My List

includes reading some contemporary philosophers. Among those would be Alasdeir Macintyre. Pending that being checked off here is some interesting tidbits to whet my appetite. (Be sure the read the whole of the original essay):

Francis, Benedict, and MacIntyre:

I enjoyed this essay, by John Haldane, called "Francis, Benedict, and MacIntyre," which is up at Ethika Politica.  Here is a taste:

MacIntyre shares with Benedict and Francis three central beliefs: first, that contemporary Western culture is at sea when it comes to thinking about the foundations of morality; second, that it is characterised by a pervasive relativism; and third, that this relativism is not only “cognitive” but is also affective and practical.

Read the whole thing.

(Via Mirror of Justice.)

Love is a Many-Splendoured Thing

It's certainly a lot more than "I feel like I'm in love". Dr. Kaczor gives us some insights:

Dr. Christopher Kaczor on big myths about love and marriage:

Dr. Christopher Kaczor, author of The Seven Big Myths about Marriage: What Science, Faith and Philosophy Teach Us about Love and Happiness, was recently interviewed by Kathryn Jean Lopez, author of National Review Online:

KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ: Does anyone really believe “love is simple” — your first myth?

CHRISTOPHER KACZOR: Unfortunately, I believed this first myth until fairly recently! I suppose there are at least some other people who believe something like I did. I used to think that love was just a matter of good will. If I choose to do what helps another person, then I love that person. Once I learned more about the nature of love, I learned that love includes not only good will for the one you love but also appreciation for and seeking unity with the beloved. All forms of love (agape) involve all three aspects, and the forms of love are distinguished primarily in terms of the third characteristic, the diverse ways in which unity is sought. 

Read the entire interview on the National Review website.

(Via Insight Scoop|The Ignatius Press Blog.)

Why Jesus is God: A Response to Bart Ehrman | Catholic World Report - Global Church news and views

Besides the brief critique of Hume's reasoning on miracles (circular) Father Barron uses a wonderful term: Semiotics.

Why Jesus is God: A Response to Bart Ehrman | Catholic World Report - Global Church news and views:

...In this most recent tome, Ehrman lays out what is actually a very old thesis, going back at least to the 18th century and repeated ad nauseam in skeptical circles ever since, namely, that Jesus was a simple itinerant preacher who never claimed to be divine and whose “resurrection” was in fact an invention of his disciples who experienced hallucinations of their master after his death. Of course Ehrman, like so many of his skeptical colleagues across the centuries, breathlessly presents this thesis as though he has made a brilliant discovery. But basically, it’s the same old story. When I was a teenager, I read British Biblical scholar Hugh Schonfield’s Passover Plot, which lays out the same narrative, and just a few months ago, I read Reza Aslan’s Zealot, which pursues a very similar line, and I’m sure next Christmas or Easter I will read still another iteration of the theory.

Read the whole thing.

(Via Insight Scoop|The Ignatius Press Blog.)

Computers Can Do That?

So asked Homer Simpson. I'm wondering if this doesn't prove more (and less) than the article is admitting. In other words does it only (apparently) prove the existence of a "Necessary Being" which is only the first of several logical steps on the road to finding the Father of Jesus and us all?

Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove Gödel God Theorem - SPIEGEL ONLINE.

(Via Reddit Catholicism.)

William Lane Craig Does Nifty Work

Your lesson in Natural Theology today:

William Lane Craig Does Nifty Work:

(Via Mark Shea.)

Let's Start the New Year Right

By reducing the irrational biases in our thinking:

The 12 cognitive biases that prevent you from being rational:

The human brain is capable of 1016 processes per second, which makes it far more powerful than any computer currently in existence. But that doesn't mean our brains don't have major limitations. The lowly calculator can do math thousands of times better than we can, and our memories are often less than useless — plus, we're subject to cognitive biases, those annoying glitches in our thinking that cause us to make questionable decisions and reach erroneous conclusions. Here are a dozen of the most common and pernicious cognitive biases that you need to know about.

Read the whole thing.

(Via New Advent.)

