Aquinas' Five Ways

[JennaR]

I’m writing a paper for a philosophy class on Aquinas’ five ways. My professor believes that his arguments are no longer relevant considering 21st century technology and advances. She, along with others in my class, argue that there is no reason to believe that God is the first mover, starter of the sequence of events…etc. She believes that since Aquinas says there must be a beginning to everything, there must also be a beginning to God, etc.

This is my first philosophy class, so I’m still new to all of these ideas and concepts. Can anyone give me some insight into why (or why not) Aquinas’ ways are relevant or how to defend against her arguments?

 

[NotCrazyDan]

First of all, regarding the rule she’s referring to, I happen to be familiar with it, and her premise is not only condescending, but it’s wrong. It’s condescending because it’s not based on “New technology” or “Advances in science”. These things have nothing to do with Philosophy, except in limited cases like the “Big Bang Theory” which actually supports the Book of Genesis. In the case of the rule she’s referring to, no advance in science has even slightly impacted it. It sounds to me like she’s dismissing it out of hand, without even understanding it.

It’s wrong because the entire point of St. Aquinas’s argument is that God isn’t a receiver of existence, but the originator of it, and that there must be an originator.

Here’s an article regarding the rule she’s referring to. I thought it was interesting so I posted it to my facebook page. I didn’t save the URL for it, so I’ll copy and paste the entire article here.

In the following essay, Mark Brumley from the Catholic Answers Forum talks about one of Saint Thomas Aquinas’s 5 ways to prove God:

Aquinas Proves Atheists Are Closer to God Than They Think

Some time ago, when the hubbub of the New Atheists commenced, philosopher of religion Brian Davies wrote a column that was subtitled, presumably by The Times where it appeared, “Aquinas proves atheists are closer to God than they think.” Davies’ piece was not an exercise in woolly thinking, calculated to cast the net of inclusivity as wide as possible by purporting to dissolve the hard distinction between affirming God’s existence and denying it. His point was to ask what kind of God our atheist friends deny the existence of and to ask whether that is the God whose existence someone such as St. Thomas Aquinas affirms.

We might ask the same question. Atheists sometimes think of God as a being who exists alongside other beings in the universe. In this view, God may be thought of as the biggest and the best being in the universe, but he is still a being like the rest of us, an interesting feature of all that happens to be.

A Being outside All Others

If that is what you mean by God, argues Davies, then Thomas would agree that such a God does not exist. God, Davies quotes Thomas as saying, “is to be thought of as existing outside the realm of existents, as a cause from which pours forth everything that exists in all its variant forms.” In other words, there is no such being as the God who is thought to exist as just one more thing along side a can of beans or the planet Jupiter.

A complicating factor is the word exists. We think we understand perfectly what that word means because everything we see around us can be described by using that word. The magazine in which you are reading this article exists, as does the roof over your head and the sky above. Likewise, you exist. It seems such a straightforward thing to say. And of course in some ways it is, when we’re talking about everyday things. Yet things become complicated—for us limited beings—when we take that little word exists and apply it to God.

It may seem obvious to say that a Christian or even a generic theist is someone who says, “God exists,” and an atheist is someone who says, “God does not exist.” However, the traditional Christian (even the mere theist) wants to say more things about God, things that affect the use of the word exist as applied to God. Here is where Thomas comes in. When he says, “God exists,” he doesn’t mean by exist exactly the same thing that he means when he says, “Rome exists” or “Jupiter exists” or even, “I exist.”

There are, says Thomas, things that receive their existence, that are dependent for their existence. I exist because my parents existed; I received my existence from them. That mountain exists because the earth exists and certain geological principles exist that go into the formation of mountains. And so on.

Not everything, argues Thomas, can be a receiver of existence. Something (or Someone) must exist in its (his) own right, and not because of something else. Otherwise, there would be no existence to be passed on by the all various receivers of existence we encounter in the world around us. That something which (or Someone who) exists in its (his) own right and not as dependent on another is God. He, says Thomas, simply is, with the fullness of all that the word “is” can contain. This is why God is called “the Supreme Being.” Lesser beings are dependent for their existence on others. Not so God.

I have just summarized one of Thomas’s arguments for God’s existence. Whatever you make of it, my point here is to focus on the kind of existence that Thomas says God has, not on Thomas’s argument for God’s existence. God’s kind of existence is uncaused and independent. That is why Thomas can say that God “is to be thought of as existing outside the realm of existents” (Commentary on Aristotle’s Peri Hermeneias, 1.14). That does not mean it is right to say, “There is no God.” If we use the word existent to refer to beings that get their existence or are dependent for it on another or others, then it is right to say that God is “outside the realm of existents.” Indeed, God, in this view, would be the cause of existence, the reason there is something rather than nothing. Yes, there is a perfectly good sense in which we must speak of God as “existing,” but, as Thomas would quickly add, God’s existence is radically different from the existence of everything else.

 

[Cleanthes]

First, you probably aren’t reading the full version of the five ways. Most textbooks give you a summary of them that fails to convey what Aquinas really meant. This problem is compounded by the fact that most people badly misunderstand Aquinas’ five ways, including people who study philosophy for a living. There are no empirical discoveries that invalidate any of the five ways, and people who assert otherwise tend to expose gaps in their understanding of either the relevant science or the relevant philosophy. A case in point is Aquinas’s concept of motion. When Aquinas talks about ‘motion’, he isn’t talking about movement from one place to another. He is talking about the reduction of potency to act, that is, something becoming actualized from a state of prior potentiality. If someone tries to tell you that Newton refutes the claim that “whatever is in motion is moved by another”. don’t listen to them. They don’t know what they are talking about. Ditto if they try to bring quantum mechanics into the equation as an example of uncaused events. The fact that they mention this reveals that they don’t understand the act/potency distinction. Finally, Aquinas shows why God would not require an explanation of the same sort that the universe would. God is a necessary being and the universe is merely contingent. Necessary beings don’t require explanation because they don’t come into existence. Moreover, God is “pure act” which means that he cannot change or become. Something that cannot change or become does not need an external cause in order to bring it into existence. I suggest you read Edward Feser’s book Aquinas, where he explains in meticulous detail just how badly most contemporary philosophers misunderstand Aquinas.

 

[Cleanthes]

You might find this to be particularly helpful in exposing the ignorance about Aquinas that is out there even among professional philosophers.

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/03/straw-men-and-terracotta-armies.html

 

[Betterave]

I’m writing a paper for a philosophy class on Aquinas’ five ways. My professor believes that his arguments are no longer relevant considering 21st century technology and advances. She, along with others in my class, argue that there is no reason to believe that God is the first mover, starter of the sequence of events…etc. She believes that since Aquinas says there must be a beginning to everything, there must also be a beginning to God, etc.

This is my first philosophy class, so I’m still new to all of these ideas and concepts. Can anyone give me some insight into why (or why not) Aquinas’ ways are relevant or how to defend against her arguments?

First of all, I suggest, keep in mind that not everyone may be intelligent enough or patient enough or have enough time to study and understand the five ways. That’s what Thomas himself says, that that’s why God *revealed *to us some of the things that can in principle be known by reason. So the point is that you remember this context, especially as a beginner in philosophy, and just try to understand what Thomas and your prof are saying, and to seek to grasp what is true. (I’d pray to Thomas and to the Holy Spirit about this, that they will help you to understand well.) Also remember that for Thomas it is just as important (close, anyway) to understand and answer objections as it is to give your own answers - this addressing other opinions is integral to the process of giving good answers.

What’s the specific topic of your paper?

 

[JennaR]

Thanks so much for your suggestions - they’re already coming in very helpful.

The specific topic of my paper is:
“What exactly is wrong (or particularly right) about Aquinas’ Five Ways?”

 

[The_Exodus]

I’m writing a paper for a philosophy class on Aquinas’ five ways. My professor believes that his arguments are no longer relevant considering 21st century technology and advances.

St. Thomas’s proofs rely on the principle of identity and causality, principles which science and 21st century advances can by no means do away with, unless they want to destroy science altogether.

If you want to read a traditional, though philosophically advanced explanation of the 5 ways, read Garrigou-Lagrange’s book “God” vol 1.

 

[Nooj]

You might find this to be particularly helpful in exposing the ignorance about Aquinas that is out there even among professional philosophers.

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/03/straw-men-and-terracotta-armies.html

Best to look at academic works. There have been many, many books written on Aquinas and specifically his Five Ways. Cleanthes has already linked to a (Catholic) writer who’s written a book on this subject, so there’s a good place to start! Otherwise, just check out your university library.

 

[djeter]

http://payingattentiontothesky.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/discovering-aquinas-book.jpg?w=225&h=225
One such book is Discovering Aquinas by Aidan Nichols. Rather than a review, I mark up passages and post them as reading selections.

You can find them here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/11/09/book-recommendation-discovering-aquinas-%e2%80%93-aidan-nichols/

“Just as a lamp is not able to illuminate unless a fire is enkindled, so also a spiritual lamp does not illuminate unless he first burn and be inflamed with the fire of charity. Hence ardor precedes illumination, for a knowledge of truth is bestowed by the ardor of charity.”

dj

 

[geekborj]

I’m writing a paper for a philosophy class on Aquinas’ five ways. My professor believes that his arguments are no longer relevant considering 21st century technology and advances. She, along with others in my class, argue that there is no reason to believe that God is the first mover, starter of the sequence of events…etc. She believes that since Aquinas says there must be a beginning to everything, there must also be a beginning to God, etc.

This is my first philosophy class, so I’m still new to all of these ideas and concepts. Can anyone give me some insight into why (or why not) Aquinas’ ways are relevant or how to defend against her arguments?

The current science today (21st century) believes in the Big Bang. However, the current theory assumes that the expansion of time and space did BEGIN. As to how it began, there is no Physics that can currently delve earlier than 10^-40 seconds since the “bang” began. So, as to the First Mover, i don’t know if your professor is misinformed about the 21st century science or she is just an atheist.

I think the argument of St. Thomas is that God is the Beginning. If she refers to a god that has a beginning, then that is not the God St. Thomas was referring to.

 

[ericteng04]

I’m writing a paper for a philosophy class on Aquinas’ five ways. My professor believes that his arguments are no longer relevant considering 21st century technology and advances. She, along with others in my class, argue that there is no reason to believe that God is the first mover, starter of the sequence of events…etc. She believes that since Aquinas says there must be a beginning to everything, there must also be a beginning to God, etc.

This is my first philosophy class, so I’m still new to all of these ideas and concepts. Can anyone give me some insight into why (or why not) Aquinas’ ways are relevant or how to defend against her arguments?

i am just thinking if your professor also mentioned about the concept of THE UNMOVED MOVER???

 

[Bibbit]

My immediate thoughts here were that God is not a physical being, and the 5 proofs regard the physical world. They do not necessarily translate over to the spiritual world.

 

[itinerant1]

These things have nothing to do with Philosophy, except in limited cases like the “Big Bang Theory” which actually supports the Book of Genesis.

If you mean that BBT (Big Bang Theory) supports as in “proves” Creation as revealed in Genesis, this is a mistake. A scientific theory cannot prove creatio ex nihilo. Pope Pius XII in his enthusiasm for BBT, originated by Fr. Lemaître (Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître), at first spoke of the theory as proving Creation. Fr. Lemaître advised the pope that this was not correct. Pope Pius XII subsequently acknowledged his error. For further clarification, see Aquinas and the Big Bang by William E. Carroll.

 

[itinerant1]

I’m writing a paper for a philosophy class on Aquinas’ five ways. My professor believes that his arguments are no longer relevant considering 21st century technology and advances. She, along with others in my class, argue that there is no reason to believe that God is the first mover, starter of the sequence of events…etc. She believes that since Aquinas says there must be a beginning to everything, there must also be a beginning to God, etc.

If you are understanding your teacher correctly, then it is clear she doesn’t know anything about Aquinas. Aquinas teaches much about the difference between contingent or non-necessary being and necessary being, God. Only contingent being has a beginning. Contingent beings, that is, all things in nature, have not within them the reason for their existence. Their existence is dependent on prior causes. Ultimately, we must reach an un-caused Cause which accounts for the existence of contingent beings. And this is God.

It also sounds like your teacher and class are stuck in a typical, crass misunderstanding of the five ways. Oftentimes, philosophy professor misrepresent Aquinas as saying that God stands at the beginning of a series of causes that stretches back in time. This is NOT Aquinas’s argument.

To the contrary, Aquinas assumes for his argument, following Aristotle, that the universe is eternal; that it has always existed. The argument does not involve a series of events going back in time to an Unmoved Mover. Let us call that view the “horizontal” view of causality. Aquinas’s argument must be understood, rather, as a “vertical” series of causes at any and every point in time.

For example, at any moment in time a tree depends on the Earth for its existence. The conditions on Earth the support the tree are dependent on the Sun, and so on. Likewise, we move vertically in this series of dependent causes, which cannot proceed to infinity, otherwise there is nothing, so to speak, on which to hang this entire series of causes. Ultimately, we must reach a cause which is un-caused and has within its being the reason for its own existence. This being we call God.

Aquinas demonstrations for the existence of God are just as valid today. He used the science of the day to illustrate his philosophical points. Yet his philosophical analysis is independent of the particular state of scientific knowledge. Today we use modern scientific understanding to illustrate the arguments. Two hundred years from now, Catholics will use the current state of scientific knowledge. The philosophical truths Aquinas expounds, if they were true in his time, they will be always be true.

In addition, Aquinas taught that the only way we know that the universe had a beginning in time is through Revelation. He thought that without Revelation it was reasonable to assume the universe always existed. In this conception of the universe as always having existed, it would still be created and dependent on God for its existence. This idea involves a kind of “eternal creation” of the universe as opposed to a beginning of the universe by a creation in time. But that is a difficult concept to explain here. I just brought this up to further illustrate just how far off-base your teacher seems to be about the Five Ways.

This is my first philosophy class, so I’m still new to all of these ideas and concepts. Can anyone give me some insight into why (or why not) Aquinas’ ways are relevant or how to defend against her arguments?

Here are some resources for further study on Aquinas:
Peter Kreeft

A Companion to the Summa by Walter Farrell O.P., S.T.D., S.T.M.
Scroll down the page for Farrell’s commentary.

Aquinas: An Introduction to the Life and Work of the Great Medieval Thinker, by Frederick C. Copleston, SJ
Copleston’s book has an excellent explanation of the proofs for God’s existence for beginners and scholars. If you had this book you would have it made.

A History of Philosophy, Vol. 2: Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy From Augustine to Duns Scotus, by F.C. Copleston.
Volume 2 in Copleston’s History of Philosophy series has an excellent section on Aquinas. Oftentimes this series can be found in libraries and local book stores.

 

[sedonaman]

… She believes that since Aquinas says there must be a beginning to everything, there must also be a beginning to God, etc.
…

“Beginning” implies time since time is defined by two events; a thing in question didn’t exist before its beginning, then it did, hence two events. God is outside of time, so God having a beginning is meaningless.

 

[itinerant1]

From my experience and research, I have concluded that there only a handful of universities in the U.S. with philosophy departments that actually do philosophy.

What JennaR is confronted with is a poorly trained and mis-educated professor of philosophy, plus a class of students who mistakenly think they know what they are talking about. This kind of situation is prevalent in today’s colleges. A student is most fortunate who can find a real professor of philosophy.

 

[sedonaman]

From my experience and research, I have concluded that there only a handful of universities in the U.S. with philosophy departments that actually do philosophy.

What JennaR is confronted with is a poorly trained and mis-educated professor of philosophy, plus a class of students who mistakenly think they know what they are talking about. This kind of situation is prevalent in today’s colleges. A student is most fortunate who can find a real professor of philosophy.

For those interested in philosophy, I recommend The Science Before Science by Dr. Anthony Rizzi, a Catholic scholar. He’s not a professor of philosophy but maintains that you must understand it to study science, physics in his case. He had a series of the same title on EWTN and also has a website iapweb.org/director.htm.

 

[itinerant1]

For those interested in philosophy, I recommend The Science Before Science by Dr. Anthony Rizzi, a Catholic scholar. He’s not a professor of philosophy but maintains that you must understand it to study science, physics in his case. He had a series of the same title on EWTN and also has a website iapweb.org/director.htm.

Thanks. I’ll check it out.