Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism

by Edward Feser

4.21 · Rating details · 420 Ratings · 72 Reviews

"The central contention of the "New Atheism" of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens is that the centuries-old "war between science and religion" is now over and that religion has lost. But as Edward Feser shows in The Last Superstition, there is not, and never has been, any war between science and religion at all. There has instead been a "The central contention of the "New Atheism" of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens is that the centuries-old "war between science and religion" is now over and that religion has lost. But as Edward Feser shows in The Last Superstition, there is not, and never has been, any war between science and religion at all. There has instead been a conflict between two entirely philosophical worldviews: the classical "teleological" vision of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas, on which purpose or goal-directedness is as inherent a feature of the material world as mass or electric charge; and the modern "mechanical" vision of Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, and Hume, according to which physical reality is comprised of nothing more than purposeless, meaningless particles in motion." "This modern "mechanical" view of nature has never been proved, and its hold over the contemporary intelligentsia owes more to rhetorical sleight-of-hand and political expediency than to rational argument. For as Feser demonstrates, the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and the traditional natural-law conception of morality are rationally unavoidable given the classical "teleological" philosophical world-view. Hence modern secularism crucially depends on the false insinuation that the "mechanical" philosophy has somehow been established by science." Moving beyond what he regards as the pointless and point-missing dispute between "Intelligent Design" advocates and Darwinians, Feser holds that the key to understanding the follies of the "New Atheism" lies not in quibbles over the evolutionary origins of this or that biological organ, but in a rethinking of thephilosophical presuppositions of scientific method itself back to first principles. In particular, it involves a recovery of the forgotten truths of classical philosophy. When this is accomplished, religion can be seen to be grounded firmly in reason, not blind faith. And despite its moral and intellectual pretensions, the "New Atheism" is exposed as resting on very old errors, together with an appalling degree of intellectual dishonesty, philosophical shallowness, and historical, theological, and scientific ignorance. ...more

Get A Copy

Or buy for

Hardcover, 312 pages

Published October 13th 2008 by St. Augustines Press

More Details... edit details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about The Last Superstition, please sign up.

Be the first to ask a question about The Last Superstition

Lists with This Book

The Imitation of Christ by Thomas à Kempis

Catechism of the Catholic Church by Pope John Paul II

Books for Catholics

438 books — 141 voters

How to Become a Heroic Catholic by Catherine Stewart

Now and at the Hour of Our Death by J.S.B. Morse

Catholic Books for the Year of Faith

45 books — 15 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30)

filter | sort: default (?) | Rating Details

Jan 11, 2011 Simcha Wood rated it did not like it

In the closing pages of this book, Edward Feser sums up his thesis, arguing that he has

"established, (a) when rightly understood, the traditional arguments for an Aristotelian metaphysical picture of the world are powerful, (b) the modern philosophers' criticisms of that picture are no good and their own attempted replacements of it are fraught with various paradoxes and incoherencies, and (c) modern science is not only inconsistent with that metaphysical picture but at least to some extent tend ...more

flag 25 likes · Like · see review

Apr 21, 2010 Patrick rated it it was amazing

Shelves: favorites, philosophy-and-values

This book is angry and funny and smart. Parts of chapter two slow the narrative down because (as Feser notes) if you're going to defend Aristotle and the people who built best on his thought (hello, Thomas Aquinas! hello, Scholastics!), then it helps to know what Aristotle and the philosophers before him actually said and meant. There's just no getting around that. But Feser rewards the patient reader, and the result is a tour de force refutation of the "new atheists."

Bottom line: You can't bre ...more

flag 12 likes · Like · see review

Jul 09, 2014 Quentin Crisp rated it liked it

Well, I'm giving this book three stars (I still find the idea of rating books by stars, or numbers, ridiculous, but I'm not going to go into that). Readers whose experience of this book differs from mine only in that they are in sympathy with Feser's views on morality might, instead, give the book four or five stars. In other words, for me it was the moral dogma that brought the average down. To give fewer than three stars, though, would certainly be an injustice.

Let's start with the essentials. ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Nov 19, 2011 Jby rated it it was ok · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction

(New) Atheists are fighting a battle against the attempts of crazy religious people trying to influence science education (intelligent design). Ed Feser, who btw also thinks intelligent design believers are idiots, is fighting another battle with very little overlap.
Fesers battlefield is metaphysics and the supposed decline of western civilisation due to „modernist“ philosophy.
Even if you accept Fesers aristotelean philosphy, whats it got to do with religion and belief as practised by billions (New) Atheists are fighting a battle against the attempts of crazy religious people trying to influence science education (intelligent design). Ed Feser, who btw also thinks intelligent design believers are idiots, is fighting another battle with very little overlap.
Feser´s battlefield is metaphysics and the supposed decline of western civilisation due to „modernist“ philosophy.
Even if you accept Fesers aristotelean philosphy, what´s it got to do with religion and belief as practised by billions of humans today (going to mass, praying, etc)? For Feser it is no problem that children and peasants (his words) believe in a bearded Jehova in the sky, what counts is that they believe, because there is a religeous elite that has rational proof of the existance of god. (I note that Aquinas (Feser´s hero) required additional divine revelation , despite having figured out that god exists „rationally“. ) Feser compares this to the fact that most people don´t really understand E=mc2, but accept that experts exist who do. true, but imagine what people would say if Einstein had told men into which human orifice they must (!) ejaculate.
When Feser applies his thinking to the real world things get ugly fast. Feser trys to earn some brownie points with right wing america by giving philosophical support for „pro-lifers“ and the hatred of homosexuals. He conveniantly forgets to add that the USA itself must be an abomination in his world view (born philosphically of the modernist enlightenment). Islam and Judaism are inferior to Roman Catholicism, Protestantism is also pretty bad because according to Ed Feser, they started the downfall of the west by giving religion a bad name (thirty years war etc.)
Feser states emphatically that modern life (abortion, homos & divorce (*sigh*) is immoral unless his good old values are reinstated, because there can be no (and Feser means no) morals in the absence of god. All I can say to that is that the middle ages were way more immoral than today, homosexuality existed then as now, etc. …

As for the general harshness of the book, where exactly did Jesus say that it´s ok to hate people you don´t agree with?
To sum it all up, the book isn´t quite what it pretends to be (a refutation of new atheism), but makes for fun dinner party conversation material for atheists and theists alike.
...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Nov 25, 2014 Cris rated it liked it

Shelves: theology, philosophy

I won't say 'Don't give this to an atheist you like!", but I will caution that no one likes to hear themselves described as lacking some important piece of education. Few people are that humble. Feser says he is writing to set the record straight about philosophy's debt to aristotelianism. He does that in the most concise, no non-sense way I have ever seen. Nothing new, just really clear exposition. That he writes with anger, he is honest about. Years of hearing people who do not have a good gra ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Aug 04, 2012 Fr. Ryan Humphries rated it it was amazing

An astounding and philosophically dense work that is really readable by anyone. Dr. Feser cuts to the heart of the collapse of western morality and culture. This is no easy read but it's totally worth it.

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Aug 05, 2012 Lauren Sheil rated it it was amazing

Ever since I started tweeting and blogging my thoughts on economics, politics and religion I’ve noticed that there are a few topics that always get a strong reaction, no matter when I post them. Usually these reactions come from complete strangers who I believe are trolling twitter for key words so they can jump down the throat of anyone they disagree with.
Case in point, a couple of weeks ago I posted a quote from a book I’d been reading about the philosophical history of the atheist position an Ever since I started tweeting and blogging my thoughts on economics, politics and religion I’ve noticed that there are a few topics that always get a strong reaction, no matter when I post them. Usually these reactions come from complete strangers who I believe are trolling twitter for key words so they can jump down the throat of anyone they disagree with.
Case in point, a couple of weeks ago I posted a quote from a book I’d been reading about the philosophical history of the atheist position and how many of the so called modern atheists aren’t being true to their own origins and are misinterpreting or simply ignoring the early philosophers position on theism. Even if early philosophers like Plato and Aristotle don’t lead directly to an Abrahamic (Jewish, Christian, Muslim) mono-theism they at least leave the door open for a singular cause to the universe, which in turn leads rationally to a mono-theistic god like essence. Nothing is more offensive to an atheist apparently than to point out that some of their great heroes where essentially theists.
Here’s what I tweeted;
“Atheists tend to read only each other’s books and not the work of the religious thinkers they are supposedly refuting.” – Edward Feser “The Last Superstition”
That simple statement prompted a flood of criticism from a few atheist trollers not because they claimed to have actually read any religious writing but because they thought the term “religious thinker” was an oxymoron. How ridiculously arrogant can anyone be? Remove the word religious from in front of thinker and you have essentially removed millennia of history from the development of human society. It wasn’t until 500 years ago, at the earliest, that any contributions to science were made by anyone that did not receive significant support from religious institutions. And I’m not just talking about the Catholic Church here; Muslim scientists in the middle-ages were in many cases far out stripping their Christian counterparts to the west.
Yes the church did seek to suppress some ideas that were threatening, everybody does, just look at the endless debate over global warming, but the truth always wins out and the church now acknowledges their mistake.
The fact of the matter is that modern atheist thought is standing on the shoulders of theists who pointed to a singular cause of the universe. No amount of ignorance or attempts at re-writing history is going to change that. You can search for a scientific explanation all you want but at the end of the day the scientific method, which depending on who you talk to was either developed by Ibn Alhazan a Muslim or Galileo Galilei a Catholic, is based on cause and effect and therefore always leads back to a singular or final cause. And final cause in turn leaves the door open to a rationally defensible mono-theistic philosophy.
You can put air quotes around the term “religious thinker” all you want, history doesn’t lie.
...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Sep 20, 2013 Nefficus rated it really liked it

Shelves: religious

Ed Feser is perhaps the most entertaining philosopher you can read today. With humor and a take-no-prisoners style that is as polemic as the "new atheists" he is refuting, Feser takes down the scientists-wanna-be-philosophers of the day in The Last Superstition. Along the way, you are treated to an excellent overview of philosophy and an understanding as to how all the modern philosophies - whether scientism, materialism, nominalism, conceptualism, or dualism - fail to hold up to serious logical Ed Feser is perhaps the most entertaining philosopher you can read today. With humor and a take-no-prisoners style that is as polemic as the "new atheists" he is refuting, Feser takes down the scientists-wanna-be-philosophers of the day in The Last Superstition. Along the way, you are treated to an excellent overview of philosophy and an understanding as to how all the modern philosophies - whether scientism, materialism, nominalism, conceptualism, or dualism - fail to hold up to serious logical scrutiny, while the perennial philosophy of Aristotle and the Scholastics still holds fast as the best metaphysical view to be proposed. Feser is one smart guy; in fact he is so erudite that I would advise multiple readings of his work to cement understanding, as parts of his discussion can become pretty abstract and somewhat difficult. I intend to return to "The Last Superstition" with joy in the future.

What detracts from "The Last Superstition"? Paradoxically, the entertaining and polemic style that I lauded at the beginning is perhaps also somewhat of a weakness. I enjoy strong argument, but at times Feser breaks a little far to the point of being uncharitable to his adversaries, which is unfortunate because it makes it difficult to use this book to pass on to your atheist friends...I fear they would be a little too turned off by some over-the-top insults. Secondly, there are too many instances of the term "more on this later." The author has a tendency to get ahead of himself and then continually promise that the thought will be expounded later (a promise which is at least kept). This is probably more of an editorial fault than that of the author...a good editor would catch and correct. But these are just minor issues that don't take anything away from my strong recommendation of this book to any lay student of philosophy or those looking for a definitive, and intellectually sound, refutation of the new atheists.

Well done Mr. Feser. I also strongly recommend Feser's book on Aquinas. I haven't read his "Philosophy of Mind" but plan to get to it soon.

...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Jul 31, 2011 Melissa Stebbins rated it really liked it

Billed as a refutation of the New Atheists, this book is much more. A back to basics explanation of the philosophy of Aristotle and Aquinas, he explains the metaphysics at a level that is perfect for people with no training in philosophy beginning with the questions these philosophers were attempting to provide an answer to. I must confess, they were questions that I hadn't really thought much about. Feser takes you from the initial question - How is change possible, to an explanation of act and ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Jul 09, 2013 Denise rated it it was amazing

Edward Feser is like the college professor you always dreamed of having--irreverent to the cool kids who like to hear themselves talk and exciting reverence to the Chestertonian magic of reality.
Dr. Feser coaches you through the more technical aspects of scholastic philosophy, and his humor throughout makes it worthwhile. He presents Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas in a way that puts my Christian-affiliated college philosophy course to shame.
Even if you're not interested in the rhetoric of the N Edward Feser is like the college professor you always dreamed of having--irreverent to the cool kids who like to hear themselves talk and exciting reverence to the Chestertonian magic of reality.
Dr. Feser coaches you through the more technical aspects of scholastic philosophy, and his humor throughout makes it worthwhile. He presents Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas in a way that puts my Christian-affiliated college philosophy course to shame.
Even if you're not interested in the rhetoric of the New Atheists, this book will show that we as modern society have already unthinkingly conceded their points.
Come revisit (and maybe like me discover for the first time) the substantive thought that makes up ancient and medieval scholarship.

Here is a sample where he addresses the problem of evil:

"The only way the atheist can make it plausible to say that nothing could outweigh Aushwitz, etc., is if he supposes that there is no God and thus no beatific vision. But if he's supposing that there is no God, then in presenting his argument from evil he's simply arguing in a circle, assuming the very thing he's trying to prove, and thus not proving it at all. In effect he's saying: 'There is no God, because look at all this suffering that couldn't possibly be outweighed by any good. How do I know there's no good that could outweigh it? Oh, because there is no God.' If you think that's a good argument, you need a logic course.
"Note also the double standard implied to the extent that the atheist rests his case on the claim that he 'can't imagine' anything that might outweigh the sufferings of this life. For if some creationist says he 'can't imagine' how an eyeball could have evolved (or whatever), Dawkins and Co. reply, quite reasonably, that the limits of one person's imagination don't necessarily correspond to the limits of reality. Yet when the shoe is on the other foot, we're supposed to take the limits of Dawkin's imagination, or Hitchens's, as an infallible guide to what an infinite First Cause or Supreme
"Intelligence is capable of doing vis-a-vis bringing good out of evil. If anything, the limits of our imagination are far, far less relevant to understanding what a First Cause who is Being Itself and the Supreme Intelligence might bring about by way of good for a creature with an immortal soul than they are relevant to understanding the potentials inherent in a finite impersonal process like natural selection operating on finite living things.
"The bottom line is this. Reason itself, as I have argued, shows us that there is a First Cause who is Being Itself, Goodness Itself, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all the rest, and it also shows us that we have immortal souls. Hence reason tells us that there is a God who created us for a destiny beyond this life and who is fully capable of guaranteeing that the good we attain in the next life outweighs the evil we suffer in this one to such an extent that the latter, however awful from our present point of view, will come to seem "not worth comparing" to the former, and indeed if anything will even by seen to have been worth having gone through from the point of view of eternity. And therefore, reason itself tells us that there is simply no reason to believe that even the worst possible sufferings of this life constitute any evidence whatsoever against the existence of God. Nevertheless, since we are finite beings, it can be very hard to keep this in mind when faced with severe suffering. The arguments of philosophers and theologians, however logically impeccable, seem cruelly abstract and cold when compared to the agony of parents of a raped and murdered child. But then, reason is abstract and cold. Atheists are always telling us how we need soberly to follow where it leads us, even if it were to break our hearts by telling us that there is no hope for cosmic justice, no hope for seeing lost loved ones ever again, no hope for a life beyond this one. Then, when a Thomas Aquinas reassures us that in fact no matter how bad things get in this life, reason assures us that God can set it right, they feign outrage at such cold-hearted logicality. Some people just can't take yes for an answer.
"In any event, it is precisely because of the abstraction and coldness of reason that a kind of faith is needed where evil is concerned. Not because faith is emotional. Faith is not emotional; it is rather an act of the will. And again, not because faith contradicts reason, for it doesn't. Rather, faith in God in the face of evil is nothing less than the will to follow reason's lead when emotion might incline us to doubt. The intensity of the pain one feels can make him want to shake his fist at God, like Job. Yet reason says that the pain is part of an overall plan which we cannot yet fathom, but one in which God can bring out of that pain a good compared to which it will pale in significance. Hence reason tells us: have faith in God. We will not always be able to understand what that plan is, or how this or that particular instance of suffering fits into it. We have some general clues here and there--for instance, the fact that certain goods, like patience, forgiveness, and self-sacrifice, cannot be had without certain evils. But we don't know the details. And yet, why should we expect to know them? If there is a God of the sort the arguments I've described point to, and if the soul's ultimate destiny surpasses the cares of this life in the way that immortality implies, then these matters are so far beyond our ordinary experience that it would be extremely surprising if we could fully understand them. Again, the atheist will of course dismiss all of this as falsehood added to falsehood. The point, though, is that he cannot do so and at the same time have his 'argument from evil' against the existence of God, for if that argument assumes that all these claims are false, then it simply begs the question against the theist, and thus fails to prove anything. It is all attitude, and no substance." ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

May 13, 2009 Paul rated it really liked it

Shelves: apologetics, the-new-atheism, mind-body, natural-law, thomism

I tipped the scales and gave this book four over three stars.

Though I'm down with employing the same kind of rhetoric against New Atheists as they use, and I am all for ridiculing them (all in certain contexts), and I was looking forward to Feser's approach, the ridicule and mockery got a bit old and boring. At times, this book read like it was meant to be something else, and then Feser (or some publisher), desiring to cash-in on the popularity of New Atheism literature, went back into this book ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jul 25, 2012 Ryan rated it really liked it

Feser's book is an excellent read, not only as a malleus haereticorum against the New Atheists, but (perhaps more importantly) as an introduction to Aristotelian-Scholastic Philosophy.

In the book, Feser introduces Aristotelian metaphysics, ethics, anthropology, and epistemology with the firm (and defensible) conviction that the Aristotelian model for explaining reality is fundamentally rational, and therefore all the concomitant conclusions of Christian-Medieval Civilization were rationally def ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Sep 10, 2012 Charles Curtis rated it really liked it

Feser's personality is in line with my own, which makes reading this book entertaining, despite the subject matter. He's a great writer and has a very firm grasp on Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics. My only complaint would be when he argues points, like the immaterial nature of the mind, he tends to rigidly repeat Thomistic categories rather than fall back on them to formulate his own argument. I think people like Moreland have done just that and it's far more powerful, even if in line with Th ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Mar 05, 2010 Carl Hostetter rated it it was amazing

Whatever one may think of the author's style (personally I find his digs at the "New Atheists" delicious), and whatever your religious views (or lack thereof) -- which are in fact irrelevant to the purpose of this book, as the author is at pains to note -- no person who is not familiar with the topics and history covered by this book can seriously be said to have been adequately educated. I do not make this claim lightly: the matter is just that important, fundamental, and far-reaching. The book ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Oct 28, 2013 Sam Notley rated it it was amazing

This book changed my life.

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Sep 22, 2012 Kit A. rated it did not like it · review of another edition

just an awful, hateful piece of trash. how does this stuff get published?

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Feb 03, 2013 Benjamin Espen rated it it was amazing

Edward Feser's The Last Superstition is a polemical work. However, this should not be surprising for two reasons. First, Feser is dealing with amounts to not mere nonsense, but nonsense on stilts. Second, Feser once wrote an essay entitled, Can Philosophy be Polemical?, pondering whether it is appropriate to engage in polemical debate over philosophical questions. In this book, Feser answers that question in the affirmative. He freely admits in the preface, "If this seems to be an angry book, th Edward Feser's The Last Superstition is a polemical work. However, this should not be surprising for two reasons. First, Feser is dealing with amounts to not mere nonsense, but nonsense on stilts. Second, Feser once wrote an essay entitled, Can Philosophy be Polemical?, pondering whether it is appropriate to engage in polemical debate over philosophical questions. In this book, Feser answers that question in the affirmative. He freely admits in the preface, "If this seems to be an angry book, that is because it is." (TLS, x) Feser regards the creed of the New Atheists as dangerous both personally and socially, and his response is écrasez l'infâme.

The Last Superstition is the book I had been wanting, not because it is a tract against the New Atheism, but because it summarizes the best arguments for an Aristotelian-Thomist metaphysics in the face of modern objections. This metaphysics is presented as it developed historically, beginning with the pre-Socratics, on through Plato and Aristotle, to its full flowering among the Scholastics. Feser covers change, actuality and potency, form and matter, the four causes, arguments for the existence of God, and the rational foundations of morality.

By succinctly providing this history, Feser is providing a service to all those who have forgotten, or never truly knew what are the main features of an Aristotelian philosophy. For Feser's most damning criticism of Richard Dawkins et al. is that they have simply not bothered to do their homework. By not collecting the relevant data, they have sinned against the spirit of the science in whose name they crusade. To publish a scientific paper without any evidence would be scandalous, but is precisely the case that Feser makes against them. None of the New Atheists demonstrates any familiarity with the actual arguments of historical theist philosophers except for Rev. William Paley, who functions as a convenient whipping boy.

By way of example, Feser quotes the admission of philosopher Anthony Flew in 2004 that he now believes in the existence of God despite a lifetime of argument to the contrary. Flew admitted that he had never actually considered the Aristotelian arguments for the existence of God, and was forced to admit their cogency upon doing so. Those whom Feser targets in The Last Superstition have not yet bothered to consult the texts. Feser documents this amply through quotations from the New Atheists' works.

The weakest part of Feser's argument is in the section on natural law. The difficulty is not that the best contemporary formulation is not presented. The difficulty is that contemporary natural law arguments use human, homo sapiens, and person univocally. These are not just different things, they are different kinds of things. To use the Scholastic terminology, each belongs to a different genus. However, this failure leaves Feser's main argument untouched, because Aristotle and Aquinas were alike able to discern rational foundations for morality without the benefit of a modern doctrine of natural rights that makes use of equivocal terms.

