St. Thomas Aquinas

[linz]

I was literally stupefied when I came across the the famous five arguments for the existence of God found in the Summa Theologica. It is still highly tangible today even amongst Darwin and Religious extremists. Absolutely amazing! I would recommend to anyone interested in Aquinas to also try understanding the basic ideas of Kant. I probably could never grasp a full understanding of his works as might some on this site; but in Kant, the seeds of the ultimate mind and matter connection, as instruments in a ultimate purpose which shall prevail, is in debt to Aquinas.

[troubadour]

Do you want to quote them for us, so we can then discuss them?

[linz]

The Quinquae viae, or Five Ways, are five proofs of the existence of God summarized by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae. These proofs take the form of philosophical arguments:

1.The argument of the unmoved mover (ex motu).
Some things are moved.
Everything that is moved is moved by a mover.
An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
This mover is what we call God.
2.The argument of the first cause (ex causa).
Some things are caused.
Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
This causer is what we call God.
3.The argument of contingency (ex contingentia).
Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, as nothing can come of nothing, and if traced back eventually there must have been one thing from which all others have occurred.
Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being(s).
This being is what we call God.
4.The argument of degree (ex gradu).
Various perfections may be found in varying degrees throughout the universe.
These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the perfections themselves.
5.The argument of "design" (ex fine).
All natural bodies in the world act for ends.
These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
To act for ends is characteristic of intelligence.
Therefore, there exists an intelligent being which guides all natural bodies to their ends.
This being we call God.

[weepingforloman]

I was literally stupefied when I came across the the famous five arguments for the existence of God found in the Summa Theologica. It is still highly tangible today even amongst Darwin and Religious extremists. Absolutely amazing! I would recommend to anyone interested in Aquinas to also try understanding the basic ideas of Kant. I probably could never grasp a full understanding of his works as might some on this site; but in Kant, the seeds of the ultimate mind and matter connection, as instruments in a ultimate purpose which shall prevail, is in debt to Aquinas.

What "religious extremists" deny the existence of God?

[linz]

The way I used it was as a anti-religious argument, same as Darwin; UNDERSTAND?

[weepingforloman]

All you actually said was "I was stupefied" and "tangible today even amongst Darwin and Religious Extremists." Sorry I didn't quite catch your meaning.

[JGL57]

…1. The argument of the unmoved mover (ex motu).
Some things are moved.
Everything that is moved is moved by a mover.
An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
This mover is what we call God…

Fine. Compatible with atheism, since the unmoved mover could be automatic and spontaneous, and not alive, conscious, a mind, sentient, or teleological.


…2. The argument of the first cause (ex causa).
Some things are caused.
Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
This causer is what we call God…

Same answer as above, i.e., compatible with atheism.


…3. The argument of contingency (ex contingentia).
Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, as nothing can come of nothing, and if traced back eventually there must have been one thing from which all others have occurred.
Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being(s).
This being is what we call God…

Again, same exact reply as to arguments #1 and #2.


…4. The argument of degree (ex gradu).
Various perfections may be found in varying degrees throughout the universe.
These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the perfections themselves. …

This is Platonic Idealism, which has no basis in reality. Just because I can conceive of a “perfect” square in my mind does not mean there is a perfect square existing somewhere that is the origin of the idea “square”. I.e., just because I can conceive of a “perfectly” powerful being or a “perfectly” moral being doesn’t mean there is one. I.e., for a tree to exist, it does not require a “perfect” template of “tree” to exist also.

This argument of Aquinas’s is the goofiest one so far.


…5. The argument of "design" (ex fine).
All natural bodies in the world act for ends.
These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
To act for ends is characteristic of intelligence.
Therefore, there exists an intelligent being which guides all natural bodies to their ends.
This being we call God…

To act for ends is characteristic of intelligence? Ok. Where is the evidence that a super intelligence is necessary to explain the existence of any particular intelligence (e.g., a microbe, a giraffe, a human)?

Aquinas was not intelligent enough to perceive or understand evolution by natural selection, and he died over 800 years before Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace were born. Bummer.

(And for the record, all of Aquinas"s arguments are solved by pantheism too.)

[Derringer]

All of those arguments have been disproved. I'm not going to bother with it because I felt that the 'disproving' was more a waste of my time then the 'proving'. I read about it in a simple Core questions in Philosophy.

[Il Penseroso]

Well my opinion is that these arguments are basically pointless; this can swing either way, neither side actually proving anything. Although I personally think these "proofs" are rubbish, I can see a trace of the irrefutable in them; planned to carry that and prove a point. Aquinas was plenty intelligent, Darwin coming along after him doens't mean a banana.

[Pelican King]

I've heard these arguments plenty as well, simply the cosmological argument and the teleological argument. St Aquinas wrote so much, I've noticed the Summa Theologica in my uni library and it's ridiculously long. Did he just have a grudge against blank paper, or did he write some more noteworthy theology then the aforementioned arguments?

[JGL57]

...Aquinas was plenty intelligent, Darwin coming along after him doesn’t mean a banana.

One's level of native intelligence is not the sum total of the important. Aquinas was a theologian. Darwin was a scientist. Aquinas merely constructed complex notions in his head out of whole cloth that have since been proven illogical and a complete waste of everyone's time. Darwin made one of the most world-changing scientific discoveries in the history of humankind, putting him on par with Newton and Einstein.

So, metaphorically speaking, Aquinas was bananas, and Darwin was a big enchilada.

[troubadour]

I would be interested in the reference for these 'proofs.' Because, as I understand it, Aquinas provided (and thus introduces) them merely as a kind of edification, saying, as it were, "if you want 'proofs' here are some."

I think the point is that these arguments and indeed all attempted proofs, no matter how concrete can never convince the unbeliever because s/he no longer recognizes truth itself.

Indeed, implies Aquinas, if you need to ask for proofs for God's existence you have already started along the way to godless nothingness, a path where only fools ask for 'proof' of what gives Being to all existence, let alone validity to 'proofs.'

[JGL57]

I would be interested in the reference for these 'proofs.' Because, as I understand it, Aquinas provided (and thus introduces) them merely as a kind of edification, saying, as it were, "if you want 'proofs' here are some." ...

Really? If so, then I now have even LESS respect for Aquinas's "contribution" to philosophical thought.


...I think the point is that these arguments and indeed all attempted proofs, no matter how concrete can never convince the unbeliever because s/he no longer recognizes truth itself....

- This reads like mere ad hominem - but, anyway, I would ask how you know this to be a fact?


...Indeed, implies Aquinas, if you need to ask for proofs for God's existence you have already started along the way to godless nothingness, a path where only fools ask for 'proof' of what gives Being to all existence, let alone validity to 'proofs.'...

- Again, this also reads like mere ad hominem - but, nevertheless, I likewise ask how you know all of that to be facts?


(And, if you cannot demonstrate the truth of your various assertions, I would think the powers that be here would be required by their own rules to delete your post.)

[linz]

What Mr. Aquinas was talking about in generally all five of his arguments is similar in ways to what Carl Gustav Jung was describing with his idea of Collective conscience. Jung was a Christian, but of the liberal nature brought forth by scientific scrutiny and method. He believe in tying religious phenomena such as the appearance of 'the sacred tree' in Indo-European religions, the of symbolism from the pagan days to the modern day faiths and artistic endeavors of authors, composers, and writers. He believed all the signs and believes added to a central culmination, which bares similarities with the Summa Theologica.

[Orionsbelt]

As I recall, Mr. Aquinas' drive was to try to reconcile Christian faith with earlier Greek/Roman understanding of natural philosophy. He accepted Christian theology as fact and tried to understand nature in light of those "facts". He made an honest argument based on what he knew and accepted. If you don't accept his premis... Christian faith.. the rest simply doesn't follow.

[Il Penseroso]

JG,
You ask where is the evidence of a super-intelligence based on the existence of intelligent life. The answer is it can't be found. We will never know if there was a supernatural cause for the universe or not, it simply cannot be determined. Any attempt comes down to a personal judgment on the part of an individual.

Darwin's theory did nothing to disprove the existence of God. It simply disproved a literal understanding of the Christian creation myth. These five 'proofs' speak nothing of that creation myth. They attempt to determine logically (arguably) that there was an initial Cause.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

These proofs haven't held up for the past 300 years, I have no idea why they're even halfway respected today. It's silly to use reason to defend statements that are not founded on it.

[Pelican King]

What Mr. Aquinas was talking about in generally all five of his arguments is similar in ways to what Carl Gustav Jung was describing with his idea of Collective conscience. Jung was a Christian, but of the liberal nature brought forth by scientific scrutiny and method. He believe in tying religious phenomena such as the appearance of 'the sacred tree' in Indo-European religions, the of symbolism from the pagan days to the modern day faiths and artistic endeavors of authors, composers, and writers. He believed all the signs and believes added to a central culmination, which bares similarities with the Summa Theologica.

If i see you try to pass off another famous intellectual who was non-Christian as Christian, i will be disappointed. Jung was well versed in Christianity, but he has no special devotion to it, as you know he was intelligible in most religions, from all the Abrahamic to Eastern faith even to Australian Aboriginal beliefs. Considering he had several close relatives who were ministers of the Christian faith and he never expressed a faith in Christianity specifically, it's quite clear he was not of such faith. He even owned Gnostic texts, the works which were first declared by Christians as heresy. He was no doubt a spiritual man, but to speak as if Christians have monopoly on spirituality is insulting to all religious and secular alike and amounts to nothing more than Christian propaganda.

It is true he would believe there are symbols identified by Aquinas which have a place in the collective unconscious, as he knew the symbolic nature of man he identified symbols consistent throughout many beliefs. The only difference is Jung believed there were fairly generalised symbols in people, Aquinas as far as i know wasn't so general and was specifically Christian, making a comparison between them invalid.

[troubadour]

LG: my comments were in no way ad hominem! I'm very sorry if you felt they were.

The phrase 'merely for edification' was a bit careless on my part. But, I still think that Aquinas was merely demonstrating some possible truths for the existence of God. If you read any of the Summa, you can see that this is his style. He lays out the objections and then gives his response to them, for example:

'Article 1. Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?

Objection 1. It seems that, besides philosophical science, we have no need of any further knowledge. For man should not seek to know what is above reason: "Seek not the things that are too high for thee" (Sirach 3:22). But whatever is not above reason is fully treated of in philosophical science. Therefore any other knowledge besides philosophical science is superfluous.

Objection 2. Further, knowledge can be concerned only with being, for nothing can be known, save what is true; and all that is, is true. But everything that is, is treated of in philosophical science--even God Himself; so that there is a part of philosophy called theology, or the divine science, as Aristotle has proved (Metaph. vi). Therefore, besides philosophical science, there is no need of any further knowledge.

On the contrary, It is written (2 Timothy 3:16): "All Scripture, inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice." Now Scripture, inspired of God, is no part of philosophical science, which has been built up by human reason. Therefore it is useful that besides philosophical science, there should be other knowledge, i.e. inspired of God.

I answer that, It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: "The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee" (Isaiah 66:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man's whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation.

Reply to Objection 1. Although those things which are beyond man's knowledge may not be sought for by man through his reason, nevertheless, once they are revealed by God, they must be accepted by faith. Hence the sacred text continues, "For many things are shown to thee above the understanding of man" (Sirach 3:25). And in this, the sacred science consists.

Reply to Objection 2. Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself. Hence there is no reason why those things which may be learned from philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural reason, may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall within revelation. Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy.'
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, (online at http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm)

A long quote, I know, but it shows Aquinas's style - he lays it all out, comments on it, refutes it, etc, and then moves on to the next thing. I haven't found where the original OP quote comes from but I should imagine that it is in the same style. I imagine him saying, "there are some who say that the existence of God can be argued by reason from certain so-called 'proofs,' such as..."

But the above quote is relevant to this thread not merely to demonstrate his style. For in it is a matter-of-fact statement of his theology regarding knowledge of God and the hierarchy of sciences.

In theology revelation is superior (as a source of knowledge) to reason. Reason (as philosophy) has its uses, he says, but if one tries to state theological truths using it one is highly likely to get it wrong; though one might get it right, one could never know because 'God surpasses reason.' He says philosophy (reason) is the handmaiden of Theology (revelation).

This applies to the argument for the existence of God from proofs (in which is reason at work). He would say that they might be right or wrong, one couldn't really know by means of rational argument. The only certain knowledge of God is that which is revealed.

As Orionsbelt recognized, all this is taken as self-evident. But it in no way what so ever make the Summa less valuable or objective or primitive or somehow like volumes of mere personal opinion.

[JGL57]

JG,
You ask where is the evidence of a super-intelligence based on the existence of intelligent life. The answer is it can't be found. We will never know if there was a supernatural cause for the universe or not, it simply cannot be determined. Any attempt comes down to a personal judgment on the part of an individual.

Darwin's theory did nothing to disprove the existence of God. It simply disproved a literal understanding of the Christian creation myth. These five 'proofs' speak nothing of that creation myth. They attempt to determine logically (arguably) that there was an initial Cause.

I agree.

As for the "initial Cause", the Hindus say it was the Brahma (with the Brahman as just a personification, or anthropomorphic image of the Brahma). I know of no good reason to dispute this.

[troubadour]

Out of interest, do any of Aquinas' detractors on this board now admit that he does not see these so-called proofs as persuasive arguments for the existence of God, the validity of theology nor (for that matter) Philosophy, nor are they representative of his own beliefs, but, in fact, illustrate the limits of rational arguments when dealing with the nature of God?

This would be a good opportunity to lay these popular miss-conceptions to rest.

[Pelican King]

Out of interest, do any of Aquinas' detractors on this board now admit that he does not see these so-called proofs as persuasive arguments for the existence of God, the validity of theology nor (for that matter) Philosophy, nor are they representative of his own beliefs, but, in fact, illustrate the limits of rational arguments when dealing with the nature of God?

This would be a good opportunity to lay these popular miss-conceptions to rest.

No, i don't. I think he's just another dogmatic apologist who throws arguments out there hoping each will hit. Although i am in agreement that he also argues that he doesn't 'truly' believe in any of his arguments to reveal truth. Which then begs the question of why make the arguments in the first place. The end result is certainly dishonesty. I can respect the fractions of his work which preach belief through personal revelation, but i find his philosophy of religion to be pure sophistry.

[troubadour]

It amazes me: how can one miss the whole thing where Aquinas' himself says that arguments from rationality aren't going to prove the validity of faith? Explicitly stating that faith is not rational..?

Even a high priest of folly (what am I saying, perhaps not!) or anyone would be open-minded enough to realize that these are..significant??

for example, from the above quote:

"it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation"

and

"It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation"

How can it be sophistry to admit the limits of faith or reason?

Pelican King said: "Although i am in agreement that he also argues that he doesn't 'truly' believe in any of his arguments to reveal truth. Which then begs the question of why make the arguments in the first place. The end result is certainly dishonesty." If you mean by 'any of his arguments' those supposed proofs of the OP, then yes, you are correct (with the distinct qualification that they are not his arguments for the validity of faith nor the 'existence' of God!! - thus it is not dishonesty!), but if you mean all of his arguments which merely show the place of revelation in relation to reason, you are mislead. Again, how can this be sophistry?

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

It amazes me: how can one miss the whole thing where Aquinas' himself says that arguments from rationality aren't going to prove the validity of faith? Explicitly stating that faith is not rational..?

Even a high priest of folly (what am I saying, perhaps not!) or anyone would be open-minded enough to realize that these are..significant??

for example, from the above quote:

"it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation"

and

"It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation"

How can it be sophistry to admit the limits of faith or reason?

Pelican King said: "Although i am in agreement that he also argues that he doesn't 'truly' believe in any of his arguments to reveal truth. Which then begs the question of why make the arguments in the first place. The end result is certainly dishonesty." If you mean by 'any of his arguments' those supposed proofs of the OP, then yes, you are correct (with the distinct qualification that they are not his arguments for the validity of faith nor the 'existence' of God!! - thus it is not dishonesty!), but if you mean all of his arguments which merely show the place of revelation in relation to reason, you are mislead. Again, how can this be sophistry?

You're making him out to have no responsibility for creating his palpably sophstical arguments. All of those arguments were respected until the late 17th century, so it's quite hard to believe that Aquinas produced them for no apparent reason. To defend arguments for God's existence with Aquinas's concession that faith is necessarily irrational is non-sequitur. Assuming that Aquinas didn't believe the arguments himself, he is probably similar to Pascal in that he wanted to convert sinners with sophistry in order to save their souls from hell, or rather, a sort of "the ends justify the means" rationale.

[troubadour]

Dr. Ralph, I believe you sense a conspiracy where there is none. He did not create these arguments for the philosophers of the 17th century! He was merely demonstrating reason out of its depth. There is a huge turn in the way theology is understood in the centuries between. The mistake made by many is with those who interpret Aquinas' statements without understanding the basic principles. He may well have been an apologist (for anyone who upholds Christianity in the light of reason is an apologist, like the apostle himself) But the whole point is that he did so on the basis of revelation, not rational arguments as Kant attempted.

the fact that these statements have been misinterpreted by the less than switched on of the 17th century is a very good reason to look at what he actually said!

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

Dr. Ralph, I believe you sense a conspiracy where there is none. He did not create these arguments for the philosophers of the 17th century! He was merely demonstrating reason out of its depth. There is a huge turn in the way theology is understood in the centuries between. The mistake made by many is with those who interpret Aquinas' statements without understanding the basic principles. He may well have been an apologist (for anyone who upholds Christianity in the light of reason is an apologist, like the apostle himself) But the whole point is that he did so on the basis of revelation, not rational arguments as Kant attempted.

the fact that these statements have been misinterpreted by the less than switched on of the 17th century is a very good reason to look at what he actually said!

I read this twice and can't find an intelligible statement, strikingly similar to the statements of Aquinas himself. The purpose of logical argument is to arrive at a meaningful, or otherwise useful conclusion. And how does one "demonstrate reason"?

[linz]

Aquinas argued that his ideas were fully compatible to Aristotle's. He thought some truths, such as that of the mystery of the incarnation, can be known only through revelation, and others, such as that of the composition of material things, only through experience; still others, such as that of the existence of God, are known through both equally. All knowledge, Aquinas held, originates in sensation, but sense data can be made intelligible only by the action of the intellect, which elevates thought toward the apprehension of such immaterial realities as the human soul, the angels, and God. To reach understanding of the highest truths, those with which religion is concerned, the aid of revelation is needed.

I would like to add that it is human thought itself that leads to beliefs in God, and Angels, and Souls, etc. In other words, non-spiritual people should not even attempt to understand, as it doesn't pertain to them, not yet at least.

[Pelican King]

It amazes me: how can one miss the whole thing where Aquinas' himself says that arguments from rationality aren't going to prove the validity of faith? Explicitly stating that faith is not rational..?


I can respect the fractions of his work which preach belief through personal revelation, but i find his philosophy of religion to be pure sophistry. You are missing the point. I agree with him when he said personal faith is the only sufficient way to religion. Except, even though he says rationality can't prove religious truth, he puts arguments out there. It's not like he wrote in big bold letters before his arguments for the existence of God "The Following Arguments Aren't True!", he intended for them to have an impact, despite knowing as said personal faith can only reveal religious truth. He did make rational arguments for God, thus he was being hypocritical.


If you mean by 'any of his arguments' those supposed proofs of the OP, then yes, you are correct (with the distinct qualification that they are not his arguments for the validity of faith nor the 'existence' of God!! - thus it is not dishonesty!) These 5 arguments in the OP are his, they were not made to prove the validity of faith, of course not. But they were made as a rational attempt to prove what faith reveals.


"they are not his arguments for...the 'existence' of God!!"


The Quinquae viae, or Five Ways, are five proofs of the existence of God summarized by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae. These proofs take the form of philosophical arguments:

1. The argument of the unmoved mover (ex motu).
* Some things are moved.
* Everything that is moved is moved by a mover.
* An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
* Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
* This mover is what we call God.
2. The argument of the first cause (ex causa).
* Some things are caused.
* Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
* An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
* Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
* This causer is what we call God.
3. The argument of contingency (ex contingentia).
* Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
* It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, as nothing can come of nothing, and if traced back eventually there must have been one thing from which all others have occurred.
* Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being(s).
* This being is what we call God.
4. The argument of degree (ex gradu).
* Various perfections may be found in varying degrees throughout the universe.
* These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the perfections themselves.
5. The argument of "design" (ex fine).
* All natural bodies in the world act for ends.
* These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
* To act for ends is characteristic of intelligence.
* Therefore, there exists an intelligent being which guides all natural bodies to their ends.
* This being we call God.

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinquae_viae)

How can you say these arguments are not his for the existence of God? When he wrote these he ceased being one who promoted the only way to religious truth, faith, personal revelation, and instead was trying to convince people that these religious beliefs are true through reason and rationality: hence Sophistry.

[Whifflingpin]

"How can you say these arguments are not his for the existence of God? When he wrote these he ceased being one who promoted the only way to religious truth, faith, personal revelation, and instead was trying to convince people that these religious beliefs are true through reason and rationality: hence Sophistry."

You can say that the arguments are not his because, essentialy, they are derived from Aristotle, of whom Aquinas was an admirer.

They state that it is consistent with, or even demanded by, reason, to suppose that within very narrow definitions, there is an entity that can be called God.

However, recognizing that there must have been, for example, a prime mover does not mean that you know anything about the prime mover except that it moved first. As has been said already in this thread, it would be as valid to call the prime mover Big Bang, as to call it God.

Connecting the prime mover with other divine attributes requires faith or revelation.

Hence reason and revelation are not in conflict (for Aquinas.) Pagan philosophers, in the light of reason, make valid statements concerning the existence of God. It takes, however, revelation to know anything about the nature of God.

Aquinas may have been mistaken or disproved, but he was not hypocritical or sophistic (except in the original sense of one imbued with divine wisdom.)

[Pelican King]

However, recognizing that there must have been, for example, a prime mover does not mean that you know anything about the prime mover except that it moved first. As has been said already in this thread, it would be as valid to call the prime mover Big Bang, as to call it God.

Connecting the prime mover with other divine attributes requires faith or revelation.

Hence reason and revelation are not in conflict (for Aquinas.) Pagan philosophers, in the light of reason, make valid statements concerning the existence of God. It takes, however, revelation to know anything about the nature of God.

I agree with you almost in full. If people were just to acknowledge that some first cause is likely (presuming Aquinas' arguments are correct), and then personally take a 'leap of faith' to ascribe this being as God (that's giving this being the qualities of a Creator who loves humanity and has imbued them with a soul) then all is good. Except i don't think everyone takes such a leap in believing the first cause to be God, but instead are convinced through scripture making the existence of God reasoned and rationalised, making God 'a given', and not an extension of faith. The existence of the bible is what i am referring to, and when it's thought the existence of God is 'likely' or 'probable' based off such scripture existing and faith is displaced then i think things are backwards.
When faith is the ultimate determinate of religious belief, in other words if you were to loose faith you'd consider there being no God, then i'm happy and from what i've learned Aquinas is happy. It's when reason displaces faith that i think things are out of order.
As long as that's the overall message of Aquinas' work than i can agree he is no sophist. But if he posits his reasons or reason to be instrumental or even wholly sufficient for belief in God then i believe he's sidestepping the importance of faith, which i believe he himself strongly knew.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

I agree with you almost in full. If people were just to acknowledge that some first cause is likely (presuming Aquinas' arguments are correct), and then personally take a 'leap of faith' to ascribe this being as God (that's giving this being the qualities of a Creator who loves humanity and has imbued them with a soul) then all is good. Except i don't think everyone takes such a leap in believing the first cause to be God, but instead are convinced through scripture making the existence of God reasoned and rationalised, making God 'a given', and not an extension of faith. The existence of the bible is what i am referring to, and when it's thought the existence of God is 'likely' or 'probable' based off such scripture existing and faith is displaced then i think things are backwards.
When faith is the ultimate determinate of religious belief, in other words if you were to loose faith you'd consider there being no God, then i'm happy and from what i've learned Aquinas is happy. It's when reason displaces faith that i think things are out of order.
As long as that's the overall message of Aquinas' work than i can agree he is no sophist. But if he posits his reasons or reason to be instrumental or even wholly sufficient for belief in God then i believe he's sidestepping the importance of faith, which i believe he himself strongly knew.

Agreed. The cosmological argument is a very weak argument, it neglects to even consider that its necessary to view from inertial frames of reference, as well as that matter can propogate movement by merely existing. What makes the claim that God must have started it as logically unsound as it is is that he's entirely unnecessary.

[weepingforloman]

Just a thought-- I don't think Aquinas would have known that matter can create motion "merely by existing."

[JGL57]

Just a thought-- I don't think Aquinas would have known that matter can create motion "merely by existing."

I think that if you check with any scientist, he or she will tell you that all matter is in motion, there is no such thing as absolute motionlessness, and that motion is an inherent property of matter.

If you find a scientist that disagrees, let us know.

BTW, the Buddha figured this out 2,500 years ago.

[weepingforloman]

I am aware that matter is, by nature, in motion, I mean that Aquinas would not have been privy to such information.

[JGL57]

I am aware that matter is, by nature, in motion, I mean that Aquinas would not have been privy to such information.

Correct. There is SO much information of the scientific variety (especially in the fields of psychology, cultural anthropology, brain research, cosmology, etc.) that has come out in the last 800 years that Aquinas was not privy to that his machinations of theological imagination are pretty much the equivalent of a horse and buggy being driven on an interstate highway.

[weepingforloman]

His apologetics, indeed, are well behind the time. However, I am unfamiliar with his theology. It may have value even today. After all, theology is much more timeless than apologetics. Consider that the primary theologians studied in the Protestant church all lived centuries ago: Luther, Calvin, Arminius, and Wesley. Consider that the most popular apologist today lived less than a century ago: C.S. Lewis.

[Dark Star]

The way I used it was as a anti-religious argument, same as Darwin; UNDERSTAND?

You DO realize that evolution and a belief in God aren't mutually exclusive, correct?

One is not required to commit intellectual suicide to be a believer.

[weepingforloman]

Of course. Nor is it intellectual suicide not to take evolution for granted.

[Dark Star]

Hmm....claiming proven fact is false because of something that's clearly meant as an allegorical tale must be taken literally, while the same people ignore other parts of the Old Testament and don't take them literally because they don't suit them...when the New Testament is supposed to be more important anyway, and when we have no real reason to believe that it is meant to be interpreted 100% literally.

Yeah, denying proven fact for no good reason (E.G. when it is NOT necessary to keep your faith) is intellectual suicide.

To give a point of reference: There is a legitimate flat earth society that believes the Earth really is flat and not round because that's what their interpretation of the Bible states. I imagine you would find that ridiculous; denying evolution for a similar reason is no less ridiculous.

[Dark Star]

However, I am unfamiliar with his theology. It may have value even today.

I'm not sure as I haven't read it myself, however, based on what others have said about his theology that is still of relevance.

[weepingforloman]

Hmm....claiming proven fact is false because of something that's clearly meant as an allegorical tale must be taken literally, while the same people ignore other parts of the Old Testament and don't take them literally because they don't suit them...when the New Testament is supposed to be more important anyway, and when we have no real reason to believe that it is meant to be interpreted 100% literally.

Proven? No. Evidence? Maybe. Likely? Ehh....
I assume that you are referring to the OT's dietary restrictions? A certain saying or two of Christ, plus a certain vision had by a certain apostle Peter have largely rendered that unnecessary under the New Covenant.



To give a point of reference: There is a legitimate flat earth society that believes the Earth really is flat and not round because that's what their interpretation of the Bible states. I imagine you would find that ridiculous; denying evolution for a similar reason is no less ridiculous.

Given that, through the miracle of satellite technology, we can SEE that the earth is round, I find it ludicrous to believe otherwise. Given that I have never, and cannot, SEE that evolution (macro, not micro) occurs, I do not find it ludicrous not to believe it. Ultimately, unless time/space technology increases tremendously, evolution will always be somewhat unscientific... It is not observable "in action," as we would say, only the evidence of fossils can be considered scientific. As to the overall issue, it is still not that important. I am willing to accept evolution if it is proved to me, I am not willing to accept atheistic evolution, especially since it cannot be proved. ;)

[Dark Star]

You clearly misunderstand what a scientific theory is: Until it has enough evidence backing it to pretty much be considered as proven fact (barring, say, a few details on how the process occurs), it will remain a hypothesis and not become a theory. Theory in the scientific sense does not mean 'guess'.

Frankly, I'm amazed that you think the whole of the scientific community (around 95-98%) atheistic or theistic would put faith in evolution when it wasn't proven when they're known for skepticism....

To make the dichotomy between fact and theory quite clear: That living things evolve and have evolved in the past is proven fact. The theory of evolution explains how this happens.

And, we have directly observed macroevolution and microevolution, actually, not to say that the mountains of evidence from the fossil record doesn't count for anything....

Would you like some links on the subject and perhaps a few books to look up at the library? :) I assure you, I have no intentions of trying to prove 'atheistic evolution' to you. ;)

[weepingforloman]

I am aware that a theory is not a hypothesis, nor is a law more authoritative than a theory. Spare me the patronization.

Yes, things have evolved, but on such a small scale that I find it difficult to believe that not only new species, but entirely new TYPES of organisms result. Regardless, the issue is still not very important. The issue of God/not-God still remains.

When have we ever observed macroevolution? Have you seen a pig sprout wings, survive, and then mate with another pig with wings on sufficient scale to produce a new flying pig species?

[JGL57]

Yes, things have evolved, but on such a small scale that I find it difficult to believe that not only new species, but entirely new TYPES of organisms result....

There are many lines of evidence that point to the same conclusion: evolution is a fact. Like in a trial, if many important and independently existing and found pieces of evidence point to guilt, and no evidence points to innocence, then the reasonable, or beyond a reasonable doubt, verdict is guilty. That is the point.


Regardless, the issue is still not very important. The issue of God/not-God still remains....

OK. So, we our popular choices are: 1. pantheism, 2. deism, 3. the Non-Dual of esoteric Eastern wisdom traditions, 4. western philosophical materialism, a.k.a. atheism, and 5. monotheism, (I can add polytheism, animism, solipsism, and the Matrix if anyone wishes).

I go with both 3. and 4., since I see the former as basically an admission of ignorance of ultimate things, and the latter as just a provisional pragmatic methodology. And I have nothing against 1. or 2., since I view them as trivial claims (when they are shown to be non-trivial, someone let me know).

# 5? - I understand it perfectly. I see a tremendous number of problems with it, scientific, logical, epistemological, and/or moral or ethical. But, theoretically, it still could be the answer. So - I need some evidence here - worst than a hog needs slop - to get on board with this one. So far as AI can see, the barrel is completely empty. Is there a god in the barrel?


...When have we ever observed macroevolution? Have you seen a pig sprout wings, survive, and then mate with another pig with wings on sufficient scale to produce a new flying pig species?...

Those who actually understand evolution after years of education can only take this statement one of two ways: 1. an attempt at humor or 2. objective evidence of your deep and profound ignorance of what evolution is or ever will be.

Let's see. Until further notice, I'm going to have to go with choice #2.

As to the solution to your problem - I don't know - several thousand hours devoted to study, maybe?

[weepingforloman]

OK, sprouting wings was not the best choice of words. How about this: when have we seen a phenomenon comparable to a creature that is either winged and scaled, or feathered and serpentine diverging into a feathered, winged creature, and a scaled sinuous creature? Because it is generally held that such is the evolutionary history of birds and snakes. When have we seen a mutation that is beneficial to the organism (besides genetically altered vegetables, etc., that are the work of humans)? When have we seen an organism mutate enough to make a significant difference and survive? When have we seen such a mutated creature then find and mate with an identically mutated creature?

[Scheherazade]

F I N A L W A R N I N G

Please do not resort to inflammatory comments during discussions.


If you feel you are unable to show respect to those whose opinions are different from yours,

please refrain from posting especially in this section of the Forum.


We are not here to decide who is intellectually, morally or otherwise 'superior'

based on their religious views but to exchange opinions and learn from each other.

[Dark Star]

OK, sprouting wings was not the best choice of words. How about this: when have we seen a phenomenon comparable to a creature that is either winged and scaled, or feathered and serpentine diverging into a feathered, winged creature, and a scaled sinuous creature? Because it is generally held that such is the evolutionary history of birds and snakes.

This is not how it works. One species does not jump straight into one another. The species change over time; I hate to sound condescending, but evolution is not Pokemon-esque like many make it out to be.


When have we seen a mutation that is beneficial to the organism (besides genetically altered vegetables, etc., that are the work of humans)?

I will note that mutations do not necessarily have to be beneficial, as long as they work, however, an example of this would be the famous pepper moths in the England. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution)

Another example (while clearly influenced by humans) would be dogs coming from wolves. Look at the all vast amounts of breeds of all shapes and sizes we have now. Also, when horse breeders or dog breeders breed animals for specific gene traits to make 'higher quality' animals that will run faster races, or sell for more money...this is evolution at work.

Another would be the Flu virus. Why do we need a flu vaccine yearly? Because every year, a new strain of the virus evolves which is resistant to the vaccine from the previous year.



When have we seen an organism mutate enough to make a significant difference and survive? When have we seen such a mutated creature then find and mate with an identically mutated creature?

Aside from the mountains of fossil records that indicate this?

I'll give you a list of links that deal with observed speciation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Observed_speciation
http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/observd3.htm
http://darwiniana.org/rings.htm#Rings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

This one is saved for last since it deals with transitional fossils rather than observed speciation:
http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htm

[weepingforloman]

A. I am aware that the process is slow, but, if it is so slow as to be unnoticeable, the species would more than likely die out. For instance, the human eye is made up of various immensely complex inter-locking parts... the primate eye, if you wish. Without evolving all simultaneously (the possibility of which is slight), the adaptation is worthless, and probably fades away.

B. The pepper moth did not become a new species, it's just that a different gene became most common. The equivalent would be if left-handed people suddenly became more adept at surviving, and their numbers exploded.

C. I differentiate between artificially evolved species (aka, breeding) and naturally evolving species. The dogs were bred.

D. The flu virus adapts. It is not a new species. Even if it were, I am willing to tolerate species evolving. I think it ludicrous to believe that, regardless of the length of time, a creature can evolve into a totally different kind of creature (as with the snakes/birds). For instance, I find it likely that the flying squirrel evolved from the ordinary squirrel.

E. I meant observed AS IT HAPPENS. True scientific observation, not indirect inference.

Again, this is not the most important part of my faith. I am willing to concede this point if the evidence ever strikes me as overwhelming.

Grace and Peace.

[Dark Star]

You've managed to complete avoid all my points here, it seems.

A. The speed of the process varies based on species and we have no reason to assume that a species as a whole will die out due to these mutations not happening fast enough unless there is a suddenly a large climate change or a new predator in the area. This does not always occur.

B. Irrelevant. Mutation of this sort is evolution. It is not required to become a new species of moth within that period of time, however, it has mutated to better fit its environment.

D. It is a different strain of flu, a different species each year. This is how it adapts..and again, mutations like this are evolution at work.

E. I gave you several links to cases of directly observed speciation. They're out there just for this sort of claim.

If you're not interested in the multitude of links then try out Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller (theistic evolution from the perspective of a Catholic biologist) and Ernst Mayer's What Evolution Is. Both will give a more complete understanding of evolution and also give accounts of direct observation of speciation.

[weepingforloman]

OK, I would like to wrap this up, and get back on the original topic. I will close by saying: I do not deny the evolution of new species. That is fine. I don't particularly care about that. The odds of a random mutation producing a fully-functional and beneficial new biological system/body-part are very slim (for example, the eye). The switch from white to gray in the pepper moth is MICRO evolution. I don't deny the existence of that, either. The flu virus develops new SUB-species, it is still a flu virus (if you can even call a virus a species). I meant only that we have never seen a grand-scale shift: no fish has ever been observed evolving into a reptile, for instance. Now: back to Aquinas.

[Dark Star]

And you will never see a fish evolving straight into a reptile because that is NOT how evolution works. You don't go straight from one species to something completely different.

You're clearly quite bright, but if you insist on making a straw man out of evolution then there's nothing I can do, so I'll be dropping out of the discussion.

I will, however, respond to your point about the eye: The thing that many people don't realize about complex systems is that they CAN evolve independently and come to be dependent on each other over time. To give a crude example of this: Item A evolves over time. Item B comes into being, then. Over time, they both become dependent on each other. Item C comes into being and the process repeats...eventually, we have something very complex.

This deals with specifically the topic of the eye, actually: http://www.2think.org/eye.shtml


I'm done now.

[weepingforloman]

I didn't mean to insinuate that a fish transforms directly into a reptile, only that we have never seen the process (however slow) of one kind/type/sort of creature slowly become another (like fish to reptile). So, getting back to Aquinas... I never thought his proofs for the existence of God were very good. I think the right place to start is where C.S. Lewis did, with the inherent sense of morality or conscience almost everyone is born with. (In the Mike Meyers "Coffee Talk" voice) Discuss amongst yourselves.

[Gorilla King]

The problem with most of the apologetic proofs is that none of them are really independent of one another in terms of arriving at the specific, personal creator God of Christianity. However, this isn't so much a limitation of the apologetics themselves, but of the unwillingness of those for whom they're intended to put the pieces together. It is a bit of a puzzle quite frankly, but not a terribly difficult one.

[NikolaiI]

And you will never see a fish evolving straight into a reptile because that is NOT how evolution works. You don't go straight from one species to something completely different.

That's true. If you watch the dinosaur programs on Animal Planet, it might seem like they're changing in a recognizable sort of time, but you have to keep in mind that the changes occur over millions of years. A single million years is so many more than we really ever think of. A century is longer than any of those creatures ever saw. So the creatures of the past didn't see evolution happen, or anything ridiculous like that, even though that seems to be how we look at it. You wouldn't see it happen.

