Round Up - 12/8/2024
Some Interesting Things to Read and Watch (Mostly Philosophy)
Eleonore Stump has a wonderful new article titled The Good of Aquinas.
David Oderberg has an excellent new article as well—Action, Passion, Power— offering an impressive defense of Aristotelian action theory.
Perry Hendricks has a provocative new response to the problem of divine hiddenness. (I offer a few reflections here).
Fr. James Dominick Rooney also has a provocative new (well, sort of) response to the problem of divine hiddenness. (You’ll see a podcast on this soon).
I really like Inman’s new book What Is Reality. (Perfect to read alongside Gorman’s Intro to Thomism).
So, there are some things to read. As for things to watch…
Edward Feser talks many different things—atheism, Catholicism and falsification, philosophy of mind—with Matt Fradd. (If interested: I was on Matt’s program several years back).
Speaking of Matt’s program, my friend Erick Ybarra recently debated Orthodox apologist Ubi Petrus.
I have a new video out on Brute Facts (oddly enough, this was the most requested topic when I surveyed my YouTube audience—not what I would have guessed, but—as the kids say—I’m here for it).
Joshua Sijuwade presents a philosophical case for the Papacy.
That’s probably enough for this week. Well—maybe just one last thing: if you’re enjoying what I’m doing here, consider becoming a paid subscriber (it really helps!). And/or grab one of my books—The Best Argument for God, Strong ON!, or, if you’re in the mood for a very Pat Flynn Christmas, both. : )
Something I just wrote on evil at another site. I have written over the years on this topic and the following is a quick summary.
-----------
I personally argue that the concept of evil may not be as significant as it is often portrayed.
This article focuses specifically on moral evil, not natural evil. The question arises: what exactly is evil? Despite its frequent use, I have yet to come across a definition that withstands scrutiny. Many people deem something evil if it is deemed unwanted. In instances of natural evil, they often blame God when no human action is involved.
Consider a finger bruise. It is certainly unwanted, but should it be labeled as evil? It results from my finger being in a wrong position, not from anyone’s intention. Should I then attribute this to God, who could have intervened?
While a finger bruise seems trivial, a life-ending tumor in a four-year-old is a completely different matter. If we reject labeling the bruise as evil, how do we delineate the point on the spectrum between minor injuries and catastrophic illnesses where evil begins?
Moreover, could it be that some unwanted things serve a greater purpose, allowing for the existence of something desirable? Perhaps removing these unwanted elements could create a more profound issue.
In the new film “Red One,” there’s an ambitious attempt to eradicate every unwanted act. Wouldn’t such an objective itself be classified as unwanted?
If we believe in God, we must accept that this world aligns with His greater objectives. Shouldn’t we strive to understand those purposes instead of simply labeling experiences as evil?
Take Hitler, for instance; he is often mentioned as the epitome of evil. But why is that? He is responsible for countless deaths, yet would the German people’s perspective change if they had emerged victorious in World War II? It’s noteworthy that a statue of Tamerlane—history’s greatest mass murderer—still stands in Tashkent. Is this a matter of irony or a testament to human nature?
Ultimately, the Christian God guarantees something far greater that diminishes our concerns over what we call “evil.”
I would look for a simple explanation for so called "divine hiddenness" and evil.
For the first, I would ask whether there could be a meaningful life with QED knowledge of God? I doubt it because our existence would be meaningless if there were. I do not believe having a meaningless life is an objective of God. I offer this cartoon as obvious proof of this.
https://condenaststore.com/featured/new-yorker-april-11th-1977-george-booth.html
Second, the word "evil" is probably the most misused word in the English language. (I would offer "love" as the second most misused word) I suggest that all who use evil, define it first before they use it. The most common use is unwanted circumstances and as such anything in this world of imperfect circumstances would then be evil. For example, a paper cut would be evil no matter how slight it is. Certainly not a life threatening cancer but both are unwanted.
So anything less than a perfect world would be evil. That eliminates everything in our existence.
The other concept explored in connection with these two concepts is something called "non resistant atheism" which implies that those who don't believe would willingly believe if only they were presented with the logic and evidence. This is an absurdity as my contact with atheists is that they are strident in their beliefs even if they cannot support them. But this concept mainly indicts believers who are apparently so stupid that they cannot explain why they believe. It actually makes believers the ignorant ones, not the so called non-resistant atheist.
So this is another concept that is a non-starter.