#683: — 02/16  at  12:59 PM
I read both his articles in detail, and both of them are little better than the excrement of the male bovine.

If he's so smart, why isn't he running some big business empire? Instead of being what he professes to hate, a professor. To use many right-wingers' favorite example of success.

And has he tossed out his opera CD's in favor of Britney Spears CD's? She sells MUCH better than his favorite opera diva likely does, and by his free-market ideology, is much more worthwhile, right?

And does he say "Goddidit!" every time he wonders why something happens?

As to what's "traditional", that changes over time. Some of those he approvingly notes were not exactly traditionalists -- John Locke had opposed the centuries-old tradition of the Divine Right of Kings, believing in the then-radical idea of government by social contract: "We, the people, in order to form a more perfect Union..." If Fesey had been living during the American Revolution, I wonder which side he would have been on.

Plato proposed a radical new society in his Republic -- one ruled by philosopher-kings and -queens, and complete with a custom-made "royal lie" religion that replaces Plato's society's religion. And despite seeming like his caricatures of professors, Fesey makes a hero out of him. Go figure.

And traditional Christian theology is essentially a command-economy theology and not a bottom-up-organization theology, with its God as the commander. And Jesus Christ was anti-capitalist and anti-wealth.
* You ought to let God take care of you and not show any foresight; look at how well God cares for the birds and the wildflowers.
* You cannot love both God and money.
* It's better to save treasures in heaven (presumably having a good record) than on earth.
* Sell everything you have and give the money to the poor.
* A rich person can no more go to heaven than a camel / thick rope can pass through the eye of a needle.
* His famous Temple temper tantrum against the businesspeople there.

Fesey talks about "foreign tyranny", and "crawling through barbed wire" to get to this supposed Promised Land of a country, but the original inventors of the "Promised Land" concept had a largely fictional early history which included the Final Solution of the Canaanite Question, as it may be called. Whose only real crime was to get in the way, it would seem.

He apparently practiced what he preached; he sponged off of his friends and followers, something that Fesey thinks is evil.

Fesey seems to have an obsession with the idea of mind as some sort of immaterial substance. But that hypothesis is going the way of vitalism, which has been thorougly discredited. Aristotle, one of his heroes, believed that there are three kinds of vital force or soul:
* The vegetable soul, responsible for growth and reproduction
* The animal soul, responsible for motion and quick reaction
* The rational soul, responsible for higher-level reasoning

Fesey's celebration of Aristotle ignores Aristotle's belief in vegetable and animal souls, which are pure vitalism. Aristotle lived long before molecular biology, of course, but do we have to be bound by Aristotle's teachings, as Fesey seems to think?

Toward the end, he moans about pornography being easily accessible. But whever happened to his belief in a free market? There's a market for porn, therefore it must be legitimate, right?

Finally, I cannot help but think that many capitalism groupies, as I call them, have a blind spot for the nature of businesses -- internally, they are command economies that work by central planning.

#684: — 02/19  at  05:19 PM
To PZ:

"never mind that the breeding ground of chaos and hate in this country lies nested in the pathological conservativism of murderous anti-abortionist goons, right-wing militias, and wanna-be theocrats."

Of the three groups you mention,
1) is a *very* small group
2) what the hell is wrong with guys who don't want the government's services and are worried enough about government tyranny to train themselves in self-defense?
3) I assume you're talking about the "religious right" here. Yes, there is something to that - but by and large this movement is a defensive one - a group that feels like that have no relevance in a culture that is becoming increasingly decadent.

To Loren:

First of all, it is F-E-S-E-R like a Star Trek Phaser.

"If he’s so smart, why isn’t he running some big business empire? Instead of being what he professes to hate, a professor. To use many right-wingers’ favorite example of success."

This point is of no substance. He's a professor because he wants to fight in the battle of ideas and try to say the true things to people who will listen - just like the rest of us.

"As to what’s “traditional”, that changes over time."

All traditionalists acknowledge this.

