The Argument Atheists Always Get Wrong

Summary

The video script delves into a nuanced exploration of Thomas Aquinas's famous 'Five Ways', commonly misconstrued by atheists. The speaker, an atheist themselves, emphasizes the importance of understanding theistic arguments on their own terms rather than through straw man fallacies. The summary of each of Aquinas's arguments reflects an Aristotelian framework, discussing concepts like motion, causation, contingency, transcendental properties, and final causes. The speaker encourages atheists to engage with these arguments honestly, considering the metaphysical and philosophical underpinnings that Aquinas and his contemporaries would have found compelling. The goal is not to convert but to foster intellectual rigor and ensure that atheism is based on a well-grounded critique rather than a misrepresentation of theistic positions.

Takeaways

• 📚 The speaker expresses frustration with atheists misunderstanding theistic arguments, particularly those of Thomas Aquinas, and encourages a deeper understanding before disagreement.
• 🧐 Aquinas's Five Ways are often misinterpreted; the speaker aims to clarify these arguments to foster more informed atheist perspectives.
• 🔄 The First Way, or the argument from motion, is not about a linear chain of causes but rather a hierarchical chain of dependencies that culminate in a being of pure actuality, which Aquinas identifies as God.
• 🔗 The Second Way, concerning causality, is not about a first cause but about the existence of a being that is the endpoint of all physical explanation, grounding the continuous causal chains of the universe.
• 🌐 The Third Way revolves around the concepts of contingency and necessity, proposing that there must be a being that exists necessarily in itself, as everything else is contingent and could cease to exist.
• 📈 The Fourth Way discusses transcendental properties and the ontological hierarchy, suggesting that the maximal points of these properties converge towards a being that is pure actuality and at the apex of the hierarchy, which is identified as God.
• 🎯 The Fifth Way is not a simple argument for intelligent design but delves into the Aristotelian concept of final causes and the need for an unchanging being to ground causal regularity, which Aquinas equates with God.
• 🤔 The speaker challenges atheists to engage with Aquinas's arguments on their own terms, rather than through misrepresentation, to maintain intellectual honesty.
• 🚫 The script warns against dismissing Aquinas's arguments without proper consideration, emphasizing the importance of understanding the metaphysical context in which they were made.
• 🤓 Aquinas's arguments are presented as a starting point for carving out the space in which God could exist, with further works by Aquinas characterizing the attributes of God.
• 💡 The discussion invites atheists to ponder deeper questions about explanation, metaphysics, and the nature of reality, encouraging an open-minded exploration of complex philosophical ideas.

Q & A

What is the main point of contention the author has with atheists' understanding of theistic arguments?

The author is frustrated that many atheists fundamentally misunderstand the arguments for God's existence, often caricaturing the positions of various thinkers and declaring the debate over without addressing the genuine reasons someone might believe in God.

What is the first of Thomas Aquinas's arguments often called?

The first of Thomas Aquinas's arguments is often called the argument from motion.

How does Aristotle's concept of change relate to Aquinas's first argument?

Aquinas's first argument is rooted in Aristotle's concept of change, which involves the transformation from potential to actual. Aquinas explores this concept to argue for a being that has no potentiality and is purely actual, which he identifies as God.

What is the misunderstanding regarding Aquinas's 'first cause' argument?

The misunderstanding is that Aquinas is arguing for a first cause that started everything, similar to a domino effect. However, Aquinas is actually discussing a hierarchical or chain of dependence, not a linear causation, and he is not necessarily arguing against the possibility of an infinite regress of causes.

What does Aquinas mean by 'contingent' in his third way?

In Aquinas's third way, 'contingent' refers to things that will cease to exist on a long enough time frame or will degenerate over time. He argues that if everything were contingent, then at some point, nothing would have existed, which leads to the necessity of a being whose existence does not depend on anything else.

How does Aquinas's fourth way differ from a simple argument for intelligent design?

Aquinas's fourth way is not a straightforward argument for intelligent design. Instead, it focuses on the transcendental properties and the ontological hierarchy of being. It argues that certain properties like goodness and truth can only be understood by their resemblance to an Exemplar, which Aquinas identifies as God.

What is the key concept in Aristotle's metaphysics that Aquinas uses in his fifth way?

The key concept is the idea of a final cause, which is the purpose or end towards which a thing tends. Aquinas argues that the regularity of causes requires an unchanging entity, which contains all final causes, and he identifies this entity as God.

Why does the author believe atheists should engage with Aquinas's arguments?

The author believes atheists should engage with Aquinas's arguments to ensure their unbelief is based on a genuine understanding of theistic arguments. This intellectual honesty can lead to a more meaningful debate and a deeper exploration of the nature of existence and metaphysics.

What is the importance of understanding the metaphysical assumptions underlying Aquinas's arguments?

