Philosophy of Religion: Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways

[ZeroSheFlies]

This is high-school level of presentation. Clearly the students would need a lecture on Aristotle and Plato before attempting this. I`m not faulting Sadler - he has to talk down to them big time.

The first argument is easily dismissed by Galilean invariance. Motion does not require a cause - only changes in motion require a force (F=ma). The argument from design was not dealt with properly - given its religious prominence. But I guess the students were so green and the time so short.

[UnoriginalUsername8]

@ZeroSheFlies "Objects at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force." Effects have a cause. Motion requires a something to start its motion. Motion does not arise from nothing - something that is completely motionless will not start moving for no reason. You are implying that motion can begin from nothing without ANYTHING starting its motion - without energy input whatsoever. Perhaps it was your wording, but I really don't understand what you mean.

[ZeroSheFlies]

@UnoriginalUsername8 As I said, this is basic physics. Look up Galilean invariance.(or classical relativity) All motion is relative to a frame of reference. Things are always in motion (or at rest) depending on the observer. It is CHANGE of that state (e.g. acceleration or deceleration) that requires a force associated with energy.

[ZeroSheFlies]

@UnoriginalUsername8 Part 2: Modern physics (since Newton's time) does not distinguish between natural vs violent (unnatural) motion. . Look up Wikipedia (Aristotelian_physic) if you don't have physics or philosophy of science textbook. ) Note that Aquinas took his basic notions from Aristotle leading to the medieval Great Chain of Being worldview - still underlying much religious thought today.

[AdversusHaereses]

@ZeroSheFlies Actually since the Copernican revolution, Aristotelian physics has been on the fall, what the Church still maintains (or atleast the Thomists) is the Aristotelian metaphysics, which is quite independent from the physics.

[ZeroSheFlies]

@AdversusHaereses Fair point. However, potentiality, actuality, entelenchy, essence. 4 causes (incl teleology final cause) etc.were all concepts postulated by Aristotle to explain things in the natural world - extrapolated only partially to the celestial spheres. He thought these were universal principles. It took me about 8 years to read the book in Greek - not easy. You are correct though about the Thomist approach - my dad was one of those.

[AdversusHaereses]

@ZeroSheFlies Oh, I consider myself a Thomist (not a really good one), but you notice that the Physics of Aristotle is sparse in these mistakes like the geocentrist theory. Even Newtonian physics and classical mechanics is predicated on the metaphysical notions of causality, actuality, potentiality and so forth. When we analyse beings, we analyse their essence and their existence. I think the whole of natural science still presupposes these truths and owes a debt to Aristotelianism and Thomism.

[ZeroSheFlies]

@AdversusHaereses Agree that history owes them a great debt. Causality in the natural sciences today means efficient cause only. I would argue "essentialism" has been a barrier to understanding, But this is not a forum for lengthy exchanges.

Aren't you glad that Averroes, Avicenna and Alpharabius preserved and expanded Aristotles, and that the Islamists brought this to France (through Spain)? You woukd have to owe them a debt too (to be a bit polemical) LOL

[ZeroSheFlies]

@AdversusHaereses By the way, your user name could have been ἔλεγχος και άνατροπή της ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως (which is the name of Against Heresies)

Unless you have inside gnosis, you can't claim that "the whole of natural science still presupposes these truths" because they don't. I could support that at extreme lengths because it falls in my primary field of work (science) which has broadened over the years. Being retired I am now studying in the humanities full time.

[AdversusHaereses]

@ZeroSheFlies Well, when a natural scientist goes to examine something in the lab, he presupposes above all that what he is examining is still a being (something) and that it has an essence and even perhaps accidental composites.

[ZeroSheFlies]

@AdversusHaereses It all depends. If you mean by essence the set of attributes that make an object or substance what it fundamentally is - maybe (depends on how "fundamental" is defined).

The problem come with (1) necessity - most scientists operate using some king of variation of nominalism There is not enough space allowed to elaborate here.

Continued in next reply..

[ZeroSheFlies]

@ZeroSheFlies (2) identity and contingency - and here to simplify the assumption is rather that everything is contingent or accidental. This is a consequence (example) of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and that identify is not absolute: is light ESSENTIALLY a wave or particulate in nature? Well it is both and neither.

You use the term "being" - as something that has existence. But rather they are objects of study. Is a neutrino a "being" - it depends . But out of space. ,...

[ZeroSheFlies]

@ZeroSheFlies Beyond physics. where elements are not immutable (fixed essence), we can go to biology. Species are not fixed. You should listen to Kagan's lectures on personal identity in Yale's University Online series on DEATH. It may still be on You Tube also.Also you could read "Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies?" by Nancey Murphy, Fuller Theological Seminary which covers the related philosophy, science and religiion of people.

[ZeroSheFlies]

@ZeroSheFlies The reason for talking about objects rather than beings is that is the Thomist term. Étienne Gilson contrasts objects and beings. Quote:"being itself might happen not to be existentially neutral. In other words, it is quite possible that actual existence may be ... an efficient cause of observable effects" (Being and Some Philosophers, 1952) He uses set theory, rather than the idea of "forms"

[ZeroSheFlies]

@ZeroSheFlies I didn't have the space on necessity. So here the philosophers of science to consider are George Berkeley, Charles Pierce, William James and John Stuart Mills. The only prominent "realist" (in his Ontology) is David Malet Armstrong - which is not a platonist with regards to universals.The only significant area of debate regards mathematics (Penrose). Both Aristotle and Aquinas need realism for their metaphysics to work. Most other Christian thought is neo-platonic.

[ZeroSheFlies]

@AdversusHaereses I reread Book1 of the Metaphysics just now and stand by my previous response - although I should have noted the focus on mathematics. Aquinas says "Whatever is in our intellect must have previously been in the senses" (peripatetic axiom) making him an empricist, not a rationalist in his epistemology. Finally, I should note that some Thomists like Maritain held that metaphysics is prior to epistemology. I read him en francais being French Canadian. Cheers.

[ZeroSheFlies]

@UnoriginalUsername8 Part 3 "Under Newton's 1rst law, any object will keep moving along a straight line, with constant velocity (in all the inertial reference frames). In this sense, NOTHING CAUSES THE MOTION

A change in this kind of motion, that is, an acceleration or a curve in the trajectory, is caused by a force, according to the Newton equation : F = dp/dt" (Simplified from a standard text)

[PaperNun]

God he works at Fayetteville?? ha I hope its not Fayetteville, NC cause man that place is getto.

[Elise3016]

Learning from Jeff Bridges? He has beautiful hair...oh and nice lecture, this really helped me on my Western Civ class

[gbisadler]

@Elise3016 I'm glad to hear that the video was helpful to you -- and I've been told I might be able to pass for The Dude, particularly now that my hair has grown out even more. If you would like to see some other vids from my more recent classes (no longer at FSU, but at Marist College), check out my channel

[gbisadler]

Wow, haven't looked at this for a while -- since its in FSU's videos, rather than in my own channel.  Quite a few views. Going to be producing and posting 4 more videos on Thomas this semester from my Intro and Ethics classes -- in my own channel