tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7844827880580229020.post1353766359271299221..comments2023-10-24T03:03:41.272-07:00Comments on Director's cut: Edward Feser and Bad PoetryStaid Winnowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03473150367386722079noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7844827880580229020.post-34438584168584205322012-03-03T10:44:14.337-08:002012-03-03T10:44:14.337-08:00You're correct to point out Feser is playing w...You're correct to point out Feser is playing with definitions. He habitually uses vague and self-serving definitions to make wild assertions. In the above quote we have to wonder what he means by "intelligible" in the first place. He claims laws of nature are contingent. Contingent on what? How is it "intelligible" to make this claim one way or the other? How is it "intelligible" to claim only absolute universals can be intelligible? As usual Feser spouts apologetic nonsense.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7844827880580229020.post-40367823287828853682011-12-22T13:14:52.488-08:002011-12-22T13:14:52.488-08:00It sounds akin to the "Palinization of politi...It sounds akin to the "Palinization of politics," this attempt to make his theism sufficient to philosophy. I've never seen the word 'pantheism' used the way he did.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7844827880580229020.post-19697213640644701392011-12-22T12:59:45.093-08:002011-12-22T12:59:45.093-08:00Nah, not confusing them, I'm honestly confused...Nah, not confusing them, I'm honestly confused how this would pass the muster of the philosophical community. It probably doesn't, and this guy is probably the "Dembski" of philosophy ;). Outskirts of reason, and all that.rappocciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02892286988757355695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7844827880580229020.post-43984212866419805092011-12-22T12:50:30.541-08:002011-12-22T12:50:30.541-08:00You confuse philosophers with theologians, and it ...You confuse philosophers with theologians, and it is because the theists co-opted philosophy like the Templeton Foundation is co-opting science. They declare that science and religion are not at odds, but they do this not by getting science into faith, instead they bring the church into science.<br /><br />Like that Francis Collins.<br /><br />Philosophers used to have peer review, and I think they still do.Staid Winnowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03473150367386722079noreply@blogger.com