"Some of those he approvingly notes were not exactly traditionalists—John Locke had opposed the centuries-old tradition of the Divine Right of Kings, believing in the then-radical idea of government by social contract: “We, the people, in order to form a more perfect Union...”"

A) That isn't Locke you're quoting.
B) There is no contradiction here in showing that Ed supports some traditions rather than others - he merely argued that the burden of proof is on tradition.

"If Fesey had been living during the American Revolution, I wonder which side he would have been on."

He just published On Nozick, defending Nozickian libertarianism - so I think he'd have been with the colonies.

"Plato proposed a radical new society in his Republic—one ruled by philosopher-kings and -queens, and complete with a custom-made “royal lie” religion that replaces Plato’s society’s religion. And despite seeming like his caricatures of professors, Fesey makes a hero out of him. Go figure."

He didn't make a hero out of Plato. He made a plug for Platonism. It is a terrible point to say that since he liked Platonism he must support Plato's political views.

"And traditional Christian theology is essentially a command-economy theology and not a bottom-up-organization theology, with its God as the commander."

This is just nuts. God being the authority does not mean that God should run the economy. Nothing about that follows.

" You ought to let God take care of you and not show any foresight; look at how well God cares for the birds and the wildflowers. "

A misinterpretation - God taking care of you has never been held to be incompatible with individual responsibility. Read some medieval thinkers on this topic.

* You cannot love both God and money.

There is nothing capitalistic about loving money as such. The problem with loving money is that it is an instrumental good - it provides greater goods to you. But nothing about that position is required by a private-property based order like capitalism.

* It’s better to save treasures in heaven (presumably having a good record) than on earth.

Does it follow that people shouldn't save on earth? Of course it doesn't.

* Sell everything you have and give the money to the poor.

All are not called to do this.

* A rich person can no more go to heaven than a camel / thick rope can pass through the eye of a needle.

This is merely an observation that people who have a lot of material possessions have a harder time being close to God. But it is an observation based on a contingency - there is nothing necessary about rich people being further away from God. Plus, you shouldn't compare historical periods in this way - the poor then were literally starving. The poor now in America are obese. I imagine Christ would chide poor and rich today in the USA alike for letting their possessions divide them from him. But being at death's door brings you closer to the Divine in many cases - or at least that should be the intuition.

* His famous Temple temper tantrum against the businesspeople there.

This is actually a defense of capitalism as it is a defense of Christ's private property. The Church is "His Father's House" and it is only to be used in the way that God ordains. What's anti-capitalistic about that?! Being a capitalist is not synonymous with being pro-business. If you know anything about capitalist thinkers they have been notoriously anti-big business as these groups usually procure advantages from governments.

"Fesey talks about “foreign tyranny”, and “crawling through barbed wire” to get to this supposed Promised Land of a country, but the original inventors of the “Promised Land” concept had a largely fictional early history which included the Final Solution of the Canaanite Question, as it may be called. Whose only real crime was to get in the way, it would seem."

Several things here: 1) You haven't refuted Feser's point, if you were even trying to. Pointing out that the "Promised Land" is based on myth doesn't tell against what he's saying. 2) If you think the history is largely fictional, then you just disagree with his religious position - but don't behave as if this should be obvious to Feser who is a traditionalist Catholic. 3) As for the "Final Solution" issue, God commanded them to wait "until their iniquity is full." Depending on how you understand that phrase, you can't compare this to the Holocaust as the most horrifying thing about the Holocaust was its execution of *innocents*.

"Fesey seems to have an obsession with the idea of mind as some sort of immaterial substance. But that hypothesis is going the way of vitalism, which has been thorougly discredited."

How much do you know about contemporary phil. of mind? There are three relatively new books out defending substance dualism of sorts (Richard Swinburne: The Evolution of the Soul, John Foster: The Immaterial Self, and William Hasker: The Emergent Self. Plus, such heavy weights as David Chalmers continue to defend property dualism).

The point is that there are a whole host of new-wave dualists that have been growing in number for a few decades.

I have no idea what your meditations on Aristotle's vitalism are supposed to show.

"Toward the end, he moans about pornography being easily accessible. But whever happened to his belief in a free market? There’s a market for porn, therefore it must be legitimate, right?"

