• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Edward Feser fraud.

outhouse

Atheistically
Is this guy a complete fraud?

He is trying to redefine your god outside the text you hold sacred, yet he claims he is a theist.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/07/classical-theism-roundup.html

Classical theism is the conception of God that has prevailed historically within Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Western philosophical theism generally. Its religious roots are biblical, and its philosophical roots are to be found in the Neoplatonic and Aristotelian traditions.

Why does he get to redefine the abrahamic god using philosophical roots and be taken seriously?


Does he think he is some kind of prophet who can convince the public his definition of god is better then anyone else?

Does he thing a philosophical debate about the nature of god defines a god?
 

StarryNightshade

Spiritually confused Jew
Premium Member
I don't quite get the purpose of the OP. Is it that he has a definition of God outside of what is viewed as traditional?

If that is the case, then so what? Using philosophy to understand the nature of god is nothing new or groundbreaking.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Is it that he has a definition of God outside of what is viewed as traditional?

It seems Edward is redefining classical theism in his own philosophical terms. Investigating possibilities is fine, stating your definition of a god is correct is no different from any other self proclaimed prophet.

So yes he is taking a philosophical argument and claiming this argument, is the actual god that exist.

He is perverting the religious version by giving credit to the philosophical position more then anything. He is promoting divine simplicity
 

StarryNightshade

Spiritually confused Jew
Premium Member
It seems Edward is redefining classical theism in his own philosophical terms. Investigating possibilities is fine, stating your definition of a god is correct is no different from any other self proclaimed prophet.

So yes he is taking a philosophical argument and claiming this argument, is the actual god that exist.

He is perverting the religious version by giving credit to the philosophical position more then anything. He is promoting divine simplicity

Okay, but from what I've seen and inferred, it doesn't seem like he's "perverting" anything or claiming to be a "prophet". Maybe it's not strictly traditional, but it doesn't seem like it's completely out of boundaries when it comes to discussing Classical Theism.

EDIT: Also, philosophy is an integral part of faith, theism, and religion as a whole. So the fact that he's using philosophical arguments doesn't inherently go against anything.
 
Last edited:

outhouse

Atheistically
Okay, but from what I've seen and inferred, it doesn't seem like he's "perverting" anything or claiming to be a "prophet". Maybe it's not strictly traditional, but it doesn't seem like it's completely out of boundaries when it comes to discussing Classical Theism.

Discussing classical theism is fine. As far as I know it exist solely as a philosophical argument.

What I believe he is doing is trying to replace the religious definition of god with the philosophical one, with no substantiated what so ever.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
However you may define God, you can only change your perception of God.
That can not change God himself.

Sort of my point

The argument he proposed surrounds divine simplicity, which is a moving goal post.

Each religion has its own version of how they view this concept, yours may very well stand behind Judaism. His is only his own version.

My point Is feser is creating his own authority upon himself defining his own divine simplicity.
 
Classical theism is the conception of God that has prevailed historically within Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Western philosophical theism generally. Its religious roots are biblical, and its philosophical roots are to be found in the Neoplatonic and Aristotelian traditions.

He's discussing the historical influence of Greek philosophy on early theology.

Augustine, Aquinas, pseudo-Dionysius, Avicenna etc. This podcast series 'The history of philosophy without any gaps' covers many theologians from a philosophical perspective across Judaism, Islam and Christianity: http://historyofphilosophy.net
 

outhouse

Atheistically
He's discussing the historical influence of Greek philosophy on early theology.

He is doing more then discussing. And I have a basic understanding of how divine simplicity can apply if one does not use a vague definition.

But he is trying to define the god concept as solely under his version and interpretation of classical theism and his own brand of divine simplicity.

I don't think being a philosophy professor gives him the right to redefine a concept, outside the religious description, and what many claims does not exist.

He is going against most theist, and all atheist.
 
Last edited:
He is doing more then discussing. And I have a basic understanding of how divine simplicity can apply if one does not use a vague definition.

But he is trying to define the god concept as solely under his version and interpretation of classical theism and his own brand of divine simplicity.

I don't think being a philosophy professor gives him the right to redefine a concept, outside the religious description, and what many claims does not exist.

He is going against most theist, and all atheist.

What would you say he is misrepresenting?

What he says seems reasonable to me.

For example: "It entails that he is eternal in the sense of being altogether outside of time and space. It entails that He does not “have” existence, or an essence, or His various attributes but rather is identical to His existence, His nature and His attributes: He is His existence which is His essence which is His power which is His knowledge which is His goodness."

This would relate to arguments made about why the Quran as the word of God must be eternal rather than created, and also to ideas in Christianity such as these discussed by "well named" here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...tern-christian-tradition.174432/#post-4487812

I'm not particularly knowledgable about this topic though so maybe I'm wrong. What he says seems to me to be pretty reasonable though.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
This would relate to arguments made about why the Quran as the word of God must be eternal rather than created

And for me that is arguing imagination and mythology.

What would you say he is misrepresenting?

He promotes his own version of divine simplicity from what I can tell.


Not only is this concept not agreed upon by many theist, there are different versions, Islam, Christianity and Judaism, all have different views and opinions of such.


I'm not particularly knowledgable about this topic though so maybe I'm wrong

Same here.

But this is one way that makes me dig deeper. So far I know he does not have a leg to stand of as he has shown severe bias due to his own theism.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
So from what I gather from a few hours research here.

he is taking the doctrine of classical theism and is trying to define his god by that sole means alone.

basically turning doctrine into deity

A small part of the description of the deity, is all there is negating the biblical descriptions.
 

Reflex

Active Member
I only came across this thread because I wasn't signed on with my tablet, as I usually ignore outhouse for being aggressively ignorant. The OP bears out that assessment. What outhouse is saying doesn't even rise to the level of absurd. I mean, it's so far "out there" that the best any rational person can do in response is a derisive laugh.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
I only came across this thread because I wasn't signed on with my tablet, as I usually ignore outhouse for being aggressively ignorant. The OP bears out that assessment. What outhouse is saying doesn't even rise to the level of absurd. I mean, it's so far "out there" that the best any rational person can do in response is a derisive laugh.

Funny your the first person who admits they only follow the definition of classical theism, when you even dare discuss your own definition, as a total definition for god, and you quote Feser constantly.

Your are an excellent example as you claim the Abrahamic traditions have no bearing on gods definition.

Many philosophers and theist are very critical of Feser and disagree whole hearted with his own definition.
 
Last edited:
And for me that is arguing imagination and mythology.

In the context of this topic though, it reflects the philosophical debates that existed in late antiquity and medieval theology.

He promotes his own version of divine simplicity from what I can tell.


Not only is this concept not agreed upon by many theist, there are different versions, Islam, Christianity and Judaism, all have different views and opinions of such.

I'm not too sure about the history and usage of the term, and imagine that there is probably a range of opinions, in his article he seems to be describing the more mystical apophatic kind of God rather than the more anthropomorphic cataphatic type of God.

Theology for all of the Abrahamic religions was influenced by Neo-Platonism and other forms of Greek philosophy and common trends can be identified in all of them.

he is taking the doctrine of classical theism and is trying to define his god by that sole means alone.

basically turning doctrine into deity

A small part of the description of the deity, is all there is negating the biblical descriptions.

This would reflect apophatic theology, in which nothing positive can be ascribed to God - he is beyond language and human description and reasoning.

The Biblical descriptions are seen as non-literal as nothing can be said of God literally. (In the podcast I linked to there is an episode of pseudo-Dionysius that discusses this topic)

There are apophatic conceptions of God in Abrahamic theology, and also cataphatic conceptions. From my (admittedly limited) perspective, what the author is arguing for is reflective of a common form of classical theology, although one which has probably become less common is Western religion over recent times.

Where it fits into the 'bigger historical picture' I'm not so sure, but it is a view that can legitimately be described as classical, although it is not the only view that could legitimately be described in that way.
 

Reflex

Active Member
Aquinas, who is the quintessential example of classical theism, was explicit: God is best known by what He is not and cautions against univocalism. I've read a couple of Feser's books and he keeps to that mode of understanding.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
In the context of this topic though, it reflects the philosophical debates that existed in late antiquity and medieval theology.

Understood, its a wide range of philosophical debates originally based on Greek Philosophers that extended to late antiquity and medieval theology

, in his article he seems to be describing the more mystical apophatic kind of God rather than the more anthropomorphic cataphatic type of God.

Which is exactly part of my OP. His sources he is using to make these determinations. And what authority does he possess to define a god?

Not sure about this anthropomorphic cataphatic quality either. He is taking the philosophical arguments and trying to create a god concept and placing it so universal that it cannot be connected to any human concepts.

Theology for all of the Abrahamic religions was influenced by Neo-Platonism and other forms of Greek philosophy and common trends can be identified in all of them.

Understood.

Add Aristotelian schools of rhetoric as well.

This would reflect apophatic theology, in which nothing positive can be ascribed to God - he is beyond language and human description and reasoning.

The Biblical descriptions are seen as non-literal as nothing can be said of God literally. (In the podcast I linked to there is an episode of pseudo-Dionysius that discusses this topic)

There are apophatic conceptions of God in Abrahamic theology, and also cataphatic conceptions. From my (admittedly limited) perspective, what the author is arguing for is reflective of a common form of classical theology, although one which has probably become less common is Western religion over recent times.

Where it fits into the 'bigger historical picture' I'm not so sure, but it is a view that can legitimately be described as classical, although it is not the only view that could legitimately be described in that way.

Agreed for the most part.


My whole problem with the classical theistic approach is it is debating a static concept. The gods of the abrahamic traditions were never static, we are talking about a constant evolution of the concepts that constantly changed.

So when one brings up CT they are bring up a philosophical arguments on gods in a classroom, not a specific deity. many of Fesers students come out thinking CT is its own deity.

That is where I claim fraudulent teaching.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Aquinas, who is the quintessential example of classical theism, was explicit: God is best known by what He is not and cautions against univocalism. I've read a couple of Feser's books and he keeps to that mode of understanding.

Thank you.

That provides a perfect example of my last few paragraphs above.
 

Reflex

Active Member
Then, by your own admission, Feser is not a fraud, he does not misrepresent classical theism notwithstanding your problems with divine simplicity. Divine simplicity is central to Thomasian philosophy/theology.

I must admit, however, that I, too, had problems with divine simplicity for the same reasons you express: how does one get from a static unity to the diversity we see in the world? It is my guess, and it is only a guess, that it is this difficulty that led to the doctrine of the Trinity.
 
Last edited:

outhouse

Atheistically
Then, by your own admission

From my understanding he is trying to define the god concept separate from the abrahamic traditions we have that do describe the concept.

The other huge problem I see from him, is what he says could apply to El or Yahweh or Baal, or Asherah. Or any of the known deities that exist to date.




I must admit, however, that I, too, had problems with divine simplicity for the same reasons you express: how does one get from a static unity to the diversity we see in the world? It is my guess, and it is only a guess, that it is this difficulty that led to the doctrine of the Trinity.

The trinity concept actually unfolded over hundreds of years, so we have a pretty good grasp of its evolution.

More then anything by my opinion, it was a way to keep monotheism while actually worshipping the multiple deity concepts that made up the man made doctrine.

The God concept had to be defined as to the relationship of Jesus with the Father. There were to many competing ideas and Constantine wanted a unified religion for his nation.
 
Top