Thomas Aquinas and his five ways

  • Thread starter Thread starter jesusmademe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jesusmademe

Guest
Laudetur Iesus Christus!
Wikipedia calls them:
  1. the argument from motion
  2. the argument from causation
  3. the argument from contingency
  4. the[argument from degree
  5. the argument from final cause or ends
It seems to me that one can look at them in two ways. In no ways are the unrelated.
Either you look at them from intelectual philosophy, I mean like yo do at the University, or pastoral counseling.

I quote Catholic Answers:
In the preceding article (ST 1:2:2), he asks “whether it can be demonstrated that God exists”

It seems that the five ways are something for us who already accepts that God exists. ie not written for atheists. Do you agree?

Another quote: Finally, the five ways—not proofs—take as a starting point the validity of our sense perception, which is enough to disqualify them as proofs per se.

They actually seem, at least to me, to be very pastoral, ie leading the person into a greater understanding of God. This understanding seem to be pastoal and philosophical.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/five-ways-or-five-proofs

The argument from contingency to me seem to be a philosophical way in order for us to look at what we already know. My argument, could be, that pastoral counseling is all about getting us to relise what we already know as human beings (and sometimes some church terminology is explained). We already know that God exists and that we are contingent beings. The five ways could be used in this process.
Then we have phiolosophy which is all about giving intelecual explanation to what we already know.
Thus we have two ways of looking at the five ways. either from a pastoral way or a philosophical way.

I am not really sure about what I am thinking.
What do you fellow contingent beings think about this topic?
 
In the preceding article (ST 1:2:2), he asks “whether it can be demonstrated that God exists”

It seems that the five ways are something for us who already accepts that God exists. ie not written for atheists. Do you agree?
The Summa Theologiae is written in the literary form known as a “disputation.” It was a common way of doing academic work in Aquinas’ day. So, what he’s doing there is bringing together strands of philosophy and Christian theology. So, yeah… it’s meant to be a discussion for (Christian) scholars.

If you want to see Aquinas’ approach for non-believers, then you want to read the Summa Contra Gentiles, in which he discusses the demonstration of the existence of God (see book 1, chapters 10 through 13).
 
Then we have phiolosophy which is all about giving intelecual explanation to what we already know.
I would disagree that this is what the project of philosophy is all about. We might say that philosophy is what may be known through intellection, but not merely “what we already know.” The latter might better be described as “what is manifestly evident”, but philosophy deals with more than that.
 
Last edited:
I quote Catholic Answers:
In the preceding article (ST 1:2:2), he asks “whether it can be demonstrated that God exists”

It seems that the five ways are something for us who already accepts that God exists. ie not written for atheists. Do you agree?
No. The very nature of the third article ‘Whether God Exists’ are proofs for the existence of God.
Another quote: Finally, the five ways—not proofs—take as a starting point the validity of our sense perception, which is enough to disqualify them as proofs per se.
This is false and certainly not the position of Aquinas or people of common sense.
They actually seem, at least to me, to be very pastoral, ie leading the person into a greater understanding of God. This understanding seem to be pastoal and philosophical.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/five-ways-or-five-proofs
Yes, the five proofs are philosophical and pastoral. The article from catholic.com you cite is from an author who has a very limited, if any, knowledge and understanding of Thomistic philosophy and metaphysics nor is it even common sensible. The author of the article doesn’t really know what Aquinas is talking about. His first error is thinking that Aquinas’ use of the word ‘demonstration’ applies only to the science of mathematics and mathematical proofs. It’s clear that the five proofs Aquinas offers for the existence of God are not mathematical demonstrations but rather metaphysical which is another more universal science than mathematics. In the second article, Aquinas says that demonstration can be made in two ways, namely, from cause to effect and from effect to cause and he says “from every effect the existence of the cause can be clearly demonstrated”. The five proofs are demonstrations of the existence of God from effect to cause and cause and effect are metaphysical concepts. Also, Aquinas uses the words demonstration, argument, and proof interchangably because things that are self-evident or first principles are not demonstrated or proved (see the first article in Question 2).
 
Last edited:
(continued)

The effects Aquinas argues from are what we observe in the world from sense observation and then reasoning logically with our intellect. For Aquinas, all our knowledge comes through our senses which do not deceive so the second error of the author of the article is believing a contrary opinion such as from Descartes and the invalidity of sense perception. For Aquinas, for example, if a person was looking at a tree in front of them, this is something that doesn’t require demonstration but which is self-evident. First principles are not demonstrated either because they are first principles such as being is not non-being.

The third error the author of the article makes is his strange notion that the five proofs were possibly not meant to be proofs at all by Aquinas but proofs is precisely what Aquinas calls them. Being one of the most logical of persons who have ever lived and who religiously adhered to the principle of non-contradiction, Aquinas would not have presented the five arguments for the existence of God as proofs or demonstrations if at the same time he didn’t mean them to be proofs or demonstrations. This argument from the author of the article makes no sense which is the opposite of Aquinas’ logical and non-contradictory mind.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top