Pat is joined by Fr. Thomas Joseph White to discuss some of the contents of his recent book Principles of Catholic Theology, Book 2: On the Rational Credibility of Christianity amzn.to/4dgsn78
Commenting for traction. Also great episode. I think it’s really important for us to support Fr. White as he’s doing great work so even if you can’t buy the book spread the word!
Awesome to see you (both) on youtube! I finally decided to grab a copy of Fr. White's principles of catholic theology, i'm sure it will be excellent. Hope your other projects are also doing well Pat!
Hey Pat, I hope all is well. I have a quick question. After reading your book, The Best Argument for God, I'm interested in learning more about the argument from contingency. Which book would you recommend first? Theism and Ultimate Explanation by Timothy O'Connor or Necessary Existence by Pruss and Rasmussen?
Necessary Existence, if you had to pick just one, though I would really recommend both. Just note that in NE Pruss & Rasmussen only argue for the existence of a necessary being (and not just with cosmological reasoning). They leave open whether that being is God. If you want to study cosmological reasoning, I would begin with some classic formulations. Read Aquinas’s De Ente, Leibniz’s Ultimate Origination, and Clarke’s A Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God. Then explore the contemporary literature (Koons, Pruss, Kerr, Rasmussen, O’Connor, etc.). Happy reading!
I'm confused by what Father White was saying at the 13:00 - 14:00 section. He was saying that the explanation closer to "It just is" is the more complicated explanation? Isn't the opposite true? The most simple explanation for the world is "Everything is a brute fact". If someone wants to take that view, very well, but that view lacks any explanatory power at all. The worldview that I want to stick with isn't just the simplest, but rather, the one that maximizes both simplicity and explanatory power! I find the area on the graph where I achieve maximum explanations and minimum complexity!
16:16 really??? We must be realists?? We "need" a theory of kinds and essences and such? A plurality of PhD philosophers would disagree with this one. 42% of PhD philosophers accept or lean towards nominalism, 38% towards realism, 8% are undecided and 6% take some alternate view, according to the 2020 PhilPapers Survey. I feel like this was too huge a claim, too massive an assertion, to make as a passing thought.
The stats can be interesting, but I don't think they're too relevant here. Obviously it's a controversial issue, but often it happens that one side of a controversial issue can be quite "passionate" about it. As a realist myself, I think most realists would agree that realism is pretty much unavoidable. It's usually not the kind of position we arrive at tentatively, "well, realism is just overall nicer than nominalism! It seems to have some advantages, so we should be realists...". It's usually not like that. It's actually closer to "nominalism is absurd; some form of realism must be true, there's no way we can avoid that". And that is understandable considering how arguments for realism often involve stuff such as transcendental conditions for science and knowledge; the incoherence of anti-realist views; or how realism is a priori intuitive in some way. You could find more tentative realists, but most of them tend to be "radical" and to think anti-realism is a dead end. So I don't think his statement is weird. But do keep in mind that this is NOT the same as thinking that anti-realists are stupid or anything like that.
@@runningdecadeix4780 I guess I just find such certainty on an issue on which the experts are so split to be ... Unearned? Premature? A little silly, perhaps?
@@NontraditionalCatholicyou're fully within your rights to think so. But it is what it is. People often disagree on fundamental issues with a fervent confidence. To give three examples distinct from Realism, speaking for myself and many others: I think dialetheism is completely insane. I don't have one small inkling of a doubt about it; I think it is downright ridiculous. But some brilliant logicians are dialetheists. What is wrong with them? I don't know, but it doesn't make me question my certainty at all; it is impossible for me to be wrong about this. I think something is wrong with a dialetheist's mind or perception when it comes to this issue, even if they're brilliant people. For a more controversial topic: PSR. Especially as it applies to, say, contingent existents. It is a controversial principle. But those who affirm PSR tend to be very sure about it (normally we just offer more modest principles for the sake of arguing against PSR skepticism). I would bet my house and all my life savings on the truth of PSR. I don't for a moment think it's false. But it's controversial. And stats showing a large number of skeptics would at most convince me that people can become *confused* on this issue and fail to grasp what should be an obvious truth, although I can only speculate why these people fail to see the obvious. Other controversial examples: moral realism. Often, moral realists are very passionate and sure of it - many take moral facts to be Moorean facts, facts that we are more sure of than the plausibility of any skeptical argument against moral realism. I could also mention epistemology. The divide between internalists and externalists is well-known, and guess what, it's not uncommon for either side to think the other is radically wrong. As an internalist myself, I think externalism is hopeless and I don't know why people would insist on some obvious circularity, but it is what it is. It's not unusual to be radical, very confident and passionate about controversial views in philosophy. It's quite common and it can be seen in its history. Depending on the reasons and arguments one has for their position, it can be a perfectly rational position, unbothered by statistics about beliefs. And again, it doesn't mean that one thinks others are "stupid" for disagreeing (although one can think something is wrong with an opponent's reasoning or insight on the topic). If you can't relate, that's fine too. But it's not uncommon in philosophy.
@@runningdecadeix4780 yeah I mean, I kinda just can't relate! I'm no professional philosopher, so I can't tell you if this kind of passion and certainty is so common among the PhDs, but my non-expert, outsider view is such that this kind of faith in a position is far more common among the lay folks than the experts.
@@NontraditionalCatholic it can be more common among lay folks than among experts, and still be very common among experts :) One could be an uncharitable radical whose confidence is unreasonable, but one can also have their confidence backed by good understanding even while being aware that many would (wrongly) disagree with them. It really depends on the topic and your reasons for the belief. Again, arguments for realism usually proceed from the incoherence of anti-realism; the indispensability of realism for science and knowledge; the self-evidence of the idea; etc., so it's not surprising that a lot of realists would think that realism is unavoidable even if they still very much respect their intellectual opponents. And what he said was simply that we must be realists at the end of the day. Even allowing that anti-realists are numerous and not stupid, is that not what one should conclude, if one accepts (e.g.) indispensability arguments? It is what it is. That's also what I think, anyway; some great philosophers whom I admire are nominalists, but I think nominalism is a dead end after all, and that realism is indispensable. Or to give a more apt example, PSR. I respect philosophers who don't accept it, but I think it's ultimately crazy and undermines our scientific and explanatory practices. I think we *must* accept it, even if it's controversial. That's a perfectly sensible position for me to take, I think. I also think it can be sensible if someone (wrongly!) thinks that PSR leads to modal collapse and we therefore must reject PSR. If that makes sense.