Let's Start the New Year Right

By reducing the irrational biases in our thinking:

The 12 cognitive biases that prevent you from being rational:

The human brain is capable of 1016 processes per second, which makes it far more powerful than any computer currently in existence. But that doesn't mean our brains don't have major limitations. The lowly calculator can do math thousands of times better than we can, and our memories are often less than useless — plus, we're subject to cognitive biases, those annoying glitches in our thinking that cause us to make questionable decisions and reach erroneous conclusions. Here are a dozen of the most common and pernicious cognitive biases that you need to know about.

Read the whole thing.

(Via New Advent.)

Reasoning & Informal Logic

Informal logic frequently focuses on identifying fallacies. Sometimes that is where an argument stops: "You are guilty of fallacy x, so your argument is invalid." But some claims of fallacious reasoning may need to be examined more closely:

Philosophical Folklore and the Reification Fallacy:

Among the many things worth studying, one of the most interesting is what I call ‘philosophical folklore’.  Folklore, of course, consists of micro-traditions passed down within communities as part of the ordinary ways of life of the people in those communities. We usually think of these micro-traditions as artistic, but much folklore is philosophical in character. Studying this kind of folklore, often fascinating in its own right, can be quite illuminating.

Read the whole thing.

(Via First Thoughts.)

Logic and It's Misuses

While Philosophy is my first love, Logic has been only a passing fancy for me. It's on my list of things to do: study at least beginning-level Logic. But the mini-controversy over Aristotelian versus Symbolic Logic is worth a read:

More on Symbolic v. Aristotelian Logic:

I’ve learned much about logic in the week and a half since my previous post here. In that little missive, I wrote about a Peter Kreeft essay that I had trouble making sense of. Kreeft argued that symbolic logic “has serious social, moral, and even sexual implications, and it is one of the unrecognized indirect causes of ‘the culture of death’,” but I hardly recognized in his description the logic I used in undergraduate studies and in work with computers.

Read the whole thing.

(Via First Thoughts.)

School is Back in Session

So let's get our brains working again. The Professor in the video gives a capsule version of Natural (Moral) Law Theory. His book What We Can't Not Know could serve as a primer. Then you could move on to The Line Through the Heart. I'm behind in my reading so I added them to my Wishlist.

*A Primer on the Natural Law...*

...by J. Budziszewski.

It's:

A Primer on the Natural Law...

...by J. Budziszewski.


Read the whole thing.

(Via Lex Communis.)

If the Mind and the Brain are Identical

who will judge what is true and what is false? It still fascinates me that people can argue persistently that they have no mind except that biochemical factory between their ears. Neuroscience is a fascinating area of study but sometimes you wonder if it's either attracting or creating bad philosophers, i.e., people who can't think straight.

This article attacks the neuroscience issue from a different perspective, asking the question does neuroscience disprove the mind-brain identity hypothesis?

Mike Flynn has an absolutely fascinating piece…:

…on the problem facing materialists who insist on saying the mind *is* the brain:

In The Instrumentality of the Brain, we noted a boy born without a cerebellum — the part of the brain that controls motor skills, balance and emotions — and who “has the MRI of a vegetable”; yet who has learned to walk and interact. He is also missing his pons, the part of the brain stem that controls basic functions, such as sleeping and breathing. And yet he breathes and sleeps just fine.

Other cases are known, such as the French civil servant, whose brain was virtually absent, reduced to a thin layer around the skull, a condition known as Dandy-Walker syndrome. Pause here for jokes about civil servants. Or Frenchmen. But he functioned more or less normally in society despite having water where his brain should have been.

The British neurologist John Lorber reported on the case of a slightly hydrocephalic math student with an IQ of 126, who also was almost lacking in brains (cf. Is the brain really necessary).

The current sexy thing among the cognoscenti is the use of fMRI to “prove” that there is no free will, a topic which, for some reason seems to obsess the likes of Jerry Coyne. Or at least the brain atoms collectively known as Jerry Coyne. It seems that at least some of these folks believe that by attacking free will, they are attacking religion; but they are actually attacking humanism.

Read the whole thing. Amazing stuff.

Read the whole thing.

(Via Catholic and Enjoying It!.)

