Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Just submitted the manuscript for my book "God and AI" to @IFFGCC Faith & Freedom Press. Expected publication is September 2026.
English
Brian Dellinger
16.1K posts
Brian Dellinger
@IrkedIndeed
College professor, Christian, computer scientist, pen-and-paper gaming enthusiast, husband, father of two. Occasional articles at @amspectator and @iffgcc.
Katılım Eylül 2010
92 Takip Edilen163 Takipçiler
@Moderatemuch @Clintonshaw88 Not without wading through more classic literature than I have energy for tonight, my apologies.
English
@IrkedIndeed @Clintonshaw88 Can you give a specific instance of this?
English
The remarkable thing to me is that everywhere we can experimentally check Aquinas - everywhere he directly imports Aristotle for commentary on the physical world - he's verifiably wrong. And these physical claims are part and parcel of justifying the whole metaphysic!
sᴄᴏᴛᴛ ᴀɴɪᴏʟ@ScottAniol
The pipeline is real: discover classical theism → read the Summa → decide the Reformers didn't go far enough → swim the Tiber. The problem isn't the doctrine of divine simplicity. The problem is treating a medieval friar as functionally infallible.
English
@Clintonshaw88 @Moderatemuch I agree. As per my other reply, it invalidates either the metaphysics or the application; the physical errors do not prove the metaphysics incorrect. (I don't think I've claimed otherwise?)
English
That still doesn’t get you where you want to go.
Classical metaphysics doesn’t entail a specific physical model (geocentrism, crystalline spheres, etc.). It entails very general features of reality, change, causality, act/potency, hierarchy of causes, that are compatible with multiple physical theories.
So even if someone misapplies the metaphysic and derives a bad cosmology, that’s a failure of the application, not a falsification of the metaphysic itself.
Your argument only works if you can show:
1. the metaphysical principles logically require those specific false physical claims, and
2. those claims are essential, not contingent interpretations.
Otherwise you’re just pointing out that people can reason incorrectly from true premises, which doesn’t invalidate the premises.
English
@Clintonshaw88 @Moderatemuch Whether you think that argument holds water or not, I assure you the problem is not that I think "metaphysics" is a word for "extra special physics."
English
@Clintonshaw88 @Moderatemuch But the anticipation is still that the physics will reflect the metaphysics. Where that expectation is false - where physics doesn't turn out to look like the metaphysic - either the metaphysic itself is errant, or the expectation is.
English
@reconditenight I would say rather that Scripture is authoritative, and Thomas and I are both right when we agree with it, and wrong when we don't; I wouldn't encourage anyone to switch denominations on either of our authority.
English
@IrkedIndeed So he's only authoritative in those areas where he agrees with you i assume
English
The south wind isnt moist. Ergo we shouldn't hold Aquinas' view of the notional acts attributed to the divine person.
Brian Dellinger@IrkedIndeed
The remarkable thing to me is that everywhere we can experimentally check Aquinas - everywhere he directly imports Aristotle for commentary on the physical world - he's verifiably wrong. And these physical claims are part and parcel of justifying the whole metaphysic!
English
@Moderatemuch I don't think I agree with the specific form of that second sentence, but that aside, this is why I said it doesn't falsify P. It's possible the entailment of Q is itself the error - but if so, it's an error that recurs repeatedly.
English
@IrkedIndeed P grounds the possibility of Q
not the specific content of Q
So it’s not:
P → Q
It’s more like:
P → (Q or Q₁ or Q₂ or Qₙ…)
English
@Clintonshaw88 @Moderatemuch It's my position that Aquinas and Aristotle claim that, because of certain metaphysical truths, certain things in physics are also true. Some of those physics things are in fact not true. Do you disagree with either of those claims?
English
@Moderatemuch It doesn't falsify P! But if *the author's expectation* is that P should cause Q to be true, one has to ask why that expectation is not being met.
If this happens consistently, that suggests some authorial error (minimally, in the relationship between metaphysics and physics).
English
@Moderatemuch Yes, but where the presented relationship is "because metaphysic P is true, therefore physics Q is true," the falsity of Q is an argument against P.
English
@reconditenight The words I used were "utterly authoritative." x.com/IrkedIndeed/st…
Brian Dellinger@IrkedIndeed
Why on earth would we take him as utterly authoritative on theological ground, when he demonstrably isn't anywhere else?
English
@IrkedIndeed 'Utterly authoritative' or as authoritative?
Română
@Moderatemuch I don't think Aquinas (and certainly not Aristotle) sees the two as particularly severable. The earthly and heavenly spheres ought to reflect each other, as I understand him.
English
@Moderatemuch Okay. But when part of the defense of the metaphysic is the physics, and when it's explained that the metaphysics has implications for the physics, and the physics is *badly wrong*, this should cause us to question the metaphysic as well.
English
@reconditenight I didn't say we should assume he's wrong about everything; he isn't. I said we shouldn't take him as utterly authoritative.
English
Brian Dellinger retweetledi
This was good. @IrkedIndeed and @NeilShenvi presented a really strong pro-AI argument.
English
@JoshDaws @NeilShenvi Thank you! Neil was a fantastic partner; really appreciated him dragging the conversation back to Scripture especially.
English
@IrkedIndeed Well done. You and @NeilShenvi presented strong arguments.
English
Starting our conversation on AI in education! x.com/TheOptimisticC…
English
@TallBlondeGuy Hey - I didn't properly say thank you for nominating me to this. Thank you!
English
@IrkedIndeed I tuned in late, but I’m glad I tuned in! Great stuff today everyone!
English
@CalebDixonSmith I tried to say "part and parcel" rather than "the cause of," because it seems to me the argument flows in both directions. Certainly they seem to in Aristotle - *this* property of fire aligns with *that* metaphysical principle, which reinforces the argument for the truth of both.
English
This really isn't true. While the physics and whatnot is often wrong, it's rarely if ever actually load-bearing for the metaphysics.
Brian Dellinger@IrkedIndeed
The remarkable thing to me is that everywhere we can experimentally check Aquinas - everywhere he directly imports Aristotle for commentary on the physical world - he's verifiably wrong. And these physical claims are part and parcel of justifying the whole metaphysic!
English
(Addendum: one may judge by the level of sarcasm in the above the order in which I read these, and the level of rising exasperation with not-great texts I felt as the trip progressed.)
English
But one rather suspects that the vast majority of those he critiques wish simply to *live*, and to have their children live, and to live as creatures in some fashion slightly other than the quiet life of subsistence-farming-funded-by-international-book-sales Wendell prefers. /end
English
Easter reading on our long car trip:
1) "Consilience" by EO Wilson.
This is an odd one, because it's equal parts obvious truth and absolutely unjustified metaphysical claim.
Wilson's main thesis - all science is ultimately study of the same thing - seems clearly correct.
English