John O'Callaghan & Ed Feser on philosophy & theology
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 авг 2024
- This video features Dr. Ed Feser and Dr. John O'Callaghan. We have asked a number of well-known philosophers and theologians to tell us why they think philosophy matters and how it is important for theology. Hear what they have to say - and enjoy our 7 brief videos!
I can't believe some people on here disagree with Feser's rather obvious claim that natural science depends on metaphysical presuppositions. Don't they realize that their position of 'natural science first' is itself a metaphysical presupposition? There's no escaping the reality that natural science is contextualized by our metaphysical understandings.
Yes, but those folk don't know that.
Feser is the man!
To ask "why of things" is part of philosophy, so to ask "why philosophy matters?" is to ask "why does asking "why of things" matter?", which is something you can only do if you already know philosophy, to ask "why of things", matters. And if you already know philosophy matters, you don't need to ask why it matters. So if you are asking why it matters, you must not know why it matters, but if you believe it doesn't matter due to natural skepticism, then you don't believe in asking "why of things". Because this is a clear contradiction, such question can only be 100% rhetorical, and the one who asks is either testing our reasoning or saying that "they know" philosophy doesn't matter. But if "they know" philosophy doesn't matter, they will never say why, for saying why would imply philosophy matters, so they can't know philosophy doesn't matter. They can only Irrationally Believe philosophy doesn't matter. And if everyone asks this question, then everyone is bloody stupid.
This requires a mature thinker; and hopefully, a non secular one.
Feser is incorrect to state that science rests on the metaphysical presuppositions he outlines. It is a limited and antique view. For example, everyday notions of causation don’t apply to the beginning of the universe. They might apply approximately inside the universe but not to it. Aristotle and Aquinas only observed "middle earth". Metaphysical presuppositions need to be revised now we know more, particularly queer observations of the very big (cosmology) and very small (sub-atomic).
***** Since Aristotle and Aquinas we have had people like Boltzman, and now we know a lot more about the universe including entropy. Causality depends on A patterns within the universe (laws) and B the arrow of time (entropy). Laws of physics don't depend on intuitions about causality, but rather, it's the other way around. But A and B may not exist outside the universe; therefore causality principle doesn't apply outside the universe.
***** Our intuitions about cause and effect are due to patterns and entropy or the arrow of time *in the universe*, but outside the universe, we don't know the patterns and the arrow of time, so we simply can't assume causality applies. There is zero evidence physical laws require the causality principle, and not the other way around.
***** That was my original point. Science does not rest on causality defined that way as a metaphysical principle. Science states causality depends on A. patterns within the universe (laws) and B. arrow of time (entropy). That is as far as causality gets. The scholastic principle gives it greater meaning and inference there is no evidence for. Outside the universe, without patterns and the arrow of time, we can't assume causality applies. There is no the evidence physical laws require the causality principle, and not the other way around.
Re induction: sure, with the correct evidence and reasoning.
***** Doesn't quantum mechanics show that induction does not apply in some realms? At very least, we cannot extrapolate from day-to-day experience to the quantum arena.
PowerOfClaw, you ask,
// Doesn't quantum mechanics show that induction does not apply in some realms? //
Can you clarify what you have in mind?
There is no God..and you can't get a plumber on the weekend.
Theology is not based on "knowledge" it is based on an historical and presumptive claim to revelation. Such as Mohammed's revelations from Gabriel, oddly dismissed without explanation by Christians.
Some philosophers should be more discriminatory and skeptical on their acceptance of theology lest they be guilty of clear personal bias.
My OpenMind Not all theology is such. You're describing what Aquinas called "revealed" theology, as opposed to "natural" theology, which is based on what we can know about God from the natural order. I should also point out that, unless you have a very weird theory of knowledge, a claim to revelation is a claim to have _knowledge_ of revelation. It is a knowledge claim, even if not one that you accept as true.