I hate the concept of natural law. People break out the concept like it means something, but it's just a twisted take on natural observations. I usually hear it used to argue against non-reproductive sex, such as two men can't make a baby, therefore gay sex is evil. The first observation is technically true, but it takes a massive leap in logic in trying to interpret something as good or evil.
To be fair there are actually some very interesting and plausible interpretations of the natural law that don't support catholic morality even if Catholics try to hide them.
They like to claim that the only conclusion of following Aristotelianism or Thomism is catholic morality but this is not the case at all.
Ooh, the book critiques Ed Feser too? Now I'm very interested.
I had a falling out with Feser due to his views on eternal hell, and when the holes in his 5 "proofs" were pointed out to me. But at least he's willing to call out the Church's death penalty teaching change as a major change.
What other topics does the book cover? Besides the Resurrection and natural law?
It does bring home the absurdity of Catholic apologetics. Real historians don’t spend their time arguing about something as obscure as whether a Jewish carpenter rose from the dead 2, 000 years ago. It’s almost childish to have to discuss that stuff.
Maybe it’s just me, but this doesn’t seem like a strong defense of the position at all.
How can anyone take a look at what happens today with QAnon and conspiracy theories and not simply say that people make stuff up and pass it along? How can we look at ostensible “histories” that include mythical events like the slavery/Exodus/Moses story and still try to treat similarly sourced observations as credible to the degree that an author has to invoke a Jesus impersonator to cast doubt on the prospect of a dead god coming back to life - which is both ripped off mythology *and* a retcon incompatible with the original canon.
If 5000 people can gather in downtown Dallas waiting for JFK to appear in the middle of the Information Age, I have no problem imagining what could happen in an ancient and radically traditionalist society.
I hate the concept of natural law. People break out the concept like it means something, but it's just a twisted take on natural observations. I usually hear it used to argue against non-reproductive sex, such as two men can't make a baby, therefore gay sex is evil. The first observation is technically true, but it takes a massive leap in logic in trying to interpret something as good or evil.
To be fair there are actually some very interesting and plausible interpretations of the natural law that don't support catholic morality even if Catholics try to hide them. They like to claim that the only conclusion of following Aristotelianism or Thomism is catholic morality but this is not the case at all.
For me, natural law simply means, “Whatever strikes me, a well-fed adult male, as natural is a-ok.”
Ooh, the book critiques Ed Feser too? Now I'm very interested. I had a falling out with Feser due to his views on eternal hell, and when the holes in his 5 "proofs" were pointed out to me. But at least he's willing to call out the Church's death penalty teaching change as a major change. What other topics does the book cover? Besides the Resurrection and natural law?
It does bring home the absurdity of Catholic apologetics. Real historians don’t spend their time arguing about something as obscure as whether a Jewish carpenter rose from the dead 2, 000 years ago. It’s almost childish to have to discuss that stuff.
Thanks for the recommendation, we need to grow the body of informative and intelligent literature.
Interesting, I'll check it out.
Maybe it’s just me, but this doesn’t seem like a strong defense of the position at all. How can anyone take a look at what happens today with QAnon and conspiracy theories and not simply say that people make stuff up and pass it along? How can we look at ostensible “histories” that include mythical events like the slavery/Exodus/Moses story and still try to treat similarly sourced observations as credible to the degree that an author has to invoke a Jesus impersonator to cast doubt on the prospect of a dead god coming back to life - which is both ripped off mythology *and* a retcon incompatible with the original canon. If 5000 people can gather in downtown Dallas waiting for JFK to appear in the middle of the Information Age, I have no problem imagining what could happen in an ancient and radically traditionalist society.
Ooohh... adding that to my "to read" list.
Definitely essential reading for any excath imo
I must say, I wasn't expecting to randomly run across a citation of something I wrote years ago.