In response to your first reply, fair enough. We have had this discussion a few times recently and I do not wish to do it again at the moment (maybe in 6 months!). So while I disagree with your second, I’m not eating that fruit. Its forbidden at the moment
I just wanted to make sure it’s clear when some of us offer the moral argument, it’s basically against the materialist worldview, and is not a statement that materialists (who are most commonly atheists) aren’t moral people or can’t be trusted to watch our children. I have atheist family members who are deeply moral. Mistaken (), but moral. They raise their children with love and are kind.
Because my goal was only to offer clarification on a point, not to have our third or fourth recent discussion of morality on this forum,. Those are my views succinctly. It’s more materialism that is the issue than atheism.
I don’t really “get” much of your post. You say things like this:
Are you saying it’s not true unless it’s true? Seems tautological.
Unlike those calling him an idiot in here, Feser is a well respected professional philosopher with a number of published books. His latest on the soul is a very deep dive into human nature. This and his work in Aquinas argues about these issues You seem to think he assumes things. He doesn’t. He presents philosophical arguments. You can disagree with his arguments but it’s incorrect to characterize his position as one of presumption.
That is your opinion. Mine is the A-T philosophers get it right and the people calling Feser idiots are projecting.
The Thomist position rises or falls with metaphysical arguments. For some reason you keep thinking this position is arbitrary or subjective. Its not. But the materialist’s position on morality is.
Vinnie
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
103
Thank you for the kind words. It actually is much appreciated.
Two: A “MATURE” atheist who participates on the BioLogos boards doesn’t criticize the THEISM implicit in the BioLogos mission. An “IMMATURE” atheist thinks he has to remind participants that he believes THEISM to be wrong-headed.
Look HIM up. I wouldn’t DREAM of CRITICISIZING BioLogos’ IMPLICIT theism. I admire THEIR separation OF church and state. I will always respond to EXPLICIT claims here.
Good question. Actually, morality can be derived from self-ownership, which leads directly to the Golden Rule even if only as a matter of pragmatism.
Yes – the Cross.
Not really – it uses human symbols, but the pattern it represents is real. It’s not an invention, it’s an illustration of how things are.
1 Like
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
107
I think it’s a matter of reading the audience and being a considerate guest. A quick glance at any of the threads here will tell you that the vast majority here are not looking for arguments with atheists about the legitimacy of theism or atheism. I view this forum as analogous to the parking lot in front of a church. It’s not inside the church itself, but you should understand why people are here.
To be clear, I have not called Feser an idiot, or implied that he is.
We all, including Feser, assume things. Philosophical arguments cannot be made without assumptions, particularly those that deal with metaphysics. Such arguments may be well- or poorly grounded in their assumptions, and the assumptions may be of varying quality. But assumptions are part of the package.
I think it’s important to be up front about them.
Not being familiar with Feser, I enlisted the help of Google’s Gemini to learn more about the basic assumptions Feser holds:
Edward Feser’s philosophy is primarily rooted in a defense of the
classical Aristotelian-Thomistic (A-T) worldview. His underlying assumptions are fundamentally metaphysical, centered on a rejection of modern mechanistic materialism and the related philosophical trends he sees as leading to incoherence.
Key underlying assumptions of Edward Feser’s philosophy include:
The Actuality/Potentiality Distinction: A core assumption is that the world is composed of beings that are a combination of actuality (what they currently are) and potentiality (what they could be). Change is the actualization of potentiality. This framework is essential for his arguments for the existence of an ultimate, purely actual, unchanging being (God).
Hylemorphism (Form and Matter): Feser assumes the Aristotelian view that material objects are composites of matter and substantial form (essence). This form is what makes a thing the kind of thing it is and accounts for its properties and behaviors, something he argues cannot be reduced to purely material or quantitative terms.
The Reality of Final Causality (Teleology): A major assumption is that the universe exhibits immanent, intrinsic teleology or purpose, meaning things in nature are genuinely directed toward certain ends or goals. Feser argues that science itself, even while focusing on material and efficient causes, implicitly relies on this assumption of directedness in nature.
Causality and the Need for Explanation: He assumes the validity of the principle of causality, particularly in the context of essentially ordered series of causes in the here and now. He argues that the existence of things that don’t contain within themselves the sufficient explanation for their own continued existence requires an ultimate, uncaused, and necessary explanation (God).
Mind-Body Dualism (Specifically Thomistic Dualism): Feser defends a non-materialist view of the mind, arguing for a form of dualism where mental processes (consciousness, intentionality, free will) cannot be fully reduced to material processes. He contends that materialist explanations of the mind are often self-defeating performative contradictions.
Objective Morality and Rationality: Feser’s work often proceeds from the assumption that objective moral truths and the rational justifiability of knowledge claims exist. He argues that a purely naturalistic or materialistic worldview ultimately undermines the foundations for these, leading to relativism or eliminativism, which he views as incoherent.
The Primacy of Metaphysics: He assumes that metaphysical questions about the fundamental nature of reality are legitimate and necessary, and that natural science alone cannot answer them. He argues that science operates within a philosophical framework, and ignoring or denying this leads to philosophical errors or “scientism”.
Indeed it is my opinion. It stems from my observations.
Subjectivity does not imply arbitrariness.
I made no claim that the school of philosophy that speaks to Feser is arbitrary. I assume he finds it compelling for reasons that are sound to him and can formulate sound arguments for it based on what he assumes to be true or foundational in the world.
), but moral. They raise their children with love and are kind.