Neo-Atheism is not Atheism

[Tim_nz]

@Vinnie

For it entirely removes from the world essences and final causes, and thus the possibility of making sense of the good as an objective feature of reality. (See The Last Superstition for details.) And since modern atheism tends to define itself in terms of such a radically anti-teleological or mechanistic view of the world, it too is to that extent incompatible with any possible morality.

You appear to be conflating “any possible morality” with objective morality (“good as an objective feature of reality”).

Does Feser make the (in my opinion) rather extreme claim that objective morality is the only possible form of morality?

[Vinnie]

I think he does but his position is rather nuanced.

But proximately ethics can be done at least to a large extent without reference to God, just as natural science can. In that sense, many moral truths would still be true even if, per impossibile, there were no God – just as the periodic table of the elements would be what it is even if, per impossibile, there were no God. (All of this is discussed in chapter 5 of Aquinas. And see the first half of this article for a sketch of A-T natural law theory.)

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Vinnie

it entirely removes from the world essences and final causes, and thus the possibility of making sense of the good as an objective feature of reality.

Agreed. And thus BioLogos, in the ultimate sense, is not in a position to bring joy to those who oppose the divine attribute added to nature by the Divine aspect of the Universe.

The mature atheist understands this quandry …. but knows that the problem “AT HAND” is not Atheist’s disbelief in God, but the Creationist’s disbelief in God’s use of natural processes (including evolutionary processes) to execute His divine order.

Every time we allow discourse where an IMMATURE Atheist criticizes Creationists for believing in the divine, the BioLogos Christian mission deteriorates a little further.

[Kendel]

I’m not sure if by quoting Edward Feser’s blog post you represent your own view or something else.

No matter.

@Vinnie

But to opt for a completely anti-essentialist and anti-teleological view of the world – one which holds that the natural order is entirely mechanistic and that there is nothing beyond that order – is, the A-T philosopher would argue, to undermine the possibility of any sort of morality at all. For it entirely removes from the world essences and final causes, and thus the possibility of making sense of the good as an objective feature of reality.

This is a definitional argument, contingent on unprovable concepts of essences and teleos. Feser’s explanation assumes that essences and telos exist to be “removed” in the first place.

Feser overlooks factors that don’t fit into his definition as well – Christians that don’t view the concept of essence as essential,
Disagreement among Christians who do about moral action,
A large group of atheists who do view history as teleological, Marxists,
Moral acts and systems of morality of atheists.

@Vinnie

And since modern atheism tends to define itself in terms of such a radically anti-teleological or mechanistic view of the world, it too is to that extent incompatible with any possible morality.

Again, this claim can only hold if it actually describes reality. As it cannot be demonstrated to do so, it is an opinion.

And, as I observe, an ill informed one. If Feser really believes this, he needs to get out more and actually interact with real atheists.

[Tim_nz]

@Vinnie -- quoting Feser

But proximately ethics can be done at least to a large extent without reference to God, just as natural science can. In that sense, many moral truths would still be true even if, per impossibile, there were no God – just as the periodic table of the elements would be what it is even if, per impossibile, there were no God. (All of this is discussed in chapter 5 of Aquinas. And see the first half of this article for a sketch of A-T natural law theory.)

I can see two problems with this:

1. “The periodic table of the elements” would appear to be a purely human invention – a human-created model of how the elements ‘fit’ together. I am therefore not seeing the connection to God. I would note that the same could be said of the A-T framework (that it is a human-created model).

2. “But proximately ethics can be done at least to a large extent without reference to God …” would appear to be an admission that some form of atheistic morality is possible. Feser may be of the opinion that God-referencing morality is superior to atheistic morality – but that’s an entirely different proposition to one that states that atheistic morality is outright impossible.