Feser's references are very good, providing further information for the many points which could be elaborated upon. Covering as much ground as this book does would be impossible without considering a great many complicated and subtle topics briefly. However, this is not to say that Feser does not adequately address his topic. He makes short work of the New Atheists due to the poverty of their arguments, and then briefly presents arguments that modernity is more comprehensible if one considers modern problems in light of broadly Aristotelian philosophy. In particular, many of the perennial questions of modern philosophy, such as the mind-body problem or the validity of inductive reasoning become explainable with Aristotle's more robust account of causation. Feser's task is made easier here by the latent Aristotelianism lurking in every corner of Western Civilization. We do not notice our debt to Aristotle for the same reason that fish do not feel wet.

Edward Feser's The Last Superstition is a worthy introduction to the realist philosophical tradition, and is enlivened by Feser's sharp wit. Good for anyone who would like to know more about Aristotelian philosophy. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Oct 22, 2016 Manuel rated it it was ok · review of another edition

I'm really having a hard time rating this book. I was excited at the beginning because of the conviction in Feser's words that he would definitively demolish the atheist position. Since it had been a very long while when I last touched on this subject of god, I thought maybe I had missed something back in the day when I fell out with religion, and who doesn’t love a good challenge? However, the excitement soon turned into annoyance. It’s not a refutation of atheism per se, but of New Atheism (ma I'm really having a hard time rating this book. I was excited at the beginning because of the conviction in Feser's words that he would definitively demolish the atheist position. Since it had been a very long while when I last touched on this subject of god, I thought maybe I had missed something back in the day when I fell out with religion, and who doesn’t love a good challenge? However, the excitement soon turned into annoyance. It’s not a refutation of atheism per se, but of New Atheism (maybe I should have paid more attention to the title of the book).

It’s easy to understand the contempt that Feser has for the New Atheists (a movement that I've always considered intellectually bankrupt), for they certainly don’t shy away from mocking and ridiculing their opponents in some of the grossest ways possible. I also understand Feser wanting to state his case with the conviction displayed by his adversaries. However, for someone who claims to be a better informed philosopher than the four horsemen combined, and a Catholic one at that, I expected more. More humility, for instance. Because of the dogmatic and angry tone of the book, Feser, like Dawkins in The God Delusion, will manage only to preach to the choir.

The crash course in ancient philosophy was fine as far as it goes, though I myself didn’t learn anything new. The first of Aquinas’s proofs started off well, too, but as soon as the concept of “simultaneity” appeared, the alarms started to go off in my head. Since Einstein, we know that simultaneity is a matter of a preferred frame of reference, but Feser makes no mention of Einstein or his theories. The second proof manages to establish the necessity of “something” without which everything would cease to exist. But when Feser wants to identify this something with the first cause, he once again overlooks many potential objections (e.g. couldn’t a simple numerical distinction suffice to differentiate the two?). After that, Feser attributes all the potentialities of human beings, such as reason, will, consciousness, etc. to that something which is also a first cause, with the justification that whatever is in the effect is also in the cause. But the reasoning goes too fast, and leaves too much to be desired.

Confident that he has proved the existence of God, Feser goes on to try to justify traditional morality, and here my annoyance becomes anger. The reason is the same: he passes over many objections, other points of view, and he states his conclusions in very definitive words, sounding more like a priest than a philosopher. At one point, Feser claims that since procreation is the primary function of sex, then knowingly marrying an infertile partner as a means to avoid procreating is a perversion of nature (!!). It’s at this point that Feser loses me completely, in terms of sympathy.

The third part of the book, concerned with the consequences of the mechanistic or materialistic (Feser, annoyingly writes “mechanistic-cum-materialistic” too many times, as if trying to show off his erudition) view of modern philosophy, the arguments presented are less objectionable. I agree with him, for example, that the purely mechanistic view of matter lead, strangely, to Cartesian dualism. I also agree with him about the futility of reductive materialism. This part saves the book from a 1 star rating. Still, to speak repeatedly of modern philosophy as an "abandonment" of Aristotelianism, and to argue again and again that the solution to modern problems is a "return" to Aristotelianism is really unbecoming of a philosopher.

Like Dawkins's famous book, Feser’s “The Last Superstition” reads like a long blog post. The language of this book is very inelegant, half the jokes included fall flat, and the scorn heaped on modern philosophy and the New Atheists is a definite turn off. Feser was not kidding when he admitted at the beginning that this book was an angry book. Instead of going on and on about how Dawkins and Dennett are this or that, Feser should have focused more on making the case for theism air-tight. What a tremendous waste.

I would recommend this book only as a jumping board to other, more serious books on theism. If you can stomach the strident tone, you might find something useful here.
...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jan 01, 2016 Adam Gurri rated it liked it

I'm torn on whether I should give this three or four stars.

