Only two objections to God's existence? (Aquinas)

[EviPolevhia]

A specialist who dedicates his life to such matters is rather more likely to be closer to the truth than a novice with no expertise or experience!

That’s true that he may be closer to the truth. But it doesn’t default make his argument true.

 

[tonyrey]

That’s true that he may be closer to the truth. But it doesn’t default make his argument true.

“Probability is the very guide of life”. (Bishop Butler)

If you were seriously ill would you go to a specialist or pop into the pharmacy around the corner?

 

[EviPolevhia]

“Probability is the very guide of life”. (Bishop Butler)

If you were seriously ill would you go to a specialist or pop into the pharmacy around the corner?

I wouldn’t go to a faith healer.

 

[Perplexity]

It’s particularly easy to enervate materialism’s case to a lack of rational foundation for any purposeful experience!

Unless we should expect materialism to provide a rational basis for purposeful experience, its failure to do so doesn’t imply its falsity, since that’s what we’d expect if it were true.

Even if we should expect materialism to provide a rational basis for purposeful experience if it were true and it doesn’t, this should only incline us to regard it as false if its opponent(s) is in a better position. But, it’s not obvious that substance dualism provides a rational basis for purposeful experience.

Finally, given that the vast majority of individuals who devote their professional lives to the philosophy of mind are materialists of some sort (reductionist, non-reductionist, eliminativist, etc.), accepting your objection commits one either to a conspiracy about their motives or a judgment about their cognitive capacities (intelligence or education). Consequently, I find your objection initially implausible, meaning you’d have to do some fancy footwork to persuade.

 

[Neithan]

Finally, given that the vast majority of individuals who devote their professional lives to the philosophy of mind are materialists of some sort (reductionist, non-reductionist, eliminativist, etc.), accepting your objection commits one either to a conspiracy about their motives or a judgment about their cognitive capacities (intelligence or education). Consequently, I find your objection initially implausible, meaning you’d have to do some fancy footwork to persuade.

Do you mean most philosophers are physicalists? Aquinas was careful in his second objection to separate reason and volition from natural principles. He must have known what the Argument from Reason tries to demonstrate: It is incoherent to hold that rational thought could come from nonrational causes.

 

[Neithan]

Per St. Thomas’ reply to this objection in the Summa:

newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3

-ACEGC

I don’t really understand his reply, to be honest. Why is it a greater good to allow evil? I know I need to do more studying. Evil is a constant challenge to my faith.

 

[Perplexity]

Do you mean most philosophers are physicalists? Aquinas was careful in his second objection to separate reason and volition from natural principles. He must have known what the Argument from Reason tries to demonstrate: It is incoherent to hold that rational thought could come from nonrational causes.

Physicalism and materialism are generally synonymous, I wouldn’t distinguish between them as I used the latter. But, I’m not sure what most philosophers think on the issue. I only know that most philosophers of mind are materialists, very, very few are substance dualists by comparison.

Hm, I’m not sure whether the idea crossed his mind, but I disagree with that argument and think others should as well.

 

[empther]

The A-team’s usual devoid-of-substance comment:

Quote:
Originally Posted by empther

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
:banghead::blackeye:

When it comes to the A-team…

Everything has been explained.
Nothing is understood :crying: :takethat:

Glad we feel the same way about eachother.

The A-team doesn’t explain anything.
They just give impossibiliteis…
like “chance” where there’s nothing,
like “quantum effect” where there’s nothing,
like “sufficient-potency” which by it’s own name would have to be limited in some way and therefore part of the universe the A-team says it created.

---

empther, the A-team’s worst nightmare

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t really understand his reply, to be honest. Why is it a greater good to allow evil? I know I need to do more studying. Evil is a constant challenge to my faith.

Because for a person life is worthless without freedom.

 

[empther]

Because for a person life is worthless without freedom.

Happiness is impossible if you can’t do anything voluntarily.
The is no no reality show showing people in comas.

 

[tonyrey]

*It’s particularly easy to enervate materialism’s case to a lack of rational foundation for any purposeful experience! *

If it were true we wouldn’t know what to expect!

Even if we should expect materialism to provide a rational basis for purposeful experience if it were true and it doesn’t, this should only incline us to regard it as false if its opponent(s) is in a better position. But, it’s not obvious that substance dualism provides a rational basis for purposeful experience.

It is obvious that materialistic monism provides no rational basis for purposeful experience.

Finally, given that the vast majority of individuals who devote their professional lives to the philosophy of mind are materialists of some sort (reductionist, non-reductionist, eliminativist, etc.), accepting your objection commits one either to a conspiracy about their motives or a judgment about their cognitive capacities (intelligence or education). Consequently, I find your objection initially implausible, meaning you’d have to do some fancy footwork to persuade.

1. Materialism is rare in the intellectual history of mankind.
2. The success of science is not due to materialism.
3. The divergence of opinion amongst materialists is evidence of its weakness.
4. To attribute my objection to a conspiracy theory is an argumentum ad hominem.
5. To attribute my objection to a judgment about their cognitive capacities (intelligence or education) is an argumentum ad hominem.
6. The issue is not what certain people believe but whether materialism is believable!

