tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post153593973164136395..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Simeon Howard Got Jonathan Mayhew's Church...And His WifeBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-85527011751861001762011-06-12T20:13:40.161-06:002011-06-12T20:13:40.161-06:00Cheers, Jon. I'll just pop this in, from Dr. ...Cheers, Jon. I'll just pop this in, from Dr. Edward Feser, my favorite on these things, as it's semi-germane:<br /><br /><i>One must also be very careful when asserting that religion provides the only complete basis for morality. This does not mean – or should not mean – grounding morality in arbitrary divine commands or threats of eternal damnation. To be sure, in my view there certainly are such things as divine commands and eternal damnation. But (again, at least from an Aristotelian-Thomistic natural law perspective), the content of the moral law is not determined by some arbitrary decree (it is determined by human nature, which even God cannot change), and the rational motive for acting morally is not fear of punishment (it is rather the motive of fulfilling our nature and thus attaining happiness, toward which end practical reason itself is directed by nature). Conceiving of God as a kind of cosmic Saddam Hussein and of the universe as a Baathist police state is no way to ground morality, and it is not how a writer like Aquinas does ground morality. That is the vulgar atheist’s caricature of theological ethics, not the real McCoy.</i><br /><br />I would add, it also appears to be the view of some fundies. ;-)<br /><br />The full essay is about the radical ethicist Peter Singer "is also now open to the idea that moral value must be grounded in something objective; and though he is still not inclined to believe in God, he acknowledges that a theologically-oriented ethics has the advantage that it provides the only complete answer to the question why we should act morally."<br /><br />http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/06/singer-in-state-of-flux.html#more<br /><br />In other words, the possible necessity of grounding in "religion and morality," per Washington's Farewell Address, etc., because no other system, including Singer's own "preference utilitarianism," quite packs the wallop and coherence, and comprehensiveness.<br /><br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/may/25/peter-singer-utilitarianism-climate-changeTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-68048935158449350602011-06-12T06:43:07.814-06:002011-06-12T06:43:07.814-06:00My pleasure.My pleasure.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-30276164484924816532011-06-11T21:56:06.987-06:002011-06-11T21:56:06.987-06:00Jon, The Farmer Refuted is a case for "natura...Jon, The Farmer Refuted is a case for "natural law." Although unlike the Jesuit Francisco Suarez and the Protestant Hugo Grotius, Hamilton, like Locke, inserts God. Suarez and Grotius, arguably following Paul and Aquinas, arguing that "natural law" exists regardless of God in the Christian sense. <br /><br />Hamilton actually attempts to negotiate this razor---<br /><br /><i>"...that he disbelieved the existence of an intelligent superintending principle, who is the governor, and will be the final judge of the universe."</i><br /><br />The "intelligent superintending principle" made synonymous with "God," the governor and final judge of the universe.<br /><br />The Straussian careful and "close reading" would find a bit of fudging and conflation here; this Straussian close reader does. WTF is Hamilton saying---or trying hard not to say?<br /><br />But what's clear is that Hamilton ain't down with Hobbes noway nohow. I would reckon a unitarian Christian of the Founding era wasn't either.<br /><br />I find our discussions consistently revelatory, JR. Thx for being you. <br /><br /><br /><br /> I know religions assume arguendo that various sacred texts ARE Truth authorities and the Roman Catholics do the same with the Magesterium.<br /><br />But...otherwise cult ism and cult leader-ism, as I understand it is just one big logical fallacy of appeal to authority. I like Strauss, Rand, Rothbard, among others. But I don't accept any of them as "authorities." All human beings are full of shit at times.<br /><br />June 11, 2011 7:13 PMTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-90435763932348395132011-06-11T19:20:31.703-06:002011-06-11T19:20:31.703-06:00Something I'm a little hung up with re The Far...Something I'm a little hung up with re The Farmer Refuted. He's claiming "The Farmer" argues like Hobbes; maybe Hamilton is trying to use a poisoning the well or reductio ad absurdum against "the Farmer." But from what I remember "The Farmer" Bishop Samuel Seabury actually made a very orthodox-biblical case against the doctrine of rebellion. I'll have to re-look it up. To which Hamilton responds, not with verse and chapter bible or even an exclusively "Christian" argument. But rather a universalistic naturalistic argument with a theistic deity attached to it at top.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-25092259686941674592011-06-11T19:13:19.402-06:002011-06-11T19:13:19.402-06:00"'The essence of philosophy is the abando..."'The essence of philosophy is the abandonment of all authority in favor of individual human reason.'<br /><br />'Being acquainted with them both, I'd say Bloom is simply echoing Strauss' thought here,...'<br /><br />I'm a little more straightforward in my reading I guess. When I read this I saw Bloom observing Aristotle's appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.<br /><br />But Bloom most certainly did appeal to Strauss' authority. I know religions assume arguendo that various sacred texts ARE Truth authorities and the Roman Catholics do the same with the Magesterium.<br /><br />But...otherwise cult ism and cult leader-ism, as I understand it is just one big logical fallacy of appeal to authority. I like Strauss, Rand, Rothbard, among others. But I don't accept any of them as "authorities." All human beings are full of shit at times.