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):||9 July 2012|
|PDF File Size:||3.76 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||7.50 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Unfortunately, Feser doesn’t tell us how to figure out what an object’s intended and moral purposes are. Feser is unfamiliar with the history of infanticide in Greek, Roman, and medieval European societies. See my book Philosophy of Mind, and much of the second half of The Last Superstition, for the sorts of arguments I would defend.
But this is absurd: And as Feser makes resoundingly clear, you really didn’t need to read those guys anyway, because Aristotle and Aquinas still make one hell of a tag team when what you want is an old-school philsophical beat-down of the kind that once lent greatness to Western Civilization. Then Achilles, however fast he is, can never outran the tortoise. In short, this book contains well made refutations to particular challenges and assumptions made by the “Four Horseman” as well as other atheists.
Again, the atheist will of course dismiss all of this as falsehood added to falsehood. Into the bargain, it would entail that communication is impossible, since we would never be using the same words indeed, you would never be using the same word more than once even when talking to yourself, but only words that resemble each other – in which case, why is the nominalist talking to us?
However, Feser mistakes examples of the sorts of arguments Aristotle and Aquinas use to demonstrate their arguments for proofs that these arguments in any way represent the world as it really is.
Chapter five talks about how according to Feser modern philosophers abandoned rather than refuted Aristotelianism, and embraced mechanical philosophy and materialism. He need not – in my opinion – be so self-deprecating as to expect boredom in the reader for the long sections on Aristotelian causality and so on: The first chapter, “Bad Religion” is excellent, and could easily be expanded into an entire book. Is it a fixed number, or can we define them into existence, or what?
This everyday sort of reasoning is inherently probabilistic and therefore always at least somewhat tentative. The only way to talk to this level of scientist. The Experience of God Kindle Edition.
Some of the best and brightest are the very rudest, when rebuking fools in their folly.
Islam and Judaism are inferior to Roman Catholicism, Protestantism is also pretty bad laet according to Ed Feser, they started the downfall of the west by giving religion a bad name thirty years war etc. But, Dawkins maintains, Charles Darwin changed all that. Abandoning Aristotelianism, as the founders of modern philosophy did, was the single greatest mistake ever made in the entire history of Western thought.
An Atheist Reviews The Last Superstition: A Refutation Of The New Atheism
Not Enabled Word Wise: Many secularists like to assimilate religion to superstition, when in fact superstition is not religion per se but at most the corruption of true religion – just as tyranny is not government superstitiom se but merely the corruption of government, just as wage labor is comparable to slavery only very remotely and only under the very worst circumstances, and just as prostitution is not in any interesting sense even remotely comparable to marriage despite some extremely superficial analogies.
Dennett gives it a paragraph. The problem of induction C. This pigeonholing leads Feser to conclusions like that same-sex marriage is an impossibility because, well, that’s just not what marriage isknow what I mean? Greeks Bearing Gifts It was said that he was bom superstitoin a virgin, and that his father was a deity. Briggs, You have identified a drawback in your selected source material. He conveniantly forgets to add that the USA itself must be an abomination in his world view born philosphically of the modernist enlightenment.
Complex inorganic systems C. This metaphysics is presented as it developed historically, beginning with the pre-Socratics, on through Plato and Aristotle, to its full flowering among the Scholastics. I’m not sure if this has the intended effect.
Buy for others
For when the consequences of its philosophical foundations are worked out consistently, it can be seen to undermine the very possibility of rationality and morality themselves. His main contribution to our intellectual life, here as elsewhere, is to prove by example that a journalist who reads more than most of his colleagues do by no means thereby understands more.
Keep in mind, though, that these are all questions of fact, not metaphysics. For reasons such as this, conceptualism hopes to avoid realism not by denying that universals exist, but rather by denying only that they exist outside the mind. I went into philosophy for the money. He depends upon Thomistic assumptions for his case to work.
Braude, who is one of the few serious philosophers to write on parapsychology in a way that is both sympathetic and rigorous. Hence a triangle drawn slowly and carefully on paper with a Rapidograph and a straight edge is going to be a more perfect approximation than one hastily scrawled in crayon on the cracked plastic seat cover of a moving bus. Please try again later. For if we say that our concepts, standards of logic, etc. Feser looks to the best arguments to make his points, and I think he makes them very well.
This is not to begin some emotional Road to Damascus saga: The idea of final cause here is key. Name calling, while entertaining, is rarely effective at anything other than rallying the troops.
Since this is only an assertion, no refutation alst needed. Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. In every other area of controversy, virtually no argument is ever considered decisively refuted: God Himself had nothing but insult and exasperation for the intelligentsia of His time and place of Incarnation.
But inasmuch as the positivist mind has failed to school itself in careful metaphysical thinking, its ventures at such points will be apt to appear pitiful, inadequate, or even fantastic. Trade the Jolt Cola in for a martini. One thing that seemed noteworthy to me in reading the two books at the same time was that David Hume is pivotal to them both: