I was thinking you were making both an ontological and a political point by invoking dialectical materialism and claiming he bought dialectical materialism and theism. My comment was directed more to his ontological stance than his politics. I think it's pretty clear he's not a dialectical materialist a la Sartre or Marx for that matter. If the "papists" criticize capitalism, it will be because of different metaphysical commitments than the Marxist. That's my only point.
Other than that, I understand the point you are making, Neil.
Take a look at Ratzinger's book "Truth and Tolerance" where he gives a summary of his view of Liberation Theology. Marxist economic theory is a primary aspect of that particular theological slant, especially given it's view of sin being primarily located in political and social structures (thus changing the way salvation and conversion operate). I think he articulates it in such a way that his view is not a difference in degree but fundamentally a difference in kind.
I suppose he could mean Catholic politics, although given what he's been speaking about concerning the religious and moral bankruptcy of Europe, I'm not sure it can be reduced completely to the political sphere. It is true, however, that the cultural sphere and political sphere tend to bleed into one another.
So, would you say it is not the case that "A society in which the Christian conscience does not live anymore loses direction, does not know anymore where to go, ends up empty and bankrupt"? Are you disagreeing with that statement merely because the Pope said it, or because the statement is false?
Rather than actually debate global warming per se, something which I don't have the resources nor desire to do, I would like to ask Neil a question. Do you think reality (be it the natural world, conceptual realities, etc.) has an intelligible, rational structure? I would like to satisfy my curiosity.
Here is a resource that may prove helpful. It's written by experts in the field of philosophy but, as with any encyclopedia, should only be taken as having cursory overviews on disputed topics and concepts.
Fair enough, Neil. Actually, I'm grateful we were able to chase this as far as we did on these threads. I think you've got a good mind.
Ultimately, I think the kind of empiricism you despise is a very modern version of it. It, in effect, limits the kinds and principles of explanations one can invoke for most phenomena. Furthermore, it tends to be reductive and materialistic. This, I think, is a mistake.
Please don't mistake my questioning for luring. I think our conversation was helpful.
Are you saying both Thomas and Aristotle argue for behaviorist "tabula rasa" (I'm not entirely sure what that is. It sounds vaguely Humean however)? Once again, I think you are conflating their position with that of a Humean skeptic. What do you think a teleological proof is intended to show? Finally, what is the content of this innate knowledge? Is there actually a God "idea" somewhere in the furniture of our minds? Merely having a logical structure to thought and language doesn't exactly impart anything positive because it is formal and has no content, per se. It can't make any existential claims. Would you accept someone's claim that the scripture (Say, the book of Mormon or the Koran) is foundational and, when asked why, say it claims to be so and that is why you must accept it? I'm beginning to think your entire epistemic foundation really relies on some kind of election model that you haven't revealed yet.