One more point about Feser

I left this out of my previous post on Feser, but it’s worth emphasizing: a central part of Feser’s shtick is talking about how horrible atheists are for not paying more attention to his beloved Aquinas. When Keith Parsons fails to pay enough attention to Aquinas, that’s part of “The brutal facts about Keith Parsons” (that’s the title of an actual post by Feser). But you’ll never hear him say the same thing about theistic philosophers like Plantinga or Swinburne, even though Plantinga and Swinburne pay hardly any more attention to Aquinas than atheist philosophers of religion do.

Oh, you’ll sometimes hear Feser make small complaints about Plantinga and Swinburne, but he never says about them the ridiculous things he regularly says about atheists. He clearly would like to have such better respected theistic philosophers as allies, and will say things like “I mean no disrespect to them,” when he shows plenty of disrespect towards atheists for behaving exactly the same way towards Aquinas. That’s why I call him a bigot: when he reacts wildly differently to theists and atheists for the same behavior, it’s clear he’s just looking for excuses to justify his hatred of atheists.

  • proudfootz

    I’m not surprised at Feser’s double-standards. As so often seems to be the case in these emotional topics, it’s the conclusions one makes that are what is important, and all the posturing about methodology is so much post hoc rationalization.

  • Maude LL

    It might be just me… The last link doesn’t work (404)

    • http://www.facebook.com/chris.hallquist Chris Hallquist

      Ooops. Fixed.

  • Jon Hanson

    I don’t particularly mind your critiques of Feser’s behavior, but I sort of wish you’d actually engage in his arguments.

    • http://www.facebook.com/chris.hallquist Chris Hallquist

      What arguments would those be?

      • Paul

        I agree with Jon Hanson. You have yet to seriously engage with Feser at an intellectual level. Address the arguments, not the (apparent) flaws of the man putting them forward. The fact that you prefer to brush Feser off makes you look weak. Maybe you really do have something of substance to offer – but at this point it is hard to tell.

        • Patrick

          But Feser doesn’t make arguments. He just elaborates on what he believes. That’s not argumentation.

          • http://verbosestoic.wordpress.com Verbose Stoic

            I disagree. I am not a Thomist and not a classical theist, and yet when I read his posts he does, in fact, make arguments that I have to consider. So, at least, it’s wrong to simply assert that he doesn’t make any because you don’t find any. I have not, however, read “Aquinas” so can’t give examples from that, but his latest post on teleology has arguments for why, for example, you have to have intrinsic teleology if you have the others.

  • Liandra

    Really? Where is your substance? This is pretty weak gruel.

    “The brutal facts about Keith Parsons” – is a play on the term “Brute Fact” – something I discovered within a second of scanning the page. Surely you put more work into it than that?

    “That’s why I call him a bigot: when he reacts wildly differently to theists and atheists for the same behavior, it’s clear he’s just looking for excuses to justify his hatred of atheists.”

    Really? You should apply to Randi for the million dollar prize, because you’re obviously psychic. How else do you credit turning “He is more critical of these atheists than these theists” into “I know his motivations and it’s because he HAETS atheists”

    Frankly, you don’t have a leg to stand on the moral high ground about forthright and aggressive critiques – your blog mates make Feser’s temper tantrums look like a bare ripple in a stormy Atlantic.

  • http://fathergriggs.wordpress.com Lord Griggss[ Ignostic Morgan, Inquiring Lynn, Skeptic Griggsy, Carneades of Ga., Fr.or Rabbi Griggs]

    Yes, Chris, attack Feser’s sophistry!Check out TheologyWeb’s thread arguments about God to see how some there defend the rascal! I’m Griggsy there.

    Instead of their dabbling in anarchy, I wish that George Smith and Francois Tremblay would go after Plantinga, WLC,Keith Reid,Alister Earl McGrath and Richard Swinburne!
    Perhaps, you might,eh?
    http:/ignosticmorgansblog.wordpress May twenty-fourth has the important article about God in general and Yahweh in particular.
    http:/fathergrigggs.wordpress.com

  • http://bensix.wordpress.com BenSix

    That’s why I call him a bigot: when he reacts wildly differently to theists and atheists for the same behavior, it’s clear he’s just looking for excuses to justify his hatred of atheists.

    The title of that post was, as is obvious from the most cursory of readings, a play on Parson’s use of the term “brute fact”. I think you’re overreaching in an effort to portray Feser as being hateful towards atheists: he’s repeatedly noted his respect towards Quentin Smith, J.L. Mackie and others.

    I won’t go on about it because I’m not the guy’s disciple but John Hanson’s words seem appropriate.

    • http://www.facebook.com/chris.hallquist Chris Hallquist

      Oh, that was just the first example I thought of, but you can see plenty of Feser’s venom directed at other philosophers of religion. He’s called them “sleazy,” “slimy,” “contemptible,” (see Jason Rosenhouse’s takedown of specific examples of that), for example. That sort of stuff is all over his website, but always directed at atheists, never at theists.

  • Brian

    Hi Chris, this and the previous post got me thinking about why I reject the conclusion of the five ways, that god exists. A conclusion that I therefore rejected in the previous thread being used as a thread in a sound argument. The Thomists and Feser friends won’t think much of it, but I’d be interested in your take, if you have the time.
    Cheers.
    http://unrequiredbraindump.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/on-the-five-ways/

  • Michael Fugate

    The problem, as I see it, is that Aquinas’ arguments are all apologetic – they are offered as a means of retaining belief in the face of contradictory evidence either from other religions or from science/philosophy. One has to already believe for them to make much sense. They are not meant to convince an unbeliever to believe; that only arises through faith not reason. This is why Plantinga claims that his god is basic – belief comes first and reason is then used to retain that faith. I think Plantinga list some 25 or so apologetic arguments for his god. Why so many? because if one argument doesn’t work you try another in an attempt to wear down the would-be apostate. It is a dare – refute this and you can leave – but there is always one more – a la the 12 labors of Hercules.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1468751142 Kevin

      The problem with Aquinas’ 5 Ways is that they’re not proof of anything.

      They’re arguments. And arguments are not proof. Because, according to the nice Catholics at aquinas.org, they can be “argued”.

      Sort of a big “duh” to the rest of us. But this is news to the likes of Feser.

      Of course, the 5 Ways are just the smallest part of the Summa Theologica. Just skim through the rest of it to get a taste of the level of intellectual discourse. Not surprisingly, you’ll find pretty much nothing other than long-winded apologetics. Some of it mind-numbingly stupid, to boot.

      Such as in the section where Aquinas declares through his “brilliant” logic that the bible is totally correct when it says Adam was made from mud and Eve from Adam’s rib. And therefore, this is why women must be subservient to men.

      Bleh. I just threw up in my mouth a little.

      If I had a time machine and only two uses of it, first I’d go back and strangle Aristotle in his crib. Then, if that didn’t work, I’d do the same to Aquinas. The world would be much better off without these proponents of unaided human reason.

  • G.Shelley

    Is Feser particularly popular? You seem to have a mini Ron Paul effect going on above, in that any time any blog is critical of him, you get hordes of supporters coming along to either defend him or attack the blogger. I don’t think I noticed it with any one else you criticised, but it may just be that the supporters got in early this time.

  • http://verbosestoic.wordpress.com Verbose Stoic

    Feser could indeed be more polite, but surely you can see how one might react differently to someone who claims to have defeated all of theism and yet ignores what Feser seemingly rightly calls classical theism and others who simply hold a different view of theism (personal theism, in the case of Plantinga and the others). Even in the posts you cite, his objections are not merely about ignoring Aquinas and him but are, instead, about them ignoring them while claiming to have defeated all the theisms worth considering … which is bad for philosophers who should be aware of the differing views.

  • eric

    Okay VS, let’s walk through Feser’s main points given in the article Chris links to:

    the doctrine of divine simplicity is absolutely central to classical theism. To say that God is simple is to say that He is in no way composed of parts – neither material parts, nor metaphysical parts like form and matter, substance and accidents, or essence and existence.

    It may be central to classical theism; to me that’s a historical question. As a metaphysical claim about the nature of God, though, this is just sheer, baldfaced assertion. Its not an argument because there’s no evidence supporting it. Three’s not even an attempt to appeal to evidence. Its not even a valid inference because there’s no premises and no logic behind it. “God is simple” seems to more resemble a premise of Feser’s than a claim open to investigation.

    Why is divine simplicity regarded by classical theists as so important? One reason is that in their view, nothing less than what is absolutely simple could possibly be divine, because nothing less than what is absolutely simple could have the metaphysical ultimacy that God is supposed to have.

    This is just a tautological argument, where ‘simplicity’ and ‘divine’ have been linked by definition. If some other religious person believs that that nothing less than what is absolutely complex could possibly be divine, what are you going to say? That they have the wrong definition of what is divine? How do you know?

    Yes, obviously “absolutely complex” things are made of more fundamental parts, but who says that the nature of the divine is such that it can’t be made of fundamental parts? See the problem here? Feser’s using multiple words (divine, simple, fundamental) but they all pretty much refer to each other in a definitional way. He’s not showing that the divine must be simple. He’s stating that his definition of ‘divine’ includes his concept of ‘simple.’

    Now the classical arguments for God as first cause or first principle of the world…[are] that the world of composite things – of compounds of act and potency, form and matter, essence and existence, and so forth – could not possibly exist even in principle were there not something non-composite, something which just is Pure Actuality, Subsistent Being Itself, and absolute Unity.

    Again, baldfaced assertion. How do you know this?

    Second, how do classical theists know that they even have a correct concept of what simplest really is? Similar to the Goodman’s grue concept, what classical theists think of as simple may be complex in a different descriptive system, and what they think of as complex may be simple in a different descriptive system. Without any way of checking or validating their assertions about what is simplest via objective means, the idea that ‘being’ is more fundamental than ‘acting’ is at best just an assertion based on our own peculiar, human, linguistic framework.

    divine conservation – the doctrine that the world could not exist even for an instant, even in principle, apart from the continuous sustaining action of God – is also central to classical theism.

    I won’t argue its centrality or non-centrality, but again, metaphysically, this is just a baldfaced assertion. What evidence does Feser proffer that that the continuous sustaining action of God is needed for the world to exist? None. There is nothing backing up this claim.

    As Aquinas says, to say that God makes the world is not like saying that a blacksmith made a horseshoe – where the horseshoe might persist even if the blacksmith died – but rather like saying that a musician makes music, where the music would stop if the musician stopped playing.

    A beautiful analogy. But, sadly, useless. Analogies are intended to help us understand some more complex concept. But in this case, we have absolutely no idea what the concept actually is like, so we have no way of knowing whether the analogy is helping or hindering our understanding; bringing us closer to God, or leading us on a wild goose chase. Yeah, the world could be like music. But it could also not be like music. If it’s not like music, saying it is is just muddying the waters.

    In summary, then, classical theism is committed to a conception of God as that which is absolutely metaphysically ultimate – that is to say, as that which is ultimate in principle and not merely in fact –

    As I said above, he is just making circular, definitional references to his favorite terms. Ultimacy must be simplicity must be divinity. Who says? Maybe ultimacy is complexity.

    Last but not least – none of these claims is an argument for God. Not one. These are explanatinos of the properties classical theolgians think God has, but no proof or even argument is offered as to why we should believe God has these properties. The best one can say about them is that they sort of hold together. I.e. this grouping of properties is self-consistent.

    But that is not proof of anything.

    • ah58

      Wouldn’t the thing that would be ultimately simple be something that does not exist? It would then have no properties at all.

      Which is sort of what Feser said: “To say that God is simple is to say that He is in no way composed of parts – neither material parts, nor metaphysical parts like form and matter, substance and accidents, or essence and existence.”

    • http://verbosestoic.wordpress.com Verbose Stoic

      Well, when I read that article, I’m not surprised that you don’t find specific arguments, because on reading it it’s clear that Feser is simply trying to outline classical theism and explain what it’s main premises are and how they differ from those of personal theism, and to at least take some snipes at people who think that by refuting personal theism they can also refute classical theism. In fact, neither of the posts listed in this post are actually intended to be full-on arguments for his position, and so that you don’t see any of those is hardly surprising.

      Again, I haven’t read “Aquinas” and never did finish “The Last Superstition”, so I can’t really comment more on the many cases where Feser says he is making the actual arguments.

      Onto your specific comments:

      It may be central to classical theism; to me that’s a historical question. As a metaphysical claim about the nature of God, though, this is just sheer, baldfaced assertion. Its not an argument because there’s no evidence supporting it. Three’s not even an attempt to appeal to evidence. Its not even a valid inference because there’s no premises and no logic behind it. “God is simple” seems to more resemble a premise of Feser’s than a claim open to investigation.

      The problem here is that you are dismissing this as “historical” when what Feser is trying to say is that classical theism requires this to be the case, and so if classical theism is true then you cannot argue — as Dawkins does — that God is not simple. The next quote of yours carries on from that, as it says far more than just that that is the definition of God, but that God must be simple to do the work that He is required to do to solve the problems that classical theism is trying to address. What are those problems? Well, you’d have to read classical theism to figure that out.

      Yes, obviously “absolutely complex” things are made of more fundamental parts, but who says that the nature of the divine is such that it can’t be made of fundamental parts?

      Because, as stated, if it doesn’t have that then it doesn’t have metaphysical ultimacy, and the divine needs that. Thus, if it isn’t simple, then it isn’t the classical theistic God anymore and the whole system falls apart. So, if you could PROVE that it wouldn’t be simple, then you’d have a strong counter-argument. Dawkins’ claim, for example, is not such a proof or argument.

      I won’t argue its centrality or non-centrality, but again, metaphysically, this is just a baldfaced assertion. What evidence does Feser proffer that that the continuous sustaining action of God is needed for the world to exist? None. There is nothing backing up this claim.

      From even my brief reading of his site, he talks about it in many places. It is indeed based on some fundamental presumptions of Aristotlean and other philosophies, and about actuality and potentiality, but he’s just not going into it here. I don’t necessarily agree with the arguments, but it’s rather ridiculous of you to insist that Feser repeat Aristotle 101 in every single post he makes or else he’s just engaging in baldfaced assertion.

      A beautiful analogy. But, sadly, useless. Analogies are intended to help us understand some more complex concept. But in this case, we have absolutely no idea what the concept actually is like, so we have no way of knowing whether the analogy is helping or hindering our understanding; bringing us closer to God, or leading us on a wild goose chase. Yeah, the world could be like music. But it could also not be like music. If it’s not like music, saying it is is just muddying the waters.

      And the whole point of the analogy is to explain what the classical theistic conception of God is, particularly wrt creation. Which is does quite clearly: it’s not like creating a thing and leaving it alone as a completely distinct and separate thing, but is instead like music, sustained by the musician. Thus, that IS what the CONCEPT is like, full-stop. If you had a good argument that if God exists it COULDN’T be like that, then you’d have a good challenge to classical theism. But all Feser is doing here is clarifying his concept, and you seem to be critcizing him for … clarifying his concept in a way that, well, clarifies the concept.

      Again, the post is not outlining a proof, but is outlining the concept. Criticizing it for not being a proof when it was not intended to be one is thus completely out of line. This is exactly the same mistake that Jerry Coyne makes that makes me accuse him of not understanding the works he criticizes, assuming that the point of a work is to provide a proof or argument of something that it is clearly not intended to do.

      • eric

        on reading it it’s clear that Feser is simply trying to outline classical theism and explain what it’s main premises are and how they differ from those of personal theism, and to at least take some snipes at people who think that by refuting personal theism they can also refute classical theism.

        If this is Feser’s argument, its stupid. Sure, classical theism may be different from personal theism in the properties it attributes to God. But the argument “you have given no evidence that such an entity exists” applies equally well to both.

        To use an analogy, this argument is a complaint that Chris’ dismissal of pink unicorns does not apply to purple unicorns. Answer: we don’t have to develop an entirely separate counter-argument for purple unicorns. The same ‘you have no evidence’ argument applies to both.

        Most of your other responses to me fail to see this point. Yes, if God doesn’t have the properties Feser lists, then we are no longer talking about the classical theistic god. You say that several times. I get it. But that doesn’t mean the counter-argument is any less valid. Refusing to engage the evidence problem because the arguer talks about a slightly different set of god-properties is just a dodge. Its a “you are talking about pink unicorns, not purple ones, so nothing you say applies to my unicorn” sort of response. The answer is: yes, it still applies. Its disingenuous or idiotic to respond to ‘we lack any evidence for a complex deity’ by saying ‘my deity isn’t complex, so this is not a problem I need to address.’ Yup, you still do need to address it.

        • http://verbosestoic.wordpress.com Verbose Stoic

          If this is Feser’s argument, its stupid. Sure, classical theism may be different from personal theism in the properties it attributes to God. But the argument “you have given no evidence that such an entity exists” applies equally well to both.

          To use an analogy, this argument is a complaint that Chris’ dismissal of pink unicorns does not apply to purple unicorns. Answer: we don’t have to develop an entirely separate counter-argument for purple unicorns. The same ‘you have no evidence’ argument applies to both.

          Why in the world are you taking a comment I made about why you don’t find specific arguments in that post to somehow imply that Feser is ARGUING something, and doing that by introducing another argument that Feser does not address? You are shifting from the specifics of Aquinas’ view and the relevant arguments for it to the “You have no evidence” argument, and pretending that somehow Feser is addressing that specifically in his post. He isn’t. He clearly isn’t. He clearly doesn’t intend to. This says nothing about whether he has addressed it elsewhere or if it has been addressed — at least to Feser’s satisfaction — in classical theism. To make the “You have no evidence” argument, you have to, in fact, get into and address the details of classical theism, including what it thinks counts as evidence and why, and the actual main discussion here is about whether that needs to be done. Yeah, it needs to be done.

          Let’s take your “pink” and “purple” unicorn example. Imagine that your refutation of pink unicorns is that they couldn’t exist because you couldn’t get a pink coloration in a horse-like thing, but someone points out that purple would work. Well, then, it is absolutely the case that you need a separate counter-argument, and for any specific counter-argument you make beyond the vague and meaningless “No evidence” you have to make sure that it applies to the other forms. And if you want to claim that there is no evidence for the Aquinas version, again as already said you have to know what it actually claims.

          But note, again, that Feser is not addressing the “No evidence” argument in this post, but is instead only addressing specific counter-arguments and showing how classical and personal theism differ enough in critical respects that some of those arguments simply don’t work or need to be altered.

          Most of your other responses to me fail to see this point. Yes, if God doesn’t have the properties Feser lists, then we are no longer talking about the classical theistic god. You say that several times. I get it. But that doesn’t mean the counter-argument is any less valid.

          It certainly means that some of the counter-arguments ARE less valid, at least in the form they’re presented. Feser explicitly mentions how evil is looked on differently in the two traditions, which implies that the Problem of Evil is not a problem in the same way, which doesn’t mean that it isn’t an issue for classical theism, just that the forms used against personal theism won’t work against classical theism.

          The answer is: yes, it still applies. Its disingenuous or idiotic to respond to ‘we lack any evidence for a complex deity’ by saying ‘my deity isn’t complex, so this is not a problem I need to address.’ Yup, you still do need to address it.

