Show Notes
Here I criticize non-Catholic explanations of the miraculous evidence and respond to objections to Catholicism.
CORRECTIONS AND ADDENDA:(1) I asserted that “neither geocentrism nor young-earth creationism ever constituted Catholic doctrine”, but apparently there’s some dispute about whether the theological content of the March 5, 1616 Index decree is altogether non-magisterial, or whether it counts as an act of the ordinary, non-universal, fallible magisterium. Regardless, it was certainly never definitive teaching, which suffices for my analogy.(2) I described nettles as tingling, but it would be more accurate to say it’s a mildly uncomfortable stinging. For more on this, see this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSKjl0gAjM4(3) In describing Pawl's view on the incarnation starting around 5:42:15, I should not have said that he cashes out the *meanings* of the relevant putatively contradictory predicates. I should have said that he provides *truth conditions* for the *application* of those predicates. (I should also have clarified that this isn't universally quantifying over *all* Christological predicates.) Here's the corrected version: In short, we can offer truth conditions for the applications of these putatively contradictory predicates that are *nature relative* – for instance, ‘is timeless’ is true of Christ just in case Christ has a nature which exists outside time, and ‘is temporal’ is true of Christ just in case Christ has a nature which exists in time. So, being timeless and temporal (where these predicates have the aforementioned truth conditions) is, indeed, contradictory for any being with only one nature, but if a being has two natures (which doesn’t seem logically inconsistent in itself), then that being can be both timeless and temporal in the senses relevant to Christological predication.(4) I’m somewhat uncertain as to the compatibility of Maritain’s model with the authoritative teaching of the Church. Recall Maritain’s view: after a finite period of pains of sense, the damned experience complete natural happiness while retaining the pain of loss (a sorrowful, grieving awareness of the supernatural beatitude permanently lost through their sin). I’ve been made aware that this view is at least similar to views expressed in Mivart’s works that were condemned by the Church. But they're not identical. So, I just want to emphasize that Maritain’s model is theologically speculative and not *clearly* ruled out by the Magisterium, but it’s also not something for which we presently have sufficient grounds to claim assured compatibility with the authoritative judgment behind the Mivart condemnation.Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. ❤️🔥AMDG❤️🔥
More from Majesty of Reason Philosophy Podcast
Here's my comprehensive case for Catholic miracles. CORRECTIONS for this video/podcast can be found in this document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11clhskeG5ELUFXrqt1gV9JPtQ-5UWb4GxJHYQTy-Xrg/edit?usp=sharing
Here I argue that God exists. In the next two parts, I'll argue for Catholic miracles, criticize non-Catholic explanations of the miraculous data, and respond to objections to Catholicism.
Are you rationally required to believe in God? Let's find out...Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreasonIf you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmidOUTLINE0:00 Intro0:18 Expected Utility Theory7:17 Pascal’s Wager14:48 Pascal’s Wager14:58 Doxastic involuntarism19:53 Self-interest objection21:28 Many gods objection27:17 Fanaticism objection37:23 Mixed strategies objection40:38 Other Pascalian wagers42:14 ConclusionLINKS(1) Al Hajek and Liz Jackson, "Pascalian Expectations and Explorations": https://philpapers.org/archive/HAJPEA.pdf(2) My video with Liz and Al on Pascal's Wager: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeSICId7Yhw(3) Some of Liz' Jackson's papers on Pascal's wager: (i) https://philpapers.org/rec/JACFTP-2 (ii) https://philpapers.org/rec/JACAPD-9 (iii) https://philpapers.org/rec/JACSPW(4) Some of Al Hajek's papers on Pascal's wager: (i) https://philpapers.org/rec/HJEWWO (ii) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/(5) An earlier video I made with Liz on Pascal's Wager: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qTC7OZB_1A(6) My Springer book: (a) https://www.amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193148/ (b) https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2(7) The Majesty of Reason: A Short Guide to Critical Thinking in Philosophy: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason-Critical-Thinking-Philosophy/dp/B086FW6XV4THE USUAL...Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! https://open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvHJoin the Discord and chat all things philosophy! https://dsc.gg/majestyofreasonMy website: https://josephschmid.comMy PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid
How do you publish philosophy papers? Here you learn all the tricks of the trade.Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreasonIf you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmidOUTLINE0:00 Intro and Outline0:30 Preliminaries and pro-tips4:40 How to choose a topic18:17 How to do research22:45 How to outline25:21 The writing process30:49 The submission process40:27 Final thoughtsLINKS(1) This was a talk given to Reason & Rationality: https://www.reasonandrationality.com/(2) If you liked this video, you'll love my Doing Philosophy playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkbOGcxCZPjybRASmKynBfGN(3) My Springer book: (a) https://www.amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193148/ (b) https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2THE USUAL...Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! https://open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvHJoin the Discord and chat all things philosophy! https://dsc.gg/majestyofreasonMy website: https://josephschmid.comMy PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid
Here's a crash course on doxastic wronging. The central question is: can merely believing something about others wrong them?Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreasonIf you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmidOUTLINE0:00 Intro0:30 Cases3:18 Definitions7:40 Significance9:47 Master Argument for Doxastic Wronging16:00 Outward actions argument20:11 The problem of control25:05 The coordination problem30:12 Going further & resources31:16 ConclusionLINKS(1) Basu and Schroeder, "Doxastic Wronging": https://philarchive.org/archive/BASDW(2) Schroeder, "Sins of Thought": https://philpapers.org/archive/SCHSOT-39.pdf(3) Enoch and Spectre, "There is no such thing as doxastic wronging": https://philpapers.org/archive/ENOTIN.pdf(4) My Epistemology playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZhajIOE7Q2FkwuuAS-8Z3C(5) How to Analyze Arguments Like a Philosopher: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD5_2p-vUjs(6) My Springer book: (a) https://www.amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2THE USUAL...Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! https://open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvHJoin the Discord and chat all things philosophy! https://dsc.gg/majestyofreasonMy website: https://josephschmid.comMy PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid