(Part 2) Top 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.

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.

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.

Robert Royal's book A Deeper Vision is a great history/summary of all major 20th century Catholic thinkers. It's probably especially useful for you because it does a good job of situating recent Catholic thinkers within the context of secular philosophy.

Augustine and Aquinas are going to the Big Titans you want to get through before anyone else, and I'm going to third the need for an understanding of Aristotle, but also toss out that some Plato might be useful too, for an understanding of stuff that Aristotle is building on/rejecting, and later stuff that Augustine is building on/rejecting.

From what I remember of my undergraduate, this wasn't a bad intro to Thomas: https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Saint-Thomas-Aquinas/dp/0075536536/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1468082922&sr=1-3&keywords=introduction+aquinas

And Maritain's Intro to Philosophy is probably also helpful, if dense: https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Philosophy-Sheed-Ward-Classic/dp/0742550524 Also useful for you since it kind of puts up Scholasticism vs Secular philosophy and where the Church broadly diverges (though always keep in mind that, even if Scholasticism is the most influential philosophical movement in the Church, Catholicism does not stamp it as the official philosophy of the Church.)

>From what I can tell, superpowers to you are using classical quantum mechanics to make humans do things normal things humans can not do

Not really. I used that as an example. I also have a model which exploits classical QM's prime competitor, the De Broglie–Bohm theory, as well (an introduction can be found here and here). Although, those are hypotheses for a mechanical explanation as to how they operate. As far as a definition for "superpower" as used here, the definition "an extraordinary physical or mental ability which is not attributable to a miracle or magic". The cited examples being, well, such examples.

Granted, there will obviously be some overlap between Superhumans and miracle workers, prime example being the Spectre who is (in the DC metastory) the angel of God's wrath, and magic, Etrigan the Demon and Zatanna are two prime examples of that, but I am only considering non-miraculous and non-magical characters.

>Humans have already control quantum mechanics to an extent. I can turn an entire city into ash with my finger. I can know every almost every thought from other humans. I can move faster than the speed of sound. I do all of these through modern technology. I see no difference between a human using technology to do great feats or using some power.
>
>...
>
>From what I see, we already live in a time of superhumans (Ubermensch?), magic, and miracles. You are going to have to be more specific on what you are asking then.

Grant Morrison makes, more or less, the same point in Supergods: What Masked Vigilantes, Miraculous Mutants, and a Sun God from Smallville Can Teach Us About Being Human.

>As such, the church has already set measures to deal with such things.

Tbh, I figured as much. I am more curious as to how the Church would conceptualize such a phenomena, not how the church would handle it.

Well, this is what philosophy is all about. I think this guy has the most convincing case for Aristotelian hylomorphism as the best explanation compared with other theories. This other guy's book is also a great introduction to why Aquinas' metaphysics is "the best."

Ultimately, you have to make these decisions after reflecting on your own how the world works.

I recommend reading The Shadow of the Antichrist by Stephen Williams. He's a Presbyterian but the book is quite honestly one of the best Christian responses to Nitzsche ever produced.

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/

I'll preface this by saying that it is not entirely clear what, precisely, your question is. So let me restate your question as I see it.

Science is an enormously successful endeavor. Using the scientific method we can, with high degrees of precision, mathematically describe certain aspects of reality using deterministic equations - e.g. the motion of a cannonball shot across a battlefield. To say that the motion of the cannonball is deterministic is to say that if we know the location and velocity of the cannonball at any given time, then using the equations and assuming no interfering factors, we can infer its location and velocity at any other time. This clearly works for some aspects of reality; might it work for all aspects of reality? In particular, might it work in describing the behavior of a human being? And, if so, would that not then suggest that we do not have freedom of the will?

This is more or less what Sam Harris argues in his book, Free Will, that if determinism is true, i.e. if all aspects of reality are governed by these deterministic equations, then we do not have free will.

There are at least two things I would want to say in reply to this. First, it is far from obvious that all aspects of reality are governed by deterministic equations. Actually, I would want to say that no aspects of reality are governed by equations. Rather, these equations describe what we observe - they do not cause what we observe nor do they govern the thing being observed. When Newton tells us, for example, that the force acting on an object is equal to its mass times its acceleration, i.e. F = ma, this is a mathematical description of a phenomena we observe. It does not tell us what is causing that force, or if it will always hold, or why such a relationship exists in the first place.

Second, I think that higher scientific education, in my experience anyways, is all backwards. If you are thrown into a physics or chemistry class in college, you will immediately come face to face with many equations - equations of motion, rates of chemical reaction, electromagnetic equations, thermodynamic equations, quantum mechanical equations etc. The impression is that these equations are true, and that reality abides by them. But, as I say, this is backwards. Instead, we should begin by studying the motion of cannonballs, how magnets generate fields, specific chemical reactions, converting steam into work using a turbine, electrons going through a slit, etc. and then attempt to develop a mathematical theory which accurately describes the phenomena we observe. When things are done in this order, we are immediately faced with the reality that those equations only work in very limited and often idealized conditions. This, for me anyway, immediately removes any serious thoughts that all of reality might be deterministic.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0268001030/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_eT9Kyb18C377R

Best book on the topic I have ever read.

I had dismissed artificial consciousness for a long time because I believe it to be impossible and in fact still do. But I realized my outright dismissal was really a defense against the reality of superintelligence which is not that machine consciousness has major implications but but machines becoming competent does. I think for many (perhaps this is unfair) who assert that consciousness is purely material and therefore can be reproduced just see artificial consciousness as a big score for the naturalistic or material reductionist worldview. Then there are experts who are only interested in taking machine intelligence as far as it possibly can go whatever that means. Significantly there is a smaller group calling for caution and prudence in that endeavor. Have you seen the Story of the Sparrows? I can't find a link to it but it's at the beginning of Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies.

And not just a good first look. Copleston is a master. Excellent for beginners...and for far beyond! I would highly recommend, u/guileus, acquiring a cheap set of Copletson's History of Philosophy. Amazon link to vol 1-3. There are more volumes (vol.4-6, vol.7-9) but vol.1-3 is all you need for Aquinas & Ockham.

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

Ah, look man, don't go for the Dummies Guides! Reducing philosophy to any form of expression not done by the author is always a dangerous business, and is by no means the making of a good education. With that said, there are introduction texts that can appreciate the fact that you're a layman. Those are the ones you're going to want.

Here is one for phenomenology.