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-78279912966815324972011-06-11T14:49:15.419-06:002011-06-11T14:49:15.419-06:00Bloom is quite unsolid; no Leo Strauss. I can app...Bloom is quite unsolid; no Leo Strauss. I can appreciate and defend Strauss' thinking even when I don't agree with it; Bloom, I want no part of.<br /><br /><i>"The essence of philosophy is the abandonment of all authority in favor of individual human reason.”</i><br /><br />Being acquainted with them both, I'd say Bloom is simply echoing Strauss' thought here, and this refers to philosophy not as a cistern of truth, but as a way of life ["zetetic," as a process and as an end in itself]. <br /><br />Now, Christianity---or Thomistic Aristotelianism---does assert certain foundational truths that philosophy does not. [Cannot, for it's not "revelation" from God.] <br /><br />Still, even if faith alone saves, we still are to question everything. Paul betrays his Greek philosophy roots in 1 Thessolonians 5:21:<br /><br /><i>Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.</i> [KJV]<br /><br />"Prove" also translated as "test."<br /><br />From the first, the Christian proposition offered itself to the test of reason. And yes, if an interpretation of the scriptures contravenes the natural law, there is something wrong with the interpretation. And this is my "rut" with Gregg, or in my view, his rut, not mine.<br /><br /><i>"In a state of nature, or where men are under no civil government, God has given to every one liberty to pursue his own happiness in whatever way,..."</i><br /><br />You have a point here, although I think this is more Hobbes. As you know, Alexander Hamilton directly attacks this position, that man prior to government [state of nature] is not completely "free," but is still subject to natural law.<br /><br /><i>There is so strong a similitude between your political principles and those maintained by Mr. Hobb[e]s, that, in judging from them, a person might very easily mistake you for a disciple of his. His opinion was, exactly, coincident with yours, relative to man in a state of nature. He held, as you do, that he was, then, perfectly free from all restraint of law and government. Moral obligation, according to him, is derived from the introduction of civil society; and there is no virtue, but what is purely artificial, the mere contrivance of politicians, for the maintenance of social intercourse. But the reason he run into this absurd and impious doctrine, was, that he disbelieved the existence of an intelligent superintending principle, who is the governor, and will be the final judge of the universe.</i><br /><br />I would think Rev. Howard would be in agreement with Hamilton vs. Hobbes here, with James Wilson, Aquinas, etc.<br /><br />As a private note, we should also question philosophy, esp as countenanced by Bloom: Does a universe---this reality---without God make any sense? This is the "zetetic" argument of classical theism. It seems to me Bloom is guilty of closing the door on questions that need to be asked, hence he's unphilosophical on this point...<br /><br />;-)Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-61511135857011262142011-06-11T12:51:08.471-06:002011-06-11T12:51:08.471-06:00I know you like that James Wilson quote on reason ...I know you like that James Wilson quote on reason & revelation tracing upwards to the same source. There are a bunch of very similar choice like quotes I came across studying these unitarians. You may want to look further if I don't feature them on the front page.<br /><br />I think the rut you are hitting with Gregg is that he agrees with Allan Bloom on the following and you don't:<br /><br />“Aristotle…was used as an authority almost on a level with the Church Fathers and was assimilated to them. This was, of course, an abuse of Aristotle, who thought that authority is the contrary of philosophy….The essence of philosophy is the abandonment of all authority in favor of individual human reason.” pp. 252-3.<br /><br />His thesis claims while Thomas in principle resolved any apparent contradiction between reason & revelation in favor of orthodox Christianity, when you put the formula of putting reason/natural law on the same level as revelation because they derive from the same source in the hands of Protestants -- especially non-Anglican and non-Calvinist Protestants -- who are far less respectful of authority than Rome you get Enlightenment.<br /><br />It could be that it was Rome's uber-strict top down authoritative method that kept Aristotelian rationalism in its place.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-11438895125428629342011-06-11T12:18:20.087-06:002011-06-11T12:18:20.087-06:00For a more comprehensive argument, we are going to...For a more comprehensive argument, we are going to have to wait for Gregg's book. But...<br /><br />"GALATIANS V. I.<br /><br />"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free.<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />"This observation I shall endeavour, by the help of God, to illustrate and improve: In order to which, I shall shew;<br /><br />"I. What I intend by that liberty in which men ought to stand fast.<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />"In a state of nature, or where men are under no civil government, God has given to every one liberty to pursue his own happiness in whatever way,..."<br /><br />He's slipping in Lockean liberalism while purporting to explicate what "liberty" means in GALATIANS, which is arguably spiritual liberty, not political liberty -- of the Lockean sense or any political sense -- at all.<br /><br />That's the gist of it.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-68465780012176851632011-06-11T11:46:20.272-06:002011-06-11T11:46:20.272-06:00arguably inserts non-biblical rationalist principl...<i>arguably inserts non-biblical rationalist principles that supersede the Bible's text into the pulpit.</i><br /><br />Pls do argue this, Jon. Nothing jumps out at me. Defending one's liberty can fall under "self-defense," which goes back to at least Aquinas as a self-evident natural good.<br /><br />BTW, I see that Howard fled Boston for Nova Scotia and lost that church. When he returned, it sounds like he never got it going again and sort of bummed around as a free-lance parasite. ;-)Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com