You’ve all heard of the ‘five proofs’ for God’s existence collected by Thomas Aquinas. He puts his arguments in more than one place, so it’s a little like talking about ‘the’ ten commandments. I taught an intorudctory philosophy course, and was surprised to find that the fifth proof was not what i usually see. I’ve numbered significant parts:
“The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. (1) We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, (2) act for an end, and (3) this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. (4) Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. (5) Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; (5) as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. (6) Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.”
Now this isn’t your usual Paley’s watch argument from design. Rev. Paley, and most subsequent arguments from design concentrate on living organisms, and compares them to what he thinks is the comparatively undesigned non-living world. (Recall that the watch you find is a thing that has internal movement, and is contrasted with pieces on a beach.) However, my surprise was that Aquinas does NOT argue so. Instead he takes the tack that the NONliving things are good evidence - basically, the fact that that there’s physical laws is the evidence!
I’m not sure what to make of this argument, though i find it interesting as a philosopher. Especially interesting is the suggestion that living things won’t do for his argument (as Paley uses them), since living things can be said to have an internal source of movement to their ends - they have desires - and so they might well be self-designed (or molded by evolutionary forces) and so aren’t good evidence for an external Designer.
I didn’t see this argument refuted in Dawkins, either. Yet it’s right there in the *Prima Pars, Quaestio 2, Art. 3*. I suppose Paley’s arg. has so eclipsed discussion that most of us (me included) have assumed that’s the force of the fifth proof in Aquinas.
Any comments? I find it rather breathtaking that he finds it obvious that non-living things can’t do anything without some externally-imposed nature or laws. That’s just the opposite of modern assumptions, but for the life of me I can’t see exactly why the modern view is somehow more right than Aquinas’ claim. Note that it utterly avoids evolutionary stuff entirely, since it’s about physics, not biology. So, a puzzle for me and my students this summer.
kirk
