As I continue to examine additional arguments for God’s existence, I have finally come to Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways. The first episode on the First Way went live today.
The First Way is Aquinas’ argument from motion. Aquinas argued that only God can explain why things change. Change can only be explained by a First, Unmoved Mover; i.e. a Being who is the ultimate source of all change, but is itself not changed by anything.
Check out this episode (and the ones to follow) wherever you get your podcasts, or from https://thinkingtobelieve.buzzsprout.com
Thinking to Believe 
May 3, 2024 at 9:13 pm
First, I applaud you for reading the first part of Feser’s (by the way, it’s pronounced fayser) Aquinas. I’ve been unable to find who originated the following quotation, but it has been attributed to Aquinas: In a debate, you should endeavor to know the opposing position better than your opponent. Commendably, you didn’t present the First Way in an adversarial manner, and you are to be commended for endeavoring to research the arguments prior to presenting them.
Second, for someone who is admittedly not an expert, you did a decent job presenting the First Way. You took time to describe the two types of causal series and the act/potency distinction. Though I would have described some things a little differently, your descriptions were sufficiently substantial to get the point across, for the most part.
Your book-borrowing analogy is actually a per accidens series, so uninitiated listeners might be thrown off by your using it. Moreover, listeners might be confused by your emphasis on external causality. Change also occurs within subjects, living and non-living (e.g., plants and the sun). A human being’s potency to continue existing is actualized concurrently by his molecules, which are actualized concurrently by its atoms, which are actualized concurrently by its protons, neutrons and electrons, etc. These actualizations occur internally; however, one could argue that by external cause you really mean something other than what’s specifically being moved. In that situation, further explanation would have been beneficial.
Now, you said in the Argument From Contingency thread that you do not think that the Five Ways get us to God, and that your reading of Feser did not really change your understanding of these Arguments. That’s rather curious to me since you stated in the podcast that you’re not necessarily saying that Aquinas was wrong (you just don’t think they’re particularly helpful evangelistically). So, given that Feser took the time to explain Pure Actuality and why the divine attributes are entailed by it, perhaps you can clarify what you mean.
LikeLike
May 3, 2024 at 9:16 pm
Also, I always wondered why whomever painted that picture of Aquinas thought he was paying him a tribute. The guy looks like he’s having heartburn.
LikeLike
May 4, 2024 at 12:49 pm
Great episode, Jason. I appreciate that you explained the First Way in good faith, despite your hesitance to consider Thomism. One criticism I have is with your plight that Thomism is not an intuitive evangelistic tool for apologetics. Although I understand your concern (for I had this concern as well), we needn’t throw out the baby with the bath water when it comes to Thomism.
Is the metaphysics a barrier for common evangelistic use? Somewhat. But the same could be argued against contemporary arguments for God’s existence.
Suppose you had to give reasons for the faith with an atheist at a coffee shop. You argue for God using the KCA. The honest atheist agrees that your argument is logically valid, but evidentially unsound.
After some dialogue, you come to find out (s)he believes in an entirely different metaphysic for your argument: B Theory of Time. After some probing you find out it’s because of the current studies and discoveries within quantum science.
In this real-life scenario (I’ve had anecdotal experience with this), you still need to explain and justify your metaphysic. Not only this, but you’d also need to supplement your conclusion for the KCA with reasoning for why the cause of the universe is the God of the Bible. So, there’s a joint issue of metaphysics you’d need to address within contemporary Christian philosophy.
In Thomism, you would necessarily have both of those issues (the metaphysics of causation and God) immediately addressed. After you present your argument, you could then respond to your interlocutor’s questions and objections.
Thomism needn’t be isolated at an academic level either. Indeed, it’s been popularized through the theology and apologetics of R.C. Sproul and Norman Geisler. What we are seeing in the modern church and seminaries is a gradual progression away from classical theistic thinking, and that may be why Thomism doesn’t appeal to the masses nor has it been popularized by the more prominent apologists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 10, 2024 at 1:28 pm
Scalia, I did not offer any critiques of the Five Ways in my series, but for example, as you know from our email dialogue, I do not accept the idea that God is Pure Actuality because I don’t think God is changeless. I don’t believe in the doctrine of divine simplicity either, and am generally skeptical that metaphysical systems are accurate representations of reality. What I would say about Aquinas’ Five Ways is that if you accept his metaphysics, they are good arguments for God’s existence. I did not study enough of the criticisms of the arguments and the counter-responses to say anything more (in contrast to something like the KCA, which I have thoroughly studied for years and can definitely say that it defeats all supposed defeaters).
As for the picture of Aquinas, he looks a bit grumpy. Maybe it’s heartburn, or maybe it’s all that thinking about Aristotelian metaphysics. J
LikeLike
June 10, 2024 at 1:29 pm
Andrew, you make some good points. I would simply say that when it comes to the KCA, it’s possible that metaphysics may have to enter the conversion, but with Aquinas, metaphysics must begin the conversation. It’s very doubtful that most people you present the KCA to will hold to (or even be aware of) the B theory of time, or hold to any other metaphysical view that clashes with the KCA.
LikeLike
June 12, 2024 at 8:39 pm
Jason, I’m certain you’ll agree that it’s not enough to simply deny an argument or “not accept” the metaphysics of an argument. Since you’re not a skeptic (and, hence, not a compatibilist or a nominalist) and affirm some sort of realism, I do not see how the act/potency distinction can be coherently denied. Similarly, how does one deny the reality of per se causal series or that change is the reduction of potency to act?
Pure Actuality is the conclusion of the argument, and I commend you for acknowledging that if the metaphysics are accepted, the conclusion that God exists follows. It is precisely the kind of God that exists that sets the arguments apart from others. And I realize you haven’t studied the objections sufficiently to offer a counterargument here. We just think that the objections go nowhere. What usually happens is that critics will object, as William Craig does, on scriptural grounds, and on what is called modal collapse. They will produce what they consider undeniable biblical instances of change in God, and that divine simplicity entails a denial of divine liberty and the contingency of creation. But the doctrine isn’t inconsistent with the Bible, nor does modal collapse follow from simplicity. Even if modal collapse follows from simplicity, that in itself does not defeat the logical argument in its favor; it simply means that creation is necessary.
LikeLike