Understanding the metaphysical assumptions is crucial because it allows for a more accurate critique of Aquinas's arguments. It prevents the dismissal of his arguments based on modern metaphysical views that Aquinas did not hold, and it promotes a fair and informed discussion about the nature of God and existence.

How does the author suggest atheists might respond to Aquinas's arguments?

The author suggests that atheists might respond by targeting the specific metaphysical assumptions of Aquinas's arguments, considering non-theistic metaphysical ideas, or by arguing that theistic explanations are not genuinely explanatory based on a rigorous philosophical understanding of what constitutes an explanation.

What is the significance of Aquinas's arguments in the broader context of philosophical discourse?

Aquinas's arguments are significant because they raise important questions about the nature of explanation, the role of metaphysics, and the existence of abstract entities. They challenge both theists and atheists to consider what requires explanation and what constitutes a satisfactory metaphysical grounding.

Why does the author argue that Aquinas's 'Five Ways' do not provide a meaningful characterization of the Christian God?

The author argues that Aquinas's 'Five Ways' are more about establishing the possibility of God's existence rather than describing the attributes of the Christian God. Aquinas provides further characterization of God in subsequent sections of the 'Summa Theologica,' so criticizing the 'Five Ways' for lack of characterization is akin to misjudging the purpose of these arguments.

Outlines

00:00

😀 Misunderstanding Theistic Arguments

The speaker expresses frustration over atheists' common misinterpretation of theistic arguments, particularly those of Thomas Aquinas. They emphasize the importance of understanding these arguments genuinely to have a meaningful debate. The paragraph introduces Thomas Aquinas's Five Ways, which are foundational arguments for the existence of God, and the speaker's intent to clarify their meanings, drawing on the work of Edward Feser and Gavin Kerr. The argument from motion is discussed, with the speaker explaining that it is not about physical movement but rather change in the Aristotelian sense, which is actualized potential. The paragraph concludes by inviting atheists to engage with Aquinas's arguments with an open mind.

05:00

🤔 The First Cause Argument Revisited

The paragraph addresses the common misrepresentation of Aquinas's First Cause argument, which is often oversimplified as a domino effect of causes leading to a First Cause, identified as God. The speaker clarifies that Aquinas's argument is more nuanced, involving linear and hierarchical causation. They explain that Aquinas's argument is not about a temporal sequence of causes but rather a foundational explanation for the existence and properties of things. The paragraph also discusses potential criticisms of Aquinas's argument, including the rejection of an infinite regress and the possibility of physical laws or mathematical truths grounding existence without a need for a divine explanation.

10:01

🧐 Contingency and Necessity in Aquinas's Third Way

The speaker delves into Aquinas's Third Way, which deals with the concepts of contingency and necessity. They clarify that Aquinas views the world as contingent, meaning that things will eventually cease to exist or degrade over time. The argument posits that if everything were contingent, at some point in the past, there would have been nothing. Therefore, there must be a Necessary Being that exists in itself, not dependent on anything else, to avoid a destructive cascade leading to nothingness. This Necessary Being is identified as God. The speaker suggests that criticisms of this argument should focus on the idea of ontological dependence rather than a linear causal chain.

15:02

📏 Transcendental Properties and Hierarchies of Being

The speaker introduces Aquinas's Fourth Way, which is grounded in the idea of transcendental properties and hierarchies of being. They explain that properties like oneness, goodness, and truth are transcendentals that are understood by their resemblance to an Exemplar, similar to Plato's forms. The paragraph discusses the concept of a maximally good being, which serves as the Exemplar for all goodness, and how this relates to the ontological hierarchy, with God at the apex. The speaker also touches on potential criticisms, such as the argument's abstract nature and the possibility of alternative metaphysical explanations for the observed order in the universe.

20:03

🔍 Causal Reliability and Final Causes

The paragraph discusses Aquinas's Fifth Way, which is often misunderstood as an argument for intelligent design. However, the speaker clarifies that Aquinas is actually focusing on the concept of causal reliability and final causes, as described by Aristotle. They explain that final causes are the purposes or ends towards which things tend, and that these causes require an unchanging foundation to maintain the regularity of causes in the universe. This foundation is identified as God, who contains all final causes as abstract ideas. The speaker acknowledges that this argument is complex and may not resonate with modern sensibilities but encourages understanding it within its historical and philosophical context.

25:03

🤨 Engaging with Theistic Arguments as Atheists

The speaker, identifying as an agnostic atheist, encourages atheists to engage with Aquinas's arguments as they actually exist, rather than with parodic versions that are easier to refute. They argue that atheism should be based on a love of truth and a genuine understanding of opposing viewpoints. The paragraph raises questions about what constitutes a satisfactory explanation, the role of metaphysics in an atheist worldview, and whether physical existence requires a metaphysical grounding. The speaker concludes by urging atheists to confront theistic arguments head-on to expand their understanding and ensure their skepticism is well-founded.

