Best products from r/CatholicPhilosophy

> This is seriously one of the weakest objection I've ever heard against the PSR. What does this even mean? Of course God is not obligated to create our universe or any anything for that matter. How does this affect the PSR? There is no explanation other than the 'because'.

It shows that the PSR is self refuting because even a god cannot satisfy it. To put it into a more logical form:

r/https://bit.ly/2wJRxaL

Please feel free to refute that.

> Next: the brute fact response. This still leaves our most basic thirst about understanding reality unquenched. The universe is contingent; there is no way around even when involving science, math, etc--whatever. If it is possible for it to not exist, it is contingent.

Our thirst is technically irrelevant, since we can thirst for things like the color of jealousy, which obviously has no answer. What matters is part of logic. Regarding the possibility of the universe not existing, that assumes it is logically possible that the universe not exist. But so too is god. It is not logically necessary that the god theists believe in exist because other conceptions of god are possible. Why does god timelessly and eternally exist with desire X rather than desire Y, when neither desire X or Y are logically necessary or logically impossible?


Logical necessity cannot explain this scenario. There is no way to show in principle why god had to timelessly and eternally exist with the desire to create our particular universe, and not one just slightly different, or even radically different, or no universe at all. The theist would have to show that it was logically necessary for god to desire to create our universe in order to avoid eventually coming to a brute fact. He can try and say "It's because god wanted a relationship with us," but that wouldn't answer the question at all. Why did god want a relationship with us? Is that logically necessary? Could god exist without wanting a relationship with anyone? And still, even if god wanted a relationship, why did he have to desire this particular universe? There are an infinitude of logically possible universes god could have desired that would allow him to have a relationship with someone else that for no reason god didn't timelessly and eternally exist with the desire to create. A theist can also try to argue that "our universe is the best of all possible worlds, and therefore god had to desire it." But this claim is absurd on its face. I can think of a world with just one more instance of goodness or happiness, and I've easily just thought of a world that's better.


The theist is going to have to eventually come to a brute fact when seriously entertaining answers to these questions. Once he acknowledges that there is no logically necessary reason god had to timelessly and eternally exist with the desire to create our particular universe, and that god could have timelessly and eternally existed with a different desire, he's in exactly the same problem he claims the atheist is in when he says the universe is contingent and could have been otherwise, and therefore cannot explain itself. Hence, even positing a god doesn't allow you to avoid brute facts. There is no way to answer these questions, even in principle, with something logically necessary.

> God, on the other hand, is an entirely different kettle of fish; if God exists, he must exist necessarily. Merely saying it is a brute fact does not get around this; it's getting at that the universe is not contingent. Some think that there could be an infinite chain of causes to get us here. Maybe so. But how does this help? The chain is still contingent.

Nope. If god with eternal contingent (non-necessary) desire X exists, there cannot in principle be a logically necessary reason why that god exists, since a god with another non-necessary desire is just as possible. Hence god is just as contingent as the universe, lest you want to resort to special pleading.

>This is more of the New Atheism that is pure sophistry. 'Simple Logic'. Yikes. There are good objections to the PSR; this is obviously not one of them.

Not at all. This is serious logic showing how even you cannot answer the basic questions of why does god timelessly and eternally exist with desire X rather than desire Y, when neither desire X or Y are logically necessary or logically impossible? The only possible answer must be contingent, since a necessary one is off the table.

>I am not a Catholic but here is a very sophisticated defense of the PSR. Pruss is a Catholic. Pruss is brilliant here as well.
>
>Timothy O'Connor has my favorite book on the topic here

It is impossible to defend the PSR and all attempts to claim otherwise depend on false arguments from consequence.

\> First, is whether a theologian has at least, lain out a theory as to the interesting effects and implications of sapient alien life.

Yes. In fact Nicholas of Cusa, born in 1401 A.D. in Kues, Germany, was a Cardinal who theorized that alien life could exist on other planets or even the sun and that they would be made of "different matter" than us. Sounds almost like a Star Trek plot with energy aliens living on a star... but this was something that a Catholic cleric and theologian speculated about 600 years ago.

