Sabitlenmiş Tweet
NYHorn
5.8K posts
NYHorn
@NYHorn
PhD Philosopher in "Exile". Primarily interested in Ethics, Bioethics, and Epistemology. Opinions my own
Katılım Ağustos 2010
427 Takip Edilen164 Takipçiler
This blew up a bit while I was asleep. Anyway, I read all the comments. Plenty say this is false. But then plenty of others admit to skimming and skipping descriptions. Get your story straight, Booktok!
English
@OrthodoxOrigen think of the comparison and strictures of Mormonism compared to Catholicism and Evangelicalism vs Catholicism
English
Someone needs to explain the ex-Mormon attitude toward Catholicism to me.
Every ex-Mormon or liberal Mormon I’ve met has the image of Catholicism as a liberal church.
Meanwhile, ex-evangelicals I’ve met tend to view Catholicism as a repressive cult.
Someone explain this.
English
@No5mallf3at Descartes is a lot of things but worst author? how many books has op read?
English
@NYHorn Maybe some of my comments are over the top but can't we agree that there is some conceptual overlap, and that sometimes there is apparent disagreement but the disagreement is in fact merely nominal - in name only?
English
A man on the left is thinking. You ask him what he is thinking about and he says "God."
Another man is thinking. You ask him what he is thinking about and he says the Universe: everything that is the case.
What is the difference between their thoughts?
English
@PhilosopherJoeC I'd assume most people have vague ontological commitments. precise? certainly almost no one
English
@NYHorn What percentage of people even have ontological commitments?
English
@PhilosopherJoeC I assumed this was "given your ontological commitments what is each thinking about"?
English
@NYHorn Let's stick with your example. Did you ever consider that what you call "God" might be something else or nothing at all?
English
English
@ReformedToRome @5solas «5 Porque los que viven saben que han de morir; pero los muertos nada saben, ni tienen más paga; porque su memoria es puesta en olvido. […] 10 porque en el Seol, adonde vas, no hay obra, ni trabajo, ni ciencia, ni sabiduría» eclesiástes 9.
Español
@LatFilosof I think the question of the eternal thing: be it the universe or God is a problem for believer and atheist alike
it's just really hard to wrap your head around either answer
English
Some critical answers for this guy
1. Atheists don’t believe that
2. The entire field of abiogenesis
2. Cell membranes can form without DNA
3. Everywhere
4. How does God do it? No one has a very good answer.
Graham Slocombe@Graham_Slocombe
Some critical questions for you atheist... 1. How does nothing produce a universe? 2. Where's the evidence for non-life producing life? 2. How do you get a DNA without cell membrane and vice versa? 3. Where are the transitional fossils? 4. How does matter create mind? & many more
English
@of_hoot @MidnightPhilosX One person's modus ponens is another person's modus tollens. The Church had planted its flat in the ground that issues of sex and gender were of utmost importance in today's society.
The faithful disagree
English
@MidnightPhilosX It’s the moment when modern Catholics decided the Church could be safely ignored on sex, marriage, and authority. what else is there?
English
I don't think it's intelligent to make contraception the big, bad, boogeyman. I think a huge reason for the decline of Catholicism is the reactionary insistence on orthodoxy wrt abstract theology and the rejection of something closer to liberation theology.
John D. Noe@of_hoot
The answer is contraception. It’s always been contraception. Once the majority of Catholics consciously rejected the Church’s teaching that BC is gravely sinful, they concluded the Church can be wrong about mortal sin.
English
@agostino_harry @MidnightPhilosX and how would you distinguish ises that generate oughts from ises that clearly are social realities that one ought not
English
@NYHorn @MidnightPhilosX The Humean is-ought thing just seems like a silly nonstarter to me, and there’s no more lifeless moralism than “oughts” appealed to without reference to “is”es
English
Contrary to Church tradition? Yes.
Mental illness? No.
Is there complexity and negative consequences to contend with? Yes? Is there beauty to be found? Also yes. Are binary thinking and rigid dogmatism helpful? No.
Catholic Frequency@CatholicFQ
Marriage is between one man and one woman. Everything else is mental illness / rebellion against Jesus Christ.
English
@agostino_harry @MidnightPhilosX Ambiguous. Oughts are often counterfactual: You shouldn't have done that
perhaps you mean correlaries of general facts but that's just question begging
English
@NYHorn @MidnightPhilosX The only “oughts” of any interest are just corollaries of “is”es.
English
@JendersII Well... I mean that doesn't prove you can't attend. Material cooperation with evil doesn't entail impermissible
maybe you mean formal cooperation?
English
Blasphemy is profaning the sacred.
Attending the faux sacrament mocking marriage is material cooperation with intrinsic evil.
No Christian can rightfully attend a gay wedding.
Command Media@CommandMediaTV
WATCH: Fr. Calvin Robinson (@calvinrobinson) reiterates his past clashing with recently outed homosexual pastor @SamAllberry, while also explaining that Christians ARE NOT permitted to attend Gay "weddings."
English
@agostino_harry @MidnightPhilosX If your argument is that marriage is rooted in some biological reality (rather than an NL argument) then I fail to see how it isn't susceptible to the is-ought gap
English
@MidnightPhilosX I don’t think either the OP or this response are helpful. Marriage just is what it is, a human reality which precedes all our cultural and social scripts however much they mediate its reality.
The “negative consequence” of confusing them is firstly the confusion itself.
English
@OrthodoxOrigen Isn't that true for all claims though besides those of taste?
English
Yes, but how prudent this is depends on more than just mere opinion.
Reason, evidence, and the broader teaching of the Church.
Pop Cultured🇻🇦@iam_shwa
We are allowed to disagree with the Saints
English
@agostino_harry @PickenChews @metathomist @iam_shwa Now if you're appealing to a thin conception of NL where Human Beings can know what is right because God has written the law on their hearts I'm down for that but Aquinas' (and the Church's) take is way deeper than that
And clearly rooted in Aristotilean ethics with its pitfalls
English
@agostino_harry @PickenChews @metathomist @iam_shwa I don't think you can make that point without defending it. Because at the end of the day Natural Law is used and wielded to make moral claims and has deep assumptions about what makes things right
English
@agostino_harry @PickenChews @metathomist @iam_shwa To ignore post scholastic criticism of Natural Law ethics, to say nothing of contemporary analytic criticisms is insane and brackets off authentic enquiry behind the unassailable strictures of doctrine
English
@agostino_harry @PickenChews @metathomist @iam_shwa Again the problem is not whether Aquinas is right or wrong--I do think in some ways morality is a function of object and intention--but rather that delimiting morality in this way hamstrings moral enquiry in an unnecessary way
English