Monday, April 28, 2014

Doubting Thomist


I'm going to discuss growing pains in Reformed philosophy, using Ed Feser to segue into that larger issue. I'll admit at the outset that commenting on Feser poses something of a dilemma for me. As a rule, I read enough of a writer to make a preliminary judgment on whether or not I think it's worth my time to read more by him. For that reason, I'm not a regular reader of Feser's blog. He's a doctrinaire Thomist who seems to recast every issue in terms of Thomism. I quickly lose interest. I don't share his enthusiasm for Thomist epistemology or metaphysics. I guess that makes me a Doubting Thomist. 
But I admit this may mean I'm not qualified to offer an informed opinion of Feser. With that disclaimer in mind:
i) Feser seems to have a following among some young, philosophically-minded Calvinists. I think one reason is that Feser goes after "New Atheists" and philosophically-clueless secular scientists whom highbrow Christian philosophers don't generally deign to comment on. He's more of a cage-fighter than, say, Alexander Pruss or Peter van Inwagen. And that's useful. 
That said, from what I can tell (based on my admittedly cursory sampling), I have considerable reservations about Feser overall. For instance:
ii) He's a vociferous critic of intelligent-design theory. Now, ID-theory is fair game. However, it's philosophically unenlightening when philosophers like Feser (and Francis Beckwith) criticize ID-theory because it isn't Thomism. Unless you grant that Thomist epistemology and metaphysics should be the standard of comparison, that objection is uninteresting. 
There are intelligent criticisms of ID-theory. Del Ratzsch is a sympathetic critic. Darwinian Elliott Sober is a thoughtful critic. Bayesians like the McGrews are critical of ID-theory because they disagree with Dembski's filter for detecting design, which is a negative criterion (ruling out chance) rather than positive evidence for design. 
One may or may not agree with this criticisms. But at least they are interesting criticisms. 
iii) Apropos (ii), the problem is compounded by the fact that Feser's understanding of Paley and ID-theory have both been challenged. Consider the running debates between his blog and Uncommon Descent. 
iv) To be fair, one of the main attractions of Thomism is that it's a pretty complete philosophical system. Thomistic ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics. It's almost unrivaled among theological traditions for its philosophical breadth and depth. 
Let's take some statements by Feser:
The modern approach is represented by Leibniz-Clarke style cosmological arguments, Paley-style design arguments and “Intelligent Design” theory, Plantinga-style ontological arguments, “Reformed epistemology,” Swinburne-style inductive arguments, etc.  Contemporary philosophy of religion is dominated by these modern sorts of arguments, though there are some thinkers (John Haldane, Brian Davies, Eleonore Stump, et al.) whose sympathies are classical.  These modern arguments typically operate with very different conceptions of causation, modality, substance, essence, and other key metaphysical notions than the ones classical thinkers would accept. 
Now, my approach, being Aristotelian-Thomistic, is decidedly classical.  Like many other Thomists, I not only do not defend the sorts of arguments most other contemporary philosophers of religion do, but I am critical both of the metaphysical/epistemological assumptions underlying the arguments and of the conception of God the arguments arrive at.  For instance, I reject the possible worlds theories in terms of which modality is typically understood in the contemporary arguments; I think the “argument to the best explanation” approach gets reasoning from the world to God just fundamentally wrong 
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/02/an-exchange-with-prof-keith-parsons.html
Elizabeth Anscombe (1919-2001) and her husband Peter Geach are sometimes considered the first “analytical Thomists,” though (like most writers to whom this label has been applied) they did not describe themselves in these terms, and as Haldane’s somewhat vague expression “mutual relationship” indicates, there does not seem to be any set of doctrines held in common by all so-called analytical Thomists. What they do have in common seems to be that they are philosophers trained in the analytic tradition who happen to be interested in Aquinas in some way; and the character of their “analytical Thomism” is determined by whether it tends to stress the “analytical” side of analytical Thomism, or the “Thomism” side, or, alternatively, attempts to emphasize both sides equally. 
We might tentatively distinguish, then, between three subcategories within the group of contemporary analytic philosophers who have been described as “analytical Thomists.” The first category comprises analytic philosophers who are interested in Aquinas and would defend some of his ideas, but who would also reject certain other key Thomistic claims (perhaps precisely because of their perceived conflict with assumptions prevalent among analytic philosophers) and thus fail to count (or even to count themselves) as “Thomists” in any strict sense. This sort of “analytical Thomism” might be said to emphasize the “analytical” element at the expense of the “Thomism.” Anthony Kenny (who rejects Aquinas’s doctrine of being) and Robert Pasnau (who rejects certain aspects of his account of human nature) would seem to exemplify this first tendency. A second category within analytical Thomism would comprise thinkers who do see themselves as Thomists in some sense, and who would argue that those aspects of Aquinas’s thought which seem to conflict with assumptions common among analytical philosophers can be interpreted or reinterpreted so that there is no conflict. This approach might be said to give both the “analytical” and the “Thomistic” elements of analytical Thomism equal emphasis, and is represented by thinkers like Geach, Brian Davies, and C. F. J. Martin (all of whom would attempt to harmonize Aquinas’s doctrine of being with Frege’s understanding of existence) and Germain Grisez and John Finnis (who would reinterpret Aquinas’s ethics so as to avoid what Moore called the “naturalistic fallacy”). The work of Norman Kretzmann and Eleonore Stump also possibly falls into this second category, though since it is often interpretative and scholarly rather than programmatic, it is harder to say. 
Thomists of other schools have been very critical of both of these strains within analytical Thomism, sometimes to the extent of dismissing the very idea of analytical Thomism as being no more coherent than (in their view) “transcendental Thomism” is. But there is a third possible category of “analytical Thomists,” namely those whose training was in the analytic tradition and whose modes of argument and choice of topics reflects this background, but whose philosophical views are in substance basically just traditional Thomistic ones, without qualification or reinterpretation. Here the “Thomism” would be in the driver’s seat and the “analytical” modifier would reflect not so much the content of the views defended but rather the style in which they are defended. 
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/10/thomistic-tradition-part-ii.html
Several issues:
i) Feser seems to be a purist about Thomism, unlike modern revisionists. I find that ironic considering the fact that Aquinas was far from being a philosophical purist. He's quite eclectic. 
ii) Apropos (i), Feser seems to be very concerned with recovering the authentic interpretation of Aquinas. Who's the true Thomist?
Over the centuries, Thomism has acquired many interpretive layers. Is Cajetan's theory of analogy a legitimate or illegitimate development of Thomism? 
I think this whole approach is misguided. Ultimately, philosophy is about ideas. It doesn't matter where you get your ideas. The important distinction is between true and false ideas. Thin ideas and powerful ideas. 
From an intellectual standpoint, a misinterpretation can be more useful than a correct interpretation. Suppose you improve on Aquinas by unintentionally imputing to him a better theory than he held. That's bad exegesis, but good philosophy. 
iii) It isn't clear to me if Feser is saying philosophers like Anscombe, Geach, and Kenny misunderstand Thomism, or if they adulterate it with foreign influences. If the former, then I'd simply point out that, in my estimation, they are Feser's superiors when it comes to original research. Isn't Feser basically a popularizer? By contrast, Geach, for one, did groundbreaking work on Frege. 
If the latter, then I'd say that misses the point. The reason Geach or Anscombe feel free to modify Thomism is because they are real thinkers. They combine complementary ideas from different sources to improve on the status quo ante. They aren't concerned with simply expounding or repristinating Aquinas, but in advancing the argument. There is progress in the history of ideas.  
By the same token, both Feser and Pruss are Catholic philosophers, but Pruss doesn't hesitate to synthesize Aristotelian and Leibnizian insights. He helps himself to whatever he finds useful. And he's clearly Feser's intellectual superior.
Feser is someone who's mastered a system, then applies it to contemporary issues. Paint-by-numbers. Their Catholicism notwithstanding, Anscombe and Geach are fairly independent thinkers who–unlike Feser–both made significant, original contributions to philosophy. 
