It’s worth a read. In my view, most of it is perfectly reasonable, but it goes wrong where he claims that the teaching of Christ as recording in the New Testament logically implies the creedal formulas about the Trinity.
The defense of mystery appeals by comparison with naturalistic “mysterian” theories in non-religious matters is intriguing, and I wish he’d developed it more.
In sum, a well done post – but a stun, not a kill.
Update: the Feser fires another volley (at me, and at the Maverick Philosopher). This one is even more interesting. Ed’s brand of negative mysterianism is highly developed – almost as much as James Anderson’s positive mysterianism, and I will respond in due course. Thanks, Ed, for the good conversation!
Further Update: Ed makes some apt comments regarding charges of ad hoc hypotheses, and takes a stance I think is wrong-headed, rejecting what he calls “theistic personalism” or “neo-theism”, but which most of us just call “theism” or “monotheism”!