You clearly don't understand libertarian theory: libertarians distinguish heavily between what is moral and what should be legal. Just because we think something is legal doesn't mean we cannot condemn it as illicit. This should clear up your confusions.

"Finally, I cannot help but think that many capitalism groupies, as I call them, have a blind spot for the nature of businesses—internally, they are command economies that work by central planning."

This is just a false comment. Capitlist firms operate on a price system - namely they deal with decentralized mechanisms for gathering information. Now, often they will be large enough to engage in a kind of central planning internally. But, that's why 83% of mergers fail, buddy. Little Perestroikas all over the place.

This was fun.

--Kevin Vallier

#685: PZ Myers — 02/19  at  05:58 PM
1) anti-abortionist goons run the country and are busily trying to pack the courts with their ilk. How you can say they are small and presumably inconsequential is a mystery.

2) What's wrong with guys who stockpile guns and explosives, blow up buildings, threaten to kill people, refuse to pay taxes, and often are affiliated with racist and white supremacist groups? Are you serious?

3) Again, how can you claim the religious right is on the defensive when they've managed to get their representatives to dominate the executive and legislative branches, and have growing power in the judiciary?

The people defending Feser seem to relish the fact that he is a god-fearing, old school capitalist moralist railing against an academe packed with godless amoral socialists; they don't seem to notice that he is a member of academe himself, and that the real problem is that the demons he rants against don't exist.

#686: — 02/19  at  11:06 PM
PZ,

"1) anti-abortionist goons run the country and are busily trying to pack the courts with their ilk. How you can say they are small and presumably inconsequential is a mystery."

I was referring to anti-abortionist bombers, not anti-abortionists generally.

"2) What’s wrong with guys who stockpile guns and explosives, blow up buildings, threaten to kill people, refuse to pay taxes, and often are affiliated with racist and white supremacist groups? Are you serious?"

If you're talking about militia groups, then these aren't the guys that blow up buildings. Tim McVeigh is a separate phenomenon from these organizations. Their desire is to pull away from what the consider an oppressive organization.

Now, I *do not* think there is anything wrong with A) stockpiling guns and explosives, B) refusing to pay taxes. As for being racists, I don't think this is successful as a general claim about militia groups either. You're lumping disperate right-wing phenomena together. It isn't a careful commentary.

"3) Again, how can you claim the religious right is on the defensive when they’ve managed to get their representatives to dominate the executive and legislative branches, and have growing power in the judiciary?"

I want to distinguish between fascist politicians and lobby group leaders (DeLay, Falwell) and the religious right grassroots. Political organizations are constantly and consistently duped by their leaders - and the fact of the matter is that the evangelical movement is being sold out time and time again. Again, this confusion of yours results from a failure to understand the smorgasboard that is the American Right. It is far more complex than you imagine.

"they don’t seem to notice that he is a member of academe himself"

Everyone I know that defends Ed (I probably know most of them) knows he is a Professor. Again, that in no way tells against his claims about the *general* attitude of academics.

"the real problem is that the demons he rants against don’t exist"

I actually think you're totally wrong on this one. I agree with Ed that the phenomenon exist and is enormous, but I think that it is not quite so pervasive. Many academic leftists are left-wing economically because they simply know nothing about economics as such. And many are atheists because they buy into complicated and false epistemological positions about what counts as being rational/justified, etc. Some of this is ideologically driven. But the fact of the matter is that a lot of it is just plain ignorance of A) the amazing work of Christian philosophers ranging from St. Thomas and Augustine all the way to Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga and B) ignorance of basic economic teaching.

--Kevin Vallier

#687: — 02/21  at  09:57 PM
I have many comments but will add just this one:

Why is it that I am accused of ignorance because I don't beleive in God? I was raised in the Catholic church, was an altar boy, went every Sunday for 22 years and through much searching and questioning, found myself to not believe in God. I don't proclaim it to be true, nor do I want anyone else to believe what I believe, but it simply is what I believe. I'm not telling you that you are wrong so why do you feel a need to tell me I am wrong?

#688: — 02/22  at  12:22 AM
Scott,

I cite "ignorance" as the reason that so many academics are left-wing and atheistic. It doesn't make them ignorant because they don't believe in God. They've just simply never heard and understood the arguments for the existence of God.

So perhaps with the distinction made a little bit finer you can understand my point.

Oh, and why feel the need to tell you that you're wrong?

1) Most people who believe in God think the belief is beneficial in some way.
2) Most people who believe in God want to help other people at least in some vage way.
3) Many (bot not near enough) people who believe in God think that they can give you reasons for believing in the existence of God.

So, I think that's the reason theists would tell you that you're wrong.

--Kevin

#689: PZ Myers — 02/22  at  01:53 AM
You are so wrong, it's funny. Like most Americans, I was raised to attend church (Lutheran, in my case), and I even got as far as confirmation. I lost interest in it, and pretty thoroughly rejected all of its irrationality, in my teens. I have read widely in the subject, have heard all the arguments, and find them terribly unconvincing. I'm a scientist: show me some evidence. Rationalizations, no matter how eloquent, do not impress me.

As for the rest...
1) most atheists find that rejecting the god-nonsense is highly beneficial to them.
2) most atheists want to help other people in some way.
3) Most atheists (and probably a higher percentage than your theists!) can give you good reasons for rejecting the notion of god.

#690: — 02/22  at  02:04 AM
PZ,

"Like most Americans, I was raised to attend church (Lutheran, in my case), and I even got as far as confirmation."

"I lost interest in it, and pretty thoroughly rejected all of its irrationality, in my teens."

Yeah, I thought I was hip and cool for discovering that Christianity was irrational to. Then I ran into such works as _The_Coherence_Of_Theism_ by Richard Swinburne, _Warranted_Christian_Belief_ by Alvin Plantinga, and the Summa Contra Gentiles. Think that's all just absurd garbage? Or have you heard of these works?

"I’m a scientist: show me some evidence."

Your presupposition that this is an empirical issue is one of your first problems. The issue of God's existence is primarily a conceptual one, in my view. You can weave metaphysical theories to explain most observation in a host of wildly differing ways - that's why the arguments have to be made at the conceptual level.

Nonetheless, there are some arguments that make appeal to observation. Have you heard of Richard Swinburne's book _Is_There_A_God_? If so, I won't repeat the argument here, but if not I would be glad to share it with you.

"Rationalizations, no matter how eloquent, do not impress me."

So anything that isn't a laboratory study is a "rationalization"? This just shows your wholesale commitment to the dogma of radical empiricism. Why not think that there are some propositions that can be known by appeal to reason alone?

"1) most atheists find that rejecting the god-nonsense is highly beneficial to them."

Of course.

"2) most atheists want to help other people in some way. "

I never denied that.

"3) Most atheists (and probably a higher percentage than your theists!) can give you good reasons for rejecting the notion of god."

I doubt the claim that most atheists can give me a good reason to their rejecting the existence of God. Most atheists fall back on the "well, there's no rationale for the position, so I don't believe it" line. That's not an argument - even if it is a valid point.

And I'm not sure what the point is of pointing out that many atheists are smarter than many theists. Many communists were smarter than your average person as well - but, well, that didn't prevent them from being incorrect - in fact, disastrously so.

--Kevin

#691: — 02/22  at  02:09 AM
Seems to me that some people are not just capitalism groupies, they are capitalism fundamentalists.

Furthermore, there is a great discrepancy between:

A favorite pro-capitalist argument: No central planner is necessary, and central planning will always fail.

and

The usual Abrahamic theological arguments: the Universe has to have a central planner, and that central planner has created perfect plans.

Interestingly, Darwinism lines up on the pro-capitalist side here -- one of Darwin's sources of inspiration was Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.

Also, many atheists and agnostics are aware of various theological arguments -- they just find those arguments unconvincing. Just go to some place like IIDB or Graveyard of the Gods.

