tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post6350046721001713786..comments2024-03-28T15:39:28.239-04:00Comments on Vital Remnants: Forrestry: noun: the practice of deliberately misrepresting someone else's position [see "intellectual fraud"]Martin Cothranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-5343644742609039462011-03-20T14:38:49.616-04:002011-03-20T14:38:49.616-04:00So, Thomas, at first you were lecturing me about t...So, Thomas, at first you were lecturing me about the precise nature of Aquinas argument from design,but now suddenly you claim to unfamiliar with it? <br /><br />All I need to refer to is the passage Francis cited. You claimed that Aquinas was making no argument o metaphysical ends and thereby conceded that there was no reason to posit God. It is you who has been making these bold claims about Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-45392077940185903422011-03-19T18:36:38.362-04:002011-03-19T18:36:38.362-04:00Singring,
While I'm familiar with Aquinas'...Singring,<br /><br />While I'm familiar with Aquinas' account of causality (which is mostly due to my studies of Aristotle) I'm not as familiar with the teleological argument. In fact, the only thing from Aquinas I've read on it is the brief summary in the <i>Summa</i>.<br /><br />But since you know enough about it to declare it to be "hot air" and easily dismissible, Thomas M. Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07824873424225826685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-35902428248060227232011-03-18T05:06:23.412-04:002011-03-18T05:06:23.412-04:00'To the extent that Aquinas does have a design...'To the extent that Aquinas does have a design argument, it doesn't deal with "metaphysical" ends or any other causes imposed from the outside.'<br /><br />Great! Let's go with that, then:<br /><br />Since Aquinas' argument does not imply any causes for design external to the natural world, his fifth reason for God is nothing but hot air, since we now have a Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-9148104964297857212011-03-17T18:13:06.270-04:002011-03-17T18:13:06.270-04:00Singring
"... the assertion by Aquinas that...Singring <br /><br />"... the assertion by Aquinas that all things act towards a certain metaphysical end assigend by a deity of some sort is wholly unnecessary to explain the phenomenon at hand."<br /><br />If this is what you think of as final cause, then you haven't been paying attention. Everyone on this post has already pointed out that "intention" does not Thomas M. Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07824873424225826685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-27885893309615089062011-03-17T16:14:38.210-04:002011-03-17T16:14:38.210-04:00'This activity of a tree that maintains itself...'This activity of a tree that maintains itself is directed (and this does not require any consciousness) toward maintaining itself as a tree, whereas a bed does not have this sort of directed activity.'<br /><br />This is all very nice. <br /><br />But I can explain perfectly well how and why a tree 'heals itself' without any appeals to metaphysical formal causes or purposes.<br /Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-73281013042709879792011-03-17T12:11:33.035-04:002011-03-17T12:11:33.035-04:00Singring,
This isn't that difficult. A living...Singring,<br /><br />This isn't that difficult. A living thing strives to maintain itself in a way that other things don't. When the bark of a tree is torn by an animal, the tree heals itself. When the finish on an oak bed is scratched, the bed, although made of the same material (wood) does not heal itself. This activity of a tree that maintains itself is directed (and this does not Thomas M. Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07824873424225826685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-9390242271373050012011-03-16T04:55:22.159-04:002011-03-16T04:55:22.159-04:00'This prior argument, which is not the main ar...'This prior argument, which is not the main argument in the passage, clearly is the result of empirical observation.'<br /><br />Oh... so now all of a sudden the argument <i>is</i> scientific, eh? And an inductive one at that? I thought those were irrational? <br /><br />But let's move on:<br /><br />'You get an acorn and it always (or "nearly always," according to Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-63649179770833415952011-03-16T04:38:04.736-04:002011-03-16T04:38:04.736-04:00'Your answer assumes that the purpose of human...'Your answer assumes that the purpose of humans that will live a life that will help to minimize harm to oneself and society. That's a final cause. '<br /><br />No it isn't! For the love of goodness can you get any thing right?<br /><br />I neevr said that there is any 'purpose' to living any kind of life - not 'purpose' in the metaphysical sense you like to use itSingringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-23269486694810208472011-03-16T00:12:20.123-04:002011-03-16T00:12:20.123-04:00Singring,
You keep saying that I said that Aquina...Singring,<br /><br />You keep saying that I said that Aquinas' argument is not a scientific argument. This is true of the main argument, which I extrapolated above. The premises of that argument are justified by prior arguments.<br /><br />My trouble with your reasoning is that you keep calling something a "non-sequitur." But the only argument Aquinas makes explicit is the one I Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-37030422626189128492011-03-15T23:54:19.804-04:002011-03-15T23:54:19.804-04:00Singring,
The non-sequitur was Aquinas' asser...Singring,<br /><br /><i>The non-sequitur was Aquinas' assertion that things 'clearly' always act toward the best result. I was very clear on this.</i><br /><br />So you are calling an <i>assertion</i> a "non-sequitur? Are you aware than only arguments, not statements, can be invalid?Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-34681957988957585782011-03-15T23:52:52.609-04:002011-03-15T23:52:52.609-04:00Singring,
BECKWITH: Why should anyone avoid ignor...Singring,<br /><br />BECKWITH: Why should anyone avoid ignorance? Please appeal to only material and efficient causes.<br /><br />YOU: Because ignorance makes it less likely that one will live a life that will help to minimize harm to oneself and society. <br /><br />Your answer assumes that the purpose of humans that will live a life that will help to minimize harm to oneself and society. That&#Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-21227025549150682882011-03-14T04:51:19.154-04:002011-03-14T04:51:19.154-04:00'What do you do? You give him your position, w...'What do you do? You give him your position, which it turns out is based on formal and final causes!'<br /><br />First of all, at least I answered his questions, unlike you, you never answer mine.<br /><br />Secondly, could you please tell me which of my answers to Francis' questions are in any way dependent on formal and final causes - you know, the metaphysical, objective, universalSingringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-80734700635155999502011-03-13T21:50:57.646-04:002011-03-13T21:50:57.646-04:00Singring:
You seem completely unaware a) of what ...Singring:<br /><br />You seem completely unaware a) of what an epicheireme is--and therefore of what role a causal statement like the one you don't like serves in it; b) of the fact that the passage from Aquinas you are dealing with comes from his "fifth way", one of his five arguments for God's existence [since you explicitly deny it].<br /><br />It's kind of hard to argue Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-78297032570250694532011-03-13T21:29:26.877-04:002011-03-13T21:29:26.877-04:00Singring,
Talk about deflecting...
Beckwith aske...Singring,<br /><br />Talk about deflecting...<br /><br />Beckwith asked you several questions, asking you to give the material or efficient causes for several things, since you claim reject formal and final causes--on the basis, apparently that their expiration date has run out.<br /><br />What do you do? You give him your position, which it turns out is based on formal and final causes!<br /><brMartin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-62317632601386926372011-03-13T15:24:29.954-04:002011-03-13T15:24:29.954-04:00Why, thank you Thomas.
