I'm going to open up with some remarks about the critique of natural theology that one finds in Hume and Kant.

Then I'm going to make the fairly obvious point after a few.

I'll adorn it a little bit.

But then I'm going to make the obvious point that if you start where Kant and Hume start

with their conceptions of substance and causality, anything like the medieval projects

of natural theology are dead from the start.

And so if we're going to resurrect natural theology,

what we basically have to do is to at least have confidence that we're on all fours

philosophically with the empiricist tradition on notions like substance and causality.

So we've polished off substance pretty well, and so I'm going to spend the last part of my paper

just looking at the contemporary discussion or kind of, it's not exactly a discussion, but compare

Aristotelian, to mystic Aristotelian notions about efficient causality with what's going on in the

literature, at least the literature that was current up till about 10 years ago when I was

working more, working harder and concentrating on the stuff.

So I hope that that, yeah, so there aren't any big subtle moves in this paper.

Okay.

One thing that did occur to me, though, when Jeff Browler wrote the list of topics that we had been covering in this workshop on the board yesterday,

was that if you added a couple here and there, you basically cover all the topics that Zwaraz covers in the metaphysical disputations. I mean, obviously, we didn't go

into as much depth in everything, but this really is a good introduction to, in general,

scholastic metaphysics and to St. Thomas's metaphysics, because at least you're getting a little bit of all the main topics.

The only other thing that we would want to get to more explicitly would be what analytic philosophers

call philosophy of mind, what I call philosophical anthropology.

...