Today's post comes from Alexander Witt, a fellow seminarian for the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. Alex is a much better philosopher than I am, so I defer classically philosophical matters to him. I did make some changes, added some personality, etc. etc. Read and learn.
On Modern Philosophy, Popular Logic, and the Five Proofs of
the Existence of God
A few weeks ago, I had found a friend of mine had posted a
picture (see below) contrasting two viewpoints as to how nature should be
ordered. The first is the classic pyramidal structure with a human being on top
and animals of decreasing order creating the underlying structures. This image
is contrasted with the same animals and humans in a circle, man no closer to
the middle or top than any other animal. Under these pictures read the captions
“wrong” and “right” respectively. After a few minutes of thought, I realized
that the image was a refutation—albeit a weak one—of one of St. Thomas Aquinas’
five proofs for the existence of God, in this case, gradation. Upon realizing
this, I turned my mind to the other four proofs, only to find—as I had
feared—that there have arisen in modern and contemporary philosophies and
science counter arguments and points to each of the five proofs. Thus, the
reason for this blog post is to offer some light and reflection on the five
proofs and their “counter proofs” as well as some suggestions on how to counter
these counter proofs. It will be easier to s tart from the last proof and work
our way to the first.
THE FIFTH PROOF: GOVERNANCE
Summary—it seems that there is something governing things in
the world naturally, even when the things not being governed are not
intelligent. In other words, plants grow toward the sun because there is
something guiding them toward it: namely the benefits of sunlight to the good
of growing.
Response—but things obviously have a reason. I got a drink
of what because I was thirsty. I ate because I was hungry. Is it not possible
then, that there is governance in the world just by virtue of the fact that
there are reasons for behaviors in the world?
Popular “Logic”—even though a thing happen, often times
these things are out of any control we have. It’s the old “butterfly flaps it’s
wings in China” stint. Sure, animals have instincts, but it’s not because of
God. A plant grows towards the sun because that is what is best for it. An
animal has instincts because of the surrounding factors of its system for the past
hundred or thousand years.
| Butterfly wings: creating hurricanes and baffling philosophers like a boss. |
Response—but where does the capacity for adaptation come
from? How can one adapt without having the ability to adapt? Is it not possible
that, however this being was created (either as it is or via evolution) that it
was designed particularly in a way to allow it to adapt? This is particularly
so with things that can’t reason. It’s easy to understand how humans can
eventually make a spear after tripping over one too many a sharp rocks, but
animals—which have a much shorter life span—don’t have that luxury. Questions
and responses like this are either unanswerable or unintelligible to the
nihilist/butterfly philosophers out there.
THE FOURTH PROOF: GRADATION
Summary—when we look at the world, we see hierarchy. We can
say that there is more of this and less of that. And, just like there can be a
hot, hotter, and hottest frying pan on a stove, it seems that we can say that
there are good beings, like dogs, better beings, like humans, and a best being,
like God.
Response—Once again, we could spend years refuting Marxism,
but the best way to do this is to remember and point out that Marxism does not
claim that equal existence is natural, but rather it is a response to a natural
tendency within nature. The question then becomes whether or not it is better
to have unequivocal equality. In the Catholic context, it is. However, the
question is who the actor or agent who imposes this change? Christian
brotherhood which looks to God as the being which makes us “all one in Christ
Jesus” (Gal 3:28) or should this be done by the government, which by nature of
being a governing structure, is a contradiction to the aims of Marxism by
itself (also, this is part of the root for Marxism being so anti-religion, oh
and the whole “religion is the opium of the masses” thing…).
 |
| Good intentions, terrible, terrible idea in practice. |
Popular “Logic”—everybody is equal!! Yes, it’s relativism;
my truth is just as valid as everybody else’s truth thing. Everybody is equal,
so we should not exult any one person or thing above another. This would be all
well and good, except that the picture to the right is not hyperbole. It is what some
people actually think (source: http://www.facebook.com/MU.IGSS).
