The scholastics went deeper, and understood a cause as whatever is necessary to account for a fact therefore, the quest to understand the universe became the search for causes. We tend to think of a cause as something that has an effect. This stands in sharp contrast to a philosophical tradition that Feser values, and argues passionately for: scholasticism in general, and the theology of Aquinas in particular. Secularism has no distinctive vision to offer the world, no deep insight into ethics or meaning. What the secularist really means is that he values rational objections to Christianity, freedom from religious ethics, and the rather quaint, outmoded historical thesis that there is perpetual conflict between science and Christianity. The secularist values freedom, rationality and science but then, so do Christians. Secularism is now little more than an “anti-religion” its content is determined solely by its hostility to revealed religion.įeser argues that contemporary secularists certainly know what they are against, but are less certain about what they actually stand for. In the process he demonstrates that, while aggressive secularism is popular and respectable, it is not at all compelling or persuasive. With a breezy style and biting humor Feser places writers like Dawkins and Dennett in historical and philosophical context. This is a popularization of contemporary philosophy, a piece of cultural criticism, a history of Western thought and a response to the New Atheists. We are left as helpless subjects in a tyranny of intellectual conformity.Įdward Feser, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College in Pasadena, California, seeks to free us from such a tyranny in his remarkable book The Last Superstition. Without the benefit of history and philosophy we are at the mercy of whatever intellectual fashion happens to be in vogue. History provides the modern world with a rich intellectual and experiential resource, which allows us to see radically different answers to practical problems and to conceive alternatives to modern prejudices and biases.

The historian John Tosh responded that Clarke’s pronouncement depended on a remarkable lack of historical sense. It might be nice to keep the occasional mediaevalist around for “decorative purposes”, but Britain should really only invest cash in subjects that produced practical results.

History, philosophy and literature were luxury goods perhaps the idle rich could dally in them, but they should not expect the tax payer to foot the bill. Universities should only focus on subjects that benefitted society, like engineering and science. In 2003 Britains’ education secretary, Charles Clarke declared that British Universities existed to serve the economy. The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism

The Last Superstition by Edward Feser