The strengths of the book are very strong; if you want a crash course on the metaphysics of:
-Plato
-Aristotle
-Aquinas
-The early modern philosophers

As well as philosophy of mind, you could do a lot worse than this book. Moreover, this book brings much needed balance into public discussions of religion and atheism, faith and reason. By the end of the book most people, I think, should see how you can arrive at religion and even a religion sp I'm torn on whether I should give this three or four stars.

The strengths of the book are very strong; if you want a crash course on the metaphysics of:
-Plato
-Aristotle
-Aquinas
-The early modern philosophers

As well as philosophy of mind, you could do a lot worse than this book. Moreover, this book brings much needed balance into public discussions of religion and atheism, faith and reason. By the end of the book most people, I think, should see how you can arrive at religion and even a religion specifically like Christianity via philosopher rather than pure leap or faith, or some such thing.

But the weaknesses of the book are also very weak. Frankly it was just a bad match for me---this book is meant to stand in opposition to New Atheist books, but I find those books obnoxious, and taking on their rhetorical style just made this book obnoxious to me. If I were a Republican and Christian (or religious at all) who felt angry about the New Atheists but not sure how to proceed, this book would probably pump me up, but I am neither of those things.

All in all the book came off as very arrogant, and a lot of the strongest claims---that very specifically Catholic things are deductible by _rational necessity_ rather than just plausibly and defensibly---just are not defended very well.

The book accomplishes its goal; I think a reasonably open minded atheist who went in thinking there were no rational arguments for the existence of god would be convinced that, at minimum, there are several tremendous thinkers who need to be given their due in any argument against it. But I never thought that there weren't rational arguments, I simply wasn't persuaded by them. So the mix of triumphalism (for pumping up fellow believers) and antagonism (to throw down the gauntlet for nonbelievers) was very unappealing to me.

Perhaps this is more my fault than the book's, given it was clear what sort of book it is from the description. But I'd read enough of Feser elsewhere that I had hoped for better.

I'll stick to his non-polemical work in the future.

I will say that I'm definitely going to be raiding his bibliography; he definitely provides good resources for learning more about the arguments presented in the book. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jul 09, 2013 John Quin rated it it was amazing

This is an important book as a response to the so called New Atheism but more on account of the fact that the book mostly ignores them and instead Dr Feser takes the opportunity to build a case for the Thomistic account of metaphysics.

The upshot of all this is that if you are looking for a detailed point by point rebuttal of the arguments made by the New Atheists then there are probably better books for that task.

In spite of the fact that this book is billed as a polemic I found that the the rhe ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jul 16, 2013 A.i.sanchez rated it really liked it

I checked out this book from my library and it didn't take much reading to realize I was probably going to have to purchase my own copy. (Or re-check it out from the library which is what I did.) If you don't have much experience with philosophy and/or metaphysics, the process of contemplating ideas that are foreign to you can take time to get used to. But once I settled in and got used to the authors style it became much easier to comprehend.

The Last Superstition by Edward Feser is an unflinch ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Nov 04, 2011 Rhett rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

The first Atheist I engaged in argument was when I was an eighteen-year old Marine fresh out of Boot Camp. His most notable quality was the same I have found in most of the Atheists I have met in the thirty years since, smugness. While Boot Camp had prepared me for physical battle, I was ill equipped to wage a sustainable campaign against the arguments he used. I knew I was being had, I just didn’t know how.

The weapons needed to engage in this particular type of battle are a grounding in classi ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Apr 09, 2013 Joshua Postema rated it really liked it

My first foray into Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy, this book was a primer on the topic for me as much as it was a "refutation of the new atheism". Feser made his points well, provided plenty of background information, and put forth a solid case for a system of thought that deserves (and commands, really) our attention. It is a way of looking at the world unfamiliar with us moderns unless we think about things long enough.

I'm not entirely convinced of the value of Aristotelian-Thomistic philo ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Feb 17, 2013 Aaron rated it liked it

If you want to understand the classical philosophical framework that much of traditional Christian theology is based on, this book does a great job of explaining it. Ed Feser is a Thomistic philosophy professor who really knows how to make complex concepts make sense in a concrete way. This might be the most accessible overview of classical and Scholastic philosophy I've ever read. I'd love to give it 5 stars.

Sadly, I can't. Feser spends too much time making snide comments about the purveyors of ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jul 26, 2011 Ronald rated it liked it

Fantastic! I think this is the only book to which I've assigned 5 stars. 267 pages in length and I wouldn't cut a single one. If you've read any of the recent books by the "new" atheists (Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and the like) then you'll feel dirty and need to take a shower. This book is a good, long hot shower with a big bar of Irish Spring. If you think metaphysics and philosophy are either boring or too difficult, this book will change your mind. If you've read some Nietzsche and t ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jan 13, 2013 Trae Johnson rated it really liked it

Feser does a great job contrasting Aristotelian/Thomistic Philosophy vs. Modern/Newtonian/Mechanical Philosophy, and what follows from the denial of the former and acceptance of the latter. Feser claims that the abandonment of Aristotelianism,viz., Aristotle's metaphysic, was the single greatest intellectual mistake in Western thought. The book explains why this is true.

Despite the difficulty of subject matter, I found the book fairly accessible. Although, much attention and focus is required.

F ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Mar 02, 2012 Orrin Woodward rated it it was amazing

The Last Superstition is one of the best books for profound thinking that I have ever read. My understanding of Aristotle, Plato, and the fallacies of the New Atheist is at an entirely new level. If a person doesn't do the heavy lifting to understand Aristotle, then he will misunderstand Aquinas. If he doesn't comprehend Aquinas, then he is easy pickings for the atheistic genre.

On top of the thinking, Feser uses hilarious examples and knows how to keep the main thing the main thing in a debate. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jul 02, 2012 Matt rated it really liked it

A very brief sketch:

Feser is a great writer.
As I remain unconvinced about Aristotelian metaphysics, some of his conclusions are not reachable for me. This includes his assertion that Cartesian dualists and those who support teleological arguments of the type following in the tradition of Paley have given half the store away to Naturalists right out of the gate. Meh, maybe not.

However, I think there is much to take away from this work. Feser's critique of the bankruptcy of NA thought is as good ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Aug 06, 2013 Stinger rated it really liked it

Shelves: apologetics, christian

Rational. Irreverent. Enlightening. Edward Feser takes the reader through a history of philosophy and shows where it went wrong, addressing the influence of Descartes, Locke, and Hume, among others. Humorously, Feser exposes the silly and self-refuting views preached by the so-called "New Atheists." He takes them to task revealing how impossible it is to speak of science without function or goal-directedness. This book is a call to return from the foolishness of modern mechanistic philosophy to ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jul 22, 2009 Carolyn rated it it was amazing

In spite of a somewhat abrasive attitude ( which I secretly admired while deploring!) the author is presenting a well-thought-out thesis, and does sum up much of the nonsense in New Atheism. I look forward to getting further into it.

Almost finished it and am impressed; he does indeed refute Dawkins and cronies effectively. He also gives a good overview of philosophy, classical and modern, which inspires to further reading. His writing is far from pedestrian; I find interest all through it.
A we ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend It | Stats | Recent Status Updates

Readers Also Enjoyed

Genres

Philosophy

52 users

Religion

20 users

Religion > Theology

11 users

Nonfiction

9 users

Christian

7 users

Religion > Christianity

7 users

Religion > Atheism

7 users

Religion > Faith

3 users

Religion > God

2 users

History

2 users

See top shelves…

About Edward Feser

Edward Feser is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College in Pasadena, California. He has been a Visiting Assistant Professor at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles and a Visiting Scholar at the Social Philosophy and Policy Center at Bowling Green State University in Bowling Green, Ohio. He holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of California at Santa Barbara, an M ...more

More about Edward Feser...

Books by Edward Feser

Philosophy of Mind: A Short Introduction

Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction

More…

Share This Book

+ Share on your website

Trivia About The Last Supersti...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

Quotes from The Last Supersti...

“It is not just that secularists happen to reject and oppose religion; it's that there is nothing more to their creed than rejecting and opposing religion. . . . The fact is that secularists are "for" reason and science only to the extent that they don't lead to religious conclusions; they celebrate free choice only insofar as one chooses against traditional or religiously oriented morality; and they are for democracy and toleration only to the extent that these might lead to a less religiously oriented social and political order.” — 9 likes

“For faith, properly understood, does not contradict reason in the least; indeed...it is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it.” — 6 likes

More quotes…

title link	preview: The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism
avg rating	preview: The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism Goodreads rating: 4.21 (420 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3382380-the-last-superstition?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1348206648l/3382380.jpg[/img][/url] [url=https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3382380-the-last-superstition?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism by Edward Feser[/url]

See a Problem?

Preview — The Last Superstition by Edward Feser

The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

Readers Also Enjoyed

Genres

About Edward Feser

Books by Edward Feser

Share This Book

Share on your website

Trivia About The Last Supersti...

Quotes from The Last Supersti...