Hard to guess how much of this from Curtis is self-deception, and how much of
it is an attempt to deceive readers here.
I must admit I completely missed that Curtis's objection to Feser is Feser's
opposition to gay rights rather than to Feser's support for classical theism
per se. But it turns out, as I reread Curtis's post just now, that there is in
it a sentence that can be construed to include gay rights:
"Most people nowadays require more than a stoner god who can’t be bothered to
get off the couch playing video games to give a little assistance to man and
requires more of the kind of god that right wing guys like Feser need to
support their campaigns of telling people what they should or shouldn’t do with
their wieners."
("People" here apparently means "men," who actually do things with their
wieners that don't involve other men. I guess that's why I missed it.)
It's in the seventh paragraph of Curtis's post. The rest of the paragraph is
not directly related to that single sentence:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/380837
Needless, I hope, to say, it's fine with me to criticize Feser for not
supporting gay rights; I'll clap and shout "Amen," maybe even join in. It's
just that there wasn't anything in the rest of Curtis's long post to suggest
that's what it was really about. It almost sounds like an after-the-fact
rationalization for Curtis's otherwise gratuitously hostile and insulting
personal attacks on Feser with accompanying noisy but nearly substance-free
hand-waving on the topic Curtis chose as a heading for the post, "Is Classical
Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?"
In any case, while Feser does occasionally come out with a polemical post on
social issues, it would be a big mistake to believe that's the main substance
of his blog. I don't pay much attention to those posts; they're not what I'm
interested in. And I seriously doubt he has ever, or would ever, appear on Fox
News. But I urge Curtis to do a thorough search to make sure.
BTW, Curtis might be interested to read Feser's latest post, entitled "God's
Wounds." It has a Good Friday theme and gives an idea of the relationship
between Feser's espousal of classical theism and his Roman Catholicism. (Again,
it doesn't interest me much because I have no truck with the focus on Jesus as
the Son of God, the Resurrection, the Trinity, and so on. All just wishful
thinking, as far as I'm concerned.)
As to Curtis's "challenge," he's welcome to do a post that actually makes an
effort to rebut the philosophical case for classical theism as presented by
Feser. If it's straightforward and nonpolemical, I may decide to comment.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote :
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote :
Barry, I know you're upset because your hero Curtis didn't have the decisive
victory you were hoping for,
C: I figured that Judy snipe at me from post to other people. My opinion piece
could have inspired a discussion but you went with your typical personal attack
anti-intellectualism. Of course you are not really in a position to debate
anything in philosophy, but it was you who waved Feser around here as if he has
made some wonderful contribution to anti-atheist posturing.
<snip>
J:All Curtis could contribute was hand-waving and a lot of ill-considered
personal attacks against Feser. That doesn't say much for his mastery of
philosophy, especially not his understanding of the classical theism he was
making such an intellectually dishonest show of demolishing.
C: But here you go too far and are entering the territory of what is known in
modern linguistic philosophy as a "lying sack of shit." (Epistemological
speaking of course.)
To sum up my opinion piece on Feser as ill-considered personal attacks is not
only wrong, it demeans my objection to his use of classical philosophy to argue
for denying gay rights. It is not a "personal attack" to object to such a
thing. You seemed very upset with my comparison with Palin, but that was my
opinion of his appeal. Giving sloganeering ammo to people who share opinions
right wing I do not. (To say it mildly.) He could easily be a commentator for
FOX news and I will have to do a check to see if he has already appeared on
that scourge on the national mental landscape.
But to the real teeth of your charge here, that I did not express a concise
formula for seeing the problem with all of the classical "proofs" of a version
of the god idea, I have a challenge for you:
I claim that all the proof contain either an unsupported premise or invalid
inductive logic. If I pick one to show you what I mean by example, you will
claim, "that was not the good one, you cherry picked."
So you pick one. Please do not try to escape into the bogus, it is all too
complicated, you can cut and paste the entire Aristotle's Metaphysics for all I
care. There are suitable summaries all over the web so you can certainly find
one, even from your boy Feser 'the right wing homophobe" himself if you like.
And then I will point out exactly what the problem is.
Now if all of you who know Judy have cleaned the coffee spray off your computer
screens we can enjoy what the predictable response will be. (Hint it wont be to
publish anything from classical theism that evades my critique.) Let me take
answers from the group...you in the back waving your hands, you have the
floor...
"Judy will post about what a terrible person you are and will say she cannot
respond to such a bad person or you will twist the truth in a way only she can
see".
Excellent choice, and you over there...
"Judy will call you a dishonest liar and will say that everything you wrote was
intellectually dishonest."
Nice one, and you sir...
"Judy will claim that the topic is much too advanced for a discussion with as
terrible a dishonest person as you, but will claim to have many quotes that she
COULD post but cannot be bothered because of what a dirty fighter you are."
And we have a winner!
