Great history lesson Dr. Alberino. You give me hope for the future. What our generation needs is more thinkers like you. I homeschooled my children and will homeschool my grandchildren, using sources such as yours to guide me. Thank you for your time and investment.
@gabrielrodriguezrey
11 ай бұрын
I think as a man that's doing his thesis on philosophy at Spain, that saying Kant is an skeptic from whome comes the problems of modern atheism is too much. Kant is not an skeptic, insted he tries to give a solid trascendental grounding of phenomena as they appear in the mind and tries to give a solid defence of morals in which he gounds the bilief in God. I understand how analytical philosophy hates the fact that from centuries metaphysics have evolved in continental philosophy and they have just joined the party from the point where they left it with empirisim: xvi-xvii century. I try to do here natural theology but can't be done as in the xiii century never more, at list until you have responded 7 centurys of developed metaphysics that have shown how the grounding philosophy can't be dependent on the disputatio of logical arguments. Wolff, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard (the first true existentialism is christian, not atheist, as you have put it), Unamuno, Freud, Husserl, Scheler, Heidegger, Ortega y Gasset, Merleau Ponty, Sartre, Zubiri, Levinas, Marcel, Maritain, Chretien, Julián Marías, etc. These are part of the authors that have made a contribution to metaphysics during the last 4 centuries, and most of them don't do the way in which analytical philosophy, in a disrespectful manner with History of Philosophy, is doing now. I am not saying that what you are doing hasn't got value, whoever watch's your content can see it actually has it, but I thing it should be better grounded, supported by a deep insight and response to the recent metaphysical History and the continental thought. I leave here some cuestions as philosophy must always do: How can finite intellect accses at lis a minimun understinding of divinity? (If nos we can't do any natural theology) Can I trust my intellect? Isn't all my understinding rooted on beliefs and ideas of the social and historical structure I am installed on? Even if God existed, should I live as if he actually exists? Why should I spend my time thinking philosophically? Isn't true that many others that think and are more intelligent than me believe different things than I? We both believe in our intellect to get the truth, but yours drives you to another place that is totaly different than mine?, etc. I am soryy for my english I might have a lot of errors. I hope this insight on Natural Theology from another very different perspective helps you to continue loving Truth and searching it and defending our faith even better. Your job is great.
@thinkforchrist
11 ай бұрын
Hi Gabriel. Yes, you are correct about the Kantian project. What I say about Kant is just a very quick gloss. It is true that Kant was not intending to be skeptical. In fact, he thought of his work as a response to the skepticism of Hume meant to rescue the rational enterprise generally (and Newtonian physics specifically). However, in his attempt to "give a solid transcendental grounding of phenomena" he set up an impenetrable epistemological veil between reality as we know it (the phenomenal realm) and reality as it is in itself (the noumenal realm). To say that we can never know reality as it is prior to the mind's imposition and structuring just is a radical form of skepticism about the nature of extra mental reality. That idealism followed in Kant's wake and in reaction to his work (even against his own protest) shows the skeptical fruits of his thinking, whether he intended them or not. To the extent that Kant's rejection of natural theology was also based on his project of a "transcendental grounding of phenomena," to that extent it is also manifestly skeptical in nature. Luckily for us, Kant's views are by no means the necessary deliverances of reason when properly worked out, but merely the unfortunate attempt to take seriously philosophical views that should have been refuted rather than accommodated (i.e. the rationalism vs empiricism paradigm, the epistemological turn, the Humean confusion of imagination for conception, and on and on.)
@gabrielrodriguezrey
11 ай бұрын
@@thinkforchrist That is an interesting take on Kantian thought. But I would say that Kant doesn´t deny natural theology, but the way of doing it before him. I knew that in the English context is common to consider just the first critique of the Kantian trilogy. In fact, the second one, dedicated to practical reason, is more important than the first. In this book, Kant gives a solid defense of theism by arguing the impossibility of a grounded practical reason without three beliefs that regulate this kind of reasoning, three "regulative" ideas: God, freedom, and immortality. I can´t agree with what you say about refuting empiricism or rationalism from a Thomist perspective (I know you are, that's why I suppose you refer to refuting from that perspective). I am not a Thomist but I know its philosophy and is impossible to do what you are just claiming, mainly because the doubt of the intellect is not done as deeply as in Descartes, or even Kant, so is something that Thomist philosophy is not even prepared for. Moreover, idealism is not skeptical as you put it. I was astonished when I first saw how Russell deliberately decided not to talk much about this philosophical movement in his History of Philosophy, which was probably due to his incapacity of understanding anything about it. In fact, the skepticism in continental philosophy at this time was a reaction to idealism and his proclamation of "truths", I am talking about Nietzsche mainly. I think you make a huge supposition in your critique of the Kantian view when you say he is skeptical of our access to the extramental realm: the meaning of "real" for you is already an idea, even "extramental", is already an idea of what appears as a phenomenon in consciousness. This that I have just said is not my critique of "naive realism", this is how Husserl puts it in the foundation of the phenomenological movement. But all of these considerations depend on a deep study of the metaphysics done at the "Continent" for 4 centuries. There is another supposition I can´t agree with and is that ontology is the same as metaphysics. I would agree that´s true for Greek thought and their followers, but just for theme. Finally, I don´t know how all of this sounds because I am not a native user of English but, my intentions are respectful and willing to share different perspectives and ways in which we do philosophy.
