Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - jd3

Pages: [1]
1
Chit-chat / Re: Domain name ideas (poll)
« on: July 13, 2020, 11:22:14 pm »
Sure, if you want. But my first name isn't John.

I think the main issue is the lack of interest. I browse reddit as well, and none of the theism forums have much action, unless they are Catholic, Atheist, or dedicated to debates about religion. The forums dedicated to discussing Thomas, Scotus, philosophical theism etc. are pretty dead. I wonder if most of the interested folks have some other place already besides here and reddit (facebook, Feser's blog etc.) and maybe this forum isn't really necessary. What do you all think?

2
Chit-chat / Re: Domain name ideas (poll)
« on: July 10, 2020, 10:21:45 pm »
I'm happy to help out and would love to hear some of those ideas. Could you say more about what specifically it takes to build a forum and keep it running (what does it cost, what is the time commitment, what technical skills are necessary etc.)

I also agree that we need to decide what the purpose of the forum is. How broad should the focus be? It could be very specific (e.g. Thomistic scholarship), somewhat specific (e.g. classical theism), less specific (e.g. Christian philosophy), or very general (e.g. philosophy of religion). My vote would be classical theism, since the more general forums already exist and going more specific could limit membership (we are already having trouble getting people to post as it is).

It also gives some wiggle room on all sides: if you are really into Thomas or Scotus, or Feser or Hart, you're in the right place. But even if you are an "open theist" or just someone interested in theism in general, you are still close enough to the subject matter to join in.

Let's keep the discussion going.

3
Chit-chat / Re: 'Belief' field on profiles
« on: July 10, 2020, 09:57:44 pm »
Yeah, they have these on most subreddits that have to do with religion (they are called "flairs") so that users can represent their view. I'd be fine with this.

4
Chit-chat / Re: Forum promotion (linking)
« on: June 24, 2020, 12:14:17 am »
This is an important topic that I'd like to get some discussion on. As you may know, the previous versions of this forum were hacked and the membership never returned. The site https://classicaltheism.boardhost.com/ had over 700 members before it died, and this new forum only has like 50. There was also an issue about getting people to moderate the site and pay for hosting. So it is not a simple task to get a good forum going. But here's a few ideas I had:

- Make the threads visible without signing up, so when you are engaging with someone online, you can link them to a post that may answer there question (thus, they see the forum, and maybe signup later) Linking to the site on various subreddits (none of them are that popular really) or strange notions could be helpful.

- Mention it to friends who are interested in philosophy, or just people who might have questions about classical theism. Maybe there should be a separate page for people with casual questions, where more experienced folk can answer, sort of like an interactive FAQ with real people.

- Lastly, if the forum continues to stall, I wonder if we couldn't convince someone with a better domain name and more traffic to host the forum. For example: the site classicaltheism.com is one of the first things that show up when you search "classical theism" (not to mention "classical theism forum" and other similar keywords). It is a site with podcast interviews of various thinkers (Feser among them) and it doesn't seem to have a dedicated forum, so maybe that's a last-resort option.

Curious what others think about this.

-JD3

5
Philosophy / Re: A list of arguments for atheism
« on: May 27, 2020, 01:51:52 pm »
While we're on this subject, I'm curious A. What everyone's preferred solution to the POE is and how you could explain it in just a few paragraphs and B. What do you think of my preferred solution, which combines 3 responses together:

The fact that God offers an infinite afterlife more than compensates for any temporary evil experienced in this life. Imagine you experienced a perfect 80 year life, except for one time when you stubbed your toe and experienced 30 seconds of pain. Surely, the ratio of good to evil during those 80 years is so astronomically good that no one would complain about God not preventing that one incident. Yet, God offers an even better ratio of good to evil. Even assuming you suffer for 80 miserably years, the ratio would be infinity to 80 years, which is much greater than 80 years to 30 seconds. Since no one deserves to exist in the first place, the fact that God offers such an afterlife constitutes infinite goodness.

Second, even if one does not accept this ("if God were TRULY good, he would have prevented the toe-stubbing"), you would have to establish that God has no valid reasons for allowing the evil that he does. To respond that God is omnipotent and thus could accomplish everything he wants *without evil* is question begging. Thus, the logical problem of evil fails. One might alter their response and say that "it seems unlikely that God could have a good reason for Evil", which is known as the "evidential problem of evil." Here too, given our limitations (imagine a dog trying to understand the internet) we are not in a great position to say what is likely or unlikely.

Third, suppose that one rejects all of the above, accepts the evidential problem of evil, and thus declares God's existence unlikely. We would still have to deal with the cosmological arguments, such as the Aristotelian argument from change, that establish the existence of God. Given two arguments, one that declares God to be unlikely vs. one that establishes, with certainty, the existence of God, we should favor the latter. For it is much easier to find ways around the evidential problem than to get around the cosmological argument.

6
Philosophy / Re: Necessary indeterminate matter?
« on: May 21, 2020, 09:57:09 pm »
Could you clarify a few things for me. First, what do you mean by Spinozism? Second, the claim that "fundamental matter has necessarily indetermined causes" are you saying that a necessary cause creates matter in an indeterminate way, or that the cause is itself indeterminate?

7
Philosophy / Re: A list of arguments for atheism
« on: April 23, 2020, 02:30:13 pm »
Looking forward to this. Depending on how much time you have to really dive in, you might consider expressing the thoughts you post here in another medium, such as a blog, podcast, youtube video etc. where you could really flesh them out. But I'm happy to hear your thoughts below and chime in. My initial thought in scanning through them is that of the roughly 80 arguments listed (including some added in the comments) roughly a third (or even, as you suggest, half) are variations on the problem of evil and have probably already been addressed by Davies, and the ones based on physics can be dealt with by either A. a proper understanding of AT metaphysics or B. a proper understanding of what physics is (Nigel Cundy's book "What is Physics? A Defense of Classical Theism" could be useful, but I haven't read it).

8
Philosophy / Re: Pre-Christian Apologetics - Need help with a reading list
« on: April 15, 2020, 02:07:49 pm »
Thanks for those suggestions, I'll edit the original post so as to include them and try my best to categorize them properly.

9
Chit-chat / Re: Having doubts
« on: April 15, 2020, 02:03:24 pm »
What have you read so far? I'd recommend Feser's "Five Proofs of the Existence of God" and then move on to arguments specifically for the resurrection (NT Wright for example). I'm all curious which doubts in particular you are having, feel free to list a few. As far as wishful thinking goes, it's worth mentioning that atheists too engage in wishful thinking. Thomas Nagel http://admits https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/325845-in-speaking-of-the-fear-of-religion-i-don-t-meanthat he doesn't want God to exist and that the thought makes him uneasy. So people on all sides do this.

My view is that there must be some purely actually entity that exists (stage 1), this entity would have to have properties we commonly ascribe to God such as power, simplicity, and goodness (stage 2), monotheistic religions best fit this description (stage 3), the Catholic-Christian worldview is a better fit than other religions, since it A. best deals with the problem of suffering in that all humans can be brought into joyous relation with God and B. is based on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which can be established (or at least rendered very plausible) by historians (stage 4), and finally that living out a Christian life fills me with great joy and just feels right (stage 5).

Most Christians who don't study philosophy just jump right to stage 5--they know it in their heart to be true and that's that. But for a lot of us on these boards, we thirst for a greater defense than that and hence dive into the first four stages. Also, I should have mentioned that preceding all this (call it stage 0) is a defense of scholastic metaphysics, which is presupposed by arguments for God in stage 1.

10
Philosophy / Pre-Christian Apologetics - Need help with a reading list
« on: April 02, 2020, 04:04:38 pm »
So I just read Feser's blog post on Pre-Christian Apologetics: https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/05/pre-christian-apologetics.html

His main point is that any adequate defense of Christianity has to be built on strong metaphysical foundations, which for him involve a return to scholasticism, and cannot simply begin with a discussion of the gospels, the resurrection, and so on. He breaks the total apologetic enterprise into 5 parts:

1. Metaphysical prolegomena

This first stage involves defending the theory of act and potency, the principle of causality, the principle of finality, formal and material causes,the distinction between essence and existence and so on.

2. Natural Theology

Arguments for the existence of God as not merely a first cause, but as an entity that possesses the divine attributes.

3. Philosophical Anthropology

Defense of the immateriality of the soul and the intellect.

4. Natural law and natural religion

Defense of natural law

5. Christian Apologetics

Biblical studies, historical Jesus stuff, defending the gospels, etc. This could also include defending Catholicism vs. Protestantism of various sorts.

Assuming Ed's breakdown makes sense, my question is: what series of books/articles would cover the above topics? If you were building complete course apologetics, what would be on the syllabus? Ed notes that there are a few comprehensive books that do all/most of the above, but that they are quite old (for ex: "College Apologetics" was published in the 1950s). But if anyone knows of a comparable book that does everything, let me know.

Here is what a I got so far (pretty bare--need suggestions!). Let me know your thoughts and I'll add them to this post.

-JD

Parts 1-2:

Edward Feser: Scholastic Metaphysics, Aristotle's Revenge, Aquinas, Five Proofs of the Existence of God
Joshua Rasmussen: "How Reason Can Lead to God"
David Oderberg: Real Essentialism
Thomas Nagel: Mind and Cosmos
Brian Davies: The Thought of Thomas Aquinas, The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil

Parts 3 and 4: Need more suggestions here.

J. P. Moreland: The Soul

Part 5:
Craig: Reasonable faith
Pitre: The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ
Stump: Lecture "The God of the Bible and the God the Philosophers"

Other writers that come to mind: Alexander Pruss, Lydia McGrew, Lee Strobel, N.T. Wright, Craig Evans. Edit: I recently stumbled upon a pretty extensive reading list https://www.reasonablecatholic.com/recommended-reading/my-book-recommendations/ that might be useful.



11
Philosophy / Re: I'm surprised there aren't many non-religious theists in general
« on: April 02, 2020, 01:07:06 am »
I think there are many "spiritual not religious" people who are not classical theists but more like deists or pantheists (can never remember what the difference between them is). People want to be able to have their own values, ignore scripture and religious teachings, and just do their own thing while still believing in some larger order that connects everything. But if you are actually a theist, which for me means believing in a God that actually created and continues to maintain the universe, then the obvious next question is going to me "what is the nature of God", at which point you will probably start exploring the worlds major religions to determine which one makes the most sense.

I will add that the world has become increasingly polarized, with many people retreating from moderate positions and moving toward the edges, so that could be happening in the case of religion as well.

12
Philosophy / Re: Why should I accept natural law theory?
« on: April 02, 2020, 12:56:17 am »
I too am interested in why one should follow natural law ethics. Also, if someone could explain the difference between the "old" and "new" natural law, I am curious about that also.

13
Philosophy / What are the differences between classical theism and thomism?
« on: March 17, 2020, 08:33:55 pm »
So many people, including Ed Feser, are both classical theists and thomists. I understand the former as someone whose conception of God is that of an unchanging, unmoved mover who is omnipotent, simple etc. whereas the latter are people who subscribe to the views of St. Thomas Aquinas. But wasn't Aquinas himself a classical theist? So in what ways would a classical theist who is not a Thomist, be different from someone who is both.

Thanks,
JD

Pages: [1]