Objection to Aquinas' Five Proofs

[ExLuxLucis]

The Five Proofs of God (or Five Ways), the work of St. Thomas Aquinas, are well known. However, I have recently come across a seemingly plausible objection to them by Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins claims that the first three ways (God as the Prime Mover, God as uncaused Cause and the argument from contingency) are essentially the same. This would fit his argument as he then reduces Aquinas’ Five to Three and can at the same time tackle the first three as a single argument.

Is there anyone who knows the arguments and has found a refutation to Dawkins’ objection?

Thanks!

 

[JackVk]

From what you report, Dawkins says that they are essentially the same, but not why they are wrong. It seems like a strawman argument.

 

[JohnDamian]

They are not the same; anyone who says they are is uneducated in philosophy.

The First way is an accidental order; arguing from the concept of motion in relation to the act-potency distinction.

The Second way is an accidental order but instead of arguing from motion it argues from efficient causality; which is independant from motion; and thus clearly distinct.

The Third way is an argument from a totality; which is seperate from arguing in individuals as the First and Second way do; thus the relevance of infinity is less in the Third; as in the First and Second.

Essentially speaking; the First and Second are similar; only being distinct insofar as efficient causality and motion are distinct; and both relying upon the soundness of the contrarity in an infinite regress; wheras the Third proof itself does not rely upon the contrarity of a regress to illuminate the necessity for necessary agent/s.

 

[_Locke]

From what you report, Dawkins says that they are essentially the same, but not why they are wrong. It seems like a strawman argument.

Of course he says why they are wrong.

@Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2008. Print.

"THOMAS AQUINAS’ 'PROOFS’
The five ‘proofs’ asserted by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century don’t prove anything, and are easily - though I hesitate to say so, given his eminence - exposed as vacuous. The first three are just different ways of saying the same thing, and they can be considered together. All involve an infinite regress - the answer to a question raises a prior question, and so on ad infinitum.

1 The Unmoved Mover. Nothing moves without a prior mover. This leads us to a regress, from which the only escape is God. Something had to make the first move, and that something we call God.
2 The Uncaused Cause. Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause, and again we are pushed back into regress. This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call God.
3 The Cosmological Argument. There must have been a time when no physical things existed. But, since physical things exist now, there must have been something non-physical to bring them into existence, and that something we call God.

All three of these arguments rely upon the idea of a regress and invoke God to terminate it. They make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress. Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts. Incidentally, it has not escaped the notice of logicians that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible. If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can’t change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent. Karen Owens has captured this witty little paradox in equally engaging verse:

Can omniscient God, who
Knows the future, find
The omnipotence to
Change His future mind?

To return to the infinite regress and the futility of invoking God to terminate it, it is more parsimonious to conjure up, say, a ‘big bang singularity’, or some other physical concept as yet unknown. Calling it God is at best unhelpful and at worst perniciously misleading. Edward Lear’s Nonsense Recipe for Crumboblious Cutlets invites us to ‘Procure some strips of beef, and having cut them into the smallest possible pieces, proceed to cut them still smaller, eight or perhaps nine times.’ Some regresses do reach a natural terminator. Scientists used to wonder what would happen if you could dissect, say, gold into the smallest possible pieces. Why shouldn’t you cut one of those pieces in half and produce an even smaller smidgen of gold? The regress in this case is decisively terminated by the atom. The smallest possible piece of gold is a nucleus consisting of exactly seventy-nine protons and a slightly larger number of neutrons, attended by a swarm of seventy-nine electrons. If you ‘cut’ gold any further than the level of the single atom, whatever else you get it is not gold. The atom provides a natural terminator to the Crumboblious Cutlets type of regress. It is by no means clear that God provides a natural terminator to the regresses of Aquinas."

 

[awatkins69]

The Five Proofs of God (or Five Ways), the work of St. Thomas Aquinas, are well known. However, I have recently come across a seemingly plausible objection to them by Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins claims that the first three ways (God as the Prime Mover, God as uncaused Cause and the argument from contingency) are essentially the same. This would fit his argument as he then reduces Aquinas’ Five to Three and can at the same time tackle the first three as a single argument.

Is there anyone who knows the arguments and has found a refutation to Dawkins’ objection?

Thanks!

If you want I have a paper on these. Don’t take Dawkins seriously. He is absolutely HORRIBLE.

 

[JackVk]

Of course he says why they are wrong.

@Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2008. Print.

"THOMAS AQUINAS’ 'PROOFS’
The five ‘proofs’ asserted by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century don’t prove anything, and are easily - though I hesitate to say so, given his eminence - exposed as vacuous. The first three are just different ways of saying the same thing, and they can be considered together. All involve an infinite regress - the answer to a question raises a prior question, and so on ad infinitum.

1 The Unmoved Mover. Nothing moves without a prior mover. This leads us to a regress, from which the only escape is God. Something had to make the first move, and that something we call God.
2 The Uncaused Cause. Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause, and again we are pushed back into regress. This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call God.
3 The Cosmological Argument. There must have been a time when no physical things existed. But, since physical things exist now, there must have been something non-physical to bring them into existence, and that something we call God.

All three of these arguments rely upon the idea of a regress and invoke God to terminate it. They make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress. Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts. Incidentally, it has not escaped the notice of logicians that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible. If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can’t change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent. Karen Owens has captured this witty little paradox in equally engaging verse:

Can omniscient God, who
Knows the future, find
The omnipotence to
Change His future mind?

To return to the infinite regress and the futility of invoking God to terminate it, it is more parsimonious to conjure up, say, a ‘big bang singularity’, or some other physical concept as yet unknown. Calling it God is at best unhelpful and at worst perniciously misleading. Edward Lear’s Nonsense Recipe for Crumboblious Cutlets invites us to ‘Procure some strips of beef, and having cut them into the smallest possible pieces, proceed to cut them still smaller, eight or perhaps nine times.’ Some regresses do reach a natural terminator. Scientists used to wonder what would happen if you could dissect, say, gold into the smallest possible pieces. Why shouldn’t you cut one of those pieces in half and produce an even smaller smidgen of gold? The regress in this case is decisively terminated by the atom. The smallest possible piece of gold is a nucleus consisting of exactly seventy-nine protons and a slightly larger number of neutrons, attended by a swarm of seventy-nine electrons. If you ‘cut’ gold any further than the level of the single atom, whatever else you get it is not gold. The atom provides a natural terminator to the Crumboblious Cutlets type of regress. It is by no means clear that God provides a natural terminator to the regresses of Aquinas."

He doesn’t “change His mind” on anything. He has made up His mind since time first began, and is not going to change it. God is outside of time and space and sees all of time at once. He doesn’t have a “future mind” because to Him, there is no past and no future. As for the Crumbobulous Cutlets argument, Dawkins is merely stating a scientific fact. Where did that gold atom and all its protons, neutrons, and electrons come from?

Again, Dr. Dawkins puts up a strawman. He doesn’t convince me. He says that all morals are relative, and then contradicts himself by saying the Pope should be arrested for “crimes against humanity”. If morals are all relative, then the Pope should not be arrested, because what is defined as a “crime” differs between individuals.

 

[awatkins69]

Dude. Dawkins does not even represent them correctly. AT ALL! He is horrible. Anybody who thinks Dawkins presents a serious objection to the Five Ways does not have experience in philosophy. That’s not necessarily bad, it’s just the facts. I’m sorry if I seem so tough, but that is the absolute reality of it. Dawkins presents us with a sort of McAtheism, absolutely divorced from serious philosophical discourse with serious atheists. PM me if you’re interested in that paper I talked about.

 

[JackVk]

Dude. Dawkins does not even represent them correctly. AT ALL! He is horrible. Anybody who thinks Dawkins presents a serious objection to the Five Ways does not have experience in philosophy. That’s not necessarily bad, it’s just the facts. I’m sorry if I seem so tough, but that is the absolute reality of it. Dawkins presents us with a sort of McAtheism, absolutely divorced from serious philosophical discourse with serious atheists.

Exactly. Strawman, strawman, strawman.

 

[awatkins69]

Dawkins’s statement of the First Way: “Nothing moves without a prior mover. This leads us to a regress
from which the only escape is God. Something had to make the first move, and that
something we call God.”(p.100)

Saint Thomas’ statement of the First Way: “It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. [Proof of A] Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. ** If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again [Impossibility of an infinite regress] But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. [Primary conclusion] Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; [Secondary Conclusion] and this everyone understands to be God’.” Summa Ia q.II art.III

Do I need to go on and explain?**

 

[ExLuxLucis]

He doesn’t “change His mind” on anything. He has made up His mind since time first began, and is not going to change it. God is outside of time and space and sees all of time at once. He doesn’t have a “future mind” because to Him, there is no past and no future. As for the Crumbobulous Cutlets argument, Dawkins is merely stating a scientific fact. Where did that gold atom and all its protons, neutrons, and electrons come from?

Again, Dr. Dawkins puts up a strawman. He doesn’t convince me. He says that all morals are relative, and then contradicts himself by saying the Pope should be arrested for “crimes against humanity”. If morals are all relative, then the Pope should not be arrested, because what is defined as a “crime” differs between individuals.

Then that proves the point on God’s Omniscience and ability to change his mind. We have already discussed the first proof as well. How would we address his other question: Why do we have to ascribe properties of omniscience and omnipotence to a prime mover and/or first cause? Why couldn’t it be some hidden law of physics as Hawking has recently and supposedly discovered, or a type of singularity?

