2
days ago, Fr. Gregory Pine, OP, a Dominican priest and philosopher/theologian,
debated Benjamin Watkins of the Real Atheology podcast/blog. Here are some of
my on-the-spot, post-debate thoughts:
- Seeing Fr. Pine debate and how he
articulated his position (especially on how he "combined" the first 3
ways of Aquinas into a single "argument") is the final straw for me:
I WILL enter the Dominican order. That's an irreversible decision now (at least
it seems to me at this time)
- I appreciate the fact that Ben
Watkins argued for the apparent incoherence of Classical Theism (i.e. how it
poses problems with Divine Freedom/modal collapse and Divine Knowledge) against
Fr. Pine's position. It's very rare for "Youtube Atheists" to do
that. Ben's argumentation is a breath of fresh air for the Atheist internet
movement, after many years of New Atheist dominance.
- I just want to express a minor
dissatisfaction I had with Fr. Pine's position: his failure to address Ben's
objection that there is still a gap problem between an "unactualized
actualizer" and a "purely actual actualizer". I would've loved
to hear Fr. Pine's thoughts on that one. Which brings me to my next point...
- Gaven Kerr should
debate (or at least have a dialogue with) Ben Watkins on the De Ente Argument.
I think Ben's concern on the gap problem can be properly addressed once we
focus on the Thomist conception of esse as an actualizing principle.
- I think Ben should've pressed upon
his objection that neither a per se nor a per accidens series of causes imply a
need for a first cause and that both causal series can be infinite (another
point that, I think, Fr. Pine also failed to address properly/adequately). If
this objection is correct, then it would bring Thomism (and even Theism in
general) to its knees, because Thomism says that God is the first cause of
created reality. If there need not be a first cause, then we need not posit an
entity like God (Ben can then argue, like Graham Oppy would, that
Naturalism/Atheism should be preferred to Theism given the former's simplicity
as a theory over the former, but I don't know: probably Oppy's anti-Theism is
different from Ben's)
- Fr. Pine is correct in reiterating
that God cannot be a subject to anthropomorphizing, and that He transcends
creaturely classification. If God cannot be a moral agent like us, then the
apparent problem of evil and suffering that we have as creatures cannot be
applied to things about God.
- Fr. Pine could've also phrased better
his view on morality, I think: given his commitment to the natural law, he
could've just said first that moral goodness is just a special case of what
metaphysical/transcendental goodness is, in general. He touched upon this idea,
of course (when he used the example of how we naturally would want to take care
of our teeth) but he could've made it clearer still.
- Overall, I'd say this: the debate is
a 9.8/10! It isn't a "super perfect" debate, of course, given the
time constraints and all that, but the debaters have articulated their views in
a very intellectually engaging fashion. I thank them both because of it. Also,
Matt Fradd is right: this is a breath of fresh air after all the stress we
received from political discussions and the like which tend to be toxic. I hope
debates like this can be more regular in the future.
I
pray that someday, Ben Watkins will finally come to acknowledge the existence
of God who lovingly and mercifully sustains him in being and is absolutely
worthy of his worship!!!
Comments
Post a Comment