tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post111677447547320790..comments2024-01-15T05:32:24.873-05:00Comments on The Jon Rowe Archives: Jonathan Rowehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1116852570788742062005-05-23T08:49:00.000-04:002005-05-23T08:49:00.000-04:00I agree with your reader that Feser's article is f...I agree with your reader that Feser's article is fundamentally incoherent: Feser attempts to appeal to common rationality, yet admits that his central premise cannot be empirically verified. He writes:<BR/><BR/><I>And the purpose of sexual organs, if they have one, isn’t any more mysterious than that of corkscrews.</I><BR/><BR/>Feser belies his point by qualifying it. No one seriously doubts that corkscrews have a purpose: They're manmade tools, after all. But Feser cannot assert definitively that sexual organs have any purpose at all. That ontological uncertainty automatically makes sexual organs more mysterious than corkscrews.<BR/><BR/>Luckily, he's compensated for the deficiencies in his argument with a perfectly hilarious Freudian symbol.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12608889417356450181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1116829412866104112005-05-23T02:23:00.000-04:002005-05-23T02:23:00.000-04:00Fascinating post Jonathan. The thing that first st...Fascinating post Jonathan. The thing that first strikes me off the bat is the supreme arrogance of this kind of "natural law" thinking. I'm no longer a Christian though I was very intensely for many years -- I prefer the "mystic/occultist" label these days -- but were I still a theist, I'd look down on this manner of thought for a simple reason: it's attempting to know things that cannot be known. We cannot know what God's purpose was for creating the penis or the vagina. It cannot be found using logic.<BR/><BR/>I still have many, many evangelical Christian friends who I'm very close to and I like them because rarely do I see them putting themselves on God's pedestal and asserting that "God wants this" or "God made this because..." The Christians who claim to know the will of God or the answers to the many mysteries of the world are usually the most annoying (Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, etc.) They're the ones that give the good Christians a bad name.David Swindlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04326243279044404859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1116808408734355282005-05-22T20:33:00.000-04:002005-05-22T20:33:00.000-04:00Great points guys.RE: Bill's point on overeating,...Great points guys.<BR/><BR/>RE: Bill's point on overeating, Daniel Dennett has made a similar point about out "sweet tooth." In our evolutionary state when food was very scarce and we were constantly running around on the go, eating as many sweets and sugars as we could get our hands on was positively good for us. Therefore our sweet tooth evolved as something that was very beneficial and good for human beings. <BR/><BR/>But now in civilization when food is abundant and many of us work behind a desk most of the day instead of chasing buffolo, nature's desire for us to eat as many sweet things as possible is not at all good for us.<BR/><BR/>(Indeed, I work out and run friggin 4-times to keep my weight in check because I refuse to give up sweets.)Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1116802422136391352005-05-22T18:53:00.000-04:002005-05-22T18:53:00.000-04:00David,This is my first encounter with "Natural Law...David,<BR/><BR/>This is my first encounter with "Natural Law." The way I understand it, it's OK to have sex with a woman who "happens" to be pregnant or infertile. It's only when one takes positive action to prevent pregnancy by usng a contraceptive that it's "illicit."Bill Warehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11678665649603726370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1116802062611804462005-05-22T18:47:00.000-04:002005-05-22T18:47:00.000-04:00Jon,I left Feser this post:"Very enlightening pres...Jon,<BR/><BR/>I left Feser this post:<BR/><BR/>"Very enlightening presentation of Nature Law Theory. It's in a squirrel's nature to run up trees and gather acorns. Yet this seems a lot like instinct to me. We have the instinct to eat and have sex. Yet strictly following our nature could cause us to overeat or over procreate, either of which could have negative consequences. We would do well to counter our nature in these cases, to eat less and use contraceptives to ensure that we have no more children than we are able to raise. Call it common sense, but that's what my moral system would tell me to do."Bill Warehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11678665649603726370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1116780754706095762005-05-22T12:52:00.000-04:002005-05-22T12:52:00.000-04:00Actually, Feser's articulation of the natural law ...Actually, Feser's articulation of the natural law theory is NOT coherent. It's arrogant theistic crap that falls apart even if one accepts its premises. Its apparent coherence is largely rhetorical, not logical. Consider the analogy with the screwdriver: it supports Feder's argument only if in fact a thing's "purpose" is always and necessarily singular. A screwdriver may be designed to serve a single end, but that hardly means all tools are so designed. The internal combustion engine is used mainly to power automobiles, but it was hardly intended only to do so; it is also pretty useful for powering lawnmowers, generators, and backhoes. And if I use an engine to power a backhoe I cannot for that time also use it to power a forklift.<BR/><BR/>Feder's claim that nonprocreative sex is "contrary to" the intended use of the sexual organs--in the sense that secondary uses preclude some primary use--is obviously and empirically false. It's perfectly possible for someone to have lots of nonprocreative sex AND to have as many children as the next couple. It only takes an occasional act of procreative sex to do the trick. And consider the case of a husband and wife who continue to have sex after the wife is pregnant--clearly no additional pregnancy can result from such sex. Does the Church consider such sex sinful? If it does, then why did God make us so that we continue to get horny in such circumstances? Feser might argue, somewhat more sensibly, that it's wrong to have sex without EVER having children, or without having LOTS of children--but that is not the same as making the more puritanical argument against non-procreative sex per se. It is an argument against failing to produce children, which is not the same as an argument against non-procreative sex.<BR/><BR/>It's easy to find examples where we use an organ for purposes contrary to its "intended" use--in the sense that such uses preclude a primary use--yet without incurring any moral fault. When children close their eyes during a game of hide and seek, they cannot see--they contravene the "intended" use of their eyes--yet they are hardly being sinful in doing so. Instead, they are momentarily contravening the use of those organs in order to have a little fun. If that's not wrong--and I would assume Feser is not ready to declare the game of hide and seek to be sinful--then why is it so wrong when a couple plays a grown-up game that involves temporarily using its sex organs for pleasure rather than procreation? (I can play the analogy game too.)<BR/><BR/>Also, how narrowly do we define "purpose"? If we follow the biblical story of Onan (one of the most persistently and egregiously misread stories in all of scripture), we might conclude that his "sin," for which he supposedly paid with his life, was not coitus interruptus per se (and certainly not masturbation), but more narrowly his failure to produce an heir for his dead brother. If he had produced such an heir and only afterward engaged in coitus interruptus, would it have been a sin? Who knows? Where the scripture itself is silent, as in this case, ideology is sure to chime in....<BR/><BR/>Of course, the legal and social contexts within which the Onan story once made sense no longer obtain. Could it not be that something's "intended purpose" changes with changes in the context of its use? If you buy the counterargument that religion is committed to "timeless, unchanging values," I've got a bridge to sell you. Remember that the Church once used the same "natural law" crap to argue against charging interest for loans.<BR/><BR/>As for Max Goss, it is indeed possible that the sex organs were intended to have more than one use. He is still unnecessarily puritanical, however, for he refuses to acknowledge the possibility that his God might have intended for humans to experience pleasure more generally as a good in its own right. Was that in fact God's intention? Again, who can but God himself? It's really difficult in some cases to ascertain just what something's intended use might be--unless, of course, you're as comfortable as our more arrogant theists are at reading the Mind of God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com