Thomas Aquinas's Criticisms of the View That God's Existence is Self-Evident - Essay Example

Philosophy March 25, Topic: Discuss Thomas Aquinass criticisms of the view that Gods existence is self-evident. The Existence of God: Theories of Thomas Aquinas and St. Anselm Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican Monk (1225-1274) has argued two theories for the non-existence of God with inherent contradiction. The first one is God according to him is infinite goodness. The conclusion he draws from this is if God truly exists, evil has no place. Since evil is in its place, therefore, there is no God. This argument looks simple and straightforward to me. How an imperfect and corrupt world emerges out of that infinite goodness of God. If God is there, how does he permit evil to attack each and every segment of humankind in this world? Poverty, starvation deaths, mindless violence and bloodshed in wars, untimely deaths of the loved ones and many such happenings that engulf humankind are highly unreasonable. The contents of Bible are revelations of God. The book, in totality, is meant to be the word of God. The revelations condemn negativities like theft, murder and adultery. It is hard to believe that the all-powerful, the infinite good being, the all-knowing God can permit such things to happen. Not only condemn through the book, He needs to abolish them altogether and control all sorts of evil. If God is the “heavenly father,” why should He make his children suffer and why is He reluctant to weed out evil from the face of this earth? The second theory of Aquinas is, apart from the God-principle, there are alternative principles that account for everything we see in the world outside, supposing that God does not exist. The seemingly different principles can be clubbed into one principle, that of nature and therefore it is not necessary to argue for God’s existence. This rationale of Aquinas is amenable for reasoning and therefore is acceptable. This is simple, measurable and visible and looks to be principle of nature without any fallacy. Assumption of the existence of God is a complex proposition, one is unable to see His presence, and He is not measurable and is inconceivable as well Nature accounts for gradual development of mankind and even other species and it is proved by scientific theories of existence and functioning of nature. Planet Earth has come into existence as explained in the “The Big Bang” theory and the development of human being from a unicellular organism to multi-cellular one is explained by science. I am in agreement with both the theories of Aquinas and therefore disbelieve the existence of God. Mere imagination cannot be the proof for existence; faith also cannot offer the proof for God’s existence. Aquinas elucidates the merits of the opposite of his earlier stance and tenders five arguments for the existence of God. One: “The Argument From Change.” Aquinas takes recourse to the “theories of motion.” “Motion exists in” this world and that “is caused by” some other source and therefore the present motion needs to be explained by an original cause of the motion and he is God. The implied meaning of motion is life. “For it is impossible for something with potentiality for motion, to advance itself to actuality of motion.” Two: “The Argument From Causation.” As per this theory Aquinas relies on the theory of Causation “for the existence of God.” We are aware that the cause of something is some other thing. It is not possible “for something to cause itself.” For the progression of anything—man or nature—to infinity, the cause needs to be found elsewhere. If one negates the “first cause (God)” effect is inconceivable. “We do exist and” are in the process of treading to infinity and there must be the first power, God, which humanity strives to identify and discover as God. Three: “The Argument From Contingency.” In this argument his focus is “on the factor of Contingency.” He argues that something “in the Universe” has the capacity to exist and not to exist “but it is absurd to assume” that all things fall into this category. The extension of this argument is “there must have been a time when nothing existed” and if it were so, “there would be nothing in” desistence now, for one “cannot bring about” one’s own existence. So, there needs to “be an outside source, something that depends on nothing else—God.” Four: “Degrees of Excellence.” The things that we assume to be “good, noble etc.” are so according to varying degrees. The basis of such comparison is with reference to a particular specified “reference point. There needs to be something absolute as for “these comparisons and” that comparison can be from “the highest degree” to all other “lower levels of” good or any other specific issue comparable. “There must be some cause of being, (existing) and goodness and perfection we call God.” Five: “The Argument From Harmony.” This argument is based “on the possession of knowledge and” the things that are deficient in “knowledge work towards” that knowledge-acquiring goal. “People reach their goals” not by change but with constant efforts. There must be something that possesses infinite knowledge which directs the seeker towards that goal. The possessor of that total knowledge is God. St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument: St. Anselm’s elucidation about “the ontological argument” is recorded “in his Proslogium, Chapter II.” The argument is explained through