Reply to Prof. Feser’s Response, (Part III)
Ed, Russell’s argument is from Why I am not a Christian, which was a popular talk given to a general audience. As you say, almost certainly he was aiming at popular apologetics. He could, however, address the argument at a much more sophisticated level. I think his best response to cosmological arguments came in his … Reply to Prof. Feser’s Response, (Part III)
Hysterical Homophobe Fred Phelps Dies
I just got the message that the Rev. Fred Phelps has died: Phelps and his congregation became infamous by picketing funerals for those killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan with signs reading “Thank God for IED’s (Improvised explosive devices that accounted for many casualties).” Their “reasoning” was that God permitted American soldiers to be … Hysterical Homophobe Fred Phelps Dies
Response to Prof. Feser’s Response to…etc (Part II)
Ed, this will be a rather truncated response to these points because I will address just the arguments you present here. A fair treatment of your arguments would need to address your article on these topics in American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly. However, two physical realities—time and space—limit me here. The question I posed was why … Response to Prof. Feser’s Response to…etc (Part II)
Response to Prof. Feser’s Response (Part I)
Ed, for the convenience of readers, here is a link to your response to my answer to your first question. Here is my response: And thanks back to you for a very gracious and constructive reply! You clarify your position admirably. Also, you are right that philosophers do legitimately serve a role as “public intellectuals” … Response to Prof. Feser’s Response (Part I)
Reply to Prof. Feser’s Response, (Part IV)
Ed, I am going to take the liberty of first replying to your response to my answer to your fourth question. I am going to do this because I think that this is where we most significantly clash, that is, where our fundamental disagreements are most apparent. I want to address these points right away, … Reply to Prof. Feser’s Response, (Part IV)
Reply to Prof. Feser’s Fourth Question
Ed, Here is your fourth question to me: “4. In response to another reader’s question, about Craig’s version of the First Cause argument, you wrote: “Both theists and atheists begin with an uncaused brute fact. For Craig it is God, and for me it is the universe.” Now, as you know, the expression “brute fact” … Reply to Prof. Feser’s Fourth Question
Reply to Prof. Feser’s Third Question
Ed, your third question and accompanying commentary was this: In response to a reader’s comment, you wrote: I think Bertrand Russell’s beautifully succinct critique of all causal arguments holds good: “If everything requires a cause, then God requires a cause. However, if anything can exist without a cause, it might as well be the universe … Reply to Prof. Feser’s Third Question
Forward into the Past
It looks like my home state of Jawja is going to follow Arizona’s “lead” and is trying to pass legislation that would broadly permit discrimination against gay people: Wow. This news definitely induces a sense of deja vu for me. When I was a kid growing up in the Atlanta area in the 1960’s there … Forward into the Past
Reply to Prof. Feser’s Second Question
Ed, I would like to respond to each question first before responding to your responses; otherwise things could get confusing. Here is your second question: 2. Could you tell us where in your writings or in someone else’s that we can find what you take to be the strongest criticisms of the Scholastic arguments for … Reply to Prof. Feser’s Second Question
Answering Prof. Feser
Ed, I hope you don’t mind first names. Informality is conducive to comity, and after the unpleasant brouhaha last week, I think you and I both want a civil exchange rather than one that should be titled “Philosophers Acting Badly.” Here are the questions you asked: 1. You said that I ignore the strongest claims … Answering Prof. Feser