
Once you read it then if all the dialogue that went into justifying the formal summary doesn’t satisfy you, make a thread about it and I’ll be happy to discuss the issue with you. I am not doing your homework for you though since nothing about your response looks sincere.
Vinnie
1 Like
Moody Blues “Why do We never get an answer, when We’re knocking on the door” My answer still is I can Pray because I have the ability to pray. Why do I have this ability? The answer is I was given it to pray to someone who allowed me to have a one way communication for whatever reason.
I have found that Christian forums attract precisely that sort of atheist, and the scientific aspect of this one makes it even more juicy. Despite the prolifera of Christians in the scientific arena, there is nothing more many scientists would love than for God to be disproven for certain.
Then the Science God would reign supreme and unchallenged.
Richard
1 Like
And be warned: this is one of those things that may be understood while being read but lost the moment you look up from the page, let alone ever putting it in your own words!
Probably.
2 Likes
Where has he done that?
1 Like
Feser is a very slow read for me 
I do love his blog following and his propensity to respond to scholarly critiques of his views though. It helps with my own questions as I trudge through. I really do appreciate the Thomist portrait of God though. My goodness, it explains so much and cuts through so many objections to God.
I’m not sure and can only guess. He probably has no idea what model of inspiration I subscribe to. I think he is just raising objections to a fundamentalist understanding that work in certain locales online and wants me to explain why the Bible supports slavery or something. That was the other day. Today it was God ordering the murder of babies in the OT. Or maybe here he is thinking that calling God immutable or changeless means God is inert and can’t do any of the things the Bible attributes to Him because that would be a change. This misunderstands that God’s essence is immutable but He is the unactualized actualizer that is the source of all change. Or maybe he wants me to explain why God was sad He made humans during the flood. Not really sure.
Vinnie
2 Likes
I am glad if this kind of logical thinking can help some to find God.
Yet, I would not put too much weight on such thinking because the apparently logical reasoning may tell more about the mental structure of thinking or the underlying assumptions than the reality.
That something is possible or even logically probable does not tell that it is necessarily reality - life is stranger than fiction. Sometimes, the chains of logical thought may show restricted imagination (too limited assumptions) rather than that the end of the logical chain is a proven fact. Modern physics is illuminating in that it tells that old-fashioned logical thinking may not be enough to capture what happens at the quantum level. My old-fashioned mind tends to think that this can be explained by incomplete understanding about the reality (visible or invisible) but some tell that it is just what the reality is, not that incomplete understanding leaves influential parts from the equations.
If this works for you and some others, fine. It does not convince all, including me - even though I am a believer.
2 Likes
You’re right - I’ll change it to ‘ignoring’ instead.
And I disrecommended it. You aren’t the only person allowed to comment on books.
I said it contained “updated versions of the ‘proofs’ from Aristotle, Aquinas etc,”
Is that wrong?
Actually, I would say modern physics is the problem then. Science is based on chains of logical thought. Once you throw that out so goes all of science. We can’t cut off the branch we sit in. For example, if science comes up with ideas that violate the law of non-contradiction or the law of excluded middle, science is wrong or incomplete here. Full stop. We have to recognize when our data yields nonsense in science. I mentioned in another thread about “worshipping at the altar of science” and this seems appropriate here.
Also, might I point out you are literally using logical, ordered thought to try to convince that logical ordered thought might not be what it’s cracked up to be at the quantum level.
For me, metaphysical arguments have premises. If the argument is false we should be able to show the premise is false or at least declare a premise is incapable of being demonstrated as true at the moment. If that is the case the argument is not proven. Or we need to show the conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Vinnie
1 Like
Cat Stevens “On the Road to Find Out”, I was searching like this song indicates. Also Burt Bacharach “What’s it all About Alfie” Alfie is My nickname. The Logical thought came to me and it’s the answer I was looking for. With US Humans being all over the place with Types of Government, Science, and Religions, this answer gave me Peace of Mind.
I completely agree that we need logical thinking. In science, nothing would work without it. Also in matters of faith, without logical thinking we easily end up claiming internally conflicting claims that have nothing to do with the reality.
Metaphysics may lead to meaningful conclusions about what is logical and what is not. For persons who do not dive deep into the questions and their premises/background assumptions, much of the thinking and conclusions may be ‘nice to know’ information but not necessarily something that is trusted and therefore considered relevant. Checking if the conclusions can be trusted would demand that all the steps (including the background assumptions) are critically evaluated. It would take more time and effort than many are willing to invest. This makes this kind of thinking potentially meaningful to those that are willing to dive into that world but not as much to the others.
That we can think of something is not a proof that this something exists. That we think there needs to be a prime mover etc. is not a proof that the prime mover etc. exists. This may make some logical assumptions and claims matters of belief, rather than logical proof of something real.
1 Like
That is true of evolution, global warming (climate change), historical criticism and so on.
Even when you say this:
This definitely applies to science. I’d say this ultimately applies in all fields of research, not just metaphysics. I am guessing there is a bit of understandable projection on your part.
There is clearly a disdain for philosophy in some circles. I’ve seen some people just outright dismiss metaphysics as mental masturbation.
From what I have seen here, that includes the scientific community. I have been told I cannot criticise a scientific theory with philosophy.
Richard