Wednesday, August 03, 2011

Review of Edward Feser's Last Superstition

There is an excellent review of Edward Feser's The Last Superstition in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J. It contains a nice summary of Feser's book, which is the best refutation so far of the New Atheists philosophically vulnerable position:
The secularists and naturalists have created the myth that there is a war going on between science and religion. There never has been a war between religion and true science. In fact, the first universities were founded by the Church in the Middle Ages in connection with cathedral schools. The conflict is not scientific, but philosophical—that is, the philosophical interpretation of the results of scientific investigation. The atheists claim that everything in the universe can be explained without any reference to purpose, meaning and design. The atheists have to eliminate purpose from nature because purpose means striving for a definite end, and that implies intelligence. For the universe, that intelligence can only be God. Therefore atheists try to remove purpose and replace it with various forms of evolution, which has been called a “universal acid.” Feser states this well: “And the elimination of purpose and meaning from the modern conception of the material universe was not and is not a ‘result’ or ‘discovery’ of modern science, but rather a philosophical interpretation of the results of modern science which owes more to early modern secularist philosophers like Hobbes and Hume…than it does to the great scientists of the last few centuries” (11). He goes on to say that the war between science and religion is not a scientific or religious dispute, but a conflict between two “rival philosophical worldviews”—moderate realism and materialism. 
The author’s arguments are based on the certain metaphysical principles worked out by Aristotle and perfected by Aquinas, namely, the four causes that are involved in the production and motion of all material things: material, formal, efficient and final. The final cause it the most important for, without it, no agent would act. Aquinas said that the final cause is “the cause of causes.” Every agent acts for an end; to deny that is either stupid or perverse. Those who deny final causes are trying to persuade others that there are no final causes—that is their purpose. So they use final causality to deny it and that is a contradiction that should be obvious to any intelligent observer.
Read the rest here.

HT: Carl Olsen

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

There is a really good book that covers a lot of the misconceptions about religion and science... It also contains more information as well but it covers the science religion thing well. Its called why Catholics are right. I would recommend it as a read even for non Catholics.

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Catholics-Right-Michael-Coren/dp/0771023219/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1312386866&sr=1-1

Singring said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Singring said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Singring said...

Baker: 'The final cause it the most important for, without it, no agent would act. Aquinas said that the final cause is “the cause of causes.” Every agent acts for an end; to deny that is either stupid or perverse. Those who deny final causes are trying to persuade others that there are no final causes—that is their purpose. So they use final causality to deny it and that is a contradiction that should be obvious to any intelligent observer.'

This is blatantly fallacious.

1.) To make his (non-)argument Baker equates the 'purpose' of the conscious action by a human with Aristotle's 'final cause'. This is, of course, completely inappropriate and misleading in the context of his argument for two simple reasons:

a) it does not account for other 'final causes' that are not linked to conscious human action but that Aristotle would have identified as 'final causes'. For example, the favorite example is that the 'final cause' of a seed is a tree. This is clearly nothing to do with conscious decisions by humans (or trees).

So, even if someone were to grant that conscious actions by humans that have an intended outcome are examples of a 'final cause' at work (which I of course do not), it would not follow at all that anything beyond that has a 'final cause' (even Aristotle said that some things have no 'final cause'). Therefore, (again, even if one conceded that human intent is reflective of a 'final cause') there would be no contradiction whatsoever in denying that an argument based on 'final causation' can provide any kind of evidence for God.

So Baker construes a contradiction using a faulty analogy, which should be obvious to any intelligent observer.

2.) Neither I nor any other atheist I have ever encountered has ever 'tried to persuade others that there are no final causes.' All I have done - time and again - is to ask for any coherent argument or evidence that such an idea even makes sense, let alone that 'final causes' in any way make sense of the world. There may well be final causes, I don't know. I simply see no good reason to think there are - let alone to think that they provide some kind of evidence for the existence of some God or other - and Baker's sophistry certainly has not given me reason to change that position.

What reason does Baker give us to think that 'final causes' are real?

Here's his trump card:

Baker: 'Human experience is permeated with awareness of the reality of purpose and design in the world, which cannot be explained by claiming all that exists is matter in motion with no final purpose.'

I challenge anyone to name one natural phenomenon that cannot be explained from a naturalistic perspective.

Just one.

Becker: 'Experience also shows that the human mind is essentially different from all material things because it grasps universal ideas that are independent of time and space.'

Ok - did everyone you get that?

''Experience shows' that the human mind is essentially different from all material things...'

Quick - someone tell the National Science Foundation and the Royal Society: Thousands of pages of peer-reviewed literature that demonstrate that every cognitive and emotional function of humans we have investigated so far is tied to the material brain can apparently be roundly ignored, because experience shows us they are wrong.

If anyone was wondering why the majority of societal advancements in history have followed the enlightenment, right there is your answer.

An incredibly frank admission of willful ignorance.

Singring said...

But Baker goes on:

Baker: 'The obvious conclusion is that the human mind and soul are immaterial, because they can reflect back upon themselves when they know that they know.'

Of course, once you have abandoned science wholesale, drawing 'obvious conclusions' from your 'experience' seems like a perfectly sensible thing to do. Thank goodness we don't live in a society anymore where thinking like that of Baker holds sway.

The rest of Baker's 'argument' seems to be that he just doesn't like the idea that there is no metaphysical purpose to things - and that's grounds enough for him to dismiss the idea outright. This, of course, is the sign of a great thinker.

Hilarity ensues when he paints a grim picture of the consequences:

Baker: 'In effect, it makes man into a little god who creates his own reality and is not morally accountable to anyone for what he does or thinks, especially in the area of sex.'

Aside from the obvious non-sequitur ('especially' sex?) and the fact that Baker appears oblivious to the irony of accusing atheists of moral relativism when just a paragraph ago he trumpeted his 'experience' as ample evidence to support his idea of morality, Baker sadly doesn't explain to us how or why man not being accountable to a God is a bad thing. Presumably, Baker would prefer it if we were all accountable to an evil God. Anything is better than that fiendish atheism, apparently.

There are countless more howlers like this in Baker's piece, but I'll end with this observation:

Baker: 'The driving force behind the thinking of the atheists and materialists is opposition to religion. According to Feser, secularism is an “anti-religion” [...] which is really immorality.'

Let me just quote rule number three of the comments section on this blog:

'You are asked [...] to refrain from the following: Questioning the motives or integrity of people you have never met just because you disagree with them;'

One Brow said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
One Brow said...

It contains a nice summary of Feser's book, which is the best refutation so far of the New Atheists philosophically vulnerable position:

I was unaware there was a unique phuilosophical position held by all "new Atheists", but if there were such a position, there is no better indication of it's solidity than to say Feser's book is the best refutation of it. Feser's book falls flat when examined in detail.