When Feser ridicules Dawkins for misunderstanding Aquinas's argument for God, well, I suspect Feser is right - after all, this guy has spent his professional career studying Aquinas, so he probably knows better than Dawkins. Of the Four Horsemen, I have only read Harris, who gets off rather lightly here, and I have never read Aquinas, so I don't really know whether these attacks are on target. These bits will either piss you off or amuse you, depending on how much you idolize these gentlemen. Every once in a while he hauls off and lays into Dawkins, or Dennett, or the others. Thankfully, though, the main part of the book is the positive argument for Aristotelian-Thomian metaphysics and its implications for the existence of God. On his blog he often goes after the New Atheists, and here he does so again. He is also a good writer, and entertaining in that take-no-prisoners, everyone-else-is-wrong-and-I'm-right way that reminds me of no one so much as P.Z. Whether you're a theist or an atheist, it will get you thinking about arguments for God in a way you haven't ever thought about before.įeser is immensely smart. Since I'm going to be trashing this book over the next few posts, I should start out by saying: you should read this book. In an attempt to understand the arguments being thrown at me in this discussion, I finally picked it up. I've been avoiding reading Edward Feser's book, The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |