I am an Evangelical Protestant who has been studying St. Thomas for 15 years. Thank you for this excellent interview with Dr. Feser. I am a fan of his as well.
As are Thomists of all stripes within Christ's fold. The Last Superstition gave me what I was finally looking for: Aristotelian-Thomist metaphysics and epistemology, & natural law ethics.
I love how Fraser points out how the work of a philosopher, aiming to find an explanation of how the work works, does not relate to complexity or biology. Chapeau.
The central non-argument of Dawkin's book is the stuff of comedy. Can't believe how so many people bought the book and swallowed it as something truthful and coherent.
This happens when a biologist thinks he suddenly became an authority on philosophy - all thanks to his arrogance. Just like when a biblical literalist like Henry Morris thinks he became a specialist on science - also thanks to his arrogance.
After decades of investigation from virtually every aspect; philosophical, moral , practical, sacramental, psychological, and existential, I am convinced that the Catholic Church alone offers the only fully comprehensive worldview out there. Which is what you'd expect in a cosmos that creates intelligent , free willed , moral agents. The full life answer is the Catholic church.
Personally, I find the fourth snd the fifth way to be the hardest to understand in the five ways. I'm just wondering as to what you don't understand if you don't mind. I'm just curious. Thank you.
Don't worry, it's not your fault. It's all quite vague and obscure, made all the more inscrutable by being based on antiquated, pre-scientific notions of how the world works.
A question that really puzzles me about Aquinas: how was he able to hold a glass of beer without the beer finding its own level? Doesn't this completely refute his theology?
On the simplicity point: Dawkins is essentially correct. God, if he is omniscient, he knows everything. This means that he possesses discrete items of information about all past, present, and future states of the universe, down to the microscopic level of reality (by the definition of omniscience). To possess this vast amount of discrete information, his mind must be composite and extremely complex, and hence cannot be simple. And indeed, he must be at least as complex as the universe he planned/designed and knows about completely, down to the microscopic level of reality. If you are committed to God's omniscience, you must give up the idea that he is simple.
'...His mind *must* be..." Why? Also, everything you're saying only applies if God contains all information in His mind like a physical computer does, but He is able to conceive of things without any such limitations whatsoever. You are presupposing a god that is not described by Catholics or Classical Theists.
@@ComputingTheSoul If God is omniscient, the content of his mind, his supreme knowledge of everything that exists, past, present, and future, is discrete and differentiated. He is therefore not simple. To claim otherwise, is to ignore, or reinvent, the meaning of the words. Furthermore, given the indisputable dependence of perceptual and intellectual functions on physical brains, I consider the existence and causal efficacy of a disembodied mind to be extremely implausible, but that is another issue.
@@drstrangiato33 No he's still simple because in this knowledge there is no ontological distinction. Even our knowledge of past, present and future isn't ontologically distinct in our own minds (besides maybe the physical encoding).
@@ComputingTheSoul By the definition of omniscience (assuming that the concept is coherent), His mind contains distinct pieces of information about everything that can be known. His mind (or intellect) is therefore composite and thus not simple. Arguably, He is the most complex entity imaginable.
I was listening to both parts,expecting refutation. I know, it is foolish to expect coherent thought from apologist,but I tried to be open. Your only objection against Dawkins was "god is simple" ...
Agreed. Most of his effort is put into saying how bad Dawkins arguments are, but almost nothing of substance explaining why. I can only imagine the Catholics listening to this don’t notice it because they already think they know why.
@@Dom20002007 half an hour isn't long enough to make the basic points? I really have little desire to read his book - nothing he says sounds particularly compelling or even really that interesting. I enjoyed listening to this episode but I don't feel the need to go much beyond it.
@@shankz8854 This is the second part of a 2 part video reflecting a single one hour conversation between Edward and Matt. That presumably was the time limit of the conservation so they decided to focus clearly on refuting Dawkins poor philosophy rather than making the affirmative case. I certainly found it interesting to see how poorly Dawkins understood Aquinas's arguments and how little regard he has for genuinely portraying high level religious thought. It is unfortunate millions are influenced by him however he does reveal how poorly the church has defended and taught its doctrines
@@Dom20002007 I think you misread/misunderstood what I said. I said they don't do a very good job of explaining why Dawkins' arguments don't work. I think they do a good job of highlighting how Dawkins skims over Aquinas and perhaps doesn't do his due diligence in dealing with his arguments thoroughly. That is, I agree that Dawkins dismisses Aquinas' arguments too swiftly. I understand that Dawkins' main failing may be that he does not engage much with theology and seems to not have any desire to do so either. Having said that, I do _not_ think it's unfortunate that millions are influenced by him because his primary targets are religious fundamentalists - young earthers and evolution deniers. These people need someone like Dawkins to challenge their dangerously ignorant beliefs and distrust in the scientific community. These less intelligent believers likely have little knowledge or understanding of theology so Dawkins doesn't really need to engage with christian theology for these purposes. Now I grant you his book sets out to argue against theism itself, not just fundamentalism. So in that sense, he leaves himself open to criticism like this, and in this case I suppose he is guilty as charged. Despite this, however, I don't actually think he's wrong. I think Aquinas arguments fail, often for the same reason, but they deserve a lot more attention than Dawkins gives them.
Dude seems very smug. You can't just argue something into existence. I'm open to a good theistic argument, but am always disappointed because it always boils down to word salad.
We have a problem! How does something that is structurally simple produce functional complexity? To say god does it is to beg the question. Every example of functional complexity is associated with structural complexity. Whence the structural complexity? This is produced piecemeal, bit by bit over incredibly long periods of time and it appears to occur in pockets, concentrated in small doses in a universe which is inherently simple. Darwinian natural selection is responsible for one such body of complexity which we call life. One product of this process is intelligent designers. Point me to an intelligent designer and I will point you to an underlying complex network, usually a neural network. If god exists where is his neural network? If Aquinas should say, "ah, but he does not need one", then he has some demonstrating to do! Theology thinking seems to be a technique for inventing what you need and then asserting it as universal truth. so sad to critique a real, relevant modern thinker like Dawkins in this ridiculous way. To play the quotation game, try this on; " Priority in the syllabuses (for philosophy of religion) tends to go to a series of largely medieval arguments for the existence of God. in many ways it is odd that they still command so much attention, for they are among the weakest arguments in the history of philosophy" ( Julian Baggini, Philosophy Key Themes.) And Baggini is a philosopher!
Qwerty what for? Are you saying because fractals appear complex but are just repeating patterns and can thus be described by a single equation that the creator of the universe can be some non-composite simple essence? That seems a big leap. Help me out here qwerty - I’m not a smart as you.
'Every example....' So first of all, this is not backed with a citation of any kind, and it's not really being phrased as a steadfast rule, just a statistical tendency, so we can't just assume it rules out the possibility of functional complexity arising from something simpler. Quite frankly, I don't think it is actually true. Some would say that entropy, in general, is an increase in complexity from something functionally simpler that gets seen in physical systems all over the place. More importantly, though, the answer to the question 'how' sounds an awful lot like an invitation to use physics terminology and principles to describe what happened during the Act of Creation, but this is misguided, since the 'laws' of physics would not yet apply until after the fact.
@@LostArchivist A "modern thinker" like Dawkins lol, that about says it all. You just made an assertion, which can be implied , that "all functional complexity requires structural complexity". You have no way to demonstrate if this is true or not scientifically. You then use this philosophical belief in defense of a logically incoherent man who says things like "It is only rational to believe in things that we can come to from scientific methods". It's a logical contradiction. A piece of paper with a mathematical equation on it is an example, so what you just said is just wrong. Almost all mathematical physicists now believe that abstract objects MUST exist, read Roger Penrose, or any of the great mathematicians. They think the universe "came from the laws of physics" or as Stephen Hawking's incoherent rant that "gravity caused the universe from nothing". These things are not structurally complex, actually they have no structure at all. Uh, good try though...
I have now listened to this in full. My god this is awful. A C Grayling accused Arvin Platinga of being a disgrace to the profession (of philosophy). I find that comment coming to mind here, or perhaps Daniel Dennett, " Exhibit A of how religious belief can damage or hinder or disable a philosopher". So badly does he misrepresent Dawkins arguments that I despair of sensible conversation with believers. But then I suppose Feser is talking to the faithful; he knows he will get a good reception there!
Mike Alcock LMAO! Dawkins isn’t misrepresented in the SLIGHTEST! It’s so evident that not only are you ignorant to what is written in the summa, and what Feser said, but also what Dawkins said
They simply explained the context of Aquinas’ arguments because most of the time Dawkins talks about something completely different from what Aquinas talks about.
“The fifth way isn’t about complexity or biology”. Cool. What is it about then? “Ahhh acorns...and phosphorus...they become trees and fire...therefore God”. Seriously, what on earth is Feser talking about here? If you cannot accurately convey the key points or core of an argument in 5 minutes you either don’t understand the argument or it is a bad argument (or both). Aquinas had no way of understanding how acorns become trees, but he would be right to assume it has a level of complexity that would certainly appear designed without understanding evolution by natural selection. This is why Dawkins talks about the fifth way in relation to Paleys version of the teleological argument - because Paley is a more recent version of the same argument, but with updated knowledge about biology. Dawkins is by NO means the only person to do this. Remember, Aquinas had NO knowledge of cell biology, molecular biology, biochemistry or evolution. His argument that “whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards and end, unless directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence” certainly would’ve held water in the 13th century but does NOT hold water in the present day. Aquinas was talking about the natural world, not the physical - he was not making the argument that because the world is intelligible or rational therefore God must exist (probably because physics didn’t exist yet). Finally, Feser’s example of a match is silly because matches are designed by humans. Unless he’s saying God exists because fire exists, which is equally silly.
And if you find pure phosphorus untouched by human hands on an oxygenless world and attempt to use it for fire on Earth, it will not work? Hydrogen atoms in massive quantities and the basic laws of nature do not create working reactors that also happen to be elemental factories?
@@LostArchivist At no point did I suggest that phosphorus wasn't highly reactive and therefore combustable. Nor did I call into question how stars are born. What is your point?
@Qwerty Paley's argument from design is an updated version of the same teleological argument Aquinas was making about the natural world. The difference being, the wealth of knowledge at Paley's disposal courtesy of the scientific revolution known as the enlightenment. Also, I haven’t forgotten about our other thread - just short on time lately.
Qwerty Qwerty when I read Aquinas’ argument for myself, it sounds like a medieval version of Paleys argument, but let’s suppose I’m wrong and Feser is right (which is quite likely to be the case). Feser seems to equate acorns turning into trees with phosphorus “turning into flame” (which I shall henceforth refer to in the 21st century understanding as reacting with oxygen). I really can’t see any meaningful commonality here. Acorns only have the potential to turn into oak trees, whereas, phosphorus can react with numerous elements and/or chemical species under a range of conditions. I don’t see the reactive potential of phosphorus as having any “purpose” or “final cause”. The acorn on the other hand can be thought of as having a goal oriented existence with a purpose. This is the purpose all life exhibits - to pass on its genetic code - and appears to be designed for. We now of course know, thanks to science, this is a completely natural process, which does not require intelligence. Indeed there seems to be NO reason why either of these examples requires intelligence. Having said that, were I born in the 13th century, I imagine I would be sure that the acorn required intelligent design.
