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):||13 May 2005|
|PDF File Size:||4.27 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||14.56 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
To publish a scientific fwser without any evidence would be scandalous, but is precisely the case that Feser makes against them. Propositions cannot be identified with anything either material or mental. Aristotle, by contrast, is to them something of a wet blanket, unwilling to mix his inegalitarianism with any contempt for conventional opinion edwardd even to express it in titillating prose.
Next, construct the argument against it, and convince yourself of the soundness of that argument.
Full text of “The Last Superstition”
Not Enabled Screen Reader: I imagine that Feser would dispute this, or at least assert that it is not necessarily true, but I cannot help feeling that, in the case of The Last Superstitionthe anti-sodomy rhetoric is the passionate elephant in the room. You don’t need to have a background in philosophy to read this book. We also have to break free of the lazy habit as Plato sees it of assuming that our senses are our only sources of knowledge of reality.
Some people just can’t take yes for an answer. Between strident atheism and vanilla ecumenicism 3 days ago. Moreover, the Five Ways themselves were intended merely as a brief summary of arguments that were generally familiar to the readers of the time, and Aquinas leaves the detailed elaboration of some of them to other works, such as the Summa Contra Gentiles. OK, I know you need a break. Beforeit was reasonable to think that life on earth had been designed Another indication of this is that Aristotle would be mystified by the modem tendency to treat cause and effect as essentially a relation between temporally ordered events.
I think it is evidence of our population today being almost completely ignorant of the premises upon which the proofs would rest. Related to this argument is another one: There is also its experiential understanding, famously believed to have been experienced by Thomas Aquinas, Ibn Arabi, Gautama Buddha and innumerable other contemplatives up til the present day.
The author rebuts conventional thinking about formal and final causality, helping us understand what the old philosophers really taught when they used those terms. And there is animality in Fido, but it is there inseparably tied to non-rationality, and specifically to dog-ness.
Newton was superseded, but not abandoned. And even if someone claims to doubt the empirical premises appealed to – as, for example, Parmenides would claim to doubt that change ever occurs – it will typically be doubt of the sort that derives from some competing metaphysical theory, rather than from some scientific discovery of hereto fore-unknown evidence.
But this is absurd: That means that in order for anything in the contingent world to change there must be what is actual and what is potential. I have never seen the topics that Feser discusses presented so clearly.
But I hope that it is also, and more deeply, an expression of loyalty, gratitude, and love – for God and his many gifts, for family, and for a civilization that once defined itself in terms of these things, and which, even in its current depressing decadence, has managed to pass them on to me and to my loved ones.
I highly recommend this book to anyone, really. Its a cosmology at the very least, and when wrapped in ritual It sure starts to look an awful lot like religion. Top Reviews Most recent Top Reviews. For by the time Achilles reaches the point at which the tortoise had started, the tortoise will have reached a new position; by the time Achilles reaches that new position, the tortoise will have moved on, however slightly, to yet a new position; and so on ad infinitum.
But as Edward Feser argues in The Last Superstitionin fact there is not, and never has been, any war between science and religion at all.
When this is accomplished, religion can be seen to be grounded firmly in reasonnot blind faith.
The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism
A good editor ffser have cut a lot of the book out since it deals with right wing views of social issues not a refutation of the new atheism. English Choose a language for shopping.
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. But it is not incoherent to speak of something as purely actual, with no potentiality indeed, for Aristotle there is such a being, namely God – but again, more on this later. Instead, they spend most of the time criticizing religion and its supershition effects, especially its most stupidest forms which so happen to be the kinds that get the most publicity; a failure of religious intellectuals to make more noise.
I found this part questionable, since Aristotle was not a natural law theorist, but Feser makes a good case for the theory, if one already accepts the metaphysics that he sets out.
I think this is the only book to which I’ve assigned 5 stars. Or perhaps, paraphrasing his remark to the levitating nun, he would simply note how very big their mouths are, and – given the worthlessness of what has come out of those mouths – counsel them frser greater humility. So as to further these political ends, it was simply stipulated, by fiat thd it were, that no theory inconsistent with the mechanical picture of feer world would be allowed to count as “scientific.
Readers whose experience of this book differs from mine only in that they are in eddard with Feser’s views on morality might, instead, give the book four or five stars. 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.
For some propositions e.
I agree with these guys on a lot of stuff, but not on everything. We can’t be like the nun with big feet. They will learn a great deal about the kast of philosophy. Down with secular materialism and reductionist mechanical views of everything under the sun!
And this is so—it is an empirical and not a philosophical question—whether Dawkins is a jackass. It is not an ad hominem to point this out; esp. How do we account for this relationship? I’d love to give it 5 stars. At any rate, Feser shows that the arguments are worth taking seriously and that many people do not understand what the arguments are really trying to say. Hence nothing new can come into existence, and change is impossible.