In my last post I talked about the silliest moment in Ray’s whole piece, but it is so closely tied to the second silliest moment that I really should talk about that too. At the end of the article, having argued that Aquinas did not intend his five ways to be demonstrations, Ray concludes:
Fine, you may say, but surely Thomas has an actual proof of God somewhere. Surely he didn’t leave us defenseless against the atheists and agnostics of the world. Surely he had something to say to the nonbelievers of his own day.
Well, yes and no. Thomas did not write any short treatise on the existence of God that one could whip out of one’s pocket when confronted by an atheist. Despite his voluminous writing, none of it is meant to stand alone. Nonetheless, we can piece together and paraphrase some of his other arguments in various writings to come up with a solid, irrefutable proof that not only does God exist, but he cannot not exist. That is, saying that God does not exist is a contradiction in terms. But that’s the subject of another article.
According to Ray Moose, when we “piece together and paraphrase” things Thomas says here and there, we come up with a solid proof that “not only does God exist, but he cannot not exist” because “saying that God does not exist is a contradiction in terms.” This argument, he maintains, is one that does not start from our experience of the world outside our minds, but from abstract concepts.
This kind of argument for God’s existence is called the “ontological argument”, while the argument that begins from what we sense in the world is called the “cosmological argument”. As you can see by clicking the link I just gave, Thomas Aquinas is listed among those who oppose the ontological argument.
It is odd that Ray does not mention this, because Aquinas deals with the kind of ontological argument Ray suggests just before he gives his own demonstrations for God’s existence, in Question 1, Article 1. In fact, he considers several arguments that do not begin from sense experience but from abstract ideas and conclude that “saying that God does not exist is a contradiction in terms.” The most famous of Aquinas’s predecessors to make this argument was St. Anselm of Laon, but others had come up with similar approaches. If I had to guess, I would say that Ray Moose is thinking of the argument for God’s existence given by Descartes in the Meditations, but the principle Aquinas uses to respond to St. Anselm would apply just as well to Descartes.
So we can’t scrap together the argument Ray wants from Thomas Aquinas’s writings; in fact, he is famous for opposing that kind of argument; in fact, he opposes it in the same Question of the Summa that Ray discusses in his article. It’s just—well, ignorant!
3 comments:
hi
ray-moose like it.
ignorance is something that eastern philosophies talk about as the fundamental obstacle to enlightenment. de-objectifying God is a rather tricky passtime i have found. all notions however approached some phenomenological stance creeps in. i have found that rather than look at whether there is a god or not, from a philosophical standpoint, it is pertinent to consider whether there is really someone there wondering that. beyond the ego, beyond separateness, there is no distinction between that which is experienced, the experiencer and the experience. the whole argument collapses as it were. Making sense? thought not. Have you encountered advaitan ideas at all? i presume you have...advaita.org? also check out Ramana. what a dude! your links don't work btw.
laters
Craig
Par for the course, I am abysmally ignorant about Eastern philosophy. My only exposure to that pattern of thought came during those months when I was in pursuit of Ray Moose’s true identity: Ray dabbles in Eastern mysticism, and for some time even ran a cult in the Washington, D.C. area called the “Children Of New Growth Rainbow Enlightened Spiritual Sustenance.” The membership list was shocking—I won’t name names, but you can often tell an old CONGRESS member just by listening to the way they reason.
It is difficult to know how much Ray himself believes of the Eastern way, but this much is clear: if you want to promote ignorance and foolishness, a philosophy that says objective reality is an illusion will be a useful tool.
My own reaction to Eastern philosophy is, I admit, rather emotional. If we say that I and the Other are in reality the One, then we cancel all possibility of love: how can I have a love affair with myself? Falling in love requires an “I” and a “thou”. And I’m way too in love with God, in love with my wife, in love with my kids.
BTW--fixed the links. Thanks for the heads-up!
Ray Moose has actually published his own "proof" of the existence of God. It is in the May/June issue of This Rock. I'll give a brief summary:
1. Take the position of extreme doubt; perhaps we are just a brain in a vat, being decieved about everything.
2. Cogito ergo sum. At least I must exist, even if nothing else does.
3. Since I exist, there is such a thing as existence, which he calls esse.
4. The nature of this esse must be pure actuality.
5. Esse not only does exist but must exist, because otherwise you have a contradiction in terms.
6. Esse must be distinct from oneself since one's own self has potentiality.
7. Esse must be one, immutable, eternal, infinite, omniscient, and omnipotent. (This step isn't very important.
Ray Moose begins his article by quoting the First Vatican Council:
God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason, through the things that he created. (Dei Filius 2)
I would like to point out to Mr. Moose that if we can know God with certainty through created things, than we must be able to trust our senses.
Further, in case Mr. Moose insists that knowing God through the things he created means simply through our minds, by using them, I will give another quote, which will perhaps explain more fully what is meant here:
And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world, that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated. (Sacrorum Antistitum, Pius X)
Here it seems to me that the Church is explicitly acknowledging the veracity of St. Thomas's proof by efficient cause.
Post a Comment