Lately, I've been reading a book by Edward Feser, a Roman Catholic philosophy professor, entitled The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism. I have a few interrelated topics that I wish to discuss.
The purpose of the book, as stated by Feser (summarized by me), is to: 1) Show that the war between science and religion is actually a war between rival philosophical and metaphysical systems, namely the classical worldview of Plato/Aristotle/Aquinas, and naturalism. 2) Show that naturalism makes reason and morality impossible, and 3) Show that classical philosophical theism is the correct view of the world, of reason, and of morality.
I'm almost finished with it, and I would recommend it to anyone, as I believe it clears some of the muddied misunderstandings that, as a man who's been on and read both sides, tends to pop up in debates and arguments.
I'll give a brief overview of his arguments, and assume you are familiar with most of these terms and ideologies, which, if you aren't, you can easily find online.
His arguments (after a rather long chapter on how stupid the New Atheists are in philosophy), begins with Plato's theory of forms, and afterwards modifying it in terms of Aristotle's views of the theory. To summarize, universals exist in our world that objects appeal to. The Pythagorean theorem for example, gives us an idea of "triangularity", which isn't shown in the senses, but rather in the intellect. These ideas are pure essence of those objects, and any triangle we experience with the senses take part in that idea of triangularity, although not perfectly exemplifying it. Plato believed these universals existed in a "Third Realm", while Aristotle believed (as Feser does) that they exist in the objects themselves, also adding on his idea of actuality/potentiality, as well as hylomorphism. After this he introduces the four causes (material, formal, efficient, and final), which sets us up for his dealing with Aquinas.
Aquinas bases his arguments on Aristotelian philosophy, which most books tends to ignore. Aquinas did not make the argument that everything that exists has a cause, universe exists and has a cause, therefore God, etc. His arguments of Unmoved Mover, First Cause, and Supreme Intelligence are considered separate arguments of the same type. He gives these arguments and explains them in light of Aristotelian philosophy.
After this, he affirms that the soul (as Aristotle believed) is the "form" or "essence" of a living thing. There are three types: the nutritive soul (exists in plants, allows the taking in of nutrients, growth, and reproducing), the sensory soul (contains all aspects of nutritive soul, and adding that they are able to sense the world around it by sight, smell, etc.), and the rational soul (contains the previous two, but adds the ability to grasp forms, reason on the base of them, and freely choose actions based on intellect.) Morality for humans is deduced as "the habitual choice of actions that further the hierarchically ordered natural ends entailed by human nature". The intellects naturally searches for truth, the highest truth is God, therefore, the highest point of the human intellect is to be knowing God.
After this, he begins a section on natural law, proclaiming procreation as the final cause of sex, therefore sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong.
My main issue is that I feel the theory of forms tries to explain physical things metaphysically. We know know why things are "red". Not because there exists a form of redness that that object takes part in, but because of reflected light. Science has made this way of thinking obsolete, as far as I know.
I'll try to reply to anything you say with Feser's arguments, along with my own concerns, since I can't fit this whole book into one post, and to clarify anything I may have misrepresented or left out.
The purpose of the book, as stated by Feser (summarized by me), is to: 1) Show that the war between science and religion is actually a war between rival philosophical and metaphysical systems, namely the classical worldview of Plato/Aristotle/Aquinas, and naturalism. 2) Show that naturalism makes reason and morality impossible, and 3) Show that classical philosophical theism is the correct view of the world, of reason, and of morality.
I'm almost finished with it, and I would recommend it to anyone, as I believe it clears some of the muddied misunderstandings that, as a man who's been on and read both sides, tends to pop up in debates and arguments.
I'll give a brief overview of his arguments, and assume you are familiar with most of these terms and ideologies, which, if you aren't, you can easily find online.
His arguments (after a rather long chapter on how stupid the New Atheists are in philosophy), begins with Plato's theory of forms, and afterwards modifying it in terms of Aristotle's views of the theory. To summarize, universals exist in our world that objects appeal to. The Pythagorean theorem for example, gives us an idea of "triangularity", which isn't shown in the senses, but rather in the intellect. These ideas are pure essence of those objects, and any triangle we experience with the senses take part in that idea of triangularity, although not perfectly exemplifying it. Plato believed these universals existed in a "Third Realm", while Aristotle believed (as Feser does) that they exist in the objects themselves, also adding on his idea of actuality/potentiality, as well as hylomorphism. After this he introduces the four causes (material, formal, efficient, and final), which sets us up for his dealing with Aquinas.
Aquinas bases his arguments on Aristotelian philosophy, which most books tends to ignore. Aquinas did not make the argument that everything that exists has a cause, universe exists and has a cause, therefore God, etc. His arguments of Unmoved Mover, First Cause, and Supreme Intelligence are considered separate arguments of the same type. He gives these arguments and explains them in light of Aristotelian philosophy.
After this, he affirms that the soul (as Aristotle believed) is the "form" or "essence" of a living thing. There are three types: the nutritive soul (exists in plants, allows the taking in of nutrients, growth, and reproducing), the sensory soul (contains all aspects of nutritive soul, and adding that they are able to sense the world around it by sight, smell, etc.), and the rational soul (contains the previous two, but adds the ability to grasp forms, reason on the base of them, and freely choose actions based on intellect.) Morality for humans is deduced as "the habitual choice of actions that further the hierarchically ordered natural ends entailed by human nature". The intellects naturally searches for truth, the highest truth is God, therefore, the highest point of the human intellect is to be knowing God.
After this, he begins a section on natural law, proclaiming procreation as the final cause of sex, therefore sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong.
My main issue is that I feel the theory of forms tries to explain physical things metaphysically. We know know why things are "red". Not because there exists a form of redness that that object takes part in, but because of reflected light. Science has made this way of thinking obsolete, as far as I know.
I'll try to reply to anything you say with Feser's arguments, along with my own concerns, since I can't fit this whole book into one post, and to clarify anything I may have misrepresented or left out.
"The consolations of philosophy and the beauties of science; these things are infinitely more awe-inspiring and regenerating and majestic than any invocation of the burning bush or doctrine." - Christopher Hitchens
