Edward Feser has presented a lecture on the immateriality of the mind, which is worth listening to: The papers here and here will flesh out details. The core logic of the argument pivots on the principle of distinct identity, turned to how distinguishable entities are inherently different. Syllogistically: 1: Formal thought processes can have an exact or unambiguous conceptual content. However, 2: Nothing material can have an exact or unambiguous conceptual content. So, 3: Formal thought processes are not material. Worth pondering as we reflect on this season. Enjoy the Christmas season. END

In Fallacies physicists fall for Ed Feser demonstrates how scientism such as that frequently espoused by “Why Evolution is True” Jerry Coyne can be refuted by a bright child: Scientism is simply not a coherent position.  You cannot avoid having distinctively philosophical and extra-scientific theoretical commitments, because the very attempt to do so entails having distinctively philosophical and extra-scientific theoretical commitments.  And if you think that these commitments arerationally justifiable ones – and of course, anyone beholden to scientism thinks his view is paradigmatically rational – then you are implicitly admitting that there can be such a thing as a rationally justifiable thesis which is not a scientific thesis.  Which is, of course, what scientism denies.  Thus scientism is unavoidably self-defeating. Of course, this has been done Read More ›

At his blog: Recently I was interviewed by Matt Fradd for his Pints with Aquinas podcast. We talk a bit about Five Proofs of the Existence of God, but our main topic is Richard Dawkins’s critique of Aquinas’s Five Ways in The God Delusion. We work through each of the objections Dawkins raises and discuss where they go wrong. Matt is posting the interview in two parts, and the first part has now been posted. (podcast) If you think that anyone born after the invention of the Bomb must be smarter than the Angelic Doctor (Aquinas,1225–1274), fetch a mug and sit down and listen. Note: Aquinas points to ponder. See also: How naturalism rots science from the head down

From Feser’s blog: Now, what Parsons actually said is that the trouble with New Atheist writers is “their logical lacunae and sophomoric mistakes” when addressing philosophical matters, and their tendency to “tar everything with the same brush” rather than distinguishing more sophisticated religious arguments and claims from cruder ones. “[D]efeating your opponents’ arguments,” says Parsons, “requires (a) taking their best arguments seriously, and (b) doing your philosophical homework.” The “Old Atheists” were more likely to do that than the “New Atheists.” Hence Parsons’ preference. He simply prefers to address what the best arguments of the other side actually say, rather than attacking straw men, begging the question, and committing other fallacies. What could Loftus possibly object to in that? The Read More ›

In a few short paragraphs here.  For some reason the phrase “epic smackdown” keeps coming to mind.  

Readers may remember Larry “All scientists should be militant atheists” Krauss. At The Public Discourse, Thomist philosopher Ed Feser offers, Scientists Should Tell Lawrence Krauss to Shut Up Already Dr. Feser, may we assume that you are not a fan? In a recent opinion piece for The New Yorker, physicist Lawrence Krauss proclaims that “all scientists should be militant atheists.” Why? You won’t get any clear answer from the article, which is even thinner on argumentation (as opposed to sheer assertion) than the usual New Atheist tract—indeed, even thinner than the usual Lawrence Krauss tract, which is saying something. Most of the piece is about Kim Davis, Hobby Lobby, and other matters of public controversy entirely irrelevant to either science Read More ›

Imagine that scientists discovered the best documentary evidence for God’s existence that anyone could possibly hope for: messages in the DNA of each and every human cell, saying “Made by Yahweh.” Imagine that a notorious New Atheist and a well-known Catholic philosopher are both asked by journalists what they make of this evidence. The New Atheist shocks everyone by announcing that he now (provisionally) accepts that there is a God. “Sure, aliens might have made those messages,” he concedes. “But it’s not likely, is it? For the time being, I’m going with the hypothesis that God did it. This looks like pretty good evidence to me.” The Catholic philosopher is asked what he makes of the new discovery. To everyone’s Read More ›

Professor Edward Feser and Intelligent Design defender Dr. Lydia McGrew have been having a lively exchange of views on classical theism, miracles and Intelligent Design. Dr. McGrew, who is also a Christian apologist, concluded her blog post, Things God can do to reveal Himself, with these words: God has revealed Himself personally, by audible language, in incidents in Scripture. We know that. There is therefore no reason in principle why God could not reveal Himself personally, by the language of programmed code and intricate nanotechnology, in biology. Theory must accommodate fact, or it is bad theory. It is my hope that classical theism can rise to the occasion. Professor Feser’s reply to Dr. McGrew can be found here. Dr. Lydia Read More ›

Above: Ludwig van Beethoven in 1804. Below: The opening of Beethoven’s Fifth. Among St. Thomas Aquinas’ celebrated five proofs of the existence of God, the Fifth Way holds a special place: it is the only one which explicitly attempts to show that the cosmos is dependent on some Intelligent Being, Who directs all natural objects towards their built-in ends. In this post, I’m going to critically analyze Aquinas’ Fifth Way – or more specifically, Professor Edward Feser’s reconstructed version of this argument by Aquinas. On Feser’s account, the argument proceeds from a set of very simple facts about the natural world, and then demonstrates that the only way to explain these facts is by positing an intelligent being (or beings) Read More ›

I’m going to do a series of posts analyzing a talk given by renowned Thomist philosopher Ed Feser. The full video is available at the end of this post. In any case, the Thomists are well worth responding to, given that they are some of the most vocal Christian critics of Intelligent Design. Or are they? I contend that the biggest issue is that the Thomists misunderstand what Intelligent Design is, much the same way that atheists and creationists do. From the first part of the video, Feser criticizes ID because – lo and behold – ID is not worthwhile as an apologetic! I wonder if Feser realizes that perhaps the reason that ID is not a worthwhile apologetic is Read More ›

Aristotilean/Thomist philosopher and sometimes ID Critic Edward Feser has recently penned a blog entry about the upcoming atheist “Reason Rally.”

Read More ›

Over at his blog, Professor Edward Feser has been writing a multi-part critique of Professor Alex Rosenberg’s bestselling book, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions. Rosenberg is an unabashed defender of scientism, an all-out reductionist who doesn’t believe in a “self”, doesn’t believe we have thoughts that are genuinely about anything, and doesn’t believe in free will or morality. Instead, he advocates what he calls “nice nihilism.” In the last line of his book, Rosenberg advises his readers to “Take a Prozac or your favorite serotonin reuptake inhibitor, and keep taking them till they kick in.” Edward Feser has done an excellent job of demolishing Rosenberg’s arguments, and if readers want to peruse his posts from start Read More ›