Talk:Five Ways (Aquinas)

Thank you to everyone for not trolling here, however tempting it may be. TimD (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad title

The title is wrong, in latin the numbers are undeclinable.

ivansalgadogarcia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.146.228.143 (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Title change??

Hey I had a really tough time finding a page on the 5 proofs because I was searching in English. Is there a way to make the Title include the English "Five Proofs of Aquinas." Currently wikipedia doesn't even suggest this page if you search in english. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polsky215 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

perhaps an oversimplification

I fear that perhaps this article oversimplifies Thomas' most well-known contribution to philosophy, to the point that ambiguities in the understanding make them quite incomprehensible. Without an understanding of the Aristotelian idea of motion as the "actuality of potency as such" (Coughlin, Physics) the first way does not signify the proper understanding; furthermore, the second and third ways, moving through a similar context, become too ambiguous; and the fourth and fifth ways should not go without at least some understanding, for example, of how the gradation of being implies that the best is a cause, or how the governance of things implies that the designer must be purely in act.

I believe these issues are important principally because I believe the article misrepresents the author, secondly because the words taken at face value are confusing, poorly worded, and generally difficult from which to derive the understanding which Thomas himself presents, and lastly because these ambiguities the wording presents allow the misapplication of the five ways to more frivolous things than that for which Thomas argues. This ought not to go uncorrected, as this is the most important article in the Summa (for without God, there is no sacred doctrine) and perhaps the most important philosophical series of proofs (for it argues for a higher science than philosophy through philosophy itself, as Thomas implies in Question 1.)

I hope that this is of some concern.

TonalHarmony (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreement with TonalHarmony

This article, at the very least, needs more of an introduction, exposition of the arguments, an explanation of each, explanations of difficult terms, links to other exiting Wikipedia articles for positions in Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy, and references to sources, especially web-based ones, that have St. Thomas' writings and other useful helps. As TonalHarmony implies, this section of Summa Theologiae is fundamental to the work as a whole; this difficult subject deserves a clearer introduction.

JohnofStThomas (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

possible clarifying suggestions

Thomas is using the Aristotelian definition of motion, a fact which is apparent from the text of Question 2 of the Summa, where he says "For motion is nothing else but the reduction of potentiality {potency} to actuality {act}." (words in brackets are alternate translations of "potentia" and "actum") (English courtesy of the referenced external link to newadvent.org)

This definition is very controversial, very difficult to understand, disagreed on by most Modernist philosophers, and absolutely essential to understand the five ways. The first amendment I would propose to the body is an explanation of Aristotelian motion, or a reference thereto, because otherwise the five ways become so ambiguous as to become nonsensical in view of their conclusion, which expresses specific and logical statements about what we can know about God. For example:

Aristotle understood motion to be of any sort conceivable: alteration, growth and diminution, and local motion. Descartes, however, in his Principles of Philosophy, disagrees:

"But motion(i.e. local motion, for I can conceive no other kind, and do not consider that we ought to conceive any other in nature), in the vulgar sense, is nothing more than the action by which any body passes from one place to another."

(Descartes, Principles of Philosophy, II 24 - Available on Google Books)

Here Descartes excludes growth and diminution, as well as alteration. But an exclusion of these excludes two senses of being a mover, senses which Thomas includes in what it is to be God. Moreover, insofar as an efficient cause lends the act to the thing having potency, to understand the second way, one needs a true understanding of the first. The third is also thus referenced to the first, for the first necessary being is required to have no potency as part of the argument, in that if a thing is "necessary", it cannot be otherwise, and if it cannot be otherwise, it must be such, and if it must be such, it cannot have potency to any other end.

The fourth and the fifth, while being more intuitive in form, still require the first, because the argument from the more and less good makes the claim that the highest is the "cause" of the lower, referencing the second way, and the argument from governance also requires motion (as the end is prior to the act), causality (as the thing imposing the order is the cause, as the sculptor to the statue), and necessity, since if the being causing and moving is not first, he must also be moved, which is impossible.)

So the first clarification needed is at least a reference to the different understandings of motion. Any thoughts?

TonalHarmony (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

proposed outline for revision

I propose that this whole article be reworked, because right now it is just shabby. Here's my suggested outline.

Introduction - What the Five Ways are (proofs for God's existence purely from natural reason.)

The Five Ways - (Literal quotes. Not explanations by Peter Kreeft, because that is not the actual statement, but an interpretation, and a simplified one at that, which causes many difficulties.)

Philosophical Explanation - (how motion works in terms of act and potency and how it is most manifest, how causality is understood separately from motion and is less manifest than motion, how contingency is understood separately from motion and cause and is less manifest than either, in what way the best is a motive, a cause and first in gradation, and in what way the governor is a motive, a cause and first in governance.)

Prior Articles in Relation to the Ways - (understanding of Question 1 as leading to the need for Question 2)

Relation to the Whole of the Summa - (How the rest of the Summa requires the Five Ways as proving certain things presupposed to the articles of faith)

Objections Thomas Cites - (the problem of evil, whether God is needed to explain nature)

Replies and their Basis in the Five Ways - (how Thomas' answer is rooted in gradation and governance, and thereby in motion, cause and contingency.)

With this outline, I think the article will become more helpful, more encyclopedic, and more descriptive of the intent of the author, rather than appearing much like a badly-written Cliff's Note for the most important part of the Summa.

