atheism for lent, day 2 (Kinky Vi and Her Logic)
Hile, wordslingers, inklings, folks, various, and sundry!
Today in AfL, Peter Rollins takes us a bit deeper than yesterday’s intro. We’re looking at the first three of Thomas Aquinas’s Five Ways. Officially, these are known as the Quinque Viæ, which means I will forever associate this first week of AfL ’23 with a character I’ve just made up named Kinky Vi, Professional Dominatrix Theologian.
I never promised any of this would be appropriate.
So. Today is Kinky Vi and her first three logical arguments for (describing what we think of as) God. As a reminder, the Five Ways are all a posteriori arguments: based not on pure reason and logic, but based on general experience of the world. This is experience available to every human and is not confined to religion, science, philosophy, etc. The first three Ways are:
- argument from First Mover (Mover That Does Not Move = “God”)
- argument from Universal Causation (Cause That Has No Cause = “God”)
- argument from Contingency (Necessary Being That Generated All Other Being = “God”)
To help us along (because, if you’re like me, you need a little help, especially with that Contingency one; if you’re not like me, don’t worry about it, it’s fine), Peter points us toward Daniel Bonevac, professor of philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. Here’s what I’m understanding at this point, based on Aquinas himself, Peter’s intro yesterday, and Bonevac’s helpful comments:
- Mover That Does Not Move = “God”
Aquinas argues that everything in our universe is in motion, and whatever is in motion is in motion because of something else. Things can potentially move in a certain manner, or they actually move. “Motion” means potentiality reduced to actuality.
The best way for me to make sense of this is to look at concrete examples:
a. Fire is actually hot, and wood is potentially hot. Fire moves the wood into being actually hot.
b. My keyboard is in motion only because my fingers are nudging it from potential motion to actual motion. My fingers are in motion because my brain is nudging them from potential motion to actual motion. My brain is in motion (well, that’s debatable) because my DNA nudges it from potential to actual motion. My DNA is in motion because enzymes are nudging it from potential to actual motion; and so forth.
But this can’t go on infinitely backward; eventually we have to arrive at the First Nudger (Mover) Which Was Never Nudged To Begin With. Boom, “God”. - Cause That Has No Cause = “God”
Aquinas argues that anything that causes something else must itself have been caused by something else. Again, a concrete example:
I was caused by my parents, who were caused by their parents, who were caused by their parents, and on and on into the history of my family tree and of the world until you get to fishies and polyps and amœbas, I guess.
Who was my first amœbal ancestor? Is “amœbal” even a word? What was the first word, anyway? Sorry. I digress. Anyway, everything that’s caused has a causer, but we can’t follow this infinitely backward either; eventually we have to arrive at the First Causer Which Was Never Caused To Begin With. Boom, “God”.
Bonevac points out what I noted in my own hamfisted way yesterday: the basic structure of Ways 1 & 2 is almost identical: in our world, there are Movers/causes and the Moved/effects. In our universe, everything is an effect with a cause. Nothing can cause itself. I didn’t appear in this world from nothing; I have parents. “Hi, I’m Courtney, and these two people are my Causers.” Awkward, but accurate.
But, says Aquinas, we have to have a First Causer; and because everything in our world has a cause, this means the First Causer has to exist outside of our world (the universe we experience through our senses).
BUT: Bonevac hath critical ponderings to share on this.
Question: Does everything in our world actually have a cause? Or are there random events in our world that happen for no reason at all?
Question: Why can’t we follow the chain of cause and effect back through infinity? Why do we assume this chain must be finite?
If Aquinas thought our questioning categorically must slam into an impenetrable wall of First Cause, I suspect he must not have spent much time around small children, who are fully capable of infinitely “why?”ing their parents into bewildered exhautsion. “Sweetheart, I don’t know why atoms exist.” *rubs forehead* *sobs*
Along with these questions, Bonevac introduces us to Al-Ghazali — Sunni Muslim Persian polymath, jurisconsult, legal theorist, mufti, philosopher, theologian, logician, and mystic. He lived a good hundred years before Aquinas, which goes to show that there’s really naught fresh beneath Sol. Al-Ghazali adds a few more questions.
Question: Why do we assume there can be only one First Cause? Why can’t there be many First Causes outside the universe?
Aquinas doesn’t answer this question.
Question: If there is a First Cause, why should we call that “God”?
Question: If there a First Cause That Is God, what makes us assume that this First Cause is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good?
I can well imagine encountering these challenges 20 years ago and spluttering an indignant but inadequate defense, then shutting down for lack of clarity inside my own head. I didn’t know then that I was doubting not just church practices and Biblical interpretations and translations, but also the nature and very existence of God Godself. My Church of Christ university emphasized Aquinas, especially in those classes meant to train young minds as evangelists, but I don’t recall anyone ever addressing these critiques. If they did, I ignored them in favor of the new-to-me “ready answers” I was learning.
I am rapidly running out of time for writing today, so I need to get to Way 3. Ironically, the one I struggle with the most is the one I’ve left the least time for. I’m sure there’s nothing Freudian about that at all.
3. Necessary Being That Generated All Other Being = “God”
Aquinas says that it’s possible for things both to be and not to be (*cough*HAMLET*cough*), and it’s possible that all the things we experience with our senses (so, the universe) could cease to be, in which case there would be Nothing. (I’m capitalizing because it helps me think.) (Also, I love a Neverending Story reference.) If there is Nothing, then there cannot be Something; Something cannot come from Nothing. Therefore, if ever there was Nothing in the past, then there would still be Nothing now.
BUT: since now there is Something, we can firmly conclude that there has never been Nothing; there has always been Something, and it is a Something That Does Not Depend Upon The Existence Of Something Else. Boom, “God”.
Personally, the only critique of this that I can come up with is that eminent philosopher and sweetness connoisseur Winnie-the-Pooh says the best sort of Something often comes from Nothing. I find this to be a valid counter-argument and will not be taking questions at this time.
Bonevac presents multiple questions and counter-arguments to this Way Nr. 3, but quite frankly, I can’t make sense of what he’s saying. It is so convoluted, I would have to type it all out (it’s a video) and parse it one sentence at a time. Maybe one sentence per day. For the next year.
Uffda. I don’t wanna.
This is now a very lengthy post, and I think it probably shouldn’t get any lengthier. So I’ll leave you with a nice gif and say buh-bye to Kinky Vi for now. XOXO!
