on yet another materialist attempt to avoid God. Friends don’t let materialists do metaphysics.
My problem with Feser is he does this routine of sneering down his nose at anyone who doesn’t know and agree with the unmoved mover, yet he doesn’t do a decent explanation of it himself. True here and in The Last Superstition.
What’s a “decent” explanation? I agree with you about the sneering, I don’t care for it either, but the guy is a clear writer, and the explanation he gives on pp. 91-102 of The Last Superstition is very clear indeed. You have to hang with him during the first 90 pages, though, to understand what he’s getting at. But yeah, I wish he wasn’t so splenic sometimes.
He didn’t explain to me why the unmoved mover is necessary. He made the helpful point that it really means changed rather than moved, that Aristotle didn’t just mean something to physically start motion at the beginning of time, but of the instantaneous causes of all change. But then he didn’t (couldn’t?) give a good example of it. I wish I had the book in front of me, but there was one example he gave in pp 91-102 that he seemed to refute himself on the next page. His understanding of the four causes and the unmoved mover seems to be good enough for him, and if you don’t agree you’re an idiot.
He gives two good examples in the passage I’ve cited. A potter molding a pot (pp. 91-92) and a hand pushing a stick pushing a rock (pp. 92, 94-96). Then on p. 95 he starts to explain why such a Mover is necessary. If you don’t agree, you might be an idiot, but more likely you just need someone to explain it to you differently. This happens to me all the time. Maybe if you could sit down with Feser over a beer he could explain it in a way that fits you better.
Oh man, now I’m gonna have to go check it out at the library again. Please check this thread even though it’s getting old I will reply.
I check every day, ds!
If this piece of Feser’s is an example, he isn’t guilty of sneering, but of restraint toward folk who t’aint even worthy of a sneer.