But completely besides the...Why, thank you Thomas.<br /><br />But completely besides the point, as usual.<br /><br />1.) Whether 'intention' refers to a conscious effort or a 'sort of directedness' my criticism of the argument is valid in either case. If the former meaning of the word is used, it is simply nonsense as an acorn as far as we know has no consciousness, if the latter is applied, any evidence of Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-82590315162979176992011-03-13T12:10:42.704-04:002011-03-13T12:10:42.704-04:00Singring,
"So an acorn can have in intention...Singring,<br /><br />"So an acorn can have in intention without having consciousness. What is this...some new-age stuff you picked up?"<br /><br />This is just as foolish as if I were to say: "so a bacterial organism can have fitness even though it doesn't have big muscles or work out? Biologists apparently don't know how to use the English language." Fitness is an Thomas M. Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07824873424225826685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-21107924676097310012011-03-13T06:51:32.563-04:002011-03-13T06:51:32.563-04:00'Aquinas is discussing the question of God'...'Aquinas is discussing the question of God's existence on the basis of why things are the way they are. '<br /><br />Completely, utterly false, Martin.<br /><br />Evolution - in addition to giving an account of how the diversity of life comes to be, gives a precise account of why there are trees, why they grow and why they look like they do.Apparently your understanding of evolution Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-36879607049721801912011-03-13T06:48:20.354-04:002011-03-13T06:48:20.354-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-34646992475736311722011-03-13T06:40:16.134-04:002011-03-13T06:40:16.134-04:00'Secondly, "striving" does not imply...'Secondly, "striving" does not imply a conscious state. It only implies an intentional state. '<br /><br />So an acorn can have in intention without having consciousness. What is this...some new-age stuff you picked up?<br /><br />'Intentionality does not imply consciousness.'<br /><br />We seem to disgree on the fundamentals of the English language and/or the nature of Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-7598717152566272011-03-13T06:34:59.927-04:002011-03-13T06:34:59.927-04:00'So what you seem to think is the conclusion o...'So what you seem to think is the conclusion of the argument isn't the conclusion.'<br /><br />Martin, maybe you should actually read the passage in question before lecturing me. I quote once more:<br /><br />'We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, <i>and this is evident</i> from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-21325503455180295402011-03-13T06:24:23.188-04:002011-03-13T06:24:23.188-04:00'Why should anyone avoid ignorance? Please app...'Why should anyone avoid ignorance? Please appeal to only material and efficient causes.'<br /><br />You're asking me my personal opinion? Because ignorance makes it less likely that one will live a life that will help to minimize harm to oneself and society. I should really hope that we at least agree on the latter, but somehow I'm not so sure as you are championing ideas about Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-89173201643636451992011-03-12T12:39:41.039-05:002011-03-12T12:39:41.039-05:00Singring,
You say, "Even at our relatively p...Singring,<br /><br />You say, "Even at our relatively primitive stage of scientific discovery, we can give an very good account, from the molecular right up to the macroscopic level of how an acorn 'acts' to become an oak, no metaphysical 'purpose' needed at any stage. Maybe one day we will discover such a necessity, but so far - not one iota."<br /><br />I realize I Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-35233767849003050462011-03-12T12:23:10.590-05:002011-03-12T12:23:10.590-05:00Singring,
You say, "I dislike your use of th...Singring,<br /><br />You say, "I dislike your use of the word 'strives' as it implies a conscious effort on the part of the oak, for example, to grow."<br /><br />As I have pointed out before, your emotional state is not relevant here. <br /><br />Secondly, "striving" does not imply a conscious state. It only implies an intentional state. Intentionality does not Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-47020320902988447912011-03-12T12:09:28.889-05:002011-03-12T12:09:28.889-05:00Singring,
Again, you have to understand an argum...Singring, <br /><br />Again, you have to understand an argument before you can adequately critique it.<br /><br />You say, "You conveniently omit Aquinas' rather bold and non-sequiturial assertion that all 'natural beings' act in a way that leads to the 'best result'."<br /><br />You seem to think that Aquinas' statement here is the conclusion of his argument, Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-69085464713361755372011-03-12T11:46:30.143-05:002011-03-12T11:46:30.143-05:00Singring:
Why should anyone avoid ignorance? Ple...Singring: <br /><br />Why should anyone avoid ignorance? Please appeal to only material and efficient causes. <br /><br />When a human being is born mentally retarded why do we consider that a tragedy? Please appeal to only material and efficient causes.<br /><br />When I say, "If Socrates is a man, then he is mortal," what is the empirical referent? You can not appeal to universals, Francis Beckwithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03765632359220115150noreply@blogger.com