Keywords

💡Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas was a 13th-century Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, and theologian. He is famous for his philosophical and theological works, including the 'Five Ways', which are arguments for the existence of God. In the video, Aquinas's ideas are central to the discussion, and the speaker aims to clarify common misunderstandings about his arguments.

💡Aristotle

Aristotle was a Greek philosopher and scientist, whose works have influenced Western philosophy extensively. He is mentioned in the video as Aquinas's philosophical predecessor, whose concepts of 'potentiality' and 'actuality' are foundational to Aquinas's arguments. Aristotle's ideas about change and causation are used to understand Aquinas's perspective on the nature of God.

💡Five Ways

The 'Five Ways' refer to Aquinas's five arguments for the existence of God, as presented in his work 'Summa Theologica'. The video discusses these arguments, emphasizing the need to understand them within their original metaphysical context rather than through modern misunderstandings. Each way represents a different philosophical path to the concept of God.

💡Actuality and Potentiality

These terms are central to Aristotle's and Aquinas's philosophy. 'Actuality' refers to the state of being real or existing, while 'potentiality' is the possibility of something becoming actual. In the video, Aquinas uses these concepts to argue that there must be an uncaused cause or a being with no potentiality, which is God.

💡Contingent and Necessary

Contingent, in Aquinas's view, refers to things that could cease to exist, while 'necessary' refers to something that does not depend on anything else for its existence. The video explains that Aquinas argues for a necessary being that exists eternally and independently, which he identifies as God.

💡Transcendental Properties

Transcendental properties, as discussed in the video, are characteristics like goodness, truth, and being that Aquinas believed could only be understood by their resemblance to an exemplar or perfect form. This concept is part of Aquinas's Fourth Way, which argues for the existence of a maximally good being, identified as God.

💡Ontological Hierarchy

The ontological hierarchy is a concept from Aristotle and Aquinas that ranks different types of beings according to their degree of reality or existence. In the video, it is used to describe a scale from inanimate objects to pure intellectual beings, with God at the apex as the ultimate reality.

💡Final Cause

In Aristotelian philosophy, a 'final cause' is the purpose or end towards which a thing tends. Aquinas uses this concept in his Fifth Way to argue that the regularity and purposefulness observed in nature imply the existence of a designer or God, who contains all final causes.

💡Causal Regularity

Causal regularity refers to the consistent and predictable relationships between cause and effect. In the video, Aquinas's argument is interpreted as an attempt to explain why these relationships are so reliable, suggesting that they are grounded in God's unchanging nature.

💡Intelligent Design

Intelligent design is a concept often associated with theistic arguments for the existence of God, suggesting that the complexity and order in the universe imply a designer. However, the video clarifies that Aquinas's Fifth Way is more nuanced and focuses on final causes and causal reliability rather than a simplistic design argument.

💡Atheist Perspective

The video encourages atheists to engage with theistic arguments, not to adopt belief but to ensure their skepticism is well-founded and based on an understanding of the actual arguments. It suggests that this engagement can lead to interesting questions and a deeper understanding of philosophical issues related to metaphysics and explanation.

Highlights

Atheists often misunderstand the arguments for God's existence, including those by theologians like Thomas Aquinas.

Thomas Aquinas's five ways, found in 'Summa Theologica', are frequently misinterpreted and require a nuanced understanding.

Aquinas's first argument from motion is not about a linear chain of causes but rather a chain of ontological dependence.

Aristotelian metaphysics is foundational to understanding Aquinas's perspective on change and potential.

The second way, often misinterpreted as a first cause argument, actually deals with hierarchical causation and the concept of God as the endpoint of physical explanation.

Aquinas rejects the idea that the universe must have a first cause in terms of linear causation, aligning with some atheistic views.

The third way explores the concepts of contingency and necessity, aiming to identify a being whose existence does not depend on anything else.

Aquinas's arguments are not meant to provide a detailed characterization of God but rather to establish a metaphysical space where God could exist.

The fourth way delves into transcendental properties and hierarchies of being, drawing on Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy.

Aquinas's fifth and final way is not an argument from intelligent design but rather an exploration of causal reliability and final causes.

Aristotle's four types of causes (material, formal, efficient, and final) are central to understanding Aquinas's fifth way.

Aquinas posits that God contains all final causes and is the metaphysical ground for causal regularity.

Critics can challenge Aquinas's arguments by questioning the need for a metaphysical explanation of causal regularity or by denying the concept of final causes.

Atheists are encouraged to engage with theistic arguments as they actually exist, rather than relying on simplified or misinterpreted versions.

Aquinas's arguments raise important questions for atheists about what constitutes an explanation and the role of metaphysics in understanding the world.

The video concludes by emphasizing the importance of intellectual honesty and curiosity in exploring complex philosophical questions related to theism.

Transcripts

out of all of the great theologians

there is one that atheists tend to

completely misunderstand the Angelic

doctor himself sent Thomas ainus I'm

going to put my cards on the table I am

somewhat frustrated because despite not

having faith myself I often look around

and see my fellow unbelievers

fundamentally misunderstanding many of

the arguments for God's existence

there's this unsettling tendency to

caricature the positions of various

thinkers and then declare the debate

over and the battle won while leaving

the genuine reasons someone might

believe in God completely untouched this

is a fine thing if you want to Simply

argue for atheism but I think most of us

would like our unbelief to be based on a

genuine understanding of theistic

arguments so that we can disagree with

real thinkers rather than their straw

Replacements after all if it turns out

that there was good reason to believe in

God I'd want to know about it and

perhaps no set of theological arguments

has been more misinterpreted and

butchered than Thomas aquinas's five

ways these are found at the beginning of

his Landmark text Summa theologica or

Summa theolog as some people call it

here aquinus sets out what he takes to

be the best reasons for belief in the

Divine and a lot of arguments today

remain variations on these toist

Originals get ready to learn the

multiple meanings of the word cause why

God has no potential and so much more

and if like myself you are an atheist I

really do encourage you to bear this

barage of Friendly Fire and stick around

till the end chances are you are a

non-believer because you genuinely care

about the truth and think that a belief

in God is false and if so we can

continue this Spirit of intellectual

honesty and curiosity to discover what

aquinus was actually getting at with his

famous propositions I also want to

clarify that basically none of what I'm

going to say is particularly original

I'm only restating what genuine toas

philosophers have said probably

thousands of times now I want to

particularly give a shout out to the

work of Edward faser and Gavin Kerr as

they've been phenomenally helpful in

preparing for this video additionally

even here I've had to make certain

simplifications of aquinus arguments

just to make them f into a sensible

video length as always I don't know

everything think critically and make up

your own mind but without further Ado

let's get stuck in one he likes to move

it move it the first of aquinus

arguments is often called the argument

from motion and this is where most

presentations begin constructing straw

aquinus instead the most common way I

see people explain this argument is to

point to Motion in the world and say

that everything is set in motion by

something else so there must have been

something to set off this movement and

we call this God in my opinion this

understanding sets off on the wrong foot

because it fails to recognize what Aus

actually means by motion to understand

where he is coming from we need to LEAP

a thousand or so years earlier and look

at the works of arch polymath Aristotle

Aristotle wanted to understand the

concept of change we often take this for

granted but have you ever stopped to

consider how weird change is take my cup

of tea for example at the moment it is

sitting on my desk holding a very tasty

English breakfast concoction but if I

were to drop it it would immediately

shatter spilling tea all over the floor

the cup has gone from being whole to

being broken but Aristotle thought that

this seem strange there was not a broken

thing before but now there is a broken

thing the Brokenness cannot come from

nothing so what explains this according

to the great Greek the cup was actually

whole but potentially broken however in

order for that potential to be

actualized it needed to encounter a

further actual property of another

object in order for the change to occur

the mere potential hardness of the floor

could not change the up from hold to

broken but the actual hardness of the

floor definitely could I would

demonstrate but I I want to get the

deposit back on my flat what aquinus

asks us is where this interlocking chain

of potentials becoming actual ends up

sometimes this is presented as a type of

causal argument but I think it's better

thought of as a chain of dependence or

explanation imagine we're having a

conversation and you ask why is the

potentiality of the broken cup

actualized I say it was because of the

actual hardness of the floor then you

say why was the floor actually hard and

not just potential hard then I say

because it potential property of

hardness was actualized when the Builder

constructed it out of a hard material

aquinus idea is that if you trace these

dependence relations back again and

again and again you will eventually find

something that has no potentiality at

all but is merely actual that is it does

not depend on anything else for its

existence such a thing would have to

have no beginning since if it began that

would imply that it was once potential

and our whole idea would have gone

nowhere it also can't undergo change

since if it changed that would imply

that it once had a potential property

that is now actual begging the question

of what actualized it this thing that

never changes and doesn't have a

beginning certainly sounds something

plausibly Godlike hence aquinus is

conclusion that this is what we call God

here defined as something that has no

potential or potency but is merely

actual pure acts to borrow a phrase now

we may still disagree with this in a

number of ways I imagine most people

myself included now conceive of change

fundamentally differently to Aristotle

and might want to reject the

metaphysical significance of this

division between potential and actual

qualities they might argue that the

metaphysically loaded notion of change

that Aristotle appeals to is mistaken we

might instead follow Hume and propose

that there is simply a sequence of

events with subsequent relations and

change emerges from that by observed

patterns if we were a bit more

metaphysical about it we might say that

there are bare actualities but these are

not theistic but instead platonic or

something like that obviously I can't go

through the whole metaphysics of change

and potential here but my general point

is this aquinus is not an idiot he's not

making a silly argument and given the

