This would explain why many philosophers who do not specialize in philosophy of religion manifestly don’t know what they’re talking about when they open up their mouths on the subject (as we have seen here, here, and here). If you “don’t take the subject seriously” enough to study it, then naturally all you are going to “know” about it are the simple-minded clichés you and your secularist colleagues smugly bounce around your echo chamber. HT: Prosblogion.
Popular Posts
-
The principle of sufficient reason (PSR), in a typical Neo-Scholastic formulation, states that “there is a sufficient reason or adequate ne... -
Concluding my overview of the main varieties of Thomism, with some final outtakes taken straight from the Aquinas cutting room floor : 6....
-
While we’re on the subject of Steve Martin , consider the following passage from his memoir Born Standing Up . Martin recounts the insight... -
What’s more tiresome than reading yet another brain-dead atheist attack on the “Everything has a cause” straw man? Having to write up a r... -
I commend to you the late historian of philosophy Paul Hoffman’s paper “Does Efficient Causation Presuppose Final Causation? Aquinas vs. ... -
Today Jonah Goldberg took Kathleen Parker and others to task here for some of the silly and ill-informed things they have been saying in de...
-
In a recent post I spoke of the soul after death as essentially the human being in a “radically diminished state.” The Aristotelian-Thomi... -
On the subject of time and our awareness of it, Augustine says the following in The Confessions : But how does this future, which does no... -
Suppose you go out on a blind date and a friend asks you how it went. You pause and then answer flatly, with a slight smirk: “Well, I like... -
In the sixth of his Meditations on First Philosophy , Descartes writes: [T]here is a vast difference between mind and body, in respect tha...
0 nhận xét:
Đăng nhận xét