This isn’t a current politics blog, and it’s not going to become one.  Every now and then, though, I can’t resist.

This letter comes from a doctoral student and professor in a seminary in Spain.

Question:

All other things being equal, we ought to accept the hypothesis which best explains what we observe.

A social scientist writes, “I just read an article in Public Interest in which the philosopher Edward Feser says Thomists ‘deny there will be non-human animals in heaven.’  Now, I understand the argument that animals on earth won't be resurrected in heaven.  But he seems to be saying more.”

Adapted from this book

One of the readers of this blog asks a good question about last week’s post, “Why Can’t Johnnie Reason?”:

Postmodernist Essay Generator

In yesterday’s post I decoded the convoluted remark by a defender of dishonest journalism that “to let fact checking define the narrative would be a huge mistake.”

I’m breaking my “Monday for students” rule again.  This letter is from an attorney in Jamaica.

Query:

Why is it that we humans find nothing wrong in defying physical laws, for example by flying, yet we do consider it wrong for us to defy moral laws?  Just thinking.

Friedrich Nietzsche, the philosopher of will to power who originated the motto “God is dead,” wrote, "I think of myself as the scrawl which an unknown power scribbles across a sheet of paper, to try out a new pen" (letter to Peter Gast, August, 1881).