As to what this or that philosopher says, their arguments tend to be non sequiturs -- many of them could also demonstrate the existence of the deity of some other creed, or some deity like that of 18th-cy. Deism.

Trackback: Rant: Feser is a Nutbar Tracked on: Tea and Peterb (0) at 2004 02 17 09:44:40
I commented on the forums there something along the lines of "Wow, Feser sure is a nutbar." Someone else took me to task for not refuting his freakish diatribe point by point and otherwise treating him as a serious scholar. So part of me wa...

#692: PZ Myers — 02/22  at  02:26 AM
Kevin: haven't read Swinburne, but yes, I've read Plantinga. Not impressed at all with the latter, and I see no reason to seek out the former. You certainly haven't given any reason to think there's more to it than the usual blinkered apologetics.

I think it's silly to claim that people reject theism to be "hip and cool" -- most of us, myself included, had to keep our ideas quiet to avoid censure. I did not run about bragging about being a groovy atheist: that would have gotten me nothing but trouble. Even now, my kids, who have been open about not being christian, have experienced discrimination and abuse from their peers here in this small town in the midwest.

You might want to follow Loren's suggestion. There are plenty of intelligent reasons to favor atheism, and clearly you haven't been exposed to any of them. Also check out the library at the Secular Web, which has the text for a lot of useful documents.

I did not claim that atheists are smarter than theists. I suspect most theists believe for historical/traditional/social reasons, not because they are too stupid to see they are being duped, and that we can't use IQ to explain the difference. My point was not that atheists are smarter, but that because they most often began from the theistic position and had to work their way out of it, they typically have a far better exposure to the apologetics and philosophy of religion than your average theist, who never went through that struggle.

#693: — 02/22  at  02:46 AM
PZ,

What of Plantinga's did you read?

"You certainly haven’t given any reason to think there’s more to it than the usual blinkered apologetics."

That was never my goal. The main difference between the two is that Plantinga is focused primarily on showing that Christian belief, even were there no arguments for the position, is rational. Swinburne is busy composing positive arguments.

I'm not sure if I am able to convince you of much. You seem to be aesthetically hostile to almost anyone of my political/philosophical/religious positions. I'm not sure an in-depth dialogue would be effective. However, if you are interested in pursuing this further, then we could do so on another forum.

"I think it’s silly to claim that people reject theism to be “hip and cool”—most of us, myself included, had to keep our ideas quiet to avoid censure."

I too was an atheist in a small, Christian town - a small, South Alabama town. That's why I didn't claim that people reject theism to be "hip and cool." I was making reference to the way you treated rejecting the position - in tone.

You can play the "persecuted" card. I have no idea what you endured. But I would point out that taking positions contrary to the orthodoxy of the community is cherished by large sectors of the culture at large. I can't imagine you didn't take some small pleasure in it. I think this is true of anyone with a heterodox view embedded in an area where everyone else holds the orthodox view, by the way. I'm not singling you out.

"There are plenty of intelligent reasons to favor atheism, and clearly you haven’t been exposed to any of them."

That's assuming a great deal. I'm fairly familiar with the Secular Web. I know a great deal of what many atheists have to say. It is often, as Feser says, people with the metaphysical positions of materialism, nominalism, empiricism, and socialism (although there are many secular libertarians - most of them, in fact) - or most of all have various foundationalist epistemological positions, so our disagreements usually start off as philosophical and never proceed much further.

"I did not claim that atheists are smarter than theists."

Then why bring that up? To rub it in my face? There seemed to be a bit of glee in those parentheses. I just didn't know how to interpret the point you were getting at.

Oh, and your dialogue with the libertarian vs. the scientist displays enormous ignorance on your part of the work of economists on environmental problems - many of whom argue that libertarian-style solutions would be the best ways to solve environmental problems. I can cite some sources if you like.

--Kevin

#694: — 02/22  at  03:05 AM
Loren,

"A favorite pro-capitalist argument: No central planner is necessary, and central planning will always fail.

and

The usual Abrahamic theological arguments: the Universe has to have a central planner, and that central planner has created perfect plans. "

This, I think, is a weak point. There is no reason to suppose that God, being all-knowing, could not use spontaneous order processes for good ends.