reduction ad absurdum, “it takes a hypothesis, and” indicates “that it has absurd or otherwise unacceptable implications and” therefore the conclusion is that “the hypothesis is false.” The cited hypothesis is “God does not exist.” Anselm’s argument is based “upon the conception of God as “that than which no greater can be conceived”. It is this conception of God with which the hypothesis that God does not exist is supposed to conflict.” “If God is that than which no greater can be conceived, Anselm argues, then nothing can be imagined that is greater than God. If God does not exist, though, then something can be imagined that is greater than God, namely a God that does exist.” “The hypothesis that God does not exist thus seems to give rise to a logical absurdity: that there both is and is not something that can be imagined that is greater than God. There is, because it’s possible to imagine a God that does exist.” There isn’t, because “it’s impossible to imagine something greater than the greatest thing imaginable.” “A hypothesis that gives rise to a logical absurdity, though, must be false. The hypothesis that God does not exist, therefore, is false; God exists.” Anselm’s Ontological Argument can be constructed thus: “(1) God is that than which no greater can be conceived. (2) If God is that than which no greater can be conceived then there is nothing greater than God that can be imagined. Therefore: (3) There is nothing greater than God that can be imagined. (4) If God does not exist then there is something greater than God that can be imagined. Therefore: (5) God exists.” I take proof number 1, The Argument From Change by Aquinas to show how his approach to proving God’s existence differs from Anselm’s. Anselm’s Ontological Argument takes “the form of a” reduction ad absurdum, meaning thereby “it takes a hypothesis,” indicates “that it has absurd or otherwise unacceptable implications and” therefore the conclusion is “that the hypothesis is false.” This is more of a logical posture and can be refuted with an equally powerful logical argument. The very basis of his argument is a hypothesis. Aquinas takes a scientific posture that can be proved by any one by following the prescribed procedure. As a student of Physics, I have studied the theories of motion, Bing Bang theory and theories related to the evolution of man. The theory of motion holds valid for all times, it is in place since millions of years, which has led to the prevailing conditions at present. So Aquinas is more perfect than Anselm. For perfect understanding of theory of motion, one need to understand theory of action and reaction in its proper perspective and its summing up is: Every action has the reaction and the intensity of the reaction is in proportion to the intensity of the action; over which no dispute exists between the scientists and the philosophers. Destiny of an individual not static, it is ever in motion. It has two movements, the forward movement and the lateral movement. Forward movement is that movement over which an individual has no control, that movement/motion arrives with him by birth. That is to say, one is part of that motion from the moment of birth. For example, gas (petrol, diesel) in a car is compared to the forward movement. Without the energy the car cannot move, howsoever costly it may be and whatever is the model. Lateral movement is in the hands of the one who drives the car. He can take it on the highway, through a lane, regulate its speed, and can land in a ditch through negligence. Therefore, one who relies on the theory of motion has to believe in destiny and that belief leads to the controller of the destiny—God. Anselm soft-pedals on the issue for proving the existence of God and his sole reliance is on the hypothesis. His argument does not possess the intrinsic strength of passing through the scientific verification. Understanding the Ontological Argument: My views about the position taken by Aquinas and Anselm: Both the philosophers are mind-level philosophers, and the differences in their positions are one of arguments and counter arguments. God is elsewhere and he is beyond all sorts of arguments. Both of them are aware of the limitations of the mind. How can mind comprehend a power that is beyond the scope of the mind? It is as good as to make efforts to stall the advancing avalanche with a fence of straw; or construct a paper dam to store the waters of an ocean! Whatever they argue is correct from the level of the progression of their minds, but they are far from comprehending what the Truth (God) is! Truth needs to be experienced in the inner world of an individual and processes to reach that goal is available in the scriptures of each and every religion as revealed by the Perfect Masters and Prophets. Both the philosophers stand at the mouth of the cave and argue about its length and in the darkness that envelops the cave, nothing is visible to them and therefore they indulge in guesswork. But the inquisitive one, begins to walk through the cave with the torch in his hand, and discovers/experiences the cave! Conclusion: To sum up, scientific approach is the hallmark of Aquino’s arguments whereas Anselm’s approach is speculative. Aquinas is willing to move forward, Anselm stumbles at a particular place and gropes in the dark, unable to fathom the direction in which to go. Aquinas considers both sides of the argument and that is the hallmark of his approach for the investigation of God. Read More