Now more recently Guy Consolmagno, a Gesiut and Director of the Vatican Observatory, and President of the Vatican Observatory Foundation, wrote recently a book called "Would You Baptize an Extraterrestrial?: . . . and Other Questions from the Astronomers' In-box at the Vatican Observatory" where he deals with this question (and yes he said he would baptize aliens).

I'm sure some other have also thought about it, but I can't recall any at the moment.

..

Another important point is that the Church has ALWAYS believe in aliens! What are angels if not aliens? Not made of matter like us, but still non-human intelligent creatures. So fundamentally there is no objection whether God could have created other - possibly material - intelligent beings.

Of course it does rise some questions regarding salvation (does each alien species get an alien Jesus? Are some species simply unfallen? Etc...)

...

\> Such as, the differnece and implications of another sapient species nature and soul.

In principle any material being with a rational soul is "**human"**. Not human in a biological sense, but in a metaphysical sense, i.e. created in the image of God.

While animal and plants have (vegetative and animal) souls which are not rational and also die at the death of the body, humans and intelligent aliens, are transcendent. We share also some other characteristics which are (analogously) present in God. That is why "man is in God image" and so would any intelligent alien.

So while the Church has never really thought too much about something that is mere speculation for now, its theology does not prohibit that aliens exist.

...

\> Second, is whether you all would like to see me write some amateurish theories on these.

Sure :)

Hey! These are good questions and if I am understanding you correctly, they are questions that are very relevant to contemporary analytic philosophy.

Let's first try and clarify the problem: does Aquinas, by endorsing a specific cause and effect theory of causation, endorse determinism about human creatures? Is this compatible with Catholicism? Or even Christian theism for that matter?

I read Aquinas as a compatibilist; he thinks that determinism is compatible with free will. So it seems you are correct in thinking that he finds determinism to be true, but also that free will is real and that it is compatible with the former.

The problem is seen in contemporary philosophy with two premier philosophers in Peter van Inwagen (an Anglican) and Alexander Pruss (Catholic). van Inwagen, so it seems, is a libertarian concerning free will and so is Pruss. There is this idea called the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) which says that every contingent thing must have a reason, ground, or cause for its existence. But if this is true, like Pruss thinks (he uses it skillfully to defend a contingency argument), how can there be libertarian free will? Doesn't the PSR, if true, rule out all contingency in the world? It seems we cannot say a choice is free if it is not contingent. van Inwagen thinks precisely this case and thinks it is worrisome for the theist and thus he rejects it; Pruss disagrees.

Pruss wrote a fantastic book where he argues that the PSR (Principle of Sufficient Reason) is true.

If you want a fantastic book about free will, God and evil I would recommend these two books: this book by Alvin Plantinga (which I think should be read by every Christian--it's that important) and this book.

Your mind needs a break. You have to allow yourself to take one.

I get the exhaustion. I struggled with faith vs. atheism but eventually had a spiritual/emotional experience that convicted me in holding fast to my faith. But years later I encountered materialist philosophy and my world was rocked. So as you mention, I was missing a logical link. I just finished Robert Spitzer's "The Soul's Upward Yearning". It's one of the most comprehensive books I've ever read on the evidence/clues for our transcendent nature. Edward Feser's "The Last Superstition" is good too.

But even if you don't read those....know at a basic level that atheism/materialist/eliminative materialist philosophy has a veritable s***-ton to answer for and are not nearly as strong of positions as they make themselves out to be. Catholicism is unique in that it has a robust philosophical root going back to Aristotle/Plato. Give your head a break, let your heart talk to God and give it a go when you feel ready again. Faith is a gift, remember that. You have to ask for it.

A good intro book is this. An author that might interest you is Philo, a 1st century Jewish philosopher, who tried to integrate Judaism and Platonism. The same book also has a section on early Jewish philosophy and talks about Philo.

The main thing about the Pre-Socratics is that they were for the most part materialists and tried to explain efficient causality in materialistic terms. Such a notion is entirely antithetical to the Judeo-Christian tradition since God created from nothing and cannot be identified with creation.