Kenny is somewhat anomalous. A priest who lost his faith. Very erudite and intellectually gifted, but agnostic. 
I don't see that Feser is a very promising role model for aspiring Reformed philosophers. Let's turn to Scripturalism. 
Gordon Clark was a bright guy, and a well-trained philosopher by the standards of the time. However, even if you're sympathetic to his approach, he can only take you so far. He's mainly a popularizer. He has a conversational style, like some other philosophers of his generation, viz. Brand Blanshard. That makes him readable. He's a way some Christians get hooked on philosophy. That's their introduction. 
But because he usually writes at a popular level, there's not a lot of depth or detail. And it lacks technical rigor. Plantinga raised the bar for how to do Christian philosopher. The same holds true, in a different way, for Swinburne. 
I expect many young Calvinists of a philosophical bent may still get their theology from Warfield and Turretin, or Schreiner and Beale, or Frame, but their philosophical role models are more in the vein of Pruss, Plantinga, the McGrews, van Inwagen, &c. 
Paul Helm has been a mediating figure. A Calvinist who defends classical Christian theism.
You also have bloggers and other Internet resources like William Vallicella, the Prosblogian crew, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which supply both substance and inspiration. The list goes on and on. 
Compared with that, the "intellectual ammunition" supplied by The Trinity Foundation or Vincent Cheung is pretty low caliber. 
Scripturalism suffers from brain drain. In the past, Michael Sudduth was the most intellectually promising Scripturalist of his generation, but he not only turned his back on Scripturalism, he turned his back on Christianity.
Among the up and coming generation, it's my impression that Ryan Hedrich and Bnonn Dominic Tennant were the most intellectually promising Christians who've been mentored by Scripturalism. However, Bnonn seems to have outgrown Cheung while Ryan appears to be means-testing Scripturalism. That doesn't mean they will make a complete break with Scripturalism. To some extent this can be a case of going behind Clark to the realist/rationalist tradition which inspired him. Going straight to the source. 
Both Ryan and Bnonn read a fair amount of contemporary philosophy and philosophical theology. As a result, their own positions become increasingly refined, with the corresponding result that the stock formulations and supporting arguments of Sean Gerety, Gary Crampton, and John Robbins look increasingly simplistic and amateurish. 
Vincent Cheung is another popularizer. Like a bartender who serves bum wine to the regulars while assuring us that he keeps the good stuff in the back room, Cheung reputedly has superior arguments at the ready. I keep waiting. 
I don't say that to wax triumphalistic about the fortunes of Van Tilian apologetics. Our own talent pool is pretty shallow at the moment. At least at the academic level. Frame is semi-retired. There's Poythress. There's James Anderson, who sometimes teams up with Greg Welty. Among academics, that's the cream of the crop. Now, there may be a lot of younger talent in the pipeline.
At one time, David Byron seemed to be the natural successor to Bahnsen, but it looks like that stalled. 
Likewise, if Gerety and Crampton are drag factors on Scripturalism, Nate Shannon is a drag on Van Tilianism. Both ships have barnacles on the hull.   
Van Tilian apologetics benefits from institutional patronage. Scripturalism has to live off the land. I think the main thing that keeps Scripturalism going is freebie material from Cheung and the Trinity Foundation. Anyone with Internet access can download lots of the material.
Mind you, institutional patronage is a mixed blessing. Seminaries, Christian colleges, and denominations keep some traditions on life support which couldn't survive on the merits. Likewise, some professors coast on ascribed status rather than achieved status.  
One issue is whether Van Tilian apologetics is an apologetic method or a Christian philosophy. Take Bahnsen's debate with Gordon Stein, where he stumped Stein's physicalism by invoking the laws of logic, as a paradigm case of abstract objects.  
That counterexample worked for a live debate with an unprepared opponent. However, the theistic foundations of logic go well beyond apologetic method. Rather, that requires a detailed metaphysical model. 
I actually think the future is promising for Reformed philosophy. As long as it remains rooted in Reformed theology, and uses Reformed theology as the benchmark, it can afford to be pretty eclectic about its philosophical influences.  

28 comments:

  1. what do you think about Dooyeweerd and his followers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To my knowledge, that went off the rails.

      Delete
  2. Great post. I'm adding it to my collection of links:

    Critiques of Clarkianism and Scripturalism
    http://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/10/critiques-of-clarkianism-and.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steve,
    Are you familiar with the thought of Surrendra Gangadean and Owen Anderson? I've been looking for good critical interaction with their work. Anderson's work has been highlighted at the EPS blog. They seem to garner a certain kind of Reformed follower but I've seen little critique.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm aware of the connection, but I haven't studied it.

      I have it on good authority that Owen Anderson is a waste of time.

      Delete
    2. I have had considerable interaction with Anderson, and to a lesser extent, Gangadean (I was a member of their congregation for a number of years before being asked to leave). I have also recently started a blog about some of our philosophical differences.

      http://reasontodoubt.blogspot.com/

      Delete
  4. Maybe you should read Feser's criticism f your "criticism":

    http://edwardfeser.blogspot.it/2014/04/corrupting-calvinist-youth.html#more

    Next time you might want to read what actually Feser writes and what Thomism actually says, by the way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where did Steve misrepresent Feser and Thomism? That would be more helpful than a dismissive, sarcastic one-liner.

      Delete
    2. For what it's worth, I've written a few comments over on Feser's post which I'll post here as well:

      As a side note, I don't read that Steve is "awfully perturbed" in his post. Rather, it seems like a matter of fact post to me. So I think you're imputing a state of mind or the like to his post which simply isn't there. If this is the case, then perhaps it tells us more about how you were affected by his post than his own state of mind? Just a thought.

      -

      Hm, why isn't a fair chunk of your academic work reasonably categorized as popularization? For example, your book Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction is an introduction to the topic without breaking significant new ground, no? Likewise, you've contributed two papers to your book Aristotle on Method and Metaphysics. The first is an introductory article which offers a lay of the land, whereas the second is on "Motion in Aristotle, Newton, and Einstein," but, for starters, it seems there's more historical survey and overview and less critical analysis. In addition, hasn't similar stuff already been said and done by other scholars?

      That said, popularization needn't have a negative connotation in case that's what you might think. It's a necessary good in society.

      And not sure what's up with the scare quotes around "Steve"?

      -

      As I read his post, I don't think Steve is suggesting you're "corrupting the Calvinist youth." I think his post is saying it's better to go to other philosophers rather than yourself for the reasons stated in his post. Saying there are better role models besides yourself for young Reformed philosophers isn't tantamount to saying you're "corrupting the Calivinist youth."

      Plus, Steve does state your work is quite useful for young, philosophically-minded Calvinists. That's a good thing.

      As such, your spin on his post isn't a fair characterization. And if the anonymous commenter who states "Using profanity is far less serious than intellectual dishonesty (e.g., willful misrepresentation of someone's philosophical outlook)" is correct, then that's something to keep in mind as well.

      -

      "Hmm, I'm betting rockingwithhawking = Steve."

      Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not Steve. Although if I were it'd certainly be an improvement over who I am!

      Delete
    3. @Matthew Schultz: "That would be more helpful than a dismissive, sarcastic one-liner."

      No, when someone starts out admitting they've barely read the thinker they are "critiquing," a sarcastic one-liner is the appropriate response.

      Delete
    4. @rockingwithhawking:

      "Hm, why isn't a fair chunk of your academic work reasonably categorized as popularization?"

      Feser did not claim he has NEVER done any popularization! But "Steve" says he is "basically a popularizer."

      Um, no:

      http://www.edwardfeser.com/articles.html

      And as for the quotes around "Steve," well, serious writers generally use their entire name, don't they?

      Delete
    5. No, when someone starts out admitting they've barely read the thinker they are "critiquing," a sarcastic one-liner is the appropriate response.

      One does not need to read everything or even most of what a thinker believes if the subject of critique is narrow and so only requires a small sampling. That is why my question was what, exactly, Steve misrepresented in Feser and Thomism. If neither you nor Ismael wish to answer that (because, perhaps you are already dismissive and suspicious of Steve and think he deserves only to be marginalized), fine, but that is hardly helpful to people (like me) who are interested in trying to evaluate the discussion on its merits, rather than view it as an opportunity for partisans to score zingers to defend their preferred author/writer/rockstar/hero.

      But "Steve" says he is "basically a popularizer."

      Um, no:


      You can be published in many serious journals and still be something of a popularizer. My grandfather was that sort of scholar.

      And as for the quotes around "Steve," well, serious writers generally use their entire name, don't they?

      Steve's full name appears on most (all?) of his more formal publications. I'm not really aware how someone's blogger ID is representative of the quality of their work; that is the intellectual equivalent of mocking a philosopher for the size of his nose. It strikes me as partisan rather than principled or "serious." Fesser, and you, distract from serious charges (misrepresentation) by putting Steve's name in quotes. Perhaps now we can get to substantive issues rather than superficial ones?

      Delete
    6. @Gene Callahan

      "No, when someone starts out admitting they've barely read the thinker they are 'critiquing,' a sarcastic one-liner is the appropriate response."

      By your logic, it was overkill for Feser to devote an entire post on the topic.

      Also, you're ignoring the context in which Steve made the remark. In a sense this means you've barely read what Steve wrote, yet you're "critiquing" him. Ironic.

      "Feser did not claim he has NEVER done any popularization! But 'Steve' says he is 'basically a popularizer.'"

      That's likewise not what Steve (or I) claimed. So how's your point releveant?

      "http://www.edwardfeser.com/articles.html"

      I mentioned Feser's two books because Feser himself provided the very link to his own two books in his post ostensibly so others could evaluate his scholarship.

      "And as for the quotes around 'Steve,' well, serious writers generally use their entire name, don't they?"

      No, not always. There are plenty of "serious writers" who don't "generally use their entire name." For example, many "serious writers" use pseudonyms or pen names. Take C.S. Lewis when he first published his book A Grief Observed. The original publication said it was authored by N.W. Clerk. Anyway, you're entirely wrong here.

      Besides, why should they?

      For the record, Steve has stated his "entire name" on this weblog. Regular readers of Triablogue know this quite well. But I guess you've only "barely read" Steve and his work on Triablogue but decided to comment. Maybe "a sarcastic one-liner is the appropriate response"?

      Delete
    7. @rockingwithhawking:

      "By your logic, it was overkill for Feser to devote an entire post on the topic."

      Why? Steve devoted a post to a criticism of Feser based on what Steve himself admitted was only a cursory reading of a couple of bits; why would Feser need to be familiar with Steve's entire oeuvre in order to respond?

      Delete
    8. @Scott

      "Why? Steve devoted a post to a criticism of Feser based on what Steve himself admitted was only a cursory reading of a couple of bits; why would Feser need to be familiar with Steve's entire oeuvre in order to respond?"

      1. The comment you quote from me never so much as suggests what I personally happen to think Feser should do or shouldn't do.

      Rather, I'm responding to "Gene" on his own grounds. If it's true "a sarcastic one-liner is the appropriate response" (not, say, an appropriate response) to someone who "starts out admitting they've barely read the thinker," then Feser's fairly lengthly and detailed (and frankly overly defensive) response went above and beyond "Gene's" criterion, given Feser writes as if Steve only recently came on his radar and so presumably hasn't read much of what Steve has written. So would "Gene" be happy to also say Feser's response is something other than "the appropriate response"?

      2. No, Steve didn't admit it was "only a cursory reading of a couple of bits."

      Here's what Steve said: "As a rule, I read enough of a writer to make a preliminary judgment on whether or not I think it's worth my time to read more by him." Also: "But I admit this may mean I'm not qualified to offer an informed opinion of Feser."

      This is hardly equivalent to "Steve himself admitted was only a cursory reading of a couple of bits."

      Delete
    9. @ Matthew Shultz


      OK some examples:


      "Now, ID-theory is fair game. However, it's philosophically unenlightening when philosophers like Feser (and Francis Beckwith) criticize ID-theory because it isn't Thomism. Unless you grant that Thomist epistemology and metaphysics should be the standard of comparison, that objection is uninteresting. "

      He never said ID is wrong because "it's not Thomism". Read his blog posts on ID theory and see for yourself.

      So "Steve" is attacking straw men.

      ---


      "he problem is compounded by the fact that Feser's understanding of Paley and ID-theory have both been challenged. Consider the running debates between his blog and Uncommon Descent. "

      Like Plantinga or Craig views have NEVER been challenged right?

      Read "Naturalism Defeated Essays on Plantingas Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism", edited by James K. Beilby. Here several philosophers dispute and critique some of Plantinga's arguments against naturalims and in the final chapter Plantinga himself responds to the critiques.

      ---

      "It isn't clear to me if Feser is saying philosophers like Anscombe, Geach, and Kenny misunderstand Thomism, or if they adulterate it with foreign influences. If the former, then I'd simply point out that, in my estimation, they are Feser's superiors when it comes to original research. Isn't Feser basically a popularizer? By contrast, Geach, for one, did groundbreaking work on Frege. "

      Feser has mentioned Ansacombe and Geach many times, in a positive light.

      Also being a "popularizer" is not bad. Isn't W. L. Craig a popularizer?

      Also there is a difference between "Books for laymen" and "Scholarly work". Many scientists and philosophers write pop-books or introductory textbooks but it is not all they do. Most of their contribution to the field is in papers published in journals.

      "Steve" evidently does not know how accademia works.


      MOREOVER "Steve" does not seem to be aware that there is a far bigger world in Thomism than "Analytical Thomists". Ansacombe and Geach represent but a very small fraction in Thomism. This does not mean they do not deserve the fame they have gained, but still Analytical Thomism is but a branch of Thomism.

      I would also add that a Thomist might and will criticize another Thomist if he thinks some of his work is worth critiquing.


      ====
      This whole blog post by "Steve" is a collection of nonsense. These were only a few selected examples in order to stay in the "4096 characters limit"

      Delete
    10. @rockingwithhawking: ""Feser did not claim he has NEVER done any popularization! But 'Steve' says he is 'basically a popularizer.'"

      'That's likewise not what Steve (or I) claimed.'

      Wow, just who hasn't read "Steve"'s post? You'd better go search for the word 'basically' on this page!

      Delete
    11. "By your logic, it was overkill for Feser to devote an entire post on the topic. "

      Yep.

      Delete
    12. @rockingwithhawking:
      "serious writers generally use their entire name, don't they?"

      "No, not always."

      Someone doesn't understand the word "generally"!

      Delete
    13. @Gene Callahan

      "Wow, just who hasn't read "Steve"'s post? You'd better go search for the word 'basically' on this page!"

      Let's say for the sake of argument it's true Feser is basically a popularizer. How would the fact that one has never not done any popularization, or indeed one has in fact written popular level works, undermine the fact that one is basically a popularizer? If anything, it'd support it.