 

[JohnDamian]

Then that proves the point on God’s Omniscience and ability to change his mind. We have already discussed the first proof as well. How would we address his other question: Why do we have to ascribe properties of omniscience and omnipotence to a prime mover and/or first cause? Why couldn’t it be some hidden law of physics as Hawking has recently and supposedly discovered, or a type of singularity?

Intellect proved as follows (arguments 414 and 415, Tractatus de Primo Principio)

“Likewise, the first efficient cause directs its effect to some end. Therefore it does so either naturally or by consciously loving this end. It is not in the first way, because whatever lacks knowledge can direct something to an end only in virtue of something which does possess knowledge, for “to order ultimately” pertains to wisdom. What is first, however, does not direct in virtue of anything else, just as it does not cause in virtue of anything else.”

“Likewise, something causes contingently. Therefore the first cause causes contingently; consequently it causes voluntarily. Proof of the first implication: Every secondary cause causes insofar as it is moved by the first cause. If the first cause moves necessarily then every [other] cause is moved necessarily and everything is necessarily caused. Proof of the second implication: The only source of contingent action is either the will or something accompanied by the will. Every other cause acts by a necessity of its nature and consequently not contingently.”

Anyone who was seriously trying to object to Catholic Philosophy would have read in depth the Scholastics. Dawkins has not; the small parts he has read (probably from wikipedia, or some third party rehash) lead him to present ambiguous and pathetic strawmen. His appeals may work on the uneducated masses; but they do not stand up to academic scrutiny; he is a charletan; selling the intellectual snake oil of atheism.

 

[The_Exodus]

All three of these arguments rely upon the idea of a regress and invoke God to terminate it. They make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress.

If properly understood, the argument proves (and does not assert or “rely on”) that an infinite regress in terms of causal agents is impossible. Hence, we come to being which is complete act, or unmoved, etc.

locke:

Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts.

The termination is not arbitrary, but follows as a consequence of the argument. Also, the terms of God, if they are anthropomorphic, do indeed fall short of capturing his essence. Hence, since we cannot reach up to the form of “what God is” we cannot have any proper knowledge of the form, except through negation. We can, however, have analogous knowledge. Finally, listening to prayers and forgiving sins have never been properties about God anyone has ever claimed to be able to prove. Extracting them from the five ways shows an obvious ignorance of Aquinas, considering his views on what we can know about God and how.

locke:

Incidentally, it has not escaped the notice of logicians that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible. If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can’t change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent.

Caricatures of these qualities are indeed dismissed.

However, since God is absolutely simple, his knowledge is no different than his will. Hence he knows whatever he wills to know, and this eternally. God, then, knows he cannot change his mind, because he wills that he doesn’t change his mind. On the supposition that his will were otherwise, so would his knowledge be, and God has this speculative knowledge based on various suppositions which, though he may have willed, in fact he did not will.

 

[Windfish]

If you want I have a paper on these. Don’t take Dawkins seriously. He is absolutely HORRIBLE.

I would love to read your paper. :3

 

[awatkins69]

I would love to read your paper. :3

Sorry. I guess I wasn’t exactly clear. It’s not my paper, but it’s my friend’s paper. I have it on my computer. If you’d like, I can send it to you as well. Just give me a PM with your e-mail. Best.

 

[Liinus]

Of course he says why they are wrong.

@Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2008. Print.

"THOMAS AQUINAS’ 'PROOFS’
The five ‘proofs’ asserted by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century don’t prove anything, and are easily - though I hesitate to say so, given his eminence - exposed as vacuous. The first three are just different ways of saying the same thing, and they can be considered together. All involve an infinite regress - the answer to a question raises a prior question, and so on ad infinitum.

1 The Unmoved Mover. Nothing moves without a prior mover. This leads us to a regress, from which the only escape is God. Something had to make the first move, and that something we call God.
2 The Uncaused Cause. Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause, and again we are pushed back into regress. This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call God.
3 The Cosmological Argument. There must have been a time when no physical things existed. But, since physical things exist now, there must have been something non-physical to bring them into existence, and that something we call God.

All three of these arguments rely upon the idea of a regress and invoke God to terminate it. They make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress. Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts. Incidentally, it has not escaped the notice of logicians that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible. If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can’t change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent. Karen Owens has captured this witty little paradox in equally engaging verse:

Can omniscient God, who
Knows the future, find
The omnipotence to
Change His future mind?

To return to the infinite regress and the futility of invoking God to terminate it, it is more parsimonious to conjure up, say, a ‘big bang singularity’, or some other physical concept as yet unknown. Calling it God is at best unhelpful and at worst perniciously misleading. Edward Lear’s Nonsense Recipe for Crumboblious Cutlets invites us to ‘Procure some strips of beef, and having cut them into the smallest possible pieces, proceed to cut them still smaller, eight or perhaps nine times.’ Some regresses do reach a natural terminator. Scientists used to wonder what would happen if you could dissect, say, gold into the smallest possible pieces. Why shouldn’t you cut one of those pieces in half and produce an even smaller smidgen of gold? The regress in this case is decisively terminated by the atom. The smallest possible piece of gold is a nucleus consisting of exactly seventy-nine protons and a slightly larger number of neutrons, attended by a swarm of seventy-nine electrons. If you ‘cut’ gold any further than the level of the single atom, whatever else you get it is not gold. The atom provides a natural terminator to the Crumboblious Cutlets type of regress. It is by no means clear that God provides a natural terminator to the regresses of Aquinas."

Certainly many intelligent people have raised objections to Thomas’s proofs. I see no problem with them myself. You might take a look at the Modeling of Nature by William A Wallace ( available on line, just google William A Wallace and click on Modeling of Nature). You can also refer to the Elements of Christian Philosophy and the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas by Etien Gilson). Of course Catholics have the Deposit of the Faith to guide them, so even if they cannot follow the deep thinkers of the past and present, they still have access to the truth, at least of those things necessary and beneficial to salvation. And even really intelligent Catholics just don’t have the time or training to delve into all these details to any great extent. Life happens, time is so short, demands are so many. Catholics are blessed in not having to " prove " everything.

 

[hatsoff]

Dawkins’s statement of the First Way: “Nothing moves without a prior mover. This leads us to a regress
from which the only escape is God. Something had to make the first move, and that
something we call God.”(p.100)

Saint Thomas’ statement of the First Way: “It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. [Proof of A] Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. ** If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again [Impossibility of an infinite regress] But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. [Primary conclusion] Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; [Secondary Conclusion] and this everyone understands to be God’.” Summa Ia q.II art.III

Do I need to go on and explain?**

That’s very helpful, thanks. I had more or less assumed that Dawkins, not being a philosopher, would bungle Aquinas’ proofs. It’s a pleasant surprise, therefore, for me to see that at least in the case of this proof, Dawkins was spot on!

I wonder if Aquinas’ other four proofs are as vacuous as this one.

 

[Rocinante]

Dawkins’s statement of the First Way: “Nothing moves without a prior mover. This leads us to a regress
from which the only escape is God. Something had to make the first move, and that
something we call God.”(p.100)

Saint Thomas’ statement of the First Way: “It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. [Proof of A] Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. ** If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again [Impossibility of an infinite regress] But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. [Primary conclusion] Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; [Secondary Conclusion] and this everyone understands to be God’.” Summa Ia q.II art.III

Do I need to go on and explain?**

i think dawkins put it much more clearly and succinctly. is there something important he missed here?

rocinante

 

[Rocinante]

Anyone who was seriously trying to object to Catholic Philosophy would have read in depth the Scholastics. Dawkins has not; the small parts he has read (probably from wikipedia, or some third party rehash) lead him to present ambiguous and pathetic strawmen. His appeals may work on the uneducated masses; but they do not stand up to academic scrutiny; he is a charletan; selling the intellectual snake oil of atheism.

if this were true then the scholarly consensus would be that god exists and is exactly as aquinas says god is. philosophy scholars would tend to be catholic. but they do not tend to be catholic so it seems to me that it is not merely the uneducated masses that are unswayed by the arguments of aquinas.

i don’t understand relativity, but the top physicists do, and i accept the scholarly consensus on the truth of the matter. if there were any such scholarly consensus on the validity of aquinas’s proofs among philosophers and logicians as there is on einstein’s relativity then the existence of god and all his attributes would be a matter of settled fact in academia. how do you explain the fact that the existence of god is not a settled fact among academics and that they are less likely than your uneducated masses to be catholic?

 

[Betterave]

That’s very helpful, thanks. I had more or less assumed that Dawkins, not being a philosopher, would bungle Aquinas’ proofs. It’s a pleasant surprise, therefore, for me to see that at least in the case of this proof, Dawkins was spot on!

I wonder if Aquinas’ other four proofs are as vacuous as this one.

LOL! What makes you say that? I more or less assume that you are not a philosopher - am I right? Rocinante’s response here seems much more intelligent than yours. I would *not *assume that *he *is not a philosopher.

 

[The_Exodus]

I wonder if Aquinas’ other four proofs are as vacuous as this one.

My friend, read St. Thomas’ commentators before you jump to this conclusion. One has to understand the root of his thought before one can make a serious criticism of his proofs. Any rejection of his proofs, furthermore, result in a sor of mass scale rejection of certain types of knowledge (as a matter of fact I would say all knowledge)and change one’s entire epistemology. Hegel, for instance, who rejected the proofs, also had to reject the principle of contradiction, and thought that reality was “the joining of two contradictories” (whatever that means.) Anyway, read Garrigou-Lagrange. He’s a great, recent commentator on St. Thomas.