Thanks for the kind words. Hopefully the novel will be ready for pre-order by the end of the month. Of course, something is bound to prove Murphy's Law before then, but we'll see. Cheers!
Off topic, Joel, but I’ve often wondered how many readers of Dante’s 𝐼𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑜 were driven away from their faith rather than reinforced in it. Without even needing to go with Dante into his lower levels of Hell, I early on questioned how he could rationalize God’s relegating to Limbo those unfortunates who, through no fault of their own, happened to have lived their lives before the advent of Christ. To my mind, the best arguments against Christianity turn on points of morality, not on sometimes labored refutations of St. Anselm’s or Thomas Aquinas’s “proofs” of God’s existence. As more than one philosopher has put it, what would we think of a person suddenly endowed with God’s supposed benevolence and omnipotence who maintained or even remotely justified eternal punishments for such weak creatures as are we human beings?
I have often thought the same. "Created sick and commanded to be well," was how one pugilist phrased it. The ontological argument always struck me as suspect from the outset. Gaunilo's rejoinder to Anselm seemed plenty robust, long before stronger arguments were posited down the line. In any case, I'm glad the debate continues. We're better for the continued reflection. Thanks for the comment and your insights!
Great writing. Curious about the developments in your novel and your stories as you share them. Thanks!
Thanks for the kind words. Hopefully the novel will be ready for pre-order by the end of the month. Of course, something is bound to prove Murphy's Law before then, but we'll see. Cheers!
Off topic, Joel, but I’ve often wondered how many readers of Dante’s 𝐼𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑜 were driven away from their faith rather than reinforced in it. Without even needing to go with Dante into his lower levels of Hell, I early on questioned how he could rationalize God’s relegating to Limbo those unfortunates who, through no fault of their own, happened to have lived their lives before the advent of Christ. To my mind, the best arguments against Christianity turn on points of morality, not on sometimes labored refutations of St. Anselm’s or Thomas Aquinas’s “proofs” of God’s existence. As more than one philosopher has put it, what would we think of a person suddenly endowed with God’s supposed benevolence and omnipotence who maintained or even remotely justified eternal punishments for such weak creatures as are we human beings?
I have often thought the same. "Created sick and commanded to be well," was how one pugilist phrased it. The ontological argument always struck me as suspect from the outset. Gaunilo's rejoinder to Anselm seemed plenty robust, long before stronger arguments were posited down the line. In any case, I'm glad the debate continues. We're better for the continued reflection. Thanks for the comment and your insights!