18 17 16 15 14 13 12 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Feser, Edward. The last superstition: a refutation of the new atheism / Edward. Well the book, called The Last Superstition: A Refutation Of The New Atheism, written by a philosopher named Edward Feser, arrived a few. Last Superstition, The. A Refutation of the New Atheism. Feser, Edward. The central contention of the “New Atheism” of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam.
|Published (Last):||8 September 2009|
|PDF File Size:||16.42 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.51 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Pre-Socratic philosophers differed not only over whether to emphasize the senses or the intellect as the fundamental source of our knowledge, but also over whether to emphasize the oneness and permanence we observe in the world, or the diversity and change we also observe in it. The most important thing to know about it is that the very idea is a metaphysical absurdity and a moral abomination, and again demonstrably so.
The first chapter, “Bad Religion” is excellent, and could easily be expanded into an entire book. The implication for me, in this context, is that morality is based on compassion, not on rules. Every atheist who is sincerely committed to his belief, that is. But because this bad metaphysics is held by him supeerstition or less unconsciously, he has been able very effectively to propagate it by insinuation rather than argument to countless readers, and to remain blissfully edwafd that there is any serious tue to it.
In the real, mind-independent world it exists only in actual animals, and always inseparably tied to either rationality or non-rationality. Feder you are looking to sharpen your skills as a Christian apologist or are looking for a book that takes a skeptical and critical look at the claims of the New Atheists this is a good one.
Such a development calls for an investigation into the sociology, and perhaps also the psychopathology, of the secularist readership, who will apparently swallow anything their gurus shovel veser them.
A back to basics explanation of the philosophy of Aristotle and Aquinas, he explains the metaphysics at a level that is perfect for people with no training in philosophy beginning with the questions these philosophers were attempting to provide an answer to. It is, accordingly, the highest object of contemplation, and knowledge of it is the supreme kind of knowledge.
He thinks the arguments are saying something that they certainly aren’t saying; something any sort of even basic research would have clearly revealed. What I am saying is that it was the logical development of Aristotelian ideas primarily by his medieval Scholastic admirers that provided the most powerful and systematic intellectual foundation for traditional Western religion supperstition morality – and for that matter, for science, morality, politics, and theology in general – that has ever existed.
Feser is unfamiliar with the history of infanticide in Greek, Roman, and medieval European societies. For now, let us briefly consider some of the reasons why realism, in some form or other, has seemed inescapable even to many thinkers viscerally inclined to reject it; and why the escapes attempted by other philosophers – namely nominalism and conceptualism – have seemed ultimately indefensible, however eagerly or desperately some have tried to defend them.
When someone proclaims atheism to be a religion, you know there was something wrong happening supersfition his central nervous system.
Instead of going on and on about how Dawkins and Dennett are this or that, Feser should have focused more on making the case for theism air-tight. Other very good articles on dualism are written by philosopher and parapsychologist Titus Rivas: As I said to Chinahand, above: Hence permanence is possible, despite what Heraclitus says. This is more or less how I come to be reading this kind of thing. Some primordial examples of which are: When you add to it as Kant would not have the suggestion that the way our minds are structured is determined by contingent and evolving social, historical, and cultural circumstances, the laast is a very radical form of cultural relativism, on which all our concepts, as well as logic, mathematics, science, etc.
The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism
What jackasses such as yourself hide behind is psychology: If so, he is profoundly ignorant of the very nature of the arguments. And yet it is also a belief system that is, as I have said, deeply irrational and immoral, supersrition the very negation of reason and morality. Then, repeat the exercise. Who Should Have the Right to Vote? For a brief introduction, see especially chapters 6 and 7 of Philosophy of Mind, which gives an overview of some key arguments that show in my view that it is in principle impossible to explain either our capacity for abstract thought, or intentionality in general, in purely materialistic terms.
That the distinction is a distinction between interdependent aspects of a thing is what makes a simultaneous reply to Parmenides, Heraclitus, and Plato possible. Every individual animal is either rational as human beings are or non-rational as all other animals are. I hold instead that they ought to be restored to their rightful place as the guiding principles of Western thought, society, and politics, and that, lasr, secularism ought to be driven back into the intellectual and political margins whence it came, and to which it would consign religion and traditional morality.
Full text of “The Last Superstition”
Not Enabled Word Wise: See all Editorial Reviews. In this case you will not conclude that the spigot was the cause, at least not by itself.
This is a serious and passionately engaged challenge to the latest effort to impose a dehumanizing orthodoxy by religious illiterates. So, no potential can actualize itself, and in this sense anything that changes requires something outside it to change it. With Parmenides, he identifies reality, at least in the fullest sense of the term, with what is eternal and unchanging, and insists that it is known through the intellect rather than the senses.
And that is that the New Atheists have not made a strong effort to take on the best arguments for theism. For any particular triangle, red thing, or human being, or even the whole collection of these evward, could go out of existence, and yet triangularity, redness, and humanness could come to be exemplified once again. What we know when we know the essence of triangularity is something universal rather than particular, something immaterial rather than material, and something we know through the intellect rather than the senses.
The Aristotelian usage is the older usage; the newer usage is a novelty, and one that leads to all sorts of misunderstandings on the part of modem writers when they consider Aristotelian ideas and arguments.
Descent of the Modernists Pre-birth of the modern Thoroughly modern metaphysics Inventing the mind-body problem Universal acid A. Since they are necessary and unalterable supersfition unlike facts about material thingsand since no material thing has the perfection that geometrical objects have, they do not depend on the material world either.
While he had no intention of embracing Christianity or any of the other traditional monotheistic religions, he had, he revealed, been led by philosophical arguments to conclude that there really is a God after all – specifically, a First Cause of the universe of the sort described by Aristotle. Showing of reviews. But once I settled in and got used to the authors style it became much easier to comprehend. He seems to equivocate on “in” and edsard leaves open the conclusion that, say, persons that have died, say, St.
Of course, I am not so foolish as to think that no reasonable person could possibly fail to agree with me after reading this book. The telos the final cause, or what might be called the “purpose” of sex is procreation, and therefore anything that frustrates that natural purpose must be immoral.
This perplexes some readers who undoubtedly expect theists to be soft-spoken, meek, and humble to the point of willing to concede miles to gain an inch. But such ignorance is efward disgraceful in the case of Dennett and Harris, who are trained philosophers. With Heraclitus, he holds that these real things undergo change; with Parmenides, he holds that what is real cannot be change alone; and with Plato, he holds that form is the key to understanding how something permanent underlies all change.
Would this save the view from collapsing into incoherence?