          No, actually, if you make the objection that you lack any evidence for specifically a COMPLEX deity, then it’s quite reasonable for someone to reply that since their deity is simple that objection doesn’t reply. It’s only if you argue that you lack evidence for ANY deity, simple or complex, that the objection applies to both … but in that vague a comment, one might be forgiven for saying that you actually have to start at the beginning and examine classical theism in detail before making that objection. And note that Dawkins’ argument is not that sort of argument, but is an argument that an ultimate designer would have to be complex, and so Feser’s reply, I think, would be that as a designer in the vein of personal theism that might work, but as an ultimate actualizer in the classical theistic view not only does the argument not work, but in fact simplicity is demanded.

          • eric

            It’s only if you argue that you lack evidence for ANY deity, simple or complex, that the objection applies to both … but in that vague a comment, one might be forgiven for saying that you actually have to start at the beginning and examine classical theism in detail before making that objection.

            If you ask me for evidence of QM, I will not demand you read a QM textbook before I even deign to mention my evidence. I’ll say “double slit experiment; photoelectric effect; spectral lines.” Its not comprehensive, its not complete, but its a starting point. I am pointing you in the right direction. If you don’t know what those things are, you may then have to look them up, but I have at least provided you with a basic reference for some of the evidence for QM. And I have been fairly direct about it; I didn’t just say “read book xyz to get the evidence,” I mentioned specific concepts by name.

            I don’t buy that I have to examine classical theism in detail before its defenders can tell me their evidence for the existence of God. There is no reason they can’t point me in the right direction right now, before I read it. Tell me what your evidence is, and if the concepts you mention are unfamiliar to me, then I’ll look them up.

          • http://fathergriggs.wordpress.com Lord Griggss[ Ignostic Morgan, Inquiring Lynn, Skeptic Griggsy, Carneades of Ga., Fr.or Rabbi Griggs]

            See what Feser acolytes claim @ the thread arguments about God @TheologyWeb to further see the Feser-like play on words that they try to pass as arguments, I post there as Griggsy. My last two posts illuminate that Aquinas and Feser indeed are using word games to instantiate God as Creator when science says otherwise;however, they really are using the god of the explanatory gasp instead of the one of the scientific one. They are using word play instead of giving evidence of Him as any kind of explanation as Parsons notes. They bespeak creation when they just mean an empty explanation for a pseudo-problem. How that irks them!
            Feser states never was it a matter of nothing but instead why something? Again, he is playing a vacuous word game in that we know from science why something exists. And he goes against the contingency argument!
            Please, continuing exposing his and others’ wordplay!

          • http://verbosestoic.wordpress.com Verbose Stoic

            eric,

            If you ask me for evidence of QM, I will not demand you read a QM textbook before I even deign to mention my evidence. I’ll say “double slit experiment; photoelectric effect; spectral lines.” Its not comprehensive, its not complete, but its a starting point. I am pointing you in the right direction. If you don’t know what those things are, you may then have to look them up, but I have at least provided you with a basic reference for some of the evidence for QM. And I have been fairly direct about it; I didn’t just say “read book xyz to get the evidence,” I mentioned specific concepts by name.

            Except that you don’t ask for evidence, but instead simply state that there isn’t any. And in that case, a reasonable reply would be, even in the QM case, to ask if you’ve ever looked at QM at all.

            Beyond that, for theism people DO, generally, do that sort of shortforming. You just don’t agree that what they consider evidence is or should be convincing. Feser himself even does this in a lot of ways, as his posts tend to be long. So then this seems an invalid complaint, at least as one that is arguing about typical behaviour.