Aristotelian metaphysics he is working

in it's actually a brilliant one most of

us now see metaphysics fundamentally

differently to how aquinus saw it in the

13th century this is absolutely fine I

view metaphysics very differently to

either Aristotle or aquinus or Plato but

this argument does not deserve

off-handed dismissal but an honest

engagement with its presuppositions and

this is far from the most misunderstood

of aquinus is five ways the worst is

very much yet to come if you want to

help me make more videos like this then

consider subscribing to my channel my

email list or my patreon the links are

in the description two why just cause

this argument is one that it seems

almost everyone ends up misrepresenting

in a way that seems trivial at first but

leads to profound confusion later down

the line initially I'm going to go over

what I think is the mistaken version and

then State what I take ainus as actually

saying this is often referred to as the

first cause argument and the way most

people present it is that ainus is

pointing out that everything has a cause

stretching right back to the beginning

of the universe like a set of dominoes

then since there can't be an infinite

regress of causes that means there must

be a first cause to kick it all off and

we call that cause God of course in this

presentation the argument is almost

self-refuting it says that everything

has a cause and then says there must be

a first uncaused cause ladies and

gentlemen we got him let's pack up and

go home the trouble is this is very

different from what aquinus meant to say

aquinus held that there was a

distinction between linear causation and

hierarchical causation or a cause per

accidents and a cause per se let's

illustrate with an example imagine that

I made a this would be a clear case of

linear causation I constructed the pot

but now it exists independently of me if

I were to spontaneously combust my

lovely pot would still remain but we

could also ask why does the pot still

exist well because of the properties of

its construction the forces are

distributed such that they balance out

into this structure if the forces were

to change then the pot would collapse

but why don't the forces change well

because of fundamental facts about the

laws of physics that I am woefully

unqualified to talk about and won't even

pretend to understand but if those laws

were to fall apart then so would the pot

right says aquinus but what is grounding

those laws the idea is that there must

be some ends to this chain of

dependencies and we call this thing God

here we also gain a fundamental property

that God is meant to have he's supposed

to be the end point of physical

explanation much like how a foundation

keeps a house stable aquinus as God is

what explains the continuous

hierarchical causal chains that keep our

universe together if we were to deny

that something grounds this chain of

dependence then we'd give into an

infinite regress which seems like it

can't really hold in this case or as one

of my friends put it just because you

have an infinitely long ladder doesn't

mean that it will stand up by itself

without the aid of the ground in fact

elsewhere aquinus rejects the

stereotypical first argument when it

relates to linear causation and funnily

enough he does this for the exact same

reason many atheists do in his book

against the unbelievers or Summa Contra

Gentiles he criticizes the arguments

that if we were to trace back causes to

the beginning of the universe we must

have something that explains why it has

all been started aquinus says there is

no philosophic iCal reason to believe

that the Universe has not always existed

in some form and if so that would be

perfectly sufficient to ground linear

causality in practice he does believe

the world had a beginning but because of

the Book of Genesis rather than any

reason of natural theology this is

actually quite similar to what some

atheists like myself say when we argue

that asking what came before existence

is sort of silly it could be that things

have always existed as long as time has

existed or indeed that the notion of

time depends on the existence of

physical things again there are

definitely critic criticisms you can

make of aquinus here if you say that the

continued existence of things is

explained by the laws of physics then

you could point out that these in turn

are grounded in mathematics so if you

are a certain version of platonist about

mathematics you can say that this is

explained by the existence of Eternal

facts in a mathematical realm you could

also Deni that the laws of physics

themselves depend on something further

for their unchanging existence saying

that if they changed then they would no

longer be laws but instead fible

regularities you could say that physical

laws are the end point of all physical

explanation and then deny that they need

to be grounded further in metaphysical

explanation you might claim that the

idea of God does not really explain

anything here perhaps the only real type

of explanation is one that increases our

understanding of how to intervene with

things and since God by his very nature

cannot be intervened with we can't

change him in any way then his existence

is not actually explanatory but is

instead an unnecessary further step

based on unfounded metaphysical worries

again my point is not that aquin's

arguments are Beyond reproach if I

thought that then I would have to no

longer be an atheist but I think it is

important to understand exactly what

aquinus is saying we have to engage with

the argument on its own terms and

criticize a relevant premise rather than

attempting to catch it out by

misrepresenting it but now on to the

Third Way where we encounter ever more

terminological confusions three is that

really necessary the third of aquinus

ways is all about the ideas of

contingency and necessity and once again

we have to bear in mind that aquinus

does not mean contingency in the sense

of could be false instead his definition

of contingency is will cease to exist on

a long enough time frame or will

degenerate over time so take me for

instance I am here today but one day I

will die and then I will no longer exist

at least my body certainly won't exist

we can all agree on that this is true

for pretty much all physical things my

desk is contingent and so is my chair

and so on and so forth but aquinus says

that if everything were contingent in

the sense of having an end point then

there must have been some time where

nothing existed since on a long enough

time frame everything would reach its

allotted end he places this long enough

time frame in the past because in his

view one of the dominant views of the

unbelievers of his time period is that

time stretched infinitely far into the

past it makes more sense in context

likewise if everything physical seems to

have a beginning then there was at some

point where there was nothing physical

and then the physical came to be but

what is metaphysically grounding all of

this temporally contingent stuff well

according to aquinus it's got to be the

sort of thing that doesn't have a

beginning or an end this is what he

means by necessary to clarify this is

very different to asking what came

before for the big bang after this

aquinus wants to ask what is the sort of

thing that is necessary in itself

because adding an extra complication

into the mix aquinus thinks that beings

like angels are necessary in this sense

of being Eternal but that they are only

able to be Eternal because of their

dependence on something else this is

sometimes called derived necessity then

again tracing this derivation up the

chain we will eventually reach something

that cannot even in principle degenerate

that is something that is eternal under

its own steam this once again must be a

being of pure actuality since having

potential implies the idea of change

which could imply the idea of eventual

non-existence that is degeneration this

pure actuality is then what we call God

according to aquinus to give a slightly

simpler but less wordy version of this

argument we could interpret aquinus as

saying something along the lines of why

is there something rather than nothing

after all everything we observe existing

is contingent on the existence of

something else before it we know this

because things genuinely do cease to

exist when the stuff they are dependent

on stops working like when I cease to

exist when my heart stops working so

tracing this argument up the hierarchy

there must be a being whose existence

does not depend on anything else or else

the destructive Cascade will flow

downwards until nothing existed it would

make sense for this being to not be

physical because that would let it be

Eternal and because we know that

physical things do depend on other

things for their existence so whatever

this Foundation is it has to be

something that is beyond the physical

exists within itself and is eternal and

aquinus says we call this thing God by

now you're probably getting the idea of

what aquinus is driving at with these

three particular arguments and how they

can be misinterpreted in each case

aquinus is not positing some linear

chain but instead a chain of hierarchy

or dependence any atheist criticism of

aquinus must Target this idea rather

than the linear version otherwise we've

just missed the mark entirely and I hope

I've presented some ways one might want

to do this we can either posit some

physical thing or law that is unreliant

on something else turn to a metaphysical

idea that is nonetheless non-theistic

like a platonistic worldview or we can

deny that the type of theistic

explanation aquinus offers is really

explanatory basing this on a

philosophically rigorous and defensible

idea of what it takes to explain

something the key idea is that when we

think about these first three turistic

arguments we must interpret terms like

motion or cause or contingency as

something more like ontological

dependence rather than unconsciously

kidnapping aquinus from 13th century

Europe and acting as if he was arguing

in our own time with our own

metaphysical assumptions already in

place any objection has got to be

directed at what aquinus actually said

rather than what we hope he might have

said it is also a common talking point

that arguments like aquinas's first

three ways do not characterize God in

any meaningful sense this Grand

metaphysical grounder does not look like

the Christian God but it's worth noting

this is not what aquinus is trying to do

with these arguments in fact there are

hundreds of pages directly after this

section of the sum theologica where he

does just this he goes into arguments

for each of God's Divine attributes we

can think of aquinus as five ways and

these three in particular more like

carving out the space in which God could

then exist and be characterized if we

condemn them on the basis that they

don't characterize God as well then it's

a bit like having a go at a fish for its

inability to fly but now we must move on

to discussing aquinus is Fourth Way

which has generated its own sphere of

controversy for perfectly understandable

reasons four Perfection goodness and

Plato despite us having one more

argument to go I actually wrote this

section last because personally I find

aquinus is Fourth Way the hardest to

Grapple with you really do need to get

inside the head of a third 13th century

philosopher to understand it and that's

no easy task so first of all we need to

grasp two key ideas transcendental

properties and hierarchies of being I am

going to simplify here but essentially

for ainus certain properties like being

Oneness goodness and Truth were

transcendentals one way to understand

how these properties are different from

others is that aquinus thinks they can

only be understood by their resemblance

to some Exemplar so being is really

cached out as resemblance to some

Exemplar version of something this is a

bit similar to how play thought the

forms worked an equilateral triangle is

only an equilateral triangle in as much

as it resembles the abstract idea of the

perfect equilateral triangle which has

only the essential properties of an

equilateral triangle and nothing else

try saying that 10 times in less

abstract terms we would say that an

individual triangle is more or less like

the form of the triangle without the

Exemplar of maximal triangl how would we

make sense of the fact that individual

triangles are all examples of some

grander thing metaphysically speaking

obviously you can account for it

psychologically using pattern

recognition would then explain why some

properties of a triangle are essential

like its three- sidedness while some are

inessential like the fact that it's

drawn with a pen and ainus thinks that

goodness or Perfection is defined in

terms of a resemblance to a maximally

good point for those of you familiar

with Aristotle or Plato this will start

to ring bells underlying this argument

is the idea of te logical virtue the

notion that something is good in virtue

of how it fulfills its purpose so a good

knife is one that cuts well and a good

person for Aristotle is one that employs

its reason well if you if you abstract

away from all of this you have a

definition of good that literally means

something like resemblance to an

Exemplar you can also see through this

argument how the maximal points of all

of the transcendental properties will

all equal God in the same sort of way

again this is a difficult argument to

get your head around I'm sure that I

don't totally understand it also in the

background of this argument is that

conception of ontological hierarchy

which has a distinctively Greek flavor

for instance aquinus says that the

lowest rung on the ontological hierarchy

is held by inanimate objects which have

physical capabilities but else then we

move on to humans which have physical

and intellectual capabilities but those

intellectual capabilities are limited by

our physical senses next we move into

the abstract realm where we find beings

of pure intellect and finally up to the

highest point of that intellect which is

what aquinus calls God it is all very

Plato's Cave on aquinus as metaphysics

the highest point of abstraction is able

to ground all of these correspondences

and resemblances of the transcendental

properties since it is meant to stand in

for what they all have in common the

thing that is instantiated in all of

those ations again if this is making

your head hurt that's absolutely fine it

is making my head hurt as well famously

Richard Dawkins responded to aquinus

Fourth Way by saying that you could

argue through exactly the same logic

that there must be a being of supreme

smelliness but now we see that that

doesn't quite work ainus would probably

say that the concept of smelliness is

not a transcendental property since you

can understand it separately to its

resemblance to an examplar for instance

you can Define smelliness as a scent

which elicits a sense of disgust in most

people this doesn't require an idea of

resemblance of of course this does not

mean that there are no possible

responses to ain's argument for instance

many philosophers today would reject the

idea that goodness or truth or being or

what have you is inevitably defined in

relation to some Exemplar they might

deny that there is genuine continuity

between the goodness defined in a good

knife and the goodness defined in a good

action or a good person but nonetheless

I still think it is worth understanding

the argument from aquinus perspective at

least as far as possible both for the

sake of intellectual honesty but also so

we can challenge it on its own terms

should we so choose it can also get us

thinking about when this sort of

Exemplar structure could be genuinely

explanatory there are still a great many

philosophers even atheistic philosophers

who hold that to genuinely make sense of

why math works so well we should hold a

platonic Exemplar theory of mathematics

and have that be at the top of an

ontological hierarchy that everything

else can participate it anything lower

down the hierarchy is purportedly able

to instantiate properties at the top of

the hierarchy in some reflected form in

the same way that the existence of my

shadow can take part in some of my more

minimal properties like my general shape

I'm actually going to link an article in

the description of this video as I think

that this is a genuinely very

unintuitive idea for a modern mind it

certainly boggles mind and I think

linking to someone else explaining the

same sort of concept might be quite

helpful but finally we move on to

aquinus is most infamous argument and

one that almost everybody exaggerates

and misunderstands five oh the finality

ah we all know this one aquinus is fifth

way is just an argument from intelligent

design right well at first glance it is

totally understandable why it would

appear so but in fact it is much more

nuanced than this as it is often

presented the argument proceeds as

follows things seem to be designed for

certain purposes like the eye is made to

see or the watch is made to tell the

time but these complex designs cannot

exist without some designer and that

Designer is the thing that we call God

then we atheists can stroll in and say

but the theory of evolution by natural

selection precludes the need for a

designer subsequently patting ourselves

on the back and going to the pup but

this isn't what aquinus is getting at he

is instead focusing on the notion of

causal reliability and the Aristotelian

idea of a final cause again we're going

to have to take a dive into Aristotle to

understand aquinus here Aristotle held

that there were four types of causes

material formal efficient and final to

give a quick and very rough rundown

material is what something's made of

formal is what type of thing it is and

efficient is how something came to be

and continues to be but now we have to

tackle the notion of a final cause

headon and it's quite a subtle and

tricky concept a final cause is

essentially the answer to the question

what does this thing tend towards for

instance two magnetized bits of metal

tend towards being attracted to one

another and a knife tends towards

cutting things this is a difficult

notion to get your head around because

it's intended to answer this question

that we no longer really ask take the

pieces of metal for example we would say

yes they attract one another but this is

because of their magnetic properties

coupled with the laws of

electromagnetism hence they regularly

attract one another however Aristotle

would want to reply by saying but those

laws are just describing the regularity

what explains it we would probably say

something like well because that's what

the laws mechanistically entail coupled

with the properties of the metal but to

Aristotle this is just restating our

previous answer he wants to know what's

grounding this not just physically but

metaphysically and then he would say

something like it is because when these

factors come together they are

metaphysically directed towards the

pieces of metal touching that is it is

part of the final cause of the pieces of

magnetized metal that they attract one

another in certain circumstances or as

it sometimes put they Point towards

attraction remember for Aristotle causal

regularity itself requires an

explanation and he would find it

circular to point to the mechanistic

laws themselves in order to do this

since those mechanistic laws are

descriptions of That regularity hence

the final cause of something is what

Aristotle rests the notion of causal

regularity upon again this idea might

take a while to click because it's

intended to explain something we don't

generally consider today as in need of

explanation but if we take Aristotle's

idea that things have a final cause

seriously then we get this further

question where do these final causes

stem from or if it's easier what keeps

all this causal regularity in check

after all it's possible that at one

moment letting go of a glass might cause

it to drop and smash but the next moment

it would begin floating in the air or

shoot up to the ceiling again we can

appeal to a mechanistic description of

this in terms of laws but then the

regularity of those laws stand in need

of explaining aquinus says this could

only be done by having these final

causes exist continuously in God this is

because of a further Aristotelian belief

that in order for one thing to cause

something else remember hierarchically

cause something else the properties of

the second thing must exist virtually at

the beginning of the chain that's an

incredibly abstract statement but let's

take an example when my sister was

younger she loved building sand castles

when we went to the beach and in order

for that sand castle to be constructed

it had to First exist as an idea in her

head aquinus thinks that a similar thing

is happening in the case of final causes

the thing that contains all of the final

causes is what we call God and it does

the job of metaphysically explaining why

causes stay so regular and how we can

thus make intelligible laws out of them

it's important to note that when aquinus

says these final causes exist as ideas

in God he doesn't mean idea in the same

sense that we mean thought he instead

means something like it exists in its

abstract form like how the idea of the

sand castle contains a sort of abstract

representation of the structure of the

sand castle but it doesn't have any of

its material properties then in a move

which by now must seem quite familiar

aquinus asks what qualities something

would have to have to contain all the

final causes in such a way as to ground

causal regularity well he says they'd

have to be immutable because the final

causes can't change and he also says

they would have to be intelligent

aquinus is not using intelligence to

mean bright or clever or even

necessarily conscious intelligent here

just means capable of holding ideas in

the sense of idea that we just went

through ideas here does not mean

thoughts but something like non-physical

facts I'm sorry about all the

terminological confusion it takes

forever to get used to anyone that has

trudged through an ancient philosophy

module knows exactly what I'm talking

about again we can see that aquinus

argument makes a lot of sense within the

confines of Aristotelian metaphysics if

we want to metaphysically explain causal

regularity then appealing to something

unchanging makes a lot of sense and if

we also accept the idea of final causes

and them being abstract ideas then the

unchanging thing holding those ideas

also kind of makes sense and this is

intimately connected with what aquinus

has been saying during the first three

ways about God existing as pure act and

what he said in the fourth way about God

existing at the top of this ontological

hierarchy it all fits together to create

a minimal idea of a metaphysical God

which aquinus will flesh out through the

rest of his works of course as with

other arguments there are definitely

criticisms you can make of this you can

deny that causal regularity requires

explaining or say that a metaphysical

one where ideas exist in the mind of God

isn't really explanatory you can

directly argue against the Aristotelian

metaphysical picture by questioning the

notion of a final cause you could even

accept this very minimal sort of

metaphysical God that aquinus purports

to prove in the five ways but reject the

arguments he employs in the rest of the

sum theologica that flesh out this

picture until he has something that

looks a bit more like your classic

theistic God my point is obviously not

that these arguments are flawless I

couldn't possibly think that or else I

would be a Scholastic Christian rather

than an agnostic atheist however like a

lot of non-believers I hold my position

because I genuinely think that the

proposition there is a theistic God is

more plausibly false than true I would

hope that very few atheist ists start

out from the position of unbelief and

work back from there but if we want our

atheism to stem from a love of truth

then surely this love should motivate us

to engage with theistic arguments as

they actually exist rather than some

parodic version of them that is orders

of magnitude easier to refute

additionally aquinus arguments raise all

sorts of very interesting questions from

an atheist perspective when is something

explained what requires explaining what

does metaphysics look like for an

atheist are we happy to accept some

abstract existence but not others like a

mathematical platonist do we reject that

the physical requires metaphysical

grounding altogether these are exciting

questions for an atheist to ask

especially the ones about explanation

and it would be a shame to ignore them

so I seriously encourage my fellow

atheists to engage with ainus as he

actually exists otherwise we are not

basing our skepticism on the principled

idea that is the best supported stance

on the question of the Divine but rather

because we have buried our heads in the

Sands to the stronger reasons why

someone might become a theist and I

think we would all rather expand our

understanding then simply set out to

confirm our own opinions if you would

like to see more analysis of theistic

arguments then check out this video to

look at my position on the arguments for

God put forward by none other than

Jordan Peterson and stick around for

more on thinking to improve your life