Science and God

A formal materialist is forced to deny his own personal existence. If a purely physical description of events could explain *everything* then we only experience the illusion of choice and responsibility. In fact our actions only appear to be decided on by ourselves but, in fact, are determined by natural processes over which we have no control.

Certain amusing results can be observed from espousing materialism: a materialist believes himself not to be free and must logically deny freedom (and therefore responsibility) to everyone else as well. Yet they frequently will work hard to *persuade* you that your belief in freedom is false. How does *persuasion* work in a materialistic world?

And if it were theoretically possible to actually describe the process of a *decision* being in completely materialistic terms *who* would be making this description and to whom would they be describing it? How would *we* know that description was *true*? If being *convinced* that something is *true* is just the result of physical forces how does one distinguish *true* from *false* beliefs? Who or what stands outside this circle to pass judgment?

Enter Quantum Mechanics. In trying to describe and predict events in the atomic and sub-atomic universe it has unexpectedly introduced a severe problem for the materialist:

Does quantum physics make it easier to believe in God?:

Quantum mechanics, however, throws a monkey wrench into this simple mechanical view of things. No less a figure than Eugene Wigner, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, claimed that materialism --- at least with regard to the human mind --- is not “logically consistent with present quantum mechanics.” And on the basis of quantum mechanics, Sir Rudolf Peierls, another great 20th-century physicist, said, “the premise that you can describe in terms of physics the whole function of a human being ... including [his] knowledge, and [his] consciousness, is untenable. There is still something missing.”

Read the whole thing.

(Via New Advent.)

The God Particle

There was an interview on CNN with physicist Michio Kaku about the Higgs boson particle (the so-called "God Particle"). The some debatable pronouncements are slipped into this discussion.
The most egregious leap is made by Dr. Kaku when he seems to agree that this discovery could "disprove God". The HIggs Boson particle does nothing to advance the cause of atheism, ok? When qualified scientists start talking about philosophy you should be prepared to deduct 50 IQ points.

This and other misapprehensions are admirably dissected by William Lane Craig in his podcast "Reasonable Faith". One point that he makes fascinated me. The Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem seems to invalidate appeals to an endless universe in physics whether through infinite regressions or endless expansions and contractions. A Google search shows that Dr. Craig's reliance on this theorem has sparked a mini-industry of atheist rebuttals. A more scientific and current evaluation is here. The summary is "Did the universe have a beginning? Probably yes."

Interesting.

Philosophy Criticizes Psychology

in the form of a Peter Kreeft talk. It's good to exercise one's reasoning ability from time to time. It's particularly pleasing to hear the precise takedown of the "All reasoning is rationalizing" position of Freud and, following him, the modern world. Self-contradiction anyone?

(Via Lex Communis.)

Kantian Philosophy

can be a minefield for the new philosopher. He's extremely important for understanding modern philosophy but can be abstract and difficult to understand. So follow the little girl in the video to get a glimpse of what might be wrong with Kant:

Do you understand the philosophy of Immanuel Kant? Why it ultimately fails? Then give me five minutes of your time, because this is important...:

Do you understand the philosophy of Immanuel Kant? Why it ultimately fails? Give me five minutes of your time; this is important. Some would say Kant's principles are the very cornerstone of our civilization. The term "categorical imperative" means that we decide right from wrong by the premise, "If it's OK for me to do it, then it has to be OK for everybody to do it. If it's not OK for everybody to do it, then it's not OK for me to do it either." Or said a little differently, “One must always follow one’s own conscience.” Sound familiar? Immanuel Kant taught that the obligation of moral command comes from the will (we all want to do the right thing), that in matters of conscience individuals have absolute autonomy (follow your own conscience), and that mere obedience to an external authority was immoral. That's right - immoral.

Read the whole thing.

(Via New Advent World Watch.)

Logical Inconsistency

is a common human condition. We are apt to entertain two quite inconsistent ideas without ever realizing it. Do read the entire article below for an illuminating exploration of one such situation, involving a brilliant man. Intelligence is guarantor of consistency it seems:

The Delusions of Liberal Humanism:

The link between intelligence and correct interpretation of reality is unfortunately weak. That is one of the reason why someone like cognitive scientist Stephen Pinker can be very smart and yet be consistently wrong. Pinker champions his latest wrong idea in his new book, The Better Angels of Our Nature: the Decline of Violence in History and Its Causes, which posits that humans are evolving to become less violent.

