Edward Feser's Blog, page 59

At last, another open thread!

Long overdue (sorry), it’s the latest open thread.  Talk amongst yourselves.  Unlike Linda Richman, I won’t give you a topic.    From Aquinas to Quine, Cheap Trick or fine wine, bad puns and lame rhymes – the field is wide open.  Though, you know, maybe capital punishment is a little played at the moment…As always, keep it civil, keep it classy, no trolling or troll-feeding. 

A stocking stuffer for your Romanian friends

Just in time for Christmas: A collection of several of my essays has been published in a Romanian translation, under the title De la Aristotel la John Searle și înapoi. Patru articole filosofice.  More information here.Since we’re on the subject of translation (not to mention stocking stuffers), it is worth reminding interested readers that The Last Superstition is available in a German translation and a Portuguese translation.

The latest on By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed

Last month, Joe Bessette and I participated in a panel discussion about our book By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment at the Fall Conference of the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture.  The other participants were Gerard Bradley and John O’Callaghan, and the session was moderated by Matthew Franck.  The session can now be viewed at YouTube.Recently I responded to David Bentley Hart and Paul Griffiths’ negative reviews of the book.  In his “While We’re At It” column in the January issue of First Things, Rusty Reno expresses his own disagreement with Hart and (to a lesser extent) Griffiths.  (You’ll need to scroll down to find the relevant section.)

The Claremont Review of Books has posted its annual Christmas Reading List with suggestions from a variety of writers and thinkers.  Two of them, The Witherspoon Institute’s Matthew Franck and C. J. Wolfe of North Lake College, refer to By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed.  Franck says, among other things, that “this is the book that must be refuted if further steps are to be taken by Church leaders to condemn the death penalty.”

Manion on By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed

At The Wanderer, Catholic writer Christopher Manionkindly reviews By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment .  From the review:
A highly recommended book that sheds the patient, clear light of reason on the issue of capital punishment.  Every U.S. bishop should read it…
In recent years, position statements and lobbying efforts of the USCCB have ranged across a wide variety of prudential issues, from global warming and tax policy to immigration and the death penalty.
There are many policy approaches to such issues that might conform to the precepts of legitimate Catholic social teaching, so Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Church, requires that action on in this area be left to the laity.However, leaders and bureaucrats at the USCCB routinely violate that magisterial teaching, and pretend that theirs is the only permissible “Catholic” position when they choose a particular agenda item to champion.

Over the years, this bad habit has put the faithful in a position of delicacy, patiently and charitably reminding the bishops that they are trespassing in the realm that is the property of the laity…
Feser and Bessette’s monumental work is so welcome in so many ways.  It offers a model for the thorough, careful, and charitable approach that the faithful must embrace to address the myriad of issues that lie in the realm of the laity…
Regarding capital punishment, the bishops’ strenuous advocacy is well-known…
Yes, Popes St. John Paul II and Benedict have called for its abolition; they stressed that their opinions were not magisterial, but that rational voice has faded.  So today it falls to the laity to explain the principles underlying the issues of crime and punishment, laying out the arguments to explain the principles in the light of the rich tradition of Catholic thought.  After all, the laity has a fundamental right to the truth, including when it comes to capital punishment.
And the truth is exactly what Feser and Bessette offer in their impressive study.  Since popular arguments against the death penalty are often based on sentiment, they take great care in presenting a clear and rational discussion to shed the patient, clear light of reason on the issue.  The authors do a masterful job, addressing the issue of capital punishment from the point of view of the Natural Law, Church teaching, and theological and philosophical anthropology…
Yes, busy bishops must often assign to their staffs, lawyers, and advisers the detailed studies that inform the positions they take publicly.  Well, it’s time for a change: Simply put, every bishop should read this book.
Can he deal with its rational analysis shorn of sentiment and opinion?  The authors have written so clearly and cogently that the reader who supports abolishing the death penalty can at least say that he has honestly considered the best possible arguments against his own position.  In fact, the authors make the bishops’ arguments better than they make them themselves! …
This beautifully researched and clearly written work will now become the standard Catholic work on capital punishment.

Debate? What debate?