One thing to keep in mind is that the Apostles were not educated in general. John was an exception since he belonged to the priesthood. A lot of them probably didn't adopt Platonism precisely because they never learned about Plato. They were busy being tax collectors and fishermen. On the one hand, one can say the Apostles never held Platonism, but this is true even if they were ignorant of Platonism. The real question is whether there are tenants of Platonism which are compatible with Christianity; the Church Fathers answered affirmatively. Some parts are not, such as the neo-Platonic view of creation as emanation. St. Augustine is a good guide on this, since he adopts a lot of Platonism, especially from Plotinus (especially in the Confessions), while remaining highly critical of Platonism in City of God, like Apuleius and Porphyry. Some tenants of Platonism has even showed up in St. Thomas Aquinas with his use notions of exemplary forms, exemplarism, and participation.


St. Justin the Martyr is also a good resource to look into since he was a trained philosopher who converted.

Y’know, I specialize in Thomas, and I’ve never found a good introduction to his thought. It’s so wide-ranging and all-encompassing, not to mention its density and depth, it’s probably best to choose a particular topic or theme in the Summa to begin with: treatise on law, treatise on passions, disputations on virtues, etc. Then just jump into the Summa and start reading, and pair that with a good commentary. For instance, for law, I’d recommend J. Budziszewski’s commentary; for passions, I’d recommend Robert Miner’s book.

Yea, this is the book.

I've read sections of it before. It's a great intro (perhaps the best intro) to Thomistic philosophy. I'll lead a discussion on it this summer.

For a slightly challenging but enjoyable assessment of Thomist philosophy read "The Last Superstition" and/or "Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide." They're both by an extremely intelligent Thomist, Edward Feser.

https://www.amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/dp/1587314525/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1469425497&sr=1-1&keywords=the+last+superstition

https://www.amazon.com/Aquinas-Beginners-Guide-Edward-Feser/dp/1851686908

There's the Ordinatio, which I believe is a revised version of his commentary on the Sentences. That's probably his main work. Then there are a few lectures, disputed questions, the questions on Aristotle's Metaphysics, and the Paris Reportatio (lectures recorded by his students).

You can find some of these titles here, though they're fairly expensive: https://www.franciscanpublications.com/collections/john-duns-scotus

The following contains excerpts mostly from the Ordinatio I believe and would probably be the best intro volume: https://www.amazon.com/Duns-Scotus-Philosophical-Writings-Selection/dp/0872200183/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=john+duns+scotus&qid=1556720505&s=gateway&sr=8-1

Selections on ethics: https://www.amazon.com/John-Duns-Scotus-Selected-Writings-dp-0199673411/dp/0199673411/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=1556720505

Collection of Quodlibetal Questions: https://www.amazon.com/God-Creatures-Quodlibetal-Questions-Princeton-dp-0691618038/dp/0691618038/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=

A portion of the Ordinatio: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0823270734/ref=ox_sc_saved_title_7?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1

The following book is good about clearing up some caricatures and misunderstandings of Scotus by certain Thomists and postmodernist theologians: https://www.amazon.com/Postmodernity-Univocity-Critical-Account-Orthodoxy/dp/1451465726/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1556720505&sr=8-11

You might also check out this blog on Scotus: http://lyfaber.blogspot.com/

This one is supposed to be pretty good. I haven’t read it, but I believe it’s basically a shorter and more concise version of his previous book “Summa of the Summa”



Also, this post from this sub should also be helpful.

This one is great.

Actually, the 'frequently bought together' trio they have there is excellent. But of course it's all one author, which you might be trying to avoid.

Peter Kreeft wrote "A shorter summa" which is a condensed version of the condensed Summa. Worth checking out and it's not too intimidating.

Here's the link

These are best:

• Aquinas (A Beginner’s Guide) by Edward Feser
  
• Guide to Thomas Aquinas by Josef Pieper
  
• Saint Thomas Aquinas: The Dumb Ox by GK Chesterton