Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
Chit-chat / Re: Engulfed by Politics?
« Last post by RomanJoe on May 10, 2021, 10:26:50 pm »
Yes, I haven't read a book on metaphysics in like a year. I actually haven't read a lot this past year save for some dark fantasy. I think the current outrage culture is geared more towards political extremists than religious fundamentalists. Early 2000s to early teens dealt with the emergence of the new atheist movement, and a mass awareness that religion is at odds with the exponentially moving progressive ethos--redefining marriage, radical feminism, etc. Social issues vs the religious conservative had a philosophical backdrop of feuding ideas. One of these feuds was metaphysical in nature, atheism vs theism. But the two bitter philosophical stags of theism and atheism have waned, and the prevailing cultural dialogue is now purely political which in itself has its own creeds, dogmatists, orthodoxy, etc.
12
Chit-chat / Engulfed by Politics?
« Last post by FZM on May 04, 2021, 04:06:25 pm »
I was thinking about the old Classical Theism forum earlier...

I feel like, not so long after the old forum disappeared (this may be just my memory misleading me), politics 'caught fire' and started consuming more of my attention and reading time. Rather than discussing A/T metaphysics, it became all about A/T and other brands of political philosophy. I haven't read that much philosophy or theology apart from that in the intervening time.

Since Wokeness took over in the Anglo-sphere the general cultural/philosophical environment seems to have changed a lot; debating with atheists and sceptics on metaphysics and more religious topics has fallen away, things have gone in a completely different direction.

Now I know a lot more about White Supremacy and White Fragility, about Integralism, CRT, epistemic violence, Foucault, Gramsci, De Maistre, Julius Evola... Hegel and the 'Young Marx'.

Has anyone else had a similar experience?
13
Philosophy / Re: Anthony Flew and the God of Aristotle
« Last post by RomanJoe on May 01, 2021, 10:40:42 am »
It is my understanding that Anthony Flew converted to deism late in life and said he had never really encountered Aristotle earlier.

This passage from his book "There is a God" however makes me wonder.

In this area I was persuaded above all by the philosopher David Conways argument for Godís existence in his book _The Recovery of Wisdom: From Here to Antiquity, in Quest of Sophia._

The God whose existence is defended by Conway and myself is The God of Aristotle. Conway writes: "In sum, to the Being whom he considered to be the explanation of the world and its broad form, Aristotle ascribed the following attributes: immutability, immateriality, omnipotence, omniscience, oneness or indivisibility, perfect goodness and necessary existence. There is an impressive correspondence between this set of attributes and those traditionally described to God within the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is one that fully justifies us in viewing Aristotle as having had the same divine being in mind as the cause of the world that is the object of worship of these two religions."

Now I admit my knowledge of Aristotle isnít impressive, but when did Aristotle believe in a God with all of those attributes? And how could one who believes in effectively the same God as the Judeo-Christian tradition worships call himself a deist?

The God of Aristotle seems to be a catch all term used to signify the the attributes later philosophers saw were implicated in the metaphysical condition of Aristotle's prime mover. Flew might be calling himself a deist insofar as he doesn't believe God divinely revealed himself and isn't active in history in some narrative sense
14
Philosophy / Anthony Flew and the God of Aristotle
« Last post by Not the Dumb Ox on April 11, 2021, 09:18:09 am »
It is my understanding that Anthony Flew converted to deism late in life and said he had never really encountered Aristotle earlier.

This passage from his book "There is a God" however makes me wonder.

In this area I was persuaded above all by the philosopher David Conways argument for Godís existence in his book _The Recovery of Wisdom: From Here to Antiquity, in Quest of Sophia._

The God whose existence is defended by Conway and myself is The God of Aristotle. Conway writes: "In sum, to the Being whom he considered to be the explanation of the world and its broad form, Aristotle ascribed the following attributes: immutability, immateriality, omnipotence, omniscience, oneness or indivisibility, perfect goodness and necessary existence. There is an impressive correspondence between this set of attributes and those traditionally described to God within the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is one that fully justifies us in viewing Aristotle as having had the same divine being in mind as the cause of the world that is the object of worship of these two religions."