          • http://fathergriggs.wordpress.com Lord Griggss[ Ignostic Morgan, Inquiring Lynn, Skeptic Griggsy, Carneades of Ga., Fr.or Rabbi Griggs]

            Feser boastfully notes that no theist ever asks why should there by nothing but, to the cuntrar,y why is there something, even if it is eternal. That boomerangs in that, as we naturalists proudly note, the Polyverse is eternal through the quanta, so asking that question refects a jejeune attitude- the puerile question after question of children! It just is as Lord Russell answer Fr. Frederick Copleston in their famous radio debate. Copleston prattles with that silly attitude.
            That is the silly ultimate explanation and primary cause about which theists ever prattle! Thank you,Feser, for letting your dead cat out of the bag!
            Chris, Feser just cannot fathom that we know his game of word play!
            Folks,please check out the thread arguments about God to see how Feser-addicts respond to others and me!
            Other excellent Christian sites for us naturalists to post are TheologOnLine,Christian Boards,Christian Forums and Debating Christianity and Religion.I use some form of Griggs at them.
            http://lamberth.tumblr.com

          • Sea

            Verbose Stoic, you’re not going to get a sensible answer from eric because he doesn’t understand what the post was. He is clearly blinded by his assumption that it is a complete a fullproof argument for something, when it’s not. He thought it was and called it stupid for not being that, and now can’t walk himself back and admit it’s not what he thought it was, because he feels he would make himself look stupid for his earlier opinion.

  • Annatar

    I’m not sure if Chris HAS to take down Feser. It seems like fans of particular apologists insist that EVERYONE who disagrees with the apologist must make an extensive rebuttal against them. Sometimes It’s ok to say “This guy has been shown to be wrong, no I’m not gonna do it again, I’ll just point out why he is obnoxious.”

    It’s not like no one has refuted Feser before. Plenty of people have, and the mere fact that Chris is pointing out his (Feser’s) hypocrisy rather than treading over the same old ground isn’t any indication of incompetence or cowardice.

    • http://www.facebook.com/chris.hallquist Chris Hallquist

      Yay! One more person who gets it.

      Once I get through my initial series of posts on arguments for the existence of God in general, I plan to start in on William Lane Craig. But there are some important differences between Craig and Feser. Craig has a much larger following. Craig knows how to argue in a way that will appeal even to many atheists. Feser, on the other hand, is mainly well-known for antics that make him look ridiculous even to many Christians who are in no way hostile to philosophy of religion.

      If people like Annatar, who I know is a long-term reader and not just a Feser fan who’s showing up for these couple threads, told me they’d be really interested in reading posts about Feser’s (attempts at) arguments, I’d seriously consider doing some of those posts. But obviously I don’t have the time to take down every apologist in detail, I have to be selective.

    • Jon Hanson

      Could you point me to some of the criticisms of Feser? I was actually trying to find some recently and couldn’t find any that were particularly compelling, but I admit my search wasn’t particularly thorough.

      • http://www.facebook.com/chris.hallquist Chris Hallquist

        Again, criticisms of Feser on what points?

    • Sea

      “Sometimes It’s ok to say “This guy has been shown to be wrong, no I’m not gonna do it again, I’ll just point out why he is obnoxious.””

      No it’s not. Sometimes it’s ok to say, “This guy has been shown to be wrong [link] [link] [reference], and now I’ll point out why he is obnoxious. Otherwise you’re simply sniping. “Hey Dawkins has an annoying voice” etc. It’s childish and unsubstantive.

      • http://www.facebook.com/chris.hallquist Chris Hallquist

        The problem with Feser, though, is that he’s short on arguments, long on ridiculous demands regarding how his opponents behave. In that case, point out that the demands are ridiculous is enough.

  • Rob

    Feser has a history of juvenile tantrums on the internet going back to at least 2004. Fortunately for him, it’s mostly buried on the internet archive. Interested parties can look it up.

    http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2004/02/feser_kicks_the.html

    And of course there is this:

    http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2011/01/1285-edward-feser.html

  • http://fathergriggs.wordpress.com Lord Griggss[ Ignostic Morgan, Inquiring Lynn, Skeptic Griggsy, Carneades of Ga., Fr.or Rabbi Griggs]

CLOSE | X

HIDE | X