@thinkforchrist
11 ай бұрын
You and I, it seems, have differing ideas regarding the nature of philosophy. Against Descartes who thought that philosophy is to be defined by the struggle against skepticism and begins in doubt, I side with Aristotle, who thought that philosophy is to be defined as the pursuit of wisdom and begins in wonder.
@gabrielrodriguezrey
11 ай бұрын
@@thinkforchrist without doubt there is no philosophy, not even for Aristotle. You can't search for wisdom if you already have it, the way to search what you don't have is asking a question, doubting that what you pretend to know and believe is the actual truth. There is no way to wisdom to one that hasn't the humble knowledge that he can be wrong. That is Agustine of Hippo, not Descartes. Although I believe Descartes would be more responsible of what he thinks and believe than Aristotle if he thought philosophy shouldn't doubt of what could be wrong. I am not saying, as Descartes, you should just believe what you can't doubt. But without doubt ther cannot be actual love for wisdom. If you love truth you should be humble and doubt that what you believe is exactly the same as the truth in order to purify and continue the way to truth. My idea of God is not God, my idea of being is not being, etc. Humility is the only path to truth, not wonder, that is paganism.
@thinkforchrist
11 ай бұрын
It is neither humble, nor wise for a man to doubt what is evident to him.
@queenofthesouth8776
Жыл бұрын
I enjoyed the history lesson. I've learned so much from both you and your brother. I hope others appreciate how much work you put into this edifying process, I do.
@mikedaniels969
Жыл бұрын
I’m sorry but new atheism didn’t fade away because of the apologetic response. It faded away because those men are angry about a lot of the Christian lies they had to endure, but most of us atheists today aren’t angry and find it really off-putting. Simply put, it is no longer needed. Most of the people I know under 60 are atheists. For the most part, we simply ignore Christians insofar as is possible to do, but honestly the sheer arrogance of them makes it difficult, especially given the current situation with the US-based ones trying to turn their country into a Christian version of Afghanistan or Iran, which to be clear would be equally terrible to live in. Religion is dying, and those who cling to it are becoming more and more hostile to the rest of us because they know it’s dying. Frankly I find Christian morality to be repugnant and your god is a schizophrenic monster, but that makes sense given what I know of the people who came up with him - the Canaanites.
@thinkforchrist
Жыл бұрын
I’m new to KZitem so I don’t know how to deal with unsubstantiated rants like this. Do I respond or ignore? Anyway, the idea that religion is dying and that the world is becoming more atheistic is a myth. The world is no less religious today than it was 100 years ago, and the advance of science over the last several hundred years has done nothing to undercut belief in God and has in many ways uncovered incredible facts about the universe that point to a creator (I. e., Big Bang Cosmology, cosmic fine-tuning).
@mikedaniels969
Жыл бұрын
@@thinkforchrist Only people who do not understand what the big bang is make that claim. Fine tuning is not a thing, it is made up by religious people who do not understand physics. Even if those things did somehow prove a god exists, you still have to prove that said god is Yahweh, not Zeus or Apollo or Shiva or Ahura Mazda or any other god (most of which would be preferable to Yahweh). God of the gaps arguments do not work on most people these days because a lot of people have at least basic scientific literacy. Apologists are particularly skilled nowadays at using scientific illiteracy as a weapon. For example, claiming that some concepts are simply theoretical because they are scientific theories rather than laws. The moment anyone says something like that, I know they have no idea what they are talking about and stop listening to them. You have clearly not been paying attention to global surveys of religiosity if you believe that there has been no change in the past 100 years. Even census data shows this trend very clearly, even in the united states.
@thinkforchrist
Жыл бұрын
It seems like you’ve been exposed to some bad apologetics. None of the best arguments for God appeal to god-of-the-gaps reasoning. The best arguments also conclude to a fully actual, first cause and creator of all that is rather than merely to some divine being like Zeus or Odin. Moreover, although belief in God may be on the decline in certain places around the world, it is increasing in others. Again, the global picture of religious belief has not changed much. Philosophically speaking, there has been a considerable revival of theism in the West going on ever since the 1960s. There are more university philosophers professing belief in God today than there was 100 years ago.
@mikedaniels969
Жыл бұрын
@@thinkforchrist so no rebuttal to the idea that in fact it was Ahura Mazdā who created the universe and the cosmic order that he maintains then. Got it. Additionally, in 1972 when the GSS first began asking Americans, “What is your religious preference?” 90% identified as Christian and 5% were religiously unaffiliated. In the next two decades, the share of “nones” crept up slowly, reaching 9% in 1993. But then disaffiliation started speeding up - in 1996, the share of unaffiliated Americans jumped to 12%, and two years later it was 14%. This growth has continued, and 29% of Americans now tell the GSS they have “no religion.” And what exactly would you consider good apologetics? Other than appeals to emotion and incredulity of course. I’d be curious to know what you consider the best arguments for the existence of a god. And how are you to demonstrate that it was Yahweh rather than Ahura Mazdā who created all? If it is because your holy book tells you so, please note that most holy books claim they are the truth so I don’t care that yours does too.
Пікірлер: 14