Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways (Part 2): Contingency, Goodness, Design

Click here to read Part 1 of this article

The third way: The way of CONTINGENCY

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to be corrupted, and consequently, it is possible for them to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which can not-be at some time is not.Therefore, if everything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist begins to exist only through something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence - which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has already been proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore, we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God. (Aquinas)

Things exist, but they could easily not exist! There was a time before certain things existed, and there will be a time when they no longer exist. There must also have been a time when nothing existed. This means that objects that exist have contingent existence, which means they could or  could not exist. For Aquinas, the only thing which has always existed is God (who would therefore have necessary existence). Aquinas saw no way to explain how anything was here, unless something existed prior to it. Thus for him, if God did not exist then nothing else would.

The essence of Aquinas’ argument in bold above, assumes that God created the world ex nihilo (out-of-nothing). It was literally caused to be here from no other natural cause. Of course this could be challenged today by Cosmologists who argue that although there was no form to matter before the “Big Bang”, there was still something prior to the ‘Bang” which led to it occurring (E.g. Quantum fluctuations).

The fourth way: The way of GOODNESS

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. 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 something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest, and, consequently, something which is most being, for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being... Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus, as fire, which is the maximum of heat, is the cause of all hot things, as is said in the same book. Therefore, there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God. (Aquinas)

We see in the world degrees of perfection and goodness. Some things are really bad, some not so bad, some things are better than others. Aquinas argues that we only know things are 'degrees of x' (i.e something is really bad or not so bad) because we compare them to the best in any group (or genus) of things. So something not so bad is being compared to something that’s really bad!

Now in terms of morality, as humans have the capacity for both good and bad deeds they cannot logically be the source of Goodness (i.e. the most Good thing), because if they were they would not do bad things. Therefore, the maximum in the genus of morality must be something non-human, and not in the world (because this too is not completely good), which leaves us with God as the most perfect being, and the 'first cause' (or source) of all goodness and perfection. Of course, it might be argued that this is not so much an argument for the existence of God, but for the existence of some standard of morality. We could could say there is an ultimate standard of Goodness, without requiring us to posit the existence of God. Far more compelling (in terms of any moral argument for God’s existence) is to use God’s existence as as way of explaining why humans are something compelled to act in an altruistic manner, if there is nothing more than this world or life.

The fifth way: The way of DESIGN (or teleology)

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. (Aquinas)

Aquinas' argument here is basically suggesting that inanimate objects (E.g. Planets), could not have ordered themselves on their own (i.e. got themselves into the orbits they have), because they lack the intelligence to do so. As the planets are aligned so perfectly, this means it must have been done by a Being with the ability and intelligence to do this. Although humans are intelligent and can explain planetary motion, they cannot move planets, so that leaves us with God (who Aquinas believed could move planets if God chose to do so).

From simple observation nature suggests a realm of order and purpose. This is the basis of science. The world is able to be observed, understood and explained. For Aquinas, anything which has in it a sense of purpose and order requires a 'guiding hand'. For instance, an arrow only hits the target because it has been fired by an archer. Thus if nature appears ordered, it must have a 'guiding hand', who Aquinas believed was God.

A weakness with Aquinas’ Fifth Way is that for science to be capable of observing, understanding and explaining the world we live in, we must first assume a sense of order and stability about things. The idea that there is some Deity acting in and on the world raises questions in terms of science’s ability to test, examine, and explain things. For instance, we cannot easily talk about the ‘laws of nature’ being constants, and have a God acting in the world doing miracles for example. So the scientific enterprise has gradually removed the notion that God acts in nature, to one where nature acts independently of any Divine Being. In the end, the more science provides us with an explanation of how and why things are the way they are, the less we find any need for a Divine Creator.

Further reading

• What Came Before the Big Bang?, Koberlein B, December 1st 2014

Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways (Part 1): Introduction, Motion, Causation

Introduction

In Summa Theologica (1265-74), Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) outlined five proofs for God’s existence. As with Catholicism today, Aquinas believed it was possible to discern truths about God based on reason (human rationality), and revelation (divinely revealed truths not available to reason). Aquinas lived at a time when Aristotle's teachings were popular, and he made wide use of these in his theological writings.

The chief idea Aquinas harvested from Aristotle was the notion that things that changed, required an unchanging source. Aquinas explored variations of this theme in the first three of his proofs for God’s existence and have formed the basis of what are popularly known as COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS. Aquinas’ fourth proof is related to MORAL ARGUMENTS for God’s existence, whilst the fifth way is related to DESIGN (or TELEOLOGICAL) ARGUMENTS.

In summary

• Cosmological Arguments: Proofs 1 -3
• Moral Argument: Proof 4
• Design (Teleological argument): Proof 5

It should be noted that for each of his proofs Aquinas is already assuming the existence of a God who is uncreated and independent of this world, the universe and their respective processes. This means God is not reliant on the world and the universe for God's existence. However, for Aquinas the world and the universe are reliant on God for their existence. In other words, without God nothing would be here.

The first way: The way of MOTION

It is certain, and evident to our sense, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is moved is moved by another, for nothing can be moved except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is moved; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be moved from a state of potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality... it is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is moved must be moved by another. If that by which it is moved must itself be moved, then this also needs to be moved by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and consequently, no other mover, seeing as subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are moved by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is moved by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at the first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. (Aquinas)

Everything in the world changes! Aquinas' proof here needs to be set against the background of Aristotle's discussion of astronomy. Aristotle argued that planetary motion, which he believed caused the seasons to change, required an Unmoved Mover who would maintain the order of things. Therefore, Aquinas used this notion to speak of the sustaining work of God. God makes sure the world and the universe remain the same, but was also behind the changes which led to the years passing by.

The essence of Aquinas’ argument in bold above, is that the potential for something to become something else has to come from outside of itself. For example, a pot will not simply appear from a ball of clay without the input of a potter! The potential for the pot to be formed from the clay is there, but it requires something external to the clay to work on it to achieve this.

The second way: The way of CAUSATION

The second way is from the nature of efficient cause. In the world of sensible things we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or one only. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, or intermediate, cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God. (Aquinas)

The notion of cause and effect, means you cannot have the latter (effect), without the former (cause - here called an efficient cause, because it is the means of bringing another thing into existence, or causing something to change). For Aquinas (and Aristotle) there cannot be an endless regression of cause and effect. An event always implies a cause, and if we continue to seek causes of events we will naturally look for a first cause of everything. According to the natural sciences, the first cause of everything is found in such things as singularities and a “Big Bang”. According to Aquinas though, the first cause is God.

The essence of Aquinas’ argument in bold above, is that that there would be nothing here if there wasn’t a cause of everything. The world and the universe cannot have always existed, (i.e. be infinite). Even though logically this is possible, Aquinas rejects this idea.

Review (The First Way)

Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways (Part 2): Contingency, Goodness, Design

A Brief Review of Arguments for the Existence of God (Part 2): Cosmological Arguments

To read part 1 of this article click here

Cosmological arguments

As with those based on the notion of design, cosmological arguments seek to argue for the existence of God based on what we experience of the world and universe we live in. The central aim of cosmological arguments is to establish what CAUSED everything to be here, or how the world and the universe began.

Cosmological arguments are attempting to address the problem of an infinite regress. This occurs when we have no starting-point for something. For example, in terms of the origin of the world we might ask where everything came from. If we are told that everything came from x, we would then ask where x came from. If x came from y, then we would logically ask where y came from, and so on and so on. Therefore, in order to stop this never-ending sequence we need an uncaused-cause of everything.

The Roman Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225-74 CE) is known for examining two versions of the cosmological argument. In one he argued that every event has a cause, and this leads us to posit a first cause of everything. In another version he argued that things only move because they are moved by something else; leading us to seek the first mover of everything. Aquinas' cosmological arguments were basically intended to show that in order for anything to be here, it requires the presence of something existing before anything else did, and being a Christian he believed the world is only be here because God created it.

Here are the two cosmological arguments Aquinas set out in more detail:

• The argument from FIRST CAUSES: Whatever exists is here because something else has caused it to be here (for example, children are here because of their parents). Things cannot cause themselves to exist (for example, children cannot give birth to themselves). There cannot be a never-ending (infinite) chain of causes. God is the first cause of everything here.
• The argument from MOTION: Things move (or become something else), because something causes it to do this. It is impossible for motion in the universe to have always been happening, so it must have begun somewhere (and somehow). There cannot be a never-ending (infinite) chain of events. God is the first mover (cause) of everything.

Naturalistic evolution works from the premise that the world and the universe had a first cause, this being known as a Singularity (aka ‘Big Bang’); We should also note that logically for naturalistic evolution to work, this present world and universe cannot always have existed.

Summary: Key features of cosmological arguments

• Nothing happens in the world without a reason.
• Events in the world have been caused by something else.
• Things in the world and the universe did not cause themselves to come into existence.
• To deal with the problem of an infinite regress the world and the universe must have a first cause.
• The reason why the world and the universe are here is because of God.
• Cosmological arguments are based on comparing the way things work in the world, to the way things must be in the universe (analogy).

Evidence in support of cosmological arguments

• We can see from our own experience that things happen in the world because something else has caused them to happen.
• That we are here because of our parents, and they are here because of theirs etc., is an example of something which cannot have an infinite regress. Life has not always been here. Something must have caused humans to be here.
• Science tells us that the world had a starting point (The 'Big-bang').
• Modern cosmology posits that stars are moving out and that the universe is expanding. This suggests it had a starting point.

Debates about cosmological arguments

One of the biggest problems with cosmological arguments is that they appear to be self-defeating. If we say that EVERYTHING must have a cause, and that nothing can exist without having been caused by something else, then what about God who is said to be an uncaused causer? This seems to leave the question begging: 'If God caused everything, then who caused God?' In order words, why construct an argument on the basis that everything needs a cause, and then argue that the answer to how the world and universe got here is an uncaused cause (i.e. God)? This is contrary to the logic of the argument. If we say that God is uncaused, then why not the world and universe too?

Another problem for cosmological argument is that scientific explanations for the origins of life do not require the existence of God to explain why anything is here. In fact, it seems the more 'science' works to explain the world around us, the less we need of God. For example, in the past God has often been used to bridge gaps in our scientific knowledge (aka God of the gaps) such as praying and offering gifts to God to ensure a good harvest, or to get pregnant. However now 'science' has shown us that it is good soil and the right fertilizer that will maximise our crop yield, and ovulation tests and IVF now help women to get pregnant.

Yet for all that science informs us about the world and universe we live in, it cannot tell us everything about it. For instance, modern cosmological theories of the origins of life argue that the Singularity which caused the 'Big-bang' was the product of events we can know nothing about. This is because we are unable to 'see' them because they happened prior to anything else coming into existence. So if in reality we are speculating (or making a best-guess) about events prior to the 'Big-bang', this means the possibility of God's existence must remain open, and as such this is why some theologians say science tells us how life began, but God’s existence explains why it did.

A Brief Review of Arguments for the Existence of God (Part 3): Morality and Religion