      "Yep."

      I appreciate you conceding the point. That's honest.

      Delete
    14. @Gene Callahan

      "Someone doesn't understand the word "generally"!"

      How about this? Given your comments thus far, let's call it square since you obviously don't understand basic logic.

      Delete
    15. @Gene Callahan

      "Someone doesn't understand the word "generally"!"

      Of course, "specifically" you were speaking in reference to Steve. And what Matthew Schultz and I have said are enough to overturn your point with respect to Steve.

      Delete
    16. Ismael said:

      He never said ID is wrong because "it's not Thomism". Read his blog posts on ID theory and see for yourself.

      There's a difference between describing a position and noting the functional outworking of that position. The latter is not a misrepresentation of someone's position, but rather a description of what that position entails.

      Like Plantinga or Craig views have NEVER been challenged right?

      How is that evidence of misrepresentation of Fesser or Thomism?

      Feser has mentioned Ansacombe and Geach many times, in a positive light.

      I don't understand how that resolves the issue Steve was addressing or, really, how that shows a "misrepresentation" of either Fesser or Thomism. Speaking highly of those philosophers "many times" does not necessarily entail propositions that adjudicate whether Anscombe and Geach either misunderstand Thomism or corrupt it (for lack of a better word).

      Also being a "popularizer" is not bad. Isn't W. L. Craig a popularizer?

      It depends in what sense. I don't think you understand how the term is being used in this context.

      And what's with the references to WLC? It's not like he's a hero around here. How does this demonstrate a misrepresentation of Fesser or Thomism?

      Also there is a difference between "Books for laymen" and "Scholarly work". Many scientists and philosophers write pop-books or introductory textbooks but it is not all they do. Most of their contribution to the field is in papers published in journals.

      "Steve" evidently does not know how accademia works.


      Evidently you don't realize that Steve Hays (not "Steve") has worked in academia.

      This whole blog post by "Steve" is a collection of nonsense. These were only a few selected examples in order to stay in the "4096 characters limit"

      It's hard to claim that his "whole post" is "nonsense," when a lot of his comments on the Reformed world are accurate descriptions of the movement and its limitations. I think you're exaggerating for effect.

      Now, if that is the best on offer, then I'm really not sure you can demonstrate that Steve misrepresented Fesser and Thomism. There's a lot of grasping at reasons to reject Steve's post as invalid, but no real work done to show the charge that Steve has misrepresented both Fesser and Thomism.

      Delete
  5. Steve wrote:

    I'm going to discuss growing pains in Reformed philosophy...

    I'm wondering if other folks also wished Steve mentioned and commented on the contributions of our beloved Paul Manata in the area of Reformed philosophy. If Steve could mention Gerety, Shannon and Cheung, why not all the more Manata?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By "contributions" I include past contributions, potential future contributions and missing contributions (think, deleted multiple blogs [heh]).

      Delete
  6. "Steve" (sorry, couldn't resist!), could you elaborate on your view of Bahnsen?

    I've read, and re-read a number of his works and have purchased and listened (and re-listened) to dozens of hours of his lectures and find him to be among my favorite dead theologians (the corpse abuse of many Clarkians not withstanding).

    In your view what's his stature among reformed philosophers, and would you recommend him to aspiring reformed philosophers, and Christian-theistic armchair philosophers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His posthumous magnum opus, _Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis_, is a fine work.

      His other apologetic writings tend to be superficial. His spread himself rather thin. And because he died in his 40s, it's unclear how he would have developed.

      It's possible that his particular approach had limited potential for further development, or that he himself lacked the creativity to develop it much further.

      Towards the end of his life, Bahnsen was studying the transcendental arguments of John Kekes, in an effort to flesh out TAG.

      He was, of course, famous or infamous (depending on one's viewpoint) for his advocacy of theonomy.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the feedback, it's instructive.

      Delete