Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

[PearlSeeker]

What do you think of "the 5th Way" of Aquinas? Summary and explanation of the argument (from Wikipedia):

Summary

We see various objects that lack intelligence in the world behaving in regular ways. This cannot be due to chance since then they would not behave with predictable results. So their behavior must be set. But it cannot be set by themselves since they are non-intelligent and have no notion of how to set behavior. Therefore, their behavior must be set by something else, and by implication something that must be intelligent. This everyone understands to be God.

Explanation

This is also known as the Teleological Argument. However, it is not a "Cosmic Watchmaker" argument from design (see below). Instead, as the 1920 Dominican translation puts it, The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world.

The Fifth Way uses Aristotle's final cause. Aristotle argued that a complete explanation of an object will involve knowledge of how it came to be (efficient cause), what material it consists of (material cause), how that material is structured (formal cause), and the specific behaviors associated with the type of thing it is (final cause). The concept of final causes involves the concept of dispositions or "ends": a specific goal or aim towards which something strives. For example, acorns regularly develop into oak trees but never into sea lions. The oak tree is the "end" towards which the acorn "points," its disposition, even if it fails to achieve maturity. The aims and goals of intelligent beings is easily explained by the fact that they consciously set those goals for themselves. The implication is that if something has a goal or end towards which it strives, it is either because it is intelligent or because something intelligent is guiding it.

Five Ways (Aquinas) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Madsaac]

This may be beyond me but this sounds like an explanation for natural selection and evolution, this may be over simplifying things.

The acorn turns into an oak tree because of natural selection, evolution?

 

[PearlSeeker]

This may be beyond me but this sounds like an explanation for natural selection and evolution, this may be over simplifying things.

The acorn turns into an oak tree because of natural selection, evolution?

See the beginning of the argument:

“The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result”

The 5th Way is more fundamental. It explains why there is order and regularity in the natural world (natural laws) - why non-intelligent things act "always, or nearly always, in the same way". For example a moon orbiting.

 

[Heyo]

Explanation

This is also known as the Teleological Argument. However, it is not a "Cosmic Watchmaker" argument from design (see below). Instead, as the 1920 Dominican translation puts it, The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world.

The Fifth Way uses Aristotle's final cause. Aristotle argued that a complete explanation of an object will involve knowledge of how it came to be (efficient cause), what material it consists of (material cause), how that material is structured (formal cause), and the specific behaviors associated with the type of thing it is (final cause). The concept of final causes involves the concept of dispositions or "ends": a specific goal or aim towards which something strives. For example, acorns regularly develop into oak trees but never into sea lions. The oak tree is the "end" towards which the acorn "points," its disposition, even if it fails to achieve maturity. The aims and goals of intelligent beings is easily explained by the fact that they consciously set those goals for themselves. The implication is that if something has a goal or end towards which it strives, it is either because it is intelligent or because something intelligent is guiding it.

Five Ways (Aquinas) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

You need to explain why it's not a "Cosmic Watchmaker" argument a bit more for me.
We have natural explanations for all "guided behaviour" in the laws of nature. The acorn grows into a tree, the snowflake forms symmetrically, the planets revolve around the sun, because of forces external to them, but those forces have no intelligence and much less do they have agency. They are totally deterministic (at least above the quantum level).
Postulating an intelligent source behind the forces is just the "Cosmic Watchmaker".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

We see various objects that lack intelligence in the world behaving in regular ways. This cannot be due to chance since then they would not behave with predictable results. So their behavior must be set. But it cannot be set by themselves since they are non-intelligent and have no notion of how to set behavior. Therefore, their behavior must be set by something else, and by implication something that must be intelligent. This everyone understands to be God.

It's morning. You're a bit more hungry than groggy, so you're frying up some sausage and eggs. Absentmindedly, you grab the uncomfortably hot handle of the frying and recoil from the pain. It's understandable behavior requiring zero intelligence.

Nor does it require the presumption of deity.

 

[Madsaac]

See the beginning of the argument:

“The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result”

The 5th Way is more fundamental. It explains why there is order and regularity in the natural world (natural laws) - why non-intelligent things act "always, or nearly always, in the same way". For example a moon orbiting.

And I try and keep an open mind but I just can't see it.

 

[Ostronomos]

You need to explain why it's not a "Cosmic Watchmaker" argument a bit more for me.
We have natural explanations for all "guided behaviour" in the laws of nature. The acorn grows into a tree, the snowflake forms symmetrically, the planets revolve around the sun, because of forces external to them, but those forces have no intelligence and much less do they have agency. They are totally deterministic (at least above the quantum level).
Postulating an intelligent source behind the forces is just the "Cosmic Watchmaker".

The cosmic watchmaker argument is a noble attempt to prove the existence of God. There are far more logical argument than this.

 

[Heyo]

The cosmic watchmaker argument is a noble attempt to prove the existence of God. There are far more logical argument than this.

@PearlSeeker insisted, that it's not the cosmic watchmaker, and I don't see how.
And if it's the cosmic watchmaker, I'm not interested in a debate on that, it's been done enough times. I grant the existence for discussion’s sake and want to see how they go from the deos to the theos.

 

[PearlSeeker]

You need to explain why it's not a "Cosmic Watchmaker" argument a bit more for me.

Both arguments are from design (teleological) but they are totally different.

The Watchmaker analogy:
1. focuses on the complexity of living things, their organs...
2. depends on extrinsic teleology.
3. is a probabilistic argument - God is more probably the cause than an impersonal force. Evolution theory drastically lowers this probability.

Aquinas's 5th Way on the other hand:
1. is based on Aristotle's intrinsic teleology - final causality in the world.
2. Examples are also simple regularities (no need for complexity).
3. The argument is a metaphysical demonstration (not just probability or "God of the gaps"). Evolution theory does not affect the Aquinas's Fifth Way.

We have natural explanations for all "guided behaviour" in the laws of nature. The acorn grows into a tree, the snowflake forms symmetrically, the planets revolve around the sun, because of forces external to them, but those forces have no intelligence and much less do they have agency.

Why forces "external to them"? Are they not part of the natural world? But why do they act as they act?

Yes, things that have no intelligence act in regular patterns. This exactly is the point. We as intelligent beings can choose for ourselves the goals/ends/purposes of some actions. Things with no intelligence can't.

 

[PearlSeeker]

It's morning. You're a bit more hungry than groggy, so you're frying up some sausage and eggs. Absentmindedly, you grab the uncomfortably hot handle of the frying and recoil from the pain. It's understandable behavior requiring zero intelligence.

Nor does it require the presumption of deity.

Irrelevant.

 

[Heyo]

Both arguments are from design (teleological) but they are totally different.

The Watchmaker analogy:
1. focuses on the complexity of living things, their organs...
2. depends on extrinsic teleology.
3. is a probabilistic argument - God is more probably the cause than an impersonal force. Evolution theory drastically lowers this probability.

Aquinas's 5th Way on the other hand:
1. is based on Aristotle's intrinsic teleology - final causality in the world.
2. Examples are also simple regularities (no need for complexity).
3. The argument is a metaphysical demonstration (not just probability or "God of the gaps"). Evolution theory does not affect the Aquinas's Fifth Way.

I understand. What they both have in common is that they argue for a deos, not a theos. And I feel that it is even harder with the 5th way to get any further.

Why forces "external to them"? Are they not part of the natural world? But why do they act as they act?

Yes, things that have no intelligence act in regular patterns. This exactly is the point. We as intelligent beings can choose for ourselves the goals/ends/purposes of some actions. Things with no intelligence can't.

Things act reliably in regular patterns. Even things with intelligence do so, though in a more complex way. That precludes any theistic intervention.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

See the beginning of the argument:

“The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result”

The 5th Way is more fundamental. It explains why there is order and regularity in the natural world (natural laws) - why non-intelligent things act "always, or nearly always, in the same way". For example a moon orbiting.

Do you actually see this as compelling?

It always mystifies me when I see theists making a big deal out of Aquinas's "Five Ways" as if they're a logical triumph. I just don't see it. All I see are unsupported premises that just get taken as given and huge unjustified logical leaps.

Your Aquinas quote here seems a lot like Bill O'Reilly's argument about the Moon ("tides go in, tides go out - never a miscommunication") that got heavily ridiculed (and rightly so, IMO).