 

[PermanentMarker]

Most philosophers of any field would agree that Aquinas erred, but more importantly, most philosophers of religion agree. Unfortunately, I think for the most part, when you say something like this here you’ll encounter some kind of conspiratorial explanation for why most philosophers reject Aquinas’ arguments. e.g., they just don’t know what they’re talking about. etc.

It is demonstrable that most philosophers really do have an ignorance of Aquinas and his proofs for classical theism. See Edward Feser’s The Last Superstition.

I agree with your comments about faith as well. It doesn’t strike me as particularly difficult to enervate theism’s case to a foundation of religious experience.

Well, for Catholicism’s part, such a case is harshly criticized by theologians.

 

[Perplexity]

If it were true we wouldn’t know what to expect!

Oh okay

It is obvious that materialistic monism provides no rational basis for purposeful experience.

Perhaps to you

1. Materialism is rare in the intellectual history of mankind.

So is mathematical logic and computer science

1. The success of science is not due to materialism.

It’s not due to substance dualism either

1. The divergence of opinion amongst materialists is evidence of its weakness.

Divergence in which opinions? Who’ll win the superbowl?

1. To attribute my objection to a conspiracy theory is an argumentum ad hominem.

Faute de mieux, it could commit you to a conspiracy theory.

1. To attribute my objection to a judgment about their cognitive capacities (intelligence or education) is an argumentum ad hominem.

I’ve derived these options from your position, if anything is thereby ad hominem…istic…it’s your position.

 

[Perplexity]

It is demonstrable that most philosophers really do have an ignorance of Aquinas and his proofs for classical theism. See Edward Feser’s The Last Superstition.

Well, for Catholicism’s part, such a case is harshly criticized by theologians.

Does Feser argue that most philosophers are ignorant of Aquinas and his proofs, or that they’re misinformed about them? Either way, does he claim to show that most philosophers are ignorant or misinformed, or just most philosophers from a particular field?

 

[Gaber]

In his *Summa *Aquinas only came up with for the existence of God:

The first objection is the problem of evil.

The second is the explanatory power of natural science, which makes positing the existence of God unnecessary.

It seems to me that “new” atheists now — eight centuries later — still use these two (740-year-old) objections the most, but there are also.

Did St. Thomas just not think of any other arguments or are these simply the only two objections really worth considering?

That is a good question, and thanks btw, for the link to the other arguments.

The two chief objections and the others are all in one catagory, in that they speak to a belief in God, or the rationals that one might use to deduce that there is a God. The chief defect in defending or in countering any of these is that all such exchange is in the realm of the discursive mind. They do not invoke transcendent “expereince” or what some call “knowledge by identity.” Indeed, many of those objecting to the idea of God, as God to the discursive mind can only be a marker, or idea, deny that there is such a thing as transcendece at all.

In all these cases, proofs or denials, the only thing in common is the commonality of awareness itself, or what in, or as, Principle can be called Consciousness. So all of these facets are the manipulation of thougth structures taking various premises as a basis for some order of logic. But going beyond the discursive mind to the experience of awarenss as such, unmitigated by qualities or attribus other thatn being, put the questions and answers on another footing entirly. As far as I can see, that is the only useful perspective from which to asses such “proofs” and “objection,” both of which in the last analysis are equally deficient on the same ground.

 

[PermanentMarker]

Does Feser argue that most philosophers are ignorant of Aquinas and his proofs, or that they’re misinformed about them? Either way, does he claim to show that most philosophers are ignorant or misinformed, or just most philosophers from a particular field?

He shows that most philosophers are both ignorant of and misinformed about Aquinas and the arguments for classical theism. Consider the case of Antony Flew, who after a long and distinguished career as a philosopher, encountered Aristotle for the first time only a few years before he died! How is that even possible?! Flew, like many other philosophers, simply received no education in classical philosophy. At best, the Academy might instruct its philosophy students for one, maybe two, sessions on Aristotle, Aquinas, etc. but they never look back after that. Classical philosophy is a mere footnote to the “real” project of modern philosophy. And during the few times classical philosophy is studied, the Academy does not refer its students to the primary sources, but to secondary sources written during the modern period - e.g., Russel.

Not only is there an ignorance of classical philosophy, there is a terrible misunderstanding of it. Since no one has actually taken the time to read the primary sources and become acquainted with what classical theists are actually saying, modern philosophers tend to misunderstand concepts of classical philosophy and read into them modern notions. This results in a very biased critique of classical philosophy.

And, again, since no one actually bothers to look at the primary sources and tries to understand what they are saying, these critiques become a part of the academic consensus. A loop of misinformation begins to take shape, and you have the blind leading the blind.

It is very much like modern day Protestants seeing the history of Christianity through Reformation lenses. They are, by and large, ignorant of the ancient Church, and the few times they do look into it, they read into it Protestant notions.

I encourage everyone to read The Last Superstition.

 

[J_Peterson]

It is demonstrable that most philosophers really do have an ignorance of Aquinas and his proofs for classical theism. See Edward Feser’s The Last Superstition.