Response—other than “let me see what a German shepherd
thinks about you and him being equals” point out that this is an ideology, not
something that actually is. Caring for the earth is good, but we can’t go
overboard. As much as it is good to say that everybody is equal, if that were
so then the world wouldn’t make any sense because everybody’s contrasting
opinions would contradict one another leading to a state of chaos. Another
response is, “well my truth says that your truth is wrong and that there is an
objective truth, thus, at least while you’re in my presence—and if you’re
sincere about your belief that my truth is as valid as your truth—you should
respect my truth. My truth also says that you shouldn’t talk. Or breathe.” Relativism is a sucky way to live...
THE THIRD PROOF: POSSIBILITY AND NECESSITY
Summary—this one is a little more complicated; it runs as
so: there is a possibility for something either to be or not to be (it could
have been that I never existed [what a wonderful world you guys would be living
in]). So if things could not have been, then at one point in time (whether that
exists at this stage is another discussion) nothing would have existed. So if
nothing would have existed, nothing could have caused the existence of
everything else, otherwise we wouldn’t be here right now. Thus, because most
beings are not necessary, and thus they can only possibly exist, something that
was necessary must have existed, otherwise, with nothing around to eventually
set off the chain of events and explosions that would ultimately result in our
existence, we could not possibly exist.
In other words, God has to exist, because at some point
nothing could have existed without being put there to exist by a being that had
to be there, instead of just could have been there.
Modern Philosophy—rationalism!! This is just one of the
responses I can think of in modern philosophy to this proof. The position can
be summed up by the father of rationalism’s famous “cogito, ergo sum” or (in
the vernacular) “I think, therefore, I am”. The response goes as follows.
Basically, the created world is just all in our minds. We can only know that
which we can come to by reason, so this cosmological proof—that is, a proof
made by looking at nature—doesn’t really cut it. The reason why we
think we know is because our minds have constructed stuff that is around us
into what we interpret to be sensical data.
Response—just ask questions like, if we don’t have any
actual knowledge of what something is, how come we both look at a tree and
recognize it, independent of each other, as a tree? Also, you can tell this
joke: Descartes walks into a bar and orders a glass of milk (kid friendly!).
After drinking the last of his milk, the bar tender asks whether he wants
another glass. Descartes decides, “I think not” and then he vanished!
Popular “Logic”--… Mind blown.
THE SECOND PROOF: EFFICIENT CAUSE
Summary—an efficient cause is a thing that causes something
else to happen. Barring infinite regress (which is a logical impossibility,
there is no such thing as ∞ + 1, there is only ∞), there has to be something which causes another thing, unless there is
a being who is infinite (by this we mean God) and does not have a beginning. If
this being did not exist, then nothing else would exist, because nothing would
have been caused to exist.
| Not this one, the other one... ugh |
Modern
Science—the Big Bang Theory!! While this term today is empty of any actual
meaning and is just used by scientists as
a catch-all phrase by which they mean whatever the heck happened to make
everything go kablam and show up like it is today (which most people don’t,
surprisingly, actually realize to begin with) it is a theory that basically
says that a whole bunch of matter was packed into this tiny volume until it all
exploded outwards into the ever expanding universe we all know and love.
Response—once again, just ask annoying little questions such
as any of the following: how did all this matter come to be packed into the
small volume of space? If there was no space, where was the volume and the
matter residing therein? If space is infinitely expanding, then what is it
expanding into? (Creation ex nihilo, check and mate)
Popular “Logic”—as the popular response to this one is
similar to ones both above and below, we will omit this part.
THE FIRST PROOF: MOTION
Summary—as we can see, this is the logical presupposition to
the second proof, and so similar. Things in nature are in motion. There has to
be something to have set things in motion (an efficient cause of sorts) which
does not have potency. Remember from science class that there are two types of
energy (I’m talking fifth grade science class) potential and kinetic. If
something has kinetic energy, it is moving. If something has potential energy,
it could move if acted upon (like a ball being suspended in the air, if I let
go of the ball, the potential energy turns into kinetic energy). So in order
for everything around us to have been set in motion, something without any
potential energy (otherwise it would need something to start it) would have to
exist (once again barring the ridiculous notion of ∞ + 1 which,
as we have already said, is ∞). By
this we mean God.
This is
one of the proofs which remain pretty untouchable, particularly when we make
the point that there is no such thing as infinite regress. Even in rationalism,
the mind is in motion, constantly thinking (so they think). Luckily, we still have this proof.
No comments:
Post a Comment