Graham Oppy’s article “On stage one of Feser’s ‘Aristotelian proof’”, which responds to some of the arguments I give in Five Proofs of the Existence of God, has recently been posted at the website of the journal Religious Studies. I will be writing up a response. (In the meantime, readers who have not seen it may be interested in my recent debate with Oppy on Capturing Christianity.)
In the Fall 2019 issue of Nova et Vetera, Joshua Lim kindly reviews Five Proofs. From the review:
Each chapter on a given proof is divided into two stages. In the first stage, Feser begins with a description (first mover, incomposite being, necessary being, etc.) and argues for the existence of a thing that corresponds to that description. In the second stage, he shows how that thing must also have various attributes that are typically ascribed to God (simplicity, unity, goodness, intelligence, omnipotence, etc.)…
It is the second stage of this twofold division that constitutes the most helpful contribution of Feser’s work. Contrasting Feser’s two-stage manner of proceeding with Thomas’s famous quinque viae in Summa theologiae I, q. 2, a. 3, highlights the former’s advantages…
[T]he relationship between the being whose existence is proven (i.e., God) and the attributes that are traditionally predicated of God (simplicity, immutability, goodness, intelligence, perfection, and so on) is shown more quickly and directly…
Insofar as natural theology falls under the purview of both theology and philosophy, this book is a good primer for budding philosophers and theologians on how natural theology is done… Feser’s work will greatly benefit both kinds of thinkers.
