Aquinas and Dawkins

[toomuch]

I was wondering what do people think about Dawkins' arguments against the five ways of Aquinas?

Personally, I think Dawkins misrepresents Aquinas's arguments, though it appears unintentional. Not to say Aquinas's argumentsare valid (I am an Atheist), but regardless the mistake, I think, has the consequence that a lot of atheists think they being reasonable when in actuallity many of their arguments are based off of a straw man.

Finally, I wanted to know how many atheists respect Aquinas for is general temper? Can an atheist respect a theist? I certainly respect many including Aquinas.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Can you link us to Aquina's argument and Dawkin's response?

[treme]

Try this one.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: toomuch Finally, I wanted to know how many atheists respect Aquinas for is general temper? Can an atheist respect a theist? I certainly respect many including Aquinas.

Even as an atheist, I respect Aquinas: he was a very enlightened man for his time. He postulated that it was possible to know God by studying his creation (Nature), and not only through the Bible. Applied today in a creationism debate, this could mean: Bible was written by man, but Nature remains divine.
I love other theists as well, as long as their reasoning is winning against their faith.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: treme Try this one.

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.

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.

Dawkins agrees with me and gives a slightly ruder yet shorter version of the same argument. Moving on to the last one...

Oh my mathematics, I've actually heard people use this one. Snowflakes look designed. I can make food coloring combines with milk and dish detergent do things that look pretty artistic too. Fighter jets or computer code built by evolutionary AIs look very much like they were designed by an intelligence without actually being so. This is just empirically not true.

Dawkins produces the same criticism in wordier language.

In other words, unless there is a misrepresentation in the proofs themselves Dawkins is not wrong in my opinion.

[Technosoul]

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. 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. Dawkins agrees with me and gives a slightly ruder yet shorter version of the same argument. Moving on to the last one... Oh my mathematics, I've actually heard people use this one. Snowflakes look designed. I can make food coloring combines with milk and dish detergent do things that look pretty artistic too. Fighter jets or computer code built by evolutionary AIs look very much like they were designed by an intelligence without actually being so. This is just empirically not true. Dawkins produces the same criticism in wordier language. In other words, unless there is a misrepresentation in the proofs themselves Dawkins is not wrong in my opinion.

You base your opinon on human perception as the rule maker. A bird might think it's nest is a beautiful work or art, we might think it is ugly looking. We might approve of a rose flower but disslike weeds with little yellow flowers. What is artistic can be random or intended by an artist.
A design can happen by random chance or created by intelligent intent.
We have evidence of this because people can do it on purpose and we can do it by accident. This proves nothing ether way.

A lot of snowflakes with individual designs can melt into drops of water and merge to loose all individual indentity as a river or ocean. If a drop of water is lifted as fog up to become a cloud and then rains again on the mountain such that the drop becomes frozen as a designer snowflake would design be the same, I do not think so. So the temperature designed the snowflake not some intelligent being. But the reason that can happen is because drops of water are tiny globes of water, circular in shape, and the circle is the "design" as well as the journey that water can take. Circular motion as well as global shapes have an intellingent purpose that is both simple and likewise has it complexities. But it would appear that it becomes intelligently done by the activity it'self rather then by an outside factor manipulating that activity. However a computer can geneate such things on it's own but human intelligence made that activity possible by creating the computer.

Hawking via physics claimed that beyond the Big Bang would be another universe identical to this one. "Cloned Universes" because at point zero the numbers would flow outwardly in all directions in the same order, producing two or more universes. Example: 4321-0-1234. For a perfectionist a design is created from the center outwardly and the center would be the orgin. Thusly, each exsteam would have the same measurment form that center. That kind of design cannot be done if we drop something on the ground and expect the paint to scatter equally in all directions upon impact, for one thing the round might not be flat. But also because gravity pulls the paint towards the center instead of it coming from the center and expanding where nothing else can cause an impact to reorganized the final shape as being difined as random.

So here is the queston: If unobstructed a perfect design is possible but if obsturcted then randomness can ocur. Right?

Here in lies the problem. The Bible is true because the Bible said so, that is called circular reasoning. But if that circle is broken by an obstruction, namely science, then you end up with a random mess of unlogical scriptures that loose their intelligent design and therefore their purpose. Only faith would allow it to flow in an unobstructed way to create te perfect design which would then be our perception.

Aha, figure that one out!

Therefore all teenage girls should marry me because if they marry a bunch of different people we will have a random mess in the gene pool that can result in too much diversity rather then uniformity which is a important designership manifesto.

eh? Just kidding.

[toomuch]

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.

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.

[Thanatos]

Toomuch, I agree with you mostly. However all your conditions can be met by a physical law instead of an intelligence. Aquinas offered a possible solution but did not demonstrate that it was the only possible one.

And to technosoul, there are more things in heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy :)

Fractal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Zhavric]

Quote by: toomuch I was wondering what do people think about Dawkins' arguments against the five ways of Aquinas? Personally, I think Dawkins misrepresents Aquinas's arguments, though it appears unintentional. Not to say Aquinas's argumentsare valid (I am an Atheist), but regardless the mistake, I think, has the consequence that a lot of atheists think they being reasonable when in actuallity many of their arguments are based off of a straw man. Finally, I wanted to know how many atheists respect Aquinas for is general temper? Can an atheist respect a theist? I certainly respect many including Aquinas.

In debating theists, there seems to be an undeserved reverance heaped on Aquinas (and a handful of others). As though each apologist is saying, "Look! One of us who can use logic! Take that, atheists..." To be sure, there really isn't that much to Aquinas' arguments. Can you give any specific example of where Richard Dawkins presented a straw man version of them?

[toomuch]

Aquinas's arguments are philosophically complex because of the philosophical jargon he uses. To say they are not complex is to not realize the philosophy behind the arguments (especially the Aristotelian elements).

“They [the five 'proofs'] make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress.”

What Dawkins does not realize is the Aquinas is only saying that there is a first being “to which every one gives the name God.” He has not as of yet given properties to this name, he has only named it. Similar to what Dawkins Does in The Ancestors Tale by calling our first common ancestors Adam and Eve.

“Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name…there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God.”

To the first part: Aquinas believes it is possible to have an infinite series backwards in time (i.e. a horizontal series is possible). He says there is no way to prove that the world was not created from eternity. If nothing else this shows Dawkins is lost. Regardless, Aquinas does not believe a series of dependent causes is possible (a vertical series). Again, this shows Dawkins does not understand what Aquinas is saying.

Secondly, if Dawkins read more of Aquinas's work instead of a short summary he would know that after proving that there is a necessary being Aquinas uses the negative (via negative) and affirmative (analogical predication) to show this necessary being must have certain attributes (e.g. its existence and essence must be the same). If anything Dawkins should have argued against “analogical predication” as it is the most questionable part of Aquinas's proof (if you want to know how I can attempt to show that analogical predication is reducible to univocal predication).

“it has not escaped the notice of logicians that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible.”

Not so, though some logicians believe they are incompatible others do not. A quick read of Boethius is enough to show that they are, theoretically, compatible. And actually Aquinas proves they are compatible in Quaestiones Disputatae de Potentia. He does so with an Aristotelian distinction between three types of possible and impossible. Whether or not it is valid is not important the fact remains that Dawkins does not properly let Aquinas defend himself.

To the fourth way: Dawkins says, “You might as well say, people vary in smelliness but we make the comparison only by reference to a prefect maximum of conceivable smelliness.”

This is clearly a straw man. In no way is smelliness an exemplar form, rather it is a privation. Dawkins, if he knows this, is setting up a straw man. In order to disprove this he would first have to disprove neo-platonic metaphysics. Easy enough but Dawkins does not attempt a disproof. Attacking what Aquinas says is not attacking the argument, an argument that would have been well known in Aquinas's day and would not have needed elaboration as it does today (the five ways are given as a discussion not a formal treatise in the modern sense).

The fifth way I'll yield to Dawkins as evolution is his field.

The point is not whether Aquinas was right the point is that Dawkins misrepresents Aquinas by changing the meaning of the words Aquinas uses. For example, unmoved mover, uncaused cause, and necessary being are all defined by Aquinas and Dawkins ignores these definitions by radically simplifying their meanings. An uncaused cause is a being of pure act and thus immaterial (Hylomorphic composition: pure act means it is pure form). Since it is immaterial it is intelligent (References Aristotle's proof). Dawkins does not address these proofs but rather pretends Aquinas never stated them. This is a clear straw man.

[Jack]

I like Dawkins and I respect the attempts to reason about a god that Aquinas engaged in. I do think, though, that a biologist, when speaking outside his specialty, is at a disadvantage. He's as free as anyone to have his opinions on the topics raised by Aquinas. But to pit his opinions as an evolutionary biologist against a man who spent his life studying philosophy and theology is unreasonable. I'm not sure what background Dawkins has in philosophy, but it can't be as extensive as Aquinas'. I'm not saying I think Aquinas' arguments have merit, just that his opinions should be challenged by an equally educated philosopher.