Logic itself is normative insofar as inferences aim at truth and insofar as the logical relationships between beliefs and statements derive from their meanings. Hence if there are no meanings or purposes, there is no truth or logic either. And thus there is no science, at least if science is supposed to give us something true or rational. Rosenberg’s scientism makes of all statements”scientific statements no less than moral or theological ones”mere meaningless strings of ink marks or noises, no more true or false, rational or irrational than bosons and fermions are.
Though Rosenberg happily owns the label nihilist , he assures us that we needn’t fear the consequences of nihilism because the illusion of morality, like many of the other aspects of common sense he regards as fictions, has been programmed into us by evolution. Still, given that we lack free will, we must in his view abandon that part of morality that presupposes moral responsibility and the rewards and punishments that go along with it.
The original review of Alex Rosenberg in First Things is available here: (link)
Here is the mega-post where Ed Feser aggregates all his critiques of Alex Rosenberg’s scientism and atheism (link)
“No account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid, the theory would, of course, be itself demolished.”
Miracles, p. 26
You can read and learn more about quotes from CS Lewis on Compassion in Politics.
1) Critical argument
2) Critical media studies
3) Critical of radicalism (particularly radical pessimism & skepticism)
I would think that liberals would want to see the change in #3.