Thomists and Intelligent Design

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kilbourne
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kilbourne

Guest
I encountered this article several years ago: catholic.com/magazine/articles/aquinas-vs-intelligent-design

At the time I thought Prof. Tkacz was being unfair to ID because he wasn’t directly engaging William Dembski, especially his book The Design Revolution. If you are going to attack ID on philosophical grounds, one ought to read the leading philosopher behind the movement.

Since then I have encountered Thomists (Feser and Beckwith) who who do engage Dembski: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/03/thomism-versus-design-argument.html

biologos.org/blog/intelligent-design-and-me-part-i-in-the-beginning

I am still digesting their critiques. In the mean time, I have this question of Thomists: Is it legitimate at all to try and detect design in any given natural phenomenon? If so, how would Thomists put such an enterprise on a solid metaphysical foundation?

Kilbourne
 
Thomists do believe in intelligent design, but “intelligent design” is a broad term. Thomists don’t argue from “irreducible complexity” like William Paley et al. For them, intelligent design is manifested in final causality, which is a fundamental aspect of the universe, but one that is not necessarily manifested in complexity. (Simple systems can be end-directed as well as complex ones.)

So they likewise don’t have much of a beef with evolution. They would diverge from evolution in that they would hold that the human soul/intellectual capacities could not have arised by fully naturalistic means, but in that case, there is not even a constitutive explanation by modern biologists/neuroscientists/philosophers of mind, so proponents of evolution cannot claim to have a historical explanation.

The other place where some Thomists might diverge is abiogenesis. An interesting article to read on the subject is “Synthetic Life and the Bruteness of Immanent Causation” (you’ll have to email Oderberg for a copy, but it’s a good read).
 
Kilbourne said:
I encountered this article several years ago: catholic.com/magazine/articles/aquinas-vs-intelligent-design

At the time I thought Prof. Tkacz was being unfair to ID because he wasn’t directly engaging William Dembski, especially his book The Design Revolution. If you are going to attack ID on philosophical grounds, one ought to read the leading philosopher behind the movement.

Since then I have encountered Thomists (Feser and Beckwith) who who do engage Dembski: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/03/thomism-versus-design-argument.html

biologos.org/blog/intelligent-design-and-me-part-i-in-the-beginning

I am still digesting their critiques. In the mean time, I have this question of Thomists: Is it legitimate at all to try and detect design in any given natural phenomenon? If so, how would Thomists put such an enterprise on a solid metaphysical foundation?

Kilbourne
Click to expand...
Thomas agrees with Augustine who says that everything was created in one day and that things are brought into existence as the universe develops
*t should be said that, according to Augustine, those six days are one day, six by the distinctions of things, according to which they are numbered, presented at the same time; just as there is one Word whereby all things are made, namely the Son of God, although we frequently read, ‘God said.’ And just as those works are saved in all things subsequently propagated by the activity of nature, so those six days remain in the whole subsequent time.
…we sustain with Augustine that all things are created immediately… Therefore just as Augustine distinguishes six days according to the presentation of spiritual light, which is said to be made on the first day, by the six kinds of things, so according to the presentation of bodily light the six kinds of things can in a certain way be distinguished into six days without the distinction of time. *
Click to expand...
and
Click to expand...
Augustine says that in the first founding of the order of nature we must not look for miracles, but for what is in accordance with nature.
Click to expand...
keep in mind that Evolution is still not a concept in Thomas and Augustines time. I truly believe if they existed today they would both agree with it as an accurate explanation of the universe.
Click to expand...
 
Kilbourne said:
I encountered this article several years ago: catholic.com/magazine/articles/aquinas-vs-intelligent-design

At the time I thought Prof. Tkacz was being unfair to ID because he wasn’t directly engaging William Dembski, especially his book The Design Revolution. If you are going to attack ID on philosophical grounds, one ought to read the leading philosopher behind the movement.

Since then I have encountered Thomists (Feser and Beckwith) who who do engage Dembski: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/03/thomism-versus-design-argument.html

biologos.org/blog/intelligent-design-and-me-part-i-in-the-beginning

I am still digesting their critiques. In the mean time, I have this question of Thomists: Is it legitimate at all to try and detect design in any given natural phenomenon? If so, how would Thomists put such an enterprise on a solid metaphysical foundation?

Kilbourne
Click to expand...
Feser is a deep read, as per usual. However with Beckwith the most important quote to take out is this: “If something in nature exhibits a high level of specified complexity for which chance and law cannot account, Dembski concludes that it is highly probable that the gap is the result of an intelligent agent. Design, therefore, is not immanent in nature. It is something that is imposed on nature by someone or something outside it.”

What Dembski is proposing is that God or some intelligent design accounts for those “gaps” in nature where chance and law cannot explain. St. Thomas Aquinas would say that everything, no matter if there is a gap or not, has immanent design. And all design has a purpose.

Think about it, I design a computer, it is implied that there is a reason I have designed a copmuter. St. Thomas Aquinas sees even in unintelligent things a purpose for which they are acting (like Aristotle and Augustine before him). How can an unintelligent tree “know” how to grow? It is designed as such.

What Dembski is saying is that things can exist without the implicit need to be directed toward God (immanent final causality). These things are sort of mechanisms that just do their thing, but when evolution comes around, then “bam” God “redirects” them. I think it is obvious that Dembski doesn’t want to exclude God, and that he does want to say what St. Thomas says, but he would necessarily exclude final causality. His view is of a mechanistic world where things function, but God will “redirect” them every once in a while (fill the gaps of evolution). If the final cause of man is changed… then man is no longer man. Think about it: if you change the purpose of basketball constantly, it is no longer basketball, but something completely different.

And of course I agree with the other two first posts as well. St. Thomas would agree with evolution and would find the Big Bang as obvious. In fact, his proofs for the existence of God are ever the more clear with the discovery of the Big Bang.
 
Kilbourne said:
I encountered this article several years ago: catholic.com/magazine/articles/aquinas-vs-intelligent-design

At the time I thought Prof. Tkacz was being unfair to ID because he wasn’t directly engaging William Dembski, especially his book The Design Revolution. If you are going to attack ID on philosophical grounds, one ought to read the leading philosopher behind the movement.

Since then I have encountered Thomists (Feser and Beckwith) who who do engage Dembski: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/03/thomism-versus-design-argument.html

biologos.org/blog/intelligent-design-and-me-part-i-in-the-beginning

I am still digesting their critiques. In the mean time, I have this question of Thomists: Is it legitimate at all to try and detect design in any given natural phenomenon? If so, how would Thomists put such an enterprise on a solid metaphysical foundation?

Kilbourne
Click to expand...
Thomists would approach such a question from the stand point of teleology and of final causality, this often differs from the strictly ID approach, which from my understanding standard ID focuses more on complexity and design.

To simplify the arguments; an in many other places St. Thomas in his fifth way posits that ‘all things act for an end’ everything around us has a point, an intelligibility, a use (the point of a wing is for flying etc.) , but since these things are not in themselves intelligent they get their end/function from something external to themselves. Building on the previous 4 ways, this points to a chain of causality eventually pointing to a first or uncaused cause.

hope that is of use.
 
Kilbourne said:
I encountered this article several years ago: catholic.com/magazine/articles/aquinas-vs-intelligent-design
Click to expand...
This is my all-time favorite article simply because it provides a common sense approach to all faith/science dilemmas.

The following two statements from the article are essential for reasonable discussions in the 21st century. Especially when someone claims that truth cannot contradict truth…to prove their preferred position, which is often not Catholicism, but rather a push for the Catholic Church to update some basic foundational doctrines.
"Into this medieval debate comes Aquinas, who reasoned thus: God is the author of all truth; the aim of scientific research is the truth; therefore, there can be no fundamental incompatibility between the two. Provided we understand Christian doctrine properly and do our science well, we will find the truth.

“In the Thomistic view, the teachings of the faith are fully compatible with what we learn of nature through scientific research, provided we both understand those divine teachings correctly and we do our scientific research consistently and rigorously.”

The following is what I usually post.
In order for truth not to contract truth, two conditions must be met. Science must be conducted properly and Catholic doctrines must be properly understood.
 
This is a great find. All of a sudden, I feel a little less guilty about being in the theistic evolution camp (something that’s given me sleepless nights ever since I visited “Scripture Catholic”)… 🙂

Now to get down to reading the Summa seriously… 👍

Here’s a weird book on Intelligent Design I came across recently:

bbt.se/publication_others_RD.html
 
Thank you all for your help with this.

Let’s say Dembski grants final causality and design immanent in all of nature. Does that then mean his explanatory filter (detector of specified complexity and hence design in nature) is superfluous?
 
Well, although I can’t pretend to fully know what demski says regarding his “filter”, but final causality IS the whole intelligent design. So, yes, anything else would seem to be superfluous, however, that doesn’t mean science can’t add to this idea. It should, and really does. For all that we know about DNA - which is actually not that much - it acts toward some end: the structuring of that particular being. We see the immanent design within beings, but do not know why DNA actualizes the substance as “dog” or “tree”[Edit, or at least i don’t]. There are all sorts of gaps in our knowledge of biology. The biggest one is still one of the oldest ones, what actually is life? Ironic for a branch of science that is literally the study of life.

The notion of “intelligent design” has almost as many definitions as the term evolution. And just because some aspect of evolution is true, does not mean every definition of evolution is now true. It seems to be the same for “creationists”.

As others have said, this is the first step toward Thomistic metaphysics. We know God a posteriori, and looking at the order of the universe and the degrees of “being” are the first steps (or last, of the five ways of st. Thomas). Ultimately, final causality leads the intellect to the final cause which is God.
 
edwest2 said:
Intelligent design makes sense. That’s all there is to it. The Bible agrees:

biblehub.com/romans/1-20.htm

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
just to make sure do you mean ID in the way some of the main stream ID guys argue for it. For example: the eye can’t be described how it could evolve into existence, therefore God must have created it.

or do you simply mean that God created the universe but isn’t stuck to one way of doing it.
 
Based on what I have learned thus far about Thomism it seems to be a very fair way of finding the middle ground. Rather than saying it is this vs. that it seems to say “How about they work together?” Since Faith and science cannot truly contradict each other, I think looking at Faith and science as to halves of the same whole is a very fair and more logical approach. Evolution and God working together? Sure, why not!?
 
I would suggest reading JPII letter to the vatican observatory, for vatican documents this isn’t long at all, you could probably read it in half an hour to an hour, it is well worth reading and really adds a lot to the discussion between science and religion.

just a few highlights from my memory
  1. science and theology should work together not against each other.
  2. JPII believes that this relationship should be founded on the search for a common vision
  3. The union that should be found is not a union that reduces one to the other.
  4. what is unique about each, what limits each, must be protected
  5. be careful about overstepping the limitations of science to prove something in theology./
  6. rather the insights of science should be used to help deepen the understanding of creation.
  7. he uses an analogy of how the insights of the philosophy Aristotle were used to give deeper insights into sacramental theology and (the theological term slips me, but how Jesus can be two natures and one person)
  8. while he doesn’t endorse evolution in this he does talk as it is the correct science saying that it can be used to deepen our knowledge about certain theological ideas.
 
Iheartcoffee said:
Based on what I have learned thus far about Thomism it seems to be a very fair way of finding the middle ground. Rather than saying it is this vs. that it seems to say “How about they work together?” Since Faith and science cannot truly contradict each other, I think looking at Faith and science as to halves of the same whole is a very fair and more logical approach. Evolution and God working together? Sure, why not!?
Click to expand...
These two halves must meet these absolute conditions.

In order for the whole of truth to exist, these two conditions must be met.

Science must be conducted properly and Catholic doctrines must be properly understood.
 
Iheartcoffee said:
Based on what I have learned thus far about Thomism it seems to be a very fair way of finding the middle ground. Rather than saying it is this vs. that it seems to say “How about they work together?” Since Faith and science cannot truly contradict each other, I think looking at Faith and science as to halves of the same whole is a very fair and more logical approach. Evolution and God working together? Sure, why not!?
Click to expand...
These two halves must meet these absolute conditions.

In order for the whole of truth to exist, these two conditions must be met.

Science must be conducted properly and Catholic doctrines must be properly understood.
 
For the Thomist, does it make any sense at all to seek an empirical method to discern design in nature? Is design only discernible in the universe as a whole and not in specific aspects of nature?
 
The order and finality of the cosmos reveal an intelligent cause. If the doctrines of religion are true and the findings of science are true, they are compatible because God is their source. Reality will confirm it. The problem exists with man’s interpretation. Religion’s truth insists what what we can prove is true. “Ever since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what He has made. Rom.1;2:20-21 By the natural light of human reason God’s existence can be proven by five metaphysical arguments” Motion, order, necessity, grades of beings and origin. Science, if true, is on the offensive against ignorance and it really should insist on the fact, we know that we know (self consciousness, reflection and abstraction -all spiritual realities). Creationism that treats the bible as a science text book by current standards is wrong. A science that treats man as just a physical entity (animalism) at worst is pseudo-science and at best seriously flawed. Science should serve the truth. If all of creation serves as a stepping stone to the knowledge of God, it has served its (designed) purpose.
Spiritual existence can only be proven by thought process about the physical effects in the material world. Eg. The order and purpose of the satilites orbiting their suns. at a certain speed and distance . Order and purpose are signs of intelligent activity. The human intelligence is a spiritual faculty capable of understanding the spiritual. The problem with material evolutionist and impericists is they never transcend the material, not material not real.

sp
 
This has been a very instructive discussion. LThanks Tiger for those highlights of JPII
and Kilbourne for the balancing act. Ever since the Big Bang which after all was not a Bang
at all but a Point of Light] I have seen how very beautifully the truths of Science corroborate
the Truths of Faith. Sure you have to ;have true Science and true Faith but that is precisely
where they best fit together.
Establishing the age of the Cosmos was done by three different methods all coming to the
identical conclusion a point of light that had to contain all the energy in today’s Cosmos. For
me that point - that Singularity where Science admits it can say nothing about “before” since time began there -is a clear admission that Science can only deal with matter.
I couldn’t ask for a better stage setting for the Act of Faith. Einstein was always very
convinced that when we find a truly Unified Theory of the whole Universe It would be one.of the greatest simplicity and beauty and what could be more simple and beautiful than that there
is Infinite Existence the only possible cause of all other existing things and that does not
need to get existence from anything else. That is a fact we can reason to- only Faith can
allow us to Encounter the Infinite One.
 
Hi all,

I suspect the answer to my question may lie in this article: crossroadsnyc.com/files/EvolutionHanby.pdf

Dr. Handby is from the JPII Institute at Catholic University in DC and he has just published a major tome called No God, No Science.

Thanks for all yer thots in the mean time.

Kilbourne
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top