Dr. Scott M. Sullivan
@DrScotMSullivan
Professor of philosophy, logic, and jiu jitsu. Interested in Christianity, Greco-Scholastic philosophy, the philosophy of mind and the philosophy of religion.
The Tree of Divine Doctrine from St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae.
Ah yes, an elephant helps a gazelle therefore moral law has no need of God. What an argument. Let’s get serious. Pointing to animals helping each other and calling it “morality” is like pointing to gravity and calling it justice. You’re confusing instinctive behavior with…
The next time a theists asks you about morality just show them this Helping others is natural
The idea that “property rights existed before the spinal cord” sounds bold until you unpack what a right actually is. A right isn’t just the ability to defend something. It’s a moral claim that imposes a duty on others not to interfere. If I have a property right, it means you…
Or, if you are an atheist, and want an explanation that doesn't rely on gods, then go hit a beehive with a stick. And you will quickly discover that the notion of property rights was invented before the spinal cord.
Since happiness is nothing else than the enjoyment of the Supreme Good, and the Supreme Good is above us, no one can enjoy happiness unless he rises above himself. Saint Bonaventure
Cardinal Robert Sarah: "Those who use the Bible to justify mass immigration are bewitched"
“God exists” is not a proposition that can be contingently true.
“For what does not actually exist of itself, is incapable of existing of itself.” - Duns Scotus, Ordinatio, 1, d. 2, q. 1-2; II
"Do not argue with every one, nor practice upon the man in the street; for there are some people with whom any argument is bound to degenerate. For against anyone who is ready to try all means in order to seem not to be beaten, it is indeed fair to try all means of bringing…
"It is impossible for anything at the same time to be and not to be, and by this means have shown that this is the most indisputable of all principles. Some indeed demand that even this shall be demonstrated, but this they do through want of education, for not to know of what…
This analogy doesn’t work here. The problem of evil and divine hiddenness aren’t like checking one Walmart for a sale, they’re targeted philosophical objections aimed at specific claims of theism (like divine love, providence, or relationship). Deism doesn’t make those claims.…
That’s not how evidence works. Say you tell me that there is a sale at one of the Walmarts in town, and there are three Walmarts in town. If I go to one Walmart and there is no sale, then this has not *ruled out* your proposition. However, it HAS raises the Pr(NoSale)
If an argument (like the problem of evil or divine hiddenness) is specifically aimed at theism, not deism, then showing that it weakens theism doesn’t automatically strengthen atheism unless it also weakens deism. But these arguments do nothing to deism, so atheism isn’t helped.…
Not true. The probability space would shift to deism yes but it would also shift to atheism. When you remove the probability space away from theism the alternatives DO gain evidential support at least on a strict binary Bayesian model.
The two main arguments for atheism: the problem of evil and the argument from divine hiddenness, don’t directly challenge the main arguments for God’s existence, like the design argument, the cosmological argument, the first cause argument, or the argument from contingency. The…
If deism is true, atheism is false. The primary arguments used by atheists—the problem of evil and divine hiddenness—do not undermine deism. Therefore, these arguments fail to disprove deism and, by extension, fail to support atheism.
“Religion spreads because it gets to children first”? Sure, and so does language, manners, math, and every other civilization-building truth. The fact that something is taught young doesn’t make it false, it makes it foundational. Also, tell that to the tens of thousands of…
Religion doesn’t spread because it’s true. It spreads because it gets to children first
This is a perfect example of why modern analytic philosophy flounders in metaphysics where the scholastics shine. Strip away the surface clarity and you’re left with conceptual confusion mistaking the real for the substantial, the felt for the ontologically positive, and the…
It strikes me as obvious that suffering has positive form in its one right—different forms, or instantiated orders, like pain, depression, dread, and despair. These are concrete, causal things: Pain is a substance that causes wincing and groaning and is caused by tissue damage.
Only sports worth focusing on: 1. Lifting weights 2. Martial arts HIGH ROI - You get in shape and you can defend yourself The rest are useless "YEAH BRO I PLAY SOCCER" Who the fuck cares that you can kick a ball? Kick another man in the head instead.
Hatefulness, pain, despair, depression, and dread are not counterexamples to the principle that being and goodness are convertible. In Thomistic metaphysics, evil is not a substance but a privation, a lack of due good in something that exists. These experiences do exist, but only…
Hatefulness, pain, despair, depression, and dread all have being—the exist in the world, but they are certainly not good. That something exists is one thing, but that they are good or bad is another. It is certainly not tautological that if something exists then it is also good.
The most basic principle of morality - do good and avoid evil- is either obligatory or optional. If it is obligatory, then morality is grounded in moral obligation, and any account of morality must explain the origin and binding force of such obligation. If it is not…
Humean style claims that philosophical arguments aren’t demonstrative overlook a foundational insight from Aristotle and Aquinas: some truths are self-evident and must be accepted for any reasoning to begin. For example, the principle of non-contradiction isn’t proven, it’s…
Every philosophical argument is undermined by assumptions in Hume's problem of induction. 1/ There are two forms of knowledge: maths (demonstration) and science (experience and the scientific method). 2/ Philosophical arguments are not demonstrative since the denial of any…
The only person who is free is the one who lives for Christ. St. John Chrysostom
The moral argument as stated in contemporary analytic philosophy is quite weak, as is all theistic arguments are. Fortunately the scholastic versions stand strong.
Fun fact: the moral argument fails. Here’s why👇 youtu.be/KDoH0yJAffA