What Is Natural Law? (Tutorial)

[urban-hermit]

Would you like for me to go through Aquinas’ five proofs for the existence of God from the Summa?

Please, if you would.

I usually like stuff that is written at the fifth-grade level, but I will probably be able to follow

I had a great discussion last night with a co-worker. I work the graveyard shift and it’s cool because we have down time in which to have good chats, and since there are only 3 of us we can really kind of get to know eachother. One of the guys last night said he didn’t believe in God, but I sensed that he wanted to believe. At one point he even asked me to convince him… I balked a little, but mentioned miracles, and also touched upon morality … I told him I’d get back to him and he said ok.

He is from a devout Catholic family, and he is from Mexico, here in the US only about 2 years. Very intelligent. We also had a good chat about gay ‘marriage’. I was surprised about how much of the liberal Seattle attitudes he had already absorbed about this issue.
Time to start “re-education camp”! THANKS.

 

[Peter_Parker]

I think that would be a good idea before you move on.

Then that is what I shall do.

Where did you hear these rumors about the NL encyclical? That would be awesome.

I don’t recall where I read it, but I did see it reported.

Please, if you would.

I usually like stuff that is written at the fifth-grade level, but I will probably be able to follow

I will do my utmost.

In Q1, Aquinas addresses whether or not the existence of God is self-evident.

First, what is a self-evident truth? An example of a self-evident truth, according to Aquinas, is the principle of non-contradiction. A thing cannot both be and not be with regards to the same aspect at the same time. If I say that a particular dog has legs and no legs, it is self-evident that this is not true. It cannot be demonstrated - it is a fundamental principle which cannot be proven; in other words, it’s self-evident as true.

Aquinas states in his reply that the existence of God is not self-evident. (Interestingly, his “objection three” is a restatement of Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the existence of God - Aquinas believed this proof to be invalid.)

The implication of this answer is that the existence of God is something which must be reasoned to (Q2); not everyone should recognize the existence of God in the same way they would recognize the principle of non-contradiction.

In Q3, Aquinas lays out his classical “Five Proofs”. They are as follows:

1. 
   *]The argument from motion. He argues that “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…” This is simply another way of telling us what Newton told us: “Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.” Based on this, Aquinas reasons that “whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another.” Since an actual infinite sequential chain is logically impossible, there must be an Unmoved Mover. This is God.
   *]The First Cause argument. He argues that nothing can cause itself, because it would have to pre-exist itself and that is logically impossible. Since an actual infinite sequential chain is logically impossible, there must be a First Cause which is not itself caused. This is God.The
   *]**The Contingency argument.**ed; rather, it simply is by necessity. This is God.
   *]The argument from Gradation. He argues that “Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways sGod.Theg which is the maximum…” To judge which is the greater of two things a standard is required - that of the greatest. The “maximum of any genus is the cause of all in that genus…[t]herefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection.” This being which is the cause of every perfection is God.
   *]The argument from Design. Things which lack intelligence, like planets and stars, act for an end. This is evident by their always acting in substantially the same way to achieve the best result. Since whatever lacks intelligence cannot act towards an end by itself, like an arrow shot to its mark it leads us back to the archer. This intelligent being who directed all things to their end is God.

 

[Peter_Parker]

You may notice that the first three are fairly similar, and predicated upon the impossibility of an actual infinite series of events. To understand this, there are a couple of ways to approach the problem.

1. 
   *]One way is to point to the Big Bang and say that science shows that the universe had a beginning. If it had a beginning, it had a cause. A possible weakness is that this can be countered with the ideas of Bouncing Universes and Bubble Universes. While there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support this (and several logical difficulties against it), the idea has a number of adherents. These ideas are not a real difficulty for this postulate, but they do make explanation more difficult. This leads us to the next part.
   *]Another way is to set up an example. One example would be to tell the person with whom you’re discussing that you will give them a candy bar in an infinite amount of time. Then ask them when they will get the candy bar; the answer is never. If you can’t get to the end of an infinite, it is not possible to get to “now” (the current end-point in time) after an infinite past. Because this is the case, no series of Bubble Universes or Bouncing Universes could be infinite.
   *]Yet another way would be to use the Hindu-esque example of what supports the earth. According to popular culture icon Antonin Scalia (link note 14), the story goes something like the following: "In our favored version, an Eastern guru affirms that the earth is supported on the back of a tiger. When asked what supports the tiger, he says it stands upon an elephant; and when asked what supports the elephant he says it is a giant turtle. When asked, finally, what supports the giant turtle, he is briefly taken aback, but quickly replies “Ah, after that it is turtles all the way down.”
   *]A far more abstract but philosophically sound way would be to use Hilbert’s paradox of the Grand Hotel. Because it is so abstract, I will simply rely on the link.
   If more or a different explanation is required, I can try to restate.
   
   In any event, the first three of Aquinas’ proofs are very similar and interrelated, but are distinct proofs.
   
   These, of course, are only a few of the logical proofs. Boston College Professor of Philosophy Peter Kreeft has put together a very succinct explanation of over 20 different logical proofs. You can find them here. Further, Kreeft is himself a Thomist, and wrote the book A Summa of the Summa. If my explanations are lacking, this is a good resource which should be available at your local bookstore.

 

[urban-hermit]

Thanks Peter for summarizing these ways of showing rationally the existence of God.

Is accepting the reality of God necessary for people outside Catholicism to accept Natural Law?