Now I admit my knowledge of Aristotle isnít impressive, but when did Aristotle believe in a God with all of those attributes? And how could one who believes in effectively the same God as the Judeo-Christian tradition worships call himself a deist?
15
Philosophy / Just saying hi. Wonder if any old buddies still check in
« Last post by RomanJoe on April 04, 2021, 12:00:23 am »
Hello to any wayfaring veterans of this forum. I stroll through this ghost town from time to time mostly for nostalgia's sake, reminiscing about the bustle that once was Classical Theism Forum.

Happy Easter!
16
Theology and religion / Tough Questions for Christianity
« Last post by ClassicalLiberal.Theist on December 10, 2020, 10:27:21 am »
My friend has started a bible study that he holds every week or so; however, it isn't really a "bible study." We discuss philosophical difficulties about Christianity or theism in general. Seeing as I am a recent near-reconvert of Christianity, I am not well informed about all of these issues so I figured I could take his questions here. Pointing me to more indepth resources would be beneficial, if not preferable.:

1. If God knew man would sin, why did He create man?
1a. Why did He make man in general?
1b. If free will doesn't exist, how does that affect your answers to the previous questions (if at all)?
2. If God is so loving, why did he kill so many people in the OT (He is still the same God!)?
2a. Can we reconcile these actions morally?
3. Is it possible to morally justify the harsh and prima facie immoral laws in the OT?
3a. Could you demonstrate that?
4. How do we reconcile the existence of evil and God from a logical and evidential standpoint?
5. How do we reconcile the existnece of hell and God morally from an evidential and/logical standpoint?
5a. Is there biblical support for things like annihilationism or universalism?

That is all for now. Sorry if these are elementary questions, I just don't have solid answers.

Thanks :)
17
Philosophy / Re: Teleology in Nature
« Last post by ClassicalLiberal.Theist on December 01, 2020, 05:30:50 pm »
@dominik

I think the fifth way probably works. I am not very well-read on the topic, but I have no objections to the sort of teleology used in that argument. My issue is with the contemporary notion of extrinisic teleology (like the ID movement's), not the thomist notion of intrinsic teleology.
18
Philosophy / Re: Teleology in Nature
« Last post by RomanJoe on December 01, 2020, 04:16:11 pm »
Teleology has always seemed evident to me. It's the common sense view--beings have metaphysical dispositions and these dispositions aren't arbitrary or random.

Teleology and essentialism go hand in hand. I think the conscious whole we call the human being, or even the conscious whole we call the animal, have persuaded me of some kind of essentialism. And by some kind I mean a sort of Aristotelian top down approach. The fact that matter can be rendered into an irreducible conscious whole, capable of qualia-laden, and rational behavior that outstrips the bare capabilities of its material parts, tells me that there is some organizing principle, something that baptizes the otherwise disparate world-stuff into wholes greater than their parts.

Organizing principle, nature, essence, whatever you call it, is defined by its natural potentials. Humans are rational animals. Find a mature human whose potential for rational thought is somehow thwarted and we call him mentally handicapped, insane, etc. Why? Because there's an expectation of a certain metaphysical disposition, a disposition that humans exclusively engage in, e.g. rational thought. Humans aren't snap shots, nothing is. We know the quiddity of something by the potentials exclusive to it. This is teleology, an aim beyond a being towards a determinate set of potentials.
19
Philosophy / Re: Teleology in Nature
« Last post by Dominik on December 01, 2020, 06:12:16 am »
CLT, do you think the fifth way doesn't work? Why? I like these teleological arguments, although I have a tendency with supplementing them with the PSR
20
Theology and religion / Re: Good books that argue for christianity?
« Last post by RomanJoe on November 16, 2020, 04:45:32 pm »
I am thinking mainly historically involved books, but anything would be fine.

The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0830827196/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_fabt1_ycWSFbRKKA8C4

Was probably the most thorough and dense read on the historicity of the Resurrection I've ever come across. NT Wright's the Resurrection of the Son of God is a good work too.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10