10b. Aquinas and the Cosmological Arguments. Part 1/2.
{5:12}
Aquinas spelled out the reasoning of his Argument from Contingency this way: there are contingent things Contingent things can cause other contingent things, but there can't only be contingent things Because that would mean that there's an infinite regress of contingency, and a possibility that nothing might have existed An infinite regress is impossible. So there must be at least one necessary thing, and that is God Let that marinate in your brain for a minute while unpack the next argument.
This one is built on the idea that we simply need a measuring stick in order to understand the value of things. Good/bad, big/small, hot/cold – none of these concepts can exist in isolation. If you go out for a walk and you see an animal, and it's like this big, that animal would be on the small side if it turned out to be a dog. But if it were a rat, that would be HUGE.
How do we know? Because we gauge the size of things in terms of other things. The same idea applies to more abstract concepts, like your grades. How do we know that an A is good? Because it's at the top -- we know that there are grades lower than an A, but nothing higher. And Aquinas thought that all of our value concepts would just be floating randomly in space if there weren't some anchor – something that defined the value of everything else, by being perfect – and that, again, is God. This is how Aquinas developed Number four, known as Argument from Degrees. Properties come in degrees In order for there to be degrees of perfection, there must be something perfect against which everything else is measured God is the pinnacle of perfection Ok, so we've considered Aquinas' four cosmological arguments. But remember, that's only step one. The next, and equally important step in philosophy, is critical evaluation. So what do we make of ‘em? As philosophers, if you think an argument is flawed, it's your job to try and figure out why. And by and large, philosophers – theists and atheists alike – have been relatively unimpressed by these four, having found many problems in them.
For one thing, these arguments don't seem to establish the existence of any particular god. Even if the arguments are correct, it doesn't look like Aquinas gets us to the personal, loving God that many people pray to. Instead, we're left with unmoved movers and uncaused causers who seem to have little in common with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ... the God who feels emotions, and cares about his creation, and answers prayers. Basically, this objection says that Aquinas' god is so far removed from the god that theists actually believe in, that it doesn't help anything. But maybe you're happy just believing someone's out there. That's fine. But then how about multiple someones? Because – guess what – Aquinas' arguments don't rule out polytheism. There's nothing in any of his arguments to prove that God isn't actually, like, a committee. Aquinas' cosmological arguments also don't prove the existence of a sentient God. So, it might be an old guy with a beard. It might be six old guys with beards. But it also might be an egg, or a turtle, or just a big block of stone.
These observations have made some philosophers uncomfortable with Aquinas' ultimate conclusion. But there are two objections that are thought by some to be real nails in its coffin. The first is simply that Aquinas was wrong in his insistence that there can't be an infinite regress of anything. Aquinas takes it as a given that there had to be a starting point for everything -- whether it's the movement of objects, or causes and effects, or contingent beings being created. But it's unclear that this is true, or why it has to be true. If infinite regress can be possible, then Aquinas' first two arguments fall apart. But perhaps the most significant charge made against Aquinas' arguments is that they're self-defeating -- that is, they actually prove themselves wrong. For example: If Aquinas is right that everything must have been put in motion by something else, and everything must have a cause other than itself, then it seems that God should be subject to those same stipulations. And if God is somehow exempt from those rules, then why couldn't other things be exempt from them too? If they can exist without God being responsible them, then we don't need God to establish things in the first place. All right, I've given you a lot to think about. So before we close, let's pause and remind ourselves about a couple of things. First, you can accept a conclusion but reject an argument. So you might agree with Aquinas that God exists, but think none of his arguments prove it.
Second, if you disagree with an argument, you don't get to just say, “yeah, you're wrong.” You have to give a counterargument. What did Aquinas get wrong, and how can you do better? Why are your reasons superior to his? Remember, philosophy is a dialectic.
Yes, Aquinas has been dead for centuries. But he started a conversation. And you get to participate in that when you engage with his arguments, and offer your own, either in an effort to help him out – by fixing flaws in his arguments while preserving his conclusion – or by refuting his entire project.
This is what it means to do philosophy – to engage with arguments about stuff that matters. And whether or not there's a God seems to matter quite a bit, particularly in the lives of theists. Today we've learned about cosmological arguments, and considered four of them. Next time, we'll look at Aquinas' fifth argument, the teleological argument. This episode of Crash Course Philosophy is made possible by Squarespace. Squarespace is a way to create a website, blog or online store for you and your ideas. Squarespace features a user-friendly interface, custom templates and 24/7 customer support. Try Squarespace at squarespace.com/crashcourse for a special offer.
Crash Course Philosophy is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios. You can head over to their channel and check out some amazing shows like PBS Idea Channel, The Chatterbox, and PBS Space Time.
This episode of Crash Course was filmed in the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio with the help of all these awesome people and our equally fantastic graphics team is Thought Cafe.
