Never fear, dear reader, we really are through with the “Intelligent Design” (ID) versus Aristotelico-Thomism (A-T) debate for a while, and will now return to the regular mix of posts on philosophy, theology, breathtakingly reactionary politics and pretentious pop culture analysis. But in response to requests from many readers (well, from one reader anyway), I thought I would put up a guide to the myriad ID versus A-T related posts that have appeared in this space over the last year or so. Just in case there is anyone out there not yet ready to put his fist through the monitor at the very thought of such a thing. Feser’s blog: Where it’s A-T! And all the time. (And no, I refuse to taunt my critics by linking to that other Beck video. Let’s be grown-ups here, people.)So here it is. For some posts spelling out the differences between Aristotelian and modern approaches to final causality or teleology, see:
Nature versus art
Nature versus art
Final causality and Aristotle's Unmoved Mover
For a more formal and scholarly treatment, see my Philosophia Christi article on the subject:
Teleology: A Shopper's Guide
For some posts discussing various modern non-A-T writers who have advocated something like a return to Aristotelian final causality and/or called attention to the deficiencies of a mechanistic conception of nature, see:
For a more formal and scholarly treatment, see my Philosophia Christi article on the subject:
Teleology: A Shopper's Guide
For some posts discussing various modern non-A-T writers who have advocated something like a return to Aristotelian final causality and/or called attention to the deficiencies of a mechanistic conception of nature, see:
For discussion of what is, from an A-T point of view, theologically and metaphysically objectionable about a mechanistic approach to nature and/or about Paley's design argument, see:
Thomism versus the design argument
On Aristotle, Aquinas, and Paley: A Reply to Marie George
And for posts which are aimed even more specifically at ID theory, see:
On Aristotle, Aquinas, and Paley: A Reply to Marie George
And for posts which are aimed even more specifically at ID theory, see:
Cudworth and Fuller respond
Unhinged Dissent
Heads ID wins, tails you lose: A reply to Jay Richards
Reply to Torley and Cudworth
I’ve probably forgotten something here or there – let me know if there are any other posts you think I should include. And as always, keep in mind that many of these posts presuppose themes I’ve developed in detail in The Last Superstition and Aquinas.
Heads ID wins, tails you lose: A reply to Jay Richards
Reply to Torley and Cudworth
I’ve probably forgotten something here or there – let me know if there are any other posts you think I should include. And as always, keep in mind that many of these posts presuppose themes I’ve developed in detail in The Last Superstition and Aquinas.