The fact that you can publish a book making a claim so easily debunked by both empirical evidence and common sense says a lot about the publishing industry. But the idea that Pinker believes it to to be true—and so many people are willing to entertain the notion—says even more about the delusions of liberal humanism. As philosopher John Grey says in his devastating review,

The idea that a new world can be constructed through the rational application of force is peculiarly modern, animating ideas of revolutionary war and pedagogic terror that feature in an influential tradition of radical Enlightenment thinking. Downplaying this tradition is extremely important for Pinker. Along with liberal humanists everywhere, he regards the core of the Enlightenment as a commitment to rationality. The fact that prominent Enlightenment figures have favoured violence as an instrument of social transformation is—to put it mildly—inconvenient.

There is a deeper difficulty. Like so many contemporary evangelists for humanism, Pinker takes for granted that science endorses an Enlightenment account of human reason. Since science is a human creation, how could humans not be rational? Surely science and humanism are one and the same. Actually it’s extremely curious—though entirely typical of current thinking—that science should be linked with humanism in this way. A method of inquiry rather than a settled view of the world, there can be no guarantee that science will vindicate Enlightenment ideals of human rationality. Science could just as well end up showing them to be unrealisable.

Read more . . .

Read the whole thing.

(Via First Thoughts.)

Expert Opinion

is something we all have recourse to. To avoid falling into the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy in logic there are things we must be sure of before we rely on an "expert". What are his Qualifications? Are they current? Are they relevant to the topic under discussion? Does this opinion represent a consensus or is it a minority opinion or even a lonely dissent?

Ok, I like Mark's way of putting better:

Train Wreck Imminent:

Suppose an expert weightlifter were to be given an entire series by the BBC in which he is allowed to hold forth on US Middle East policy, the gold standard, and plumbing techniques in New Zealand. You might ask, "How does expertise in weightlifting qualify this guy to pontificate on these things?" and you'd be right.

But nobody asks why expertise in a rarified branch of physics qualifies Stephen Hawking to pontificate on philosophy and metaphysics. Instead, the theological and philosophical illiterates running the Beeb in the Country that Used to Be England simply assume that a technician will have profound things to say, despite the massive and growing pile of evidence that the man has no idea what he is talking about when he blathers about these things that are clearly outside he field of competence.

Read the whole thing.

(Via Catholic and Enjoying It!.)

A Little Exercise for the Grey Cells

can be found here:

The Collection of Atoms Called "Mike Flynn"...:

replies to the collection of atoms designated "Sam Harris" and tries to persuade him to stop babbling nonsense.

Someday I hope Flynn gives up this nonsense of writing award winning fiction and publishing one great novel after another and finds his true calling: explaining Thomistic philosophy to materialist New Atheist dunderheads.

Also, how can I ever publish fiction when anything I even dream of attempting pales next to his work? It's intimidating, dammit!

Read the whole thing.

(Via Catholic and Enjoying It!.)

The Probability of God

Wow. There's a 99% probability that God exists? Who knew that kind of calculation was possible?

The Probability of God:

Betrand Russell, famous for his agnostic views as much as for his theories on logic, was once asked how he would answer if he turned out to be wrong about God. Russell was delighted with the question and answered, “Why, I should say, ‘God, you gave us insufficient evidence.’”

I suspect that upon their meeting, God corrected the ol’ Brit, showing how the evidence was there and that Russell had simply chosen to ignore it. But it does raise the question of why different people when presented with much the same evidence, come to such varying conclusions about the existence of God.

Read the whole thing.

(Via First Thoughts.)

Philosophy and Chess

are sometimes close companions. Dennis M considers death and the arguments for survival beyond death:

Maroczy - Korchnoi ?:

The Hungarian grandmaster Geza Maroczy died in 1951, but on some reports, his chess career didn't end there. He took about 34 years off, and then, with the help of a medium named Robert Rollans, played a game against Viktor Korchnoi that lasted until 1993. (He lost, but hey - he was rusty. You can replay the game here.)

Read the whole thing.

(Via The Chess Mind Blog.)