Quote:
Quote by: Thanatos  Logical error: if Dawkins is misinterpreting Aquinas's proofs then a link to an unDawkinsafied version of Aquinas's proof would be helpful.
I say this because if Aquinas's proofs are rendered accurately the man was a moron. Yes, there had to be a prime mover unless everything is some sort of infinite closed loop (an idea I hate). Who said this prime mover is the one in Christian mythology? Who says it was even intelligent and not some mindless fractal process? I'm watching this and coming to the same conclusions as Dawkins one step ahead of his voice. |
The problem with Dawkins is that he does not give the complete picture of what Aquinas says.
The ways of Aquinas:
1) There exists an unmoved mover (a being of pure act)
2) There exists an uncaused cause
3) There exists a necessary being (a being of pure act)
4) Since there are levels of perfection there must be a most perfect
5) Since there is a goal there is an efficient cause
The fifth way, to me, is the worst proof because we have evolution as a contradictory theory. However it is also the hardest one to philosophically disprove because one would have to, in addition to Aquinas, argue against Aristotle and Kant. And having a contrary theory is not a disproof.
Above I just gave the conclusions of Aquinas's proofs because I think where Dawkins misrepresents Aquinas is in his interpretations. (Aquinas was a Scholastic philosopher so the language he uses is very important.) Within the 5 ways Aquinas does not directly show that the first mover, first cause, etc. is God but in the following pages he sets out to prove this. So Dawkins basically argues against an
incomplete proof. He argues against the first few pages of a section that is about 200 pages. The five ways as presented are summaries and not complete proofs.
To prove that the these proofs point to God Aquinas shows that this fist being must have certain characteristics which follow from the five ways. From 1 and 3 it follows that the being is incorporeal:
1) A necessary being is pure act (not potential)
2) Beings get their actualization (act) from forms and potential from
matter (Aristotelian Hylomorphism)
3) Therefore God is incorporeal.
Similarly Aquinas derives that God is a being who's essence is
equivalent to existence, thus immutable. He is eternal since motion is required for time (motion in the Aristotelian sense) and as an immutable being God is unmoved (the unmoved mover). He continues and eventually comes to a God that is similar, though not identical to the Christian God. Not identical because Aquinas admits that reason cannot completely prove what God is (he separates revelation from natural reason which is one reason I respect him, he doesn't claim the Christian God, as such, is completely provable from reason). For example, Aquinas says the Trinity in God is unprovable.
As for Dawkins argument against the fourth way, he does not understand the meaning at all. I'm not going to argue against it because you would still have to accept neo-Platonic metaphysics to accept it. But Dawkins, not being a philosopher, does not realize the historical setting of the proof. Suffice it to say that according to the proof only Goodness is fully actualized. SO Dawkins argument about smelliness (a thing closer to complete privation then actualization) is invalid.
Quote:
|
Moving on, next thing before Dawkins analyzes it for me is that because something exists in our heads does not make it real. I can make a moral judgment based on a hypothetical society where everybody follows an example I am trying to decide upon. Is a city full of nothing but evil people or good people necessary in the real world for my mental computations? Do you need imaginary numbers to break codes with them? Hello? This is dumb.
|
You attacked the ontological proof (I think) which Aquinas did not
like and left of his five ways. In fact, immediately before the five
ways Aquinas attempts to disprove the ontological argument.
However, I will say something in defense of the ontological proof
(because I think its cool). It is hard to disprove only because it is
not talking about any perfection but that perfection which no greater can be conceived which changes the logical formation (so believers in the argument say). Like Russell said, who I will not argue with, it is fallacious but where exactly it is hard to tell.
But your attack quoted above does not quite seem to be directed
towards the ontological proof of Anselm of any of Aquinas's proofs it seems t be an argument against Kant's Kingdom of Ends.
Finally, I think it is clear that Dawkins misrepresents Aquinas's
arguments because he has not read enough Aquinas, or philosophy in general, to understand the meaning of Aquinas's proofs. It is like when Rand criticizes Kant when she clear does not understand Kant (who does!). Again, Aquinas's proofs may very well not be true, but they are not moronic. Dawkins thinking he can spend half a page disproving one of the greatest philosophers ever to live is quite silly. It would be like me spending half a page disproving evolution, its just silly.
P.S. I did not post the five ways of Aquinas because they are not a satisfactory view of Aquinas in themselves.