[weepingforloman]

I know. My point is that, if this really happens, we cannot observe it happening, and therefore, it must be based, to an extent, on guesswork.

[NikolaiI]

That's true; evolutionary theory is the only theory that cannot be tested in a laboratory.

[Dark Star]

However, it can and has been observed in nature.

And I suppose one could argue for testing it in a laboratory by watching bacteria involve...

I'd also like to point out that I don't think they've been able to encapsulate the big bang in a lab, either. ;)

EDIT: Well, I'll be damned..evolution has been recreated in a lab: http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=97c78083-0be2-4af2-8d3a-1cc90a4aaf30

[weepingforloman]

That's man-made mutation, not evolution. Let's draw distinctions.

And let's keep this focused on Aquinas.

[Dark Star]

Irrelevant. Someone said it couldn't be recreated in a lab (which is irrelevant anyway since I provided links proving that it has been directly observed in nature) and I found an article where it was re-created. There was a change of species there, in a lab, even if it was man-made.

And sadly, no one seems interested in Aquinas right now.

[weepingforloman]

Hmmm... Maybe I should change to weepingfortommy?

[firefangled]

I was literally stupefied when I came across the the famous five arguments for the existence of God found in the Summa Theologica. It is still highly tangible today even amongst Darwin and Religious extremists. Absolutely amazing! I would recommend to anyone interested in Aquinas to also try understanding the basic ideas of Kant. I probably could never grasp a full understanding of his works as might some on this site; but in Kant, the seeds of the ultimate mind and matter connection, as instruments in a ultimate purpose which shall prevail, is in debt to Aquinas.
If I may introduce the writings of another great voice in this debate, it would be Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's, The Phenomenon of Man. He was a Jesuit priest who spent his life trying to reconcile science and the existence of God.

He thought of the earth as an entity of consciousness in itself, still evolving in an effort to understand itself. The culmination of this evolution he postulated would result in the creation of the noosphere, which was in his description, similar to the cerebral cortex in humans, but on a larger scale. He spoke of the earth as a neural network, evolving into a single consciousness.

Are we not on this path? To me the existence of a supreme consciousness within the universe is undeniable. Everything in the universe is elementally predisposed (not pre-determined) to evolve toward an understanding of itself and with that "God" will be looking in a mirror so to speak. This evolution may take any form in the way it happens. The only thing that was "set" was that nothing was predetermined. Not only mankind, but the universe itself has free will. Intelligence is not the property of creaturehood alone.

I believe you cannot come to a true understanding of God or whatever you may choose this universal intelligence (It was very wise of those cultures who would not use the name of their God in speech) without personal investigation outside the realm of holy books such as the bible. There are many bibles on this earth and they all carry similar truths and time bound cultural mores. Thomas is my baptism name after Aquinas and he was my intoduction to this quest. It may not be the only way; I am not equipped to know that, but Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed (and I know there are women that history fails to mention) all the great humans who fully realized our potential and tried to demonstrate it, all of them spent time on this same self examination and examination of the world and its multiple cosmologies before reaching their own personal understanding. It is because they were personal understandings that makes them seem slightly different. The extreme differences exhibited today are nothing but the politics of the ages, if you look closely.

[weepingforloman]

"You, who are evil"- the words of Christ. Potential? No. Helplessness.

[Night Closet]

Really ................it's much easier than all those quarrels i see in this thread .......I think that Thomas Aquinas meant to prove GOD'S EXISTENCE and that it's all ...................he is a believer who wants to convince the whole world with what he believes in .........................i love him and all what he tried to prove

[RichardHresko]

The five ways are to be found in Summa Theologiae, Ia, 2, 3. Some notes about the purpose of the 5 ways:
1) they provided what Aquinas felt were proofs of God's existence based on nature, and hence what could be known without revelation. Obviously they were not intended to say all that could be said about God.

2) Four of the five ways are based on Aristotle's Four Causes. The Third Way is a different argument.

3) The proofs offered in Summa are in a way a replacement for the argument for God's existence put forth by St. Anselm.

That beings said, there is a fuller treatment of the proofs for God's existence in Summa Contra Gentiles, I, 9 -14. There is a serviceable version of that in The Penguin Classics, Selected Writings of Thomas Aquinas should anyone care to discuss it.

Also, while one can certainly argue with Aquinas (his writings even were condemned by the Church at one point!) he is more than someone making things up out of whole cloth. For those interested in Analytic Philosophy, an extremely lively area of current philosophy, I would suggest, in the same Penguin edition, a reading of "On How Words Mean."

I do think that Aquinas is of value as a philosopher as well as a theologian.

[Derringer]

hmm yes - I wish I had been taught about vernacular reading and not the silly proofs when I was taught Aquinas's philosophy. Stuff that affects us that we don't even know aboot, like Freud.

Aquinas did consider poetry 'the least of all sciences', which rather does put a damper on the fun, and well... psalms might disagree...

[RichardHresko]

It is a shame that Aquinas is mainly known for the quinque viae since he wrote so much more (nearly 8 million words in a career of barely 20 years). And while there is much that is not of current interest, I think there is plenty that is worth examining.

Derringer added:
"Aquinas did consider poetry 'the least of all sciences', which rather does put a damper on the fun, and well... psalms might disagree..."

Then again, Plato was kind of harsh on poets too (I think in the Republic). Ah well, not everyone can appreciate the glories of poetry. But let us be generous and assume Aquinas was merely dissatisfied with his own efforts as a hymnist...