Wednesday, February 08, 2012

Comment of the Week

I am very impressed by Edward Feser. His skewering of New Atheists from a Thomist/Natural Law perspective is a wonder to behold. His 7th installment of a review of Alex Rosenberg’s The Atheist’s Guide to Reality is chilling in its exposure of the moral vacuum that is the logical consequence of the New Atheism. Rosenburg spills the beans about New Atheist morals himself:
There is really one bit of bad news that remains to trouble scientism. We have to acknowledge (to ourselves, at least) that many questions we want the “right” answers to just don’t have any. These are questions about the morality of stem-cell research or abortion or affirmative action or gay marriage or our obligations to future generations. Many enlightened people, including many scientists, think that reasonable people can eventually find the right answers to such questions. Alas, it will turn out that all anyone can really find are the answers that they like. The same goes for those who disagree with them. Real moral disputes can be ended in lots of ways: by voting, by decree, by fatigue of the disputants, by the force of example that changes social mores. But they can never really be resolved by finding the correct answers. There are none.

Just sit back and take that in. The logical consequence of atheism is that there are no moral guides about anything. The strong may dominate, enslave, abuse, crush and ultimately kill without a minute’s thought, because there is no consistent morality in such a system. Whatever the Great Chicken-Counter may say, the abandonment of morality in favour of ‘scientific’ atheism leads to the killings fields, the death camps and the gulags as night follows day. You have it from the mouth of one of the chief philosophical exponents of atheism above.

Feser, however, can’t help but throw his readers a characteristic North Americanism to smile at (ephasis mine):
What non-question-begging reason can be given for supposing that observation, experiment, mathematical modeling, etc. really do give us reliable information about the world and don’t just falsely seem to? Rosenberg’s only answer is the shit-eating grin he wears in the book’s dust jacket photo.


Post a Comment

<< Home