|
Here is an essay i wrote for my metaphysics class. It deals with the "proofs that God exists" of Thomas Aquinas, a famous philosopher who had a strong influence on the Catholic Church. A VERY LONG READ, BUT MAYBE IT'S WORTH IT, I DON'T KNOW.
1. Compare and contrast the first two arguments of Aquinas. Is either argument invalid? Is either argument sound (i.e. is valid and has true premises)?
The first two arguments of Aquinas aim to deductively prove that God exists. The argument from motion and the argument from efficient causes are very similar in structure and content. This essay will focus on the structure, validity and soundness of Aquinas¡¦s first two arguments. This essay will also discuss the validity and soundness of each argument, and the weaknesses of each argument. Finally, this essay will argue that the first two arguments of Aquinas do not succeed in proving that God exists.
A clear correlation exists between the structure of the first two arguments of Aquinas. The first argument is the argument from motion. The argument begins with a simple observation that ¡§objects are in motion¡¨. (Sober, 1995, p.40) ¡¥Motion¡¦ in this context is given by Aquinas in terms of Aristotelian philosophy. Motion in this sense is not just simple motion such as a ball rolling, but instead is ¡§the sense of changing states, moving from a state of potentiality to a state of actuality.¡¨ (Stairs, 1998, p.2) The second argument (the argument from efficient causes) also begins with a simple observation ¡V ¡§some events cause other events¡¨. (Sober, 1995, p.40) Again, this notion of causation is based on Aristotle. An efficient cause is something that causes another thing to come into existence. This ¡¥coming into existence¡¦ is based on the movement from potentiality to actuality. Both arguments begin with self-evident truths ¡V factual premises based on experience, which are supposed to be obvious to all.
The second premise in the argument from motion involves an assumption by Aquinas about causation. Aquinas assumes that whatever is in motion must have been caused to be in motion by something else. Also, Aquinas assumes that an object cannot be the cause of its own change. Likewise, in Aquinas¡¦s second argument, he assumes that if an event occurs, then it is caused by an external agent. ¡§Nothing can be its own efficient cause, since if it were, it would have to be prior to itself, Aquinas tell us, which is impossible.¡¨ (Stairs, 1998, p.2)
The assertion by Aquinas in the third premise that there can be no infinite chain of movers/movees is extremely important for his argument from motion. Aquinas believes that in an infinite chain, there can be no first mover. If there is no first mover, than there cannot be any subsequent mover. Without this third premise, the argument cannot proceed to the conclusion that God exists. The third premise in Aquinas¡¦s argument from efficient causes states that there can be no infinite cause/effect chains. Aquinas uses the same reasoning here as he does in the first argument. He believes that in an infinite chain, there can be no first cause, and to take away the cause is to take away the effect so the rest of the series would not exist. The idea that there can be no infinite causal chains is extremely important to both arguments, but it is also problematic. This issue will be discussed later in this essay.
The fourth part of Aquinas¡¦s argument from motion is a proposition that ¡§there is a first unmoved mover¡¨. (Sober, 1995, p.40) This follows on from the third premise that there can be no infinite chain of movers/movees. There must be a beginning in the chain, and since it is the first mover without any previous mover, then it must be uncaused. The fourth part of Aquinas¡¦s argument from efficient causes parallels the argument from motion. The proposition that ¡§there is a first uncaused cause¡¨ (Sober, 1995, p.40) uses the same logic. There must be a first efficient cause in the chain, and since there are no prior causes, it must be an uncaused cause. The structure of the first two arguments is very similar in this respect.
Both of Aquinas¡¦s first two arguments reach the same conclusion: ¡§therefore, God exists¡¨. (Sober, 1995, p.40) Aquinas reaches the conclusion that the only explanation for the initial observations is that there is a God. Aquinas uses the same pattern for both of his first two arguments. He begins each argument with an observation that is self-evident, then establishes that there can be no infinite causal chains and that there is a first unmoved mover/uncaused cause, and concludes that God exists because that is the only explanation for these observations. Thus, it can be said that the structures of the first two arguments of Aquinas are very similar, although the initial observations are different.
Many criticisms can be raised against Aquinas¡¦s first two arguments. The deductive validity and soundness of Aquinas¡¦s arguments will now be discussed.
An argument is valid if, assuming the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. An argument is invalid when the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Aquinas¡¦s argument from motion is invalid for two reasons. Firstly, the second premise and the fourth premise are contradictory. The second premise states that ¡§if an object is in motion, then it must be caused by something outside of itself.¡¨ (Sober, 1995, p.40) However, the fourth premise says that there is a first, unmoved mover. If a moving object must be caused to be in motion by an external object, then how can there possibly be a first, unmoved mover? If one of the premises is true, then the other must be false. Secondly, assuming that there is a first, unmoved mover, how does this guarantee that God exists? A counterexample for this argument is a physicist who accepts the Big Bang theory and denies God. The Big Bang could be said to have the same likelihood as God of being the ¡¥first, unmoved mover¡¦. The truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion, and therefore, this argument is invalid. The argument from efficient causes is also invalid for similar reasons to the first argument. If premise two is assumed to be true, then the fourth premise contradicts the second premise, and vice versa. Also, the proposition that there is a first, uncaused cause in part four of the argument does not guarantee the conclusion that God exists. The Big Bang counterexample applies once again.
The first two arguments of Aquinas are unsound, as they do not meet the requirements for a sound argument. An argument is sound if it is deductively valid and it has true premises. As shown earlier, both arguments are invalid. It is also possible to show that there are false premises in each argument.
The argument from efficient causes appears to beg the question when dealing with infinite causal chains. Aquinas believes that unless there were a first cause, there would be no other members of the series. Since there are, there must have been a first cause. ¡§The trouble with this is that it seems to assume what it sets out to prove ¡V or close to it.¡¨ (Pecorino, 2001, p.3) Aquinas denies the plausibility of an infinite causal chain. However, one must believe in a first, uncaused cause in the first place in order to accept that there can be no infinite causal chains. Therefore, the argument is fallacious.
The argument from motion commits the Birthday fallacy by assuming that by denying a first mover, there would be no subsequent movers. ¡§Saying that all chains have a beginning does not imply that they all have the very same beginning.¡¨ (Scholz, 2001, p.1) There could be more than one first mover for mover/movee chains, and it seems that it is convenient for Aquinas to say that there is only one first mover ¡V God.
To conclude, it can be seen that there are weaknesses in the first two arguments of Aquinas. Although each argument comes to the conclusion that God is the only explanation for given observations, these arguments are unable to properly prove that God exists. The contradiction between having everything caused, while at the same time having a first, uncaused cause is perhaps the greatest flaw in each argument. The assumption that only God can be the first, uncaused cause/unmoved mover is another weakness in the arguments. The argument from motion and the argument from efficient causes fail to satisfy the condition required by deductive and sound arguments. Hence, the first two arguments of Aquinas do not prove that God exists.
Bibliography
„Y Pecorino, P (2001) The Cosmological Argument, retrieved September 9, 2003 from http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip...osmological.htm
„Y Scholz, S. (2001) Aquinas¡¦s First Four Ways, retrieved September 10, 2003 from http://www.rogue-scholars.com/classes/lectures205-2.pdf
„Y Sober, E. (1995) Core Questions in Philosophy, Simon and Shuster
„Y Stairs, A. (1998) The Cosmological Argument, retrieved September 10, 2003 from http://brindecow.umd.edu/236/aquinas.html
|