"Also, many atheists and agnostics are aware of various theological arguments—they just find those arguments unconvincing."

I was referring to your typical "atheist on the street" that I run across. They are sometimes, say the smartest kid in the Southern/Midwest high school - hardcore leftist of some kind - lover of Ayn Rand - one who was abused by religion - or one who was never really exposed to it. The point is, I mean the one who is not philosophically educated. I fully realize that everyone hasn't rolled over to Swinburne's and Plantinga's positions. I was just commenting on the fact that I think some academic secularists, if they knew the arguments, would find them convincing.

Further, I have come upon the Secular Web Forums. I surveyed them. Like most forums, they aren't terribly sophisticated. However, more sophisticated responses do exist in philosophical journals that I am aware of - and should probably become more familiar with.

One thing that has been discussed on and on and on is the ontological argument for the existence of God - but it is often discussed in order to make some other philosophical point.

#695: — 02/22  at  03:31 AM
Another theological could-have-been scenario. Such speciousness is why many freethinkers find theological arguments very annoying.

And besides the whole God-as-central-planner problem, there is much in the Bible that capitalism groupies would damn as "socialist":

Jesus Christ:
* Sell everything you have and give the money to the poor
* A rich person can no more make it into heaven than a camel/rope can pass through the eye of a needle
* You cannot love both God and money
* Love of money is the root of all evil
* Don't bother to earn a living, since God will take care of you the way he does the birds and wildflowers
* Save up treasures in heaven, not on earth
* His famous Temple temper tantrum, in which he called some merchants "thieves" and drove them out
* He sponged off of his friends and followers

Acts:
* Early Christian communities living in commune fashion
* God zapping Ananias and Sapphira for not turning all their property over to Peter

That last one seems almost Stalinist, it must be said.

#696: — 02/22  at  03:41 AM
Loren,

Did I not respond already to most of these claims on this very thread? Did you READ the whole thread? I just don't want to have to repeat myself. I'll respond to the rest. I will respond to the new ones.

"Early Christian communities living in commune fashion."

There is nothing anti-capitalistic about this. They did so voluntarily. That's what's key.

"God zapping Ananias and Sapphira for not turning all their property over to Peter."

As for that passage, it appears partly contextual that they had made some previous oath to contribute to the Apostle's cause. I don't think the issue was whether they should give up their property - but whether they were dishonest.

"Another theological could-have-been scenario. Such speciousness is why many freethinkers find theological arguments very annoying."

What are you referring to?

--Kevin

#697: — 02/22  at  04:39 AM
Sad to say, I've discovered that I've repeated myself a bit. In response to Mr. Vallier's earlier comments (italicized here):

what the hell is wrong with guys who don’t want the government’s services and are worried enough about government tyranny to train themselves in self-defense?
WHAT tyranny? Having to pay taxes?

If you are young, and not against taxes, you have no heart
If you are old, and unwilling to accept taxes, you have no brain

(As to what’s “traditional”, that changes over time.)
All traditionalists acknowledge this.
Sure, sure (sarcasm). That's never been very apparent to me.

(John Locke: replace Divine Right of Kings by social contract: "We, the people, in order to form a more perfect Union...")
A) That isn’t Locke you’re quoting.
But do you know what important document I was quoting?

B) There is no contradiction here in showing that Ed supports some traditions rather than others - he merely argued that the burden of proof is on tradition.
So he's a cafeteria traditionalist?

(Feser and the American Revolution)
He just published On Nozick, defending Nozickian libertarianism - so I think he’d have been with the colonies.
He must be a rather extreme cafeteria traditionalist, because that revolution was a revolt against established authority.

He didn’t make a hero out of Plato.  He made a plug for Platonism.
So Feser is a cafeteria Platonist also?

God being the authority does not mean that God should run the economy.
Making Mr. G. a roi fainéant, instead of the traditional Universe-controlling being who notes the death of every small bird.

There is nothing capitalistic about loving money as such.
(other hair-splitting snipped) Loving money includes placing a high priority on acquiring it.

