Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

Chit-Chat » Metaphysical arguments and the apologetic failure » Today 3:40 pm

John West
Replies: 8

Go to post

RomanJoe wrote:

I do think most people have a very common sense metaphysics, that universals exist, essences are real, there aren't brute facts

I don't think most people have any opinion about universals or essences (by which you presumably mean substantial forms rather than self-identity) at all. They think that things exist, and have properties; but they don't have a view about whether property means tropes or a universal or a resemblance class including primitively similar things (or whatever). I think something similar can be said about substantial forms (which are, after all, just a species of property in the sense opposed to substance). These are all entities that philosophers posit to deal with problems men like Socrates raised.

Chit-Chat » Metaphysical arguments and the apologetic failure » Today 3:06 pm

John West
Replies: 8

Go to post

RomanJoe wrote:

@John West
Yes I'm aware of its prevalence before modernity. I'm speaking loosely about the current state of classical theism.

Ah, okay. "forever constrained to an academic niche" was probably the wrong expression then.

Chit-Chat » Metaphysical arguments and the apologetic failure » Today 2:49 pm

RomanJoe
Replies: 8

Go to post

@Greg

Great quote. Much wisdom in it.

Chit-Chat » Metaphysical arguments and the apologetic failure » Today 2:49 pm

RomanJoe
Replies: 8

Go to post

@John West
Yes I'm aware of its prevalence before modernity. I'm speaking loosely about the current state of classical theism.

Chit-Chat » Metaphysical arguments and the apologetic failure » Today 2:47 pm

RomanJoe
Replies: 8

Go to post

@DanielCC

I think you're right that most people take PSR to be self evident but I still think there's some muddle headedness around the conditions for contingency. I've come across skeptics who think an argument from contingency can be avoided via an appeal to the big bang or a primordial subatomic soup as ultimate explanations reality. I do think most people have a very common sense metaphysics, that universals exist, essences are real, there aren't brute facts. But I think all of this is infected by a sort of pseudo scientific materialism. E.g. There are natural kinds but really what's really real are atomic structures.

Chit-Chat » Metaphysical arguments and the apologetic failure » Today 8:30 am

John West
Replies: 8

Go to post

RomanJoe wrote:

Or maybe classical theism is forever constrained to an academic niche.

Do you mean "forever hereafter"? Classical theism was the majority view of the West for almost two thousand years. So clearly it can exist outside of the academy.

Chit-Chat » Metaphysical arguments and the apologetic failure » Today 6:51 am

DanielCC
Replies: 8

Go to post

RomanJoe wrote:

I've been thinking lately that if the typical secular layperson were to ask me to prove the existence of God to him I don't think I would be able to do it. This doesn't emerge from any doubt in a classical metaphysical picture of reality, proportionate causality, PSR, etc. Rather, I think the typical layperson inhabits a metaphysics that is completely juxtaposed to the classical theist's. There would be too many modern presumptions about science, the utility of metaphysics, etc. for said layperson to even be receptive to metaphysical arguments for God's existence.

I disagree. This itself is a pop philosophy picture. In reality the typical layperson has little idea of what metaphysics actually is - if one has to explain it in relation to the natural sciences one introduces metaphysical claims as necessary to even begin formulating empirical scientific claims e.g. many sub-atomic particles we cannot observe directly but we postulate their existence through apparent effects on other particles. (If the layman accepts this common scientific realist understanding they can hardly quibble with the metaphysical nature of the cosmological argument).

RomanJoe wrote:

In short, in order for the classical theist to be apologetically successful he has to not just prove the existence of God but has to prove the metaphysical system which God is the natural consequence of. It would require a complete conversion of a layperson's worldview.

Again, I say this is wrong. Most laypeople, whether explicitly or implicitly, are committed to the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which is the basis of the most basic way of mounting an argument for theism.

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum