I've also struggled with how God knows contingent realities. Do you think God's knowledge is extrinsic to Him in the same way His action is extrinsic to Him? So, He knows the contingent reality He causes by knowing Himself as its cause. But the contingent knowledge itself is in the contingent thing known
Yes, Joe, I think an extrinsic model of divine knowledge follows from Scholastic philosophy of God. Like I said, I have a paper on this issue currently under peer review. We'll see if it gets anywhere. Either way, I'll share my extended thoughts in a future post.
I am also a Catholic. As for the death penalty issue, I agree with Feser that the death penalty is not in principle wrong. But it would seem that it couldn't be applied licitly in *any* circumstance. Like Jay walking or telling a bad joke. So there must have always been limiting factors. Given that fact, why couldn't it be the case that those limiting factors, which are contextual, find a universality in *this current* context?
As you know, those who have defended the permissibility of the death penalty have always recognized that it couldn’t just be applied for any offense! First and foremost, it was a matter of justice—not prevention, utility, or mere amusement. The death penalty had to be deserved. But once someone admits it could be deserved, then it is, in principle, permissible—even if no society decides to enact it.
The problem with your suggestion is that it doesn’t seem to address the actual issue. The tension I’m highlighting arises from statements that very plausibly could be interpreted as claiming the death penalty is intrinsically evil or impermissible, not that it’s currently constrained by the absence of factors that could legitimately justify its use.
Ok! I have been reading Fesers book on the subject to try and understand the issue people are having. I haven't gotten to far just yet. But If what you are saying is what is at issue, then I think we can resolve the tension with the hermeneutic of continuity. That we ought to read Church texts such a way. That if we could take the document to mean A OR B, and B lines up, and A doesn't, then we go with B.
I've also struggled with how God knows contingent realities. Do you think God's knowledge is extrinsic to Him in the same way His action is extrinsic to Him? So, He knows the contingent reality He causes by knowing Himself as its cause. But the contingent knowledge itself is in the contingent thing known
Yes, Joe, I think an extrinsic model of divine knowledge follows from Scholastic philosophy of God. Like I said, I have a paper on this issue currently under peer review. We'll see if it gets anywhere. Either way, I'll share my extended thoughts in a future post.
I am also a Catholic. As for the death penalty issue, I agree with Feser that the death penalty is not in principle wrong. But it would seem that it couldn't be applied licitly in *any* circumstance. Like Jay walking or telling a bad joke. So there must have always been limiting factors. Given that fact, why couldn't it be the case that those limiting factors, which are contextual, find a universality in *this current* context?
Good to hear from you, Brendan,
As you know, those who have defended the permissibility of the death penalty have always recognized that it couldn’t just be applied for any offense! First and foremost, it was a matter of justice—not prevention, utility, or mere amusement. The death penalty had to be deserved. But once someone admits it could be deserved, then it is, in principle, permissible—even if no society decides to enact it.
The problem with your suggestion is that it doesn’t seem to address the actual issue. The tension I’m highlighting arises from statements that very plausibly could be interpreted as claiming the death penalty is intrinsically evil or impermissible, not that it’s currently constrained by the absence of factors that could legitimately justify its use.
Hi Pat,
Ok! I have been reading Fesers book on the subject to try and understand the issue people are having. I haven't gotten to far just yet. But If what you are saying is what is at issue, then I think we can resolve the tension with the hermeneutic of continuity. That we ought to read Church texts such a way. That if we could take the document to mean A OR B, and B lines up, and A doesn't, then we go with B.
Great article, Mr. Flynn—excellent job writing it. :)