* Sell everything you have and give the money to the poor.
All are not called to do this.
Very ingenious way of weaseling out of an obligation.

* A rich person can no more go to heaven than a camel / thick rope can pass through the eye of a needle.
This is merely an observation that people who have a lot of material possessions have a harder time being close to God.
No, it means "you'll go to hell if you have a lot of money".

* His famous Temple temper tantrum against the businesspeople there.
This is actually a defense of capitalism as it is a defense of Christ’s private property.
Calling it a defense of capitalism is pure hooey.

Being a capitalist is not synonymous with being pro-business.  If you know anything about capitalist thinkers they have been notoriously anti-big business as these groups usually procure advantages from governments.
For some reason, I never see such claims unless it's to win arguments with capitalism critics. Many capitalism groupies have nothing but hosannas of praise for big businesses.

1) You haven’t refuted Feser’s point, if you were even trying to.
I was just annoyed at the presumption that the US is some sort of universally-attractive "Promised Land" and that other nations are evil hellholes.

A lot of Americans seem to think that their nation is the only nation that attracts immigrants.

3) As for the “Final Solution” issue, God commanded them to wait “until their iniquity is full.” Depending on how you understand that phrase, you can’t compare this to the Holocaust as the most horrifying thing about the Holocaust was its execution of *innocents*.
Except that most of the time, they were not commanded to wait until then. And I note that the Nazis also judged their victims to be guilty of terrible crimes. But how can entire populations be guilty of terrible sins/crimes? Including little children and babies?

“Fesey seems to have an obsession with the idea of mind as some sort of immaterial substance. But that hypothesis is going the way of vitalism, which has been thorougly discredited.”
How much do you know about contemporary phil. of mind?  There are three relatively new books out defending substance dualism of sorts ...
An argument that can be carried out endlessly and pointlessly unless new data and new techniques can be introduced. Like brain research. And so far, there is not a speck of positive evidence for any special "mind-stuff".

If they wanted to, they could endlessly discuss the question of vitalism vs. mechanism. But that question has been decisively settled by molecular biology -- absolutely zero evidence of a "vital force" or "life-stuff" has been found. And "mind-stuff" appears to be heading in the same direction.

I have no idea what your meditations on Aristotle’s vitalism are supposed to show.
He's one of Feser's heroes.

“Toward the end, he moans about pornography being easily accessible. But whever happened to his belief in a free market? There’s a market for porn, therefore it must be legitimate, right?”
You clearly don’t understand libertarian theory: (moral, legal, etc. being different..)
Tell that to defenders of tobacco, SUV's, etc.

“Finally, I cannot help but think that many capitalism groupies, as I call them, have a blind spot for the nature of businesses—internally, they are command economies that work by central planning.”
This is just a false comment.  Capitlist firms operate on a price system ...
Pricing is used externally, and not very much internally. My point still stands. And failed mergers are no counterargument.

“Early Christian communities living in commune fashion.”
There is nothing anti-capitalistic about this.  They did so voluntarily.  That’s what’s key.
Yawn. Just another version of:
"Collectivism is absolute evil"
(businesses, etc. as collectivist...)
"I meant forced collectivism"

“God zapping Ananias and Sapphira for not turning all their property over to Peter.”
... they had made some previous oath to contribute to the Apostle’s cause. ...
But they'd say "We had never agreed to contribute everything."
And even if they had been dishonest, should they have been zapped?

“Another theological could-have-been scenario. Such speciousness is why many freethinkers find theological arguments very annoying.”
What are you referring to?
The idea of a God using spontaneous-order processes.

And why wasn't the idea of spontaneous order revealed in the Bible?

Trackback: Review of Right Reason Tracked on: Johnny Logic (204.50.25.4) at 2005 03 18 21:31:51
Right Reason emerged from the tumult of The Conservative Philosopher (TCP), where K. Burgess Jackson disabled comments and alienated some of its members. In contrast to TCP, Right Reason has admirably aspired to give “conservative principles a careful, powerful, philosophical...