The Fifth Way of Thomas Aquinas likely appeals to many of you as obvious:
1. Whatever lacks intelligence and exhibits order and regularity is the result of design. (Premise)
2. The laws of nature lack intelligence and exhibit order and regularity. (Premise)
3. Therefore, the laws of nature are the result of design. (From 1 and and 2)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi,
ReplyDeleteI have never read about the Fifth Way before. What would be your quick 5min tour of it? For example, what is premise 1 referring to? What's the main goal of the argument? What are the implications of the conclusions.
But how does one prove 1?
ReplyDeletePremise (1) shouldn't be viewed as a proof. Rather, we know it's true through induction. When we observe things that meet the conditions of (1), we infer that it has been designed. Imagine winning the lottery a thousand times in a row. At some point, you would suspect that someone had rigged the lottery so that the same person would win each time.
ReplyDeleteHugo, the point of the argument is to infer the existence of a Cosmic Designer. There are at least two places St. Thomas Aquinas addresses the argument. First, in Book One of the Summa Contra Gentiles (Ch. 13.35): "The argument runs thus. Contrary and discordant things cannot, always or for the most part, be parts of one order except under someone’s government, which enables all and each to tend to a definite end. But in the world we find that things of diverse natures come together under one order, and this not rarely or by chance, but always or for the most part. There must therefore be some being by whose providence the world is governed. This we call God."
ReplyDeleteThen, in the Summa Theologica (First Part, Q. 2): "The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, 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 not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."
What I try to do is formulate the argument in a simple, easy-to-understand way.
Premise (1) shouldn't be viewed as a proof. Rather, we know it's true through induction. When we observe things that meet the conditions of (1), we infer that it has been designed.
ReplyDeleteI don't think we know (1) through induction. We know of things that meet the conditions of (1) that are designed by humans but there are many other things that meet the conditions of (1) where it is debatable whether they are designed.
Imagine winning the lottery a thousand times in a row. At some point, you would suspect that someone had rigged the lottery so that the same person would win each time.
I think that's only because I know the lottery numbers should be drawn at random.
Thanks for the clarifications Doug; it does seem like your version accurately represents the passages you quoted but in a simpler, more straight-forward, manner.
ReplyDeleteNow, when you say that the point of the argument is to infer the existence of a Cosmic Designer, do you personally think that this is really the case; in the sense that it could convince someone on the fence about the issue, for instance. Or do you see it more as a rationalization of a belief you already hold?
And to be honest and transparent... I ask the question with the opinion that this is not convincing at all. Premise 1 is way too vague to be generalized as something true, and used in such formal argument. The lottery example can have parallels in the natural world where, where examined closely, we realized there is no design at all. The first example I can think of are stars. Looking at the night sky, one sees anything but 1,000 white dots and might wrongly conclude that they must have been designed to look all the same. But in reality, we now know that this is just a limitation of our senses; these dots are anything but just simple white dots.
Hugo, let's assume that these stars are random. Even granting this, other things are not random. That's why I gave the example of the laws of nature.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your earlier question, yes, I think this is a rationally compelling argument. Back in high school, when I was flirting with agnosticism, it was the Fifth Way that convinced me that there must be a God of some sort.
Jayman, what examples do you have in mind?
ReplyDeleteDoug, everyone agrees that artifacts are designed. But there is no agreement that natural substances (e.g., atoms, chemicals, plants, animals, or humans) are designed. The skeptic will take premise (1) to be begging the question.
ReplyDeleteIf there were no laws of nature and the universe were utterly chaotic, then that would make (1) inconsequential. So, it's not begging the question. The conclusion - (3) - is not presupposed by (1).
ReplyDeleteHi Doug, I am glad to hear that this is something that actually you personally accept. I think conversations on philosophical arguments are possible regardless of one's position, as we can defend positions we don't hold just for discussion's sake, but I find it much more interesting when actual beliefs of real people are in play.
ReplyDeleteNow, regarding the laws of nature, I think this is presented backward here. The laws are not really laws when you look at their origins carefully. They are actually our best estimations as to how the universe looks like. Gravity is the obvious example here; Newton's laws break down when objects move too fast, or over long distances where propagation of gravitational effects cannot go faster than the speed of light.
So I agree with Jayman that this is question begging... if we are to try to justify a position regarding the universe being designed, it cannot start with the laws we created, as humans, to describe that universe, only to conclude that the laws are evidence of design. What was designed are the laws; not necessarily the universe they describe.
My point is that the inductive inference from artifacts being designed to natural substances being designed seems unwarranted.
ReplyDeleteHugo, if you prefer, you can replace "laws of nature" with "forces of nature." The fact that Newtonian physics breaks down at a certain point, and that his version of the law of gravity is merely an approximation, already implies that there is a correct formulation of gravity. This is true even though we haven't discovered it yet. After all, one cannot know a line is crooked without having some idea of what a straight line looks like.
ReplyDeleteJayman, keep in mind this isn't Paley's design argument. We're not talking about inferring the existence of a Cosmic Designer based on what we observe about artifacts. Rather, we infer the existence of a Cosmic Designer based on the fact that certain things (not created by humans, or human-like beings) have specific ends.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, Hugo, I'm writing my thesis on Thomas' First Way. I believe this is the definitive argument for God's existence, even though I'm also persuaded by the other four ways.
ReplyDeleteDoug, I don't see why we need to imply that there is such "correct formulation of gravity"; what makes you think that? Again, that sounds like question begging, since the point is to determine whether such 'Laws' or 'Forces' actually exist.
ReplyDeleteHaving an idea of what they 'could' be, such as what a straight line is, again, is an idea that may or may not point to what actually is. That's what the Fifth Way seems to be trying to do; show that a straight line does exist and that there must be a straight line designer. But where is that straight line? And why would a straight line require a designer?
Hugo, is there a true manner in which the forces of nature act, or not?
ReplyDeleteI don't know. Can you elaborate?
ReplyDeleteDoug, I grant that natural substances have final causes. But you said we use induction to know premise 1 (whatever lacks intelligence and exhibits order and regularity is the result of design). We know premise 1 is true with respect to artifacts but, to my mind, you cannot infer from that that natural substances are the result of design.
ReplyDeleteI think premise 1 needs a better sub-argument in its favor. I'm wondering if some connection can be made between final causes and potency. The potential of an unintelligent substance does not exist in the substance itself, but it must exist somewhere. That somewhere is in an external intelligence. That's very rough but perhaps it could take a more deductive form and thus be more difficult to deny.
P.S. I hope your thesis goes well and would be interested in reading it.
Hugo, before I address the need for a Cosmic Designer, we need to establish that there is a true way in which nature operates. Do you agree with me that there is?
ReplyDeleteJayman, first, thank you for the encouragement. My question is: why is there is a problem with inferring design from artifacts to natural substances? The truth is, I think Paley's argument is sound and is often dismissed without adequate grounds.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, here's what I had in mind. Imagine you own an apple tree in your backyard. One morning, you discover that apples that used to be on the tree are missing. Again, the morning after that, even more apples are missing. What would you conclude? That the apples disappeared on their own, or that someone (an intelligence) had picked the apples?
Hi Doug (different blogger ID?)
ReplyDeleteGreat timing :) I was about to ask you if you were going to come back to this, as I am curious to know where you were going with that last question.... However, you just re-wrote it almost word for word... so I still don't know what you mean by 'true manner/way in which the forces of nature act/operate'.
Also, you mentioned that you are writing your thesis on the 'First Way', so I was going to ask the same; whether you have a quick 5-min overview as to why it convinces you. But I see from that new profile you used today that there is such a link:
http://dougbenscoter.blogspot.com/p/the-argument-from-change.html
Is that up-to-date?
My question is: why is there is a problem with inferring design from artifacts to natural substances?
ReplyDeleteWe've seen humans create artifacts but we have not seen God create natural substances.
What would you conclude? That the apples disappeared on their own, or that someone (an intelligence) had picked the apples?
A human (or animal?) picking the apples would be a possibility. But perhaps it was extremely windy and I think the apples may have blown off the tree.
Hugo, yes, that page is up to date. It's just a summary of the argument, but I'd be happy to answer any questions. I don't know what's up with the name change; I had nothing to do with it... at least not that I'm aware of. :)
ReplyDeleteJayman, the fact that we haven't literally seen God create anything is kind of the point of the argument, isn't it? We've already seen since the 1960's that the verification principle is self-contradictory, so I see no problem with the inference.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the apples go, let's just say you know it wasn't windy.
Doug, I'm not endorsing the verification principle. I'm merely noting the ditch between believing some things that lack intelligence and exhibit order and regularity are the result of design and believing all things that lack intelligence and exhibit order and regularity are the result of design.
ReplyDeleteAs for the apples, if I could rule out wind then I would suspect a human or animal took the apples. This is because humans and animals are the things I know of that could do such a thing and that are common to my experience (as opposed to say space aliens).
Right, I'm not actually saying that you're endorsing the verification principle. Rather, I'm suggesting that the objection contains its undertones. Why is there so much emphasis on what one directly experiences?
ReplyDeleteYou would (probably correctly) think the apples would taken by humans or animals precisely because they are intelligent beings capable of undergoing such a task. What, then, about the laws of nature?