Posted: Oct 04, 2013 11:51 pm
by Moses de la Montagne
Mick wrote:
Moses de la Montagne wrote:I don't know precisely what the word is for it, but it reads like complete gibberish to the uninitiated.



Right, to the uninitiated. That is the same in linguistics, physics, and virtually any other discipline. That is kind of a "well, duh."


Yes, of course, "duh." But the Church is not a gnostic sect for philosophy nerds. What is Feser trying to prove? That Aristotle believed in an unmoved mover and Thomas Aquinas did, too? One ought not need to accept Aristotle in order to accept Christ.

Tertullian wrote:Unhappy Aristotle! who invented for these men dialectics, the art of building up and pulling down; an art so evasive in its propositions, so far-fetched in its conjectures, so harsh, in its arguments, so productive of contentions—embarrassing even to itself, retracting everything, and really treating of nothing! Whence spring those “fables and endless genealogies,” and “unprofitable questions,” and “words which spread like a cancer?” From all these, when the apostle would restrain us, he expressly names philosophy as that which he would have us be on our guard against. Writing to the Colossians, he says, “See that no one beguile you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, and contrary to the wisdom of the Holy Ghost.” He had been at Athens, and had in his interviews (with its philosophers) become acquainted with that human wisdom which pretends to know the truth, whilst it only corrupts it, and is itself divided into its own manifold heresies, by the variety of its mutually repugnant sects. What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? what between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from “the porch of Solomon,” who had himself taught that “the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart.” Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief. For this is our primary faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides.


I have learned that Feser, in his book, doesn't scruple to try to prove the Christian god. Why not? Why stop at Aristotle? I can certainly guess why. So I'll wait for volume two. He may be arguing against "the new atheists," but he isn't arguing against Hitchens. "I'm willing to grant all that."