That is a very good book but it’s not one that I would recommend to a non-Catholic since he uses the same sex marriage issue as his motivation for writing it. That will turn most people off from the first few pages. Personally I found it a bit distasteful and distracting. I’d recommend his book on Aquinas (“beginner’s guide” series I think) or even better, Gilson’s Christian Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas.

 

[Perplexity]

He shows that most philosophers are both ignorant of and misinformed about Aquinas and the arguments for classical theism. Consider the case of Antony Flew, who after a long and distinguished career as a philosopher, encountered Aristotle for the first time only a few years before he died! How is that even possible?! Flew, like many other philosophers, simply received no education in classical philosophy. At best, the Academy might instruct its philosophy students for one, maybe two, sessions on Aristotle, Aquinas, etc. but they never look back after that. Classical philosophy is a mere footnote to the “real” project of modern philosophy. And during the few times classical philosophy is studied, the Academy does not refer its students to the primary sources, but to secondary sources written during the modern period - e.g., Russel.

Not only is there an ignorance of classical philosophy, there is a terrible misunderstanding of it. Since no one has actually taken the time to read the primary sources and become acquainted with what classical theists are actually saying, modern philosophers tend to misunderstand concepts of classical philosophy and read into them modern notions. This results in a very biased critique of classical philosophy.

And, again, since no one actually bothers to look at the primary sources and tries to understand what they are saying, these critiques become a part of the academic consensus. A loop of misinformation begins to take shape, and you have the blind leading the blind.

It is very much like modern day Protestants seeing the history of Christianity through Reformation lenses. They are, by and large, ignorant of the ancient Church, and the few times they do look into it, they read into it Protestant notions.

I encourage everyone to read The Last Superstition.

Ah, well I can see this happening in a general sense. But, it doesn’t seem to do justice to my experience of philosophy of religion. That sub-field does involve studying the primary texts of guys like Aristotle, Aquinas, Anselm, Duns Scotus etc. etc. Further, the critiques of these theistic arguments I’ve read have been from guys intimately familiar with the primary texts and their ‘authoritative’ commentaries. These are guys like Graham Oppy or Howard Sobel.

Perhaps this is all irrelevant to yours and Feser’s point though, but I thought it important to mention this anyways. Thanks for the recommendation, that book gets brought up a lot around here.

 

[PermanentMarker]

That is a very good book but it’s not one that I would recommend to a non-Catholic since he uses the same sex marriage issue as his motivation for writing it. That will turn most people off from the first few pages. Personally I found it a bit distasteful and distracting. I’d recommend his book on Aquinas (“beginner’s guide” series I think) or even better, Gilson’s Christian Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas.

Yeah, a cursory look at the reviews shows that quite a few readers were distracted by the polemic, but I think it is very much an appropriate response to the bitterly hostile and vile “new” atheists. If you are more sensitive to polemic, I still recommend reading it. The Last Superstition does the best job of describing and understanding our modern philosophical landscape and situating it in a larger historical and philosophical context that shows atheists and theists alike that classical theism has been widely misunderstood and that a return to classical theism is the answer.

 

[PermanentMarker]

Ah, well I can see this happening in a general sense. But, it doesn’t seem to do justice to my experience of philosophy of religion. That sub-field does involve studying the primary texts of guys like Aristotle, Aquinas, Anselm, Duns Scotus etc. etc. Further, the critiques of these theistic arguments I’ve read have been from guys intimately familiar with the primary texts and their ‘authoritative’ commentaries. These are guys like Graham Oppy or Howard Sobel.

Perhaps this is all irrelevant to yours and Feser’s point though, but I thought it important to mention this anyways. Thanks for the recommendation, that book gets brought up a lot around here.

Howard Sobel is a first class intellectual, and I join you in praise of him. Even though I and other classical theists have disagreements with him, some of his works on philosophy of religion are among the best in that field by atheist philosophers. So there are a few specialists that curb the trend that I was describing, but that does not make the trend any less real. There is simply a gross ignorance and misunderstanding of classical theism by both atheists and theists alike, which is a shame because classical theism represents the best possible case for religion, and many of us think that case proves utterly successful. I still contend, btw, that philosophy of religion is no less exempt from this trend. Graham Oppy, for example, is notorious for his freshman-level mistakes and misunderstandings of classical theism.

To bring this back full circle, the idea that a random poster on the internet finds Aquinas’ reasoning to be faulty is so utterly laughable as to not warrant any serious consideration. When, basically, the entire Academy is ignorant and misunderstanding of Aquinas, how could we possibly, with any seriousness, regard the critique of Aquinas by a random poster?

One thing that I would also like to be critical of is the tendency of atheists (and, yes, theists) to weigh in on issues where they have only read one side. You read Oppy, Sobel, and others. Fine. But have you read Feser, Maritain, Gilson, Clarke, Wild, Wipple, Ashley, Wallace, Lagrange, and the list goes on? I can understand why idealogues avoid this kind of objectivity, but true intellectuals ourselves are after the truth. So stop being lazy you atheist or you theist, hit the books.