TonalHarmony (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Fifth Way is _not_ the Argument from Design! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.244.175 (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

I think there is a confusion here for the teleological argument. The writer, in reference to biological life, says that they look "somewhat designed". I think that this a confusing use of the word design. It's used as meaning a plan, a scheme, or a project; what we do before we make things. The word should really be used in what the OED calls “a weaker sense”, to mean purpose, aim, and intention – as in “My design had been to go at once to London”.

Aquinas was definitely talking about purpose, and something that guides natural bodies so they do what he wants.

From this part of Aquinas, the natural bodies might already exist, but something (God) guides them (as it says in the text). He has already argued that God brings things into existence. Myrvin (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This, of course, a mistake in Dawkins Myrvin (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

God according to other Abrahamic faiths

Coming back to the article, there is a somewhat contentious statement that has been interjected in the beginning. Someone saw fit to say that the Five Ways will demonstrate the existence of just any monotheistic, Abrahamic conception of God; while it might be the case that many of these religions have a conception of God that is similar to that of Aquinas, many of these have a lot of philosophical and theological baggage tied in with them. The Baha'i people might deny this on principle but it is what it is. Would it not be better to just lay out the attributes that the Five Ways immediately prove and leave it at that, rather than making cross-theological assertions?

TonalHarmony (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The critical section mentions a "cosmological" argument. It's not clear which of the five arguments is the cosmological one.

Hello, I was just reading through this article and I was confused by the first line in the criticism section. It says that Kant and Hume criticized the "cosmological argument". This is the first time that term appears in this article and it's not clear what the cosmological argument is. Someone should change this so it's more clear which of the five arguments Kant and Hume were critical of. Based on the external link it seems that the cosmological argument is either the argument of the first cause or the argument of the unmoved mover, or a hybrid of the two.

Anyway, some should address that so it's more clear to readers of this article who might not be familiar with the cosmological argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.89.101 (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. 108.243.188.132 (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Excessive quoting

This article contain excessive quotations from the first cited resource. What was wrong with the format that was around a few months ago in which it was not block quotes used, but rather a very simplistic layout to explain each of the arguments, with the main points in a numbered list for each? If anyone else prefered the format I am talking about, perhaps the article should be edited to it. Frindro (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I'm not not sure how to go about it so i'm asking if someone will put the pronunciation of the word at the beginning of the article thankyou

Dawkins' response correctly cited?

"the fifth argument claims the necessity of a designer, considering that biological life looks somewhat designed, whereas evolution by means of natural selection explains its complexity and diversity.[4]"

Is this really what Dawkins wrote? And if so, is it lined up with the right argument? Because that doesn't even address the question. For one thing, Aquinas doesn't actually mention biological life in the argument -- and Aquinas' 'teleological argument' is NOT the same as the Argument from Design in its naive and classic form (i.e. 'Paley's Watch') - it has more to do with the observation of consistency and order in the universe. 165.91.173.228 (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a student of Aquinas, I'm not sure ANY of his arguments match up with those of Aquinas; it's telling, too, that he never ever displays the actual text of Aquinas' Ways. In the course of my education, we've more often regarded Dawkins as a good source of logical (syllogistic) target practice and an example of how the ignorant can say rhetorically convincing things about people's arguments they have quite possibly only read in digest. TonalHarmony (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand the necessity of section called criticism BUT none can find some actual philosopher to counter the st Thomas theory? why you put in that section something so simply low and uneducated? ”Stinker?” that is the counter-argument to st Thomas? Shame…

---

Look folks, the counterarguments to Dawkins may be relevant, but they are not understandable or interesting as currently described. They make no sense. So if you have something understandable and compelling (doesn't need to be correct) then please post. Otherwise hold off.

Introductory passage

Hi every one, it appears to me that the introductory passage needs some amendment on two points: first, the passage whereby "they [the quinque viae] are not meant to be self-sufficient proofs of God's existence" seems to me dubious. What textual evidence is there that Thomas Aquinas did not mean the quinque viae to be self-sufficient proofs of the existence of God? I'm aware that many contemporary philosophers hold that the quinque viae are not self-sufficient proofs - but this does not mean that Thomas himself didn't mean them to be self-sufficient proofs.

Second, the passage saying "special revelation (i.e. religious experience)" - this appears to me to be wrong. Again, many contemporary philosophers and theologians equate the terms "special revelation" and "religious experience", but in St. Thomas' thought, special revelation is contained in Scripture and Tradition / Church teaching. Section 3.1. of the wikipedia article on Thomas Aquinas sums this up well: "Thomas believed that truth is known through reason (natural revelation) and faith (supernatural revelation). Supernatural revelation has its origin in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and is made available through the teaching of the prophets, summed up in Holy Scripture, and transmitted by the Magisterium, the sum of which is called "Tradition"."

What does everybody think? Guardaiinalto (talk) 08:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Should Dawkins be included in this article at all?

The guy is smart. I know that. but when it comes to philosophy, he is about as educated as the average creationist is about evolution. His criticism is based on the abridged five proofs they teach high school kids and all of his objections were presented and refuted by Aquinas in the Summa itself 1000 years ago. Surely there is a better person, like an actual philosopher, to be listed as an expert in the criticism section.Farsight001 (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)