Catholic apologist Dave Armstrongseems to be a well-meaning fellow, but I have to say that I am finding some of his behavior very odd.  To my great surprise, I learned this afternoon that he has grandly announced the following on Facebook:
Dr. Feser and I Will be Debating the Biblical Passages Purporting to Support the Death Penalty…
This will no doubt be a vigorous (and possibly voluminous) debate…
I respect Dr. Feser for being willing to vigorously defend his positions. That's as rare as hen's teeth these days. I'm the same way, so I am really looking forward to the discussion.
End quote.  I see that some of his readers are expressing interest in this debate, asking when and where it will occur, etc.   I am sorry to disappoint them, but I have to say that I have no idea what Armstrong is talking about. 
That Armstrong and I are about to engage in a “vigorous” “debate” – and indeed one of “possibly voluminous” length! – is news to me.  I was never invited to debate him, would not have agreed to do so had I been asked, and have zero time for or interest in doing so.  This is entirely an invention of Armstrong’s.
Yesterday at his blog Armstrong had announced that he is opposed to capital punishment and directed his readers to the critical remarks that Fastiggi, Brugger, Hart, and McClamrock have made about By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed .  I posted a comment in his combox to the effect that if he was going to link to those critical reviews, then to be fair he ought also to link to my replies to them.  He has since done so, and we exchanged a couple other remarks in his combox.  That’s all.
Again, where he got the idea that I had agreed to a “debate” with him of possibly “voluminous” length, I have no idea.
I also have to take exception to another remark Armstrong made in his Facebook announcement.  He wrote:
[Feser’s] reply to patristics scholar David Bentley Hart's review of his book was entitled, "Hot Air vs. Capital Punishment: . . ." And he wrote, "Hart’s review in Commonweal is so rhetorically over-the-top and dishonest that the effect is more comical than offensive”…
Low blows such as these poison the well and are unnecessary.  I hope Dr. Feser refrains from them if he debates me.
End quote.  Since Armstrong had directed his readers to Hart’s review, I assume he knows that Hart compared my co-author Joe Bessette and me to Torquemada and attributed to us “a moral insensibility that is truly repellant,” among other unmerited insults.  Why it is OK for Hart to say such things but a “low blow” for me to object to Hart saying them, Armstrong does not explain.  In my response to Hart, I also documented several cases where Hart had undeniably and gravely misrepresented what Joe Bessette and I say in the book.  That is why I used the word “dishonest.”  It was not a gratuitous insult but a conclusion based on evidence – evidence to which Armstrong offers no response.
I would recommend to Armstrong that, if in future he wants someone to take seriously the prospect of debating him, it would be a good idea for him not to make such gratuitous and unfair remarks from the get-go.  It would also be a good idea to announce the debate only after an actual invitation and acceptance, not before.

Feser vs. Ahmed on Unbelievable?

Recently, on the UK radio program Unbelievable? with Justin Brierley, I debated atheist philosopher Arif Ahmed on the subject of my book Five Proofs of the Existence of God .  You can now listen to the debate online.Other recent interviews about the book include those on The Ben Shapiro Show , The Andrew Klavan Show , The Dennis Prager Show , The Michael Medved Show , The Patrick Coffin Show , Pints with Aquinas with Matt Fradd , and many others.  Further media appearances forthcoming.  Stay tuned.

Reply to Griffiths and Hart

By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment received some pretty nasty reviews from Paul Griffiths in First Things and David Bentley Hart in Commonweal.   My response to Griffiths and Hart can now be read at Catholic World Report.My three-part reply to the objections recently raised by E. Christian Brugger and Christopher Tollefsen can be found at Public Discourse.  My replies to the criticisms raised by Robert Fastiggi can be found at Catholic World Report. 

Barron and Craig event

On Saturday, January 13, 2018, the Claremont Center for Reason, Religion, and Public Affairs will host “A Conversation with Bishop Robert Barron and William Lane Craig” at Claremont McKenna College.  The moderators of the discussion will be Stephen Davis and Edward Feser.  The event is free but registration is required.  More information here.Further details forthcoming.

Reply to Fastiggi

In a recent article at Catholic World Report, Prof. Robert Fastiggi defends the claim that the Church could reverse her traditional teaching that capital punishment is legitimate in principle.  My reply to Fastiggi has now been posted at CWR.Meanwhile, all three of my articles replying to Brugger and Tollefsen have now been posted at Public Discourse.  Next on the agenda: replies to Griffiths and Hart.  Stay tuned.

Reply to Brugger and Tollefsen (Updated again)

UPDATE 11/21: Part 3 has also now been posted.

UPDATE 11/20: Part 2 has now been posted.

In a recent series of articles at Public Discourse, E. Christian Brugger (hereand here) and Christopher Tollefsen (here and here) have criticized By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment .  This week, Public Discourse is running my three-part reply.  Part 1 has now been posted.My reply to Robert Fastiggi’s most recent Catholic World Report article will also appear this week at CWR.  Replies to Paul Griffiths’ review in First Things and David Bentley Hart’s review in Commonweal are also forthcoming.  Stay tuned.