 

[Koldo]

What do you think of "the 5th Way" of Aquinas? Summary and explanation of the argument (from Wikipedia):

Summary

We see various objects that lack intelligence in the world behaving in regular ways. This cannot be due to chance since then they would not behave with predictable results. So their behavior must be set. But it cannot be set by themselves since they are non-intelligent and have no notion of how to set behavior. Therefore, their behavior must be set by something else, and by implication something that must be intelligent. This everyone understands to be God.

Or they could be set by non-intelligent forces of such nature such as gravity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Or they could be set by non-intelligent forces of such nature such as gravity.

But the argument is trying to make the case that order requires intelligence. If it looks like regular motion of a planet can be explained by gravity, Aquinas is claiming that intelligence must be behind gravity for it to create such regular motion.

IOW, it's like someone with extreme pareidolia assuming that everyone else has it and that it's about external nature instead of how he views it.

 

[PureX]

The acorn turns into an oak tree because it CAN. All the steps that occurred to make an acorn possible, and to fulfill it's possibility, occurred because THOSE STEPS WERE POSSIBLE. So the thing we need to be looking at, here, is the realm of what is possible, against the realm of what is NOT possible. And how is it that this realm is manifesting.

We do not know. But what we do know is that what is/is not possible is NOT RANDOM. And is NOT ACCIDENTAL. It is complex and purposeful, because the results of these possibilities/impossibilities as they are being fulfilled are also complex and purposeful. Like the acorn.

Does this mean there is a God? Yes, in the sense that there is SOMETHING transcendent determining what is and is not possible. Is it "intelligent"? Yes, in the sense that it exhibits complexity and purposefulness through the possibilities and impossibilities that it presents.

 

[F1fan]

But the argument is trying to make the case that order requires intelligence. If it looks like regular motion of a planet can be explained by gravity, Aquinas is claiming that intelligence must be behind gravity for it to create such regular motion.

Right, and that is the dilemma that theism doesn't really solve, is just adds another non-observed, non-factual element of a God/Creator. It only creates more questions about the God. If theists are going to question how gravity is a thing, then why not ask about how God is a thing? They don't. It's apparent that Gods/Creators/First Causes are created by humans who are desperate for an answer they can't determine from facts.

This is the fatal flaw in all these argments, it assumes a God is an option to explain anything, and it finds a way to justify it.

IOW, it's like someone with extreme pareidolia assuming that everyone else has it and that it's about external nature instead of how he views it.

And they will think others have a problem.

 

[F1fan]

The acorn turns into an oak tree because it CAN. All the steps that occurred to make an acorn possible, and to fulfill it's possibility, occurred because THOSE STEPS WERE POSSIBLE.

All because matter behaves according to the natural laws.

So the thing we need to be looking at, here, is the realm of what is possible, against the realm of what is NOT possible. And how is it that this realm is manifesting.

When you say "possible" it needs to be consistent with facts, observationes, and reality, not not cultural traditions and ancient beliefs. If an acorn falls from a tree it's possible it will grow into an oak tree. It's possible it will be eaten by a squirrel. It's possible it will rot. It's not possible that it will turn into a lizard. Nor is it possible it will grow into a pine tree.

We do not know. But what we do know is that what is/is not possible is NOT RANDOM. And is NOT ACCIDENTAL.

Meaning that what happens will have to follow the natural laws. No magic. No gods. That cancers exist in living organisms is not random or accidental, it's just how life evolved. That your 3 year old child happens to be born with the genes for Leukemia is the lottery of life that any organism gambles in reproduction.

It is complex and purposeful, because the results of these possibilities/ompossibilities as they are being fulfilled are also complex and purposeful. Like the acorn.

I'm not sure purpose is the correct word, perhaps utility. To say purpose implies intention.

Does this mean there is a God?

No. What isa God, and what facts are there that demonstrates it exists and does anything?

Yes, in the sense that there is SOMETHING transcendent determining what is and is not possible.

Really? Based on what? What determines the SOMETHING that you call God?

Is it "intelligent"?

No. But for those who claim an intelligence behind what occurs in nature, explain the intelligence in cancers, especially childhood cancers.

Yes, in the sense that it exhibits complexity and purposefulness through the possibilities and impossibilities that it presents.

This assumes a purpose. Complexity is just a consequence of matter behaving according to the natural laws. And as I noted the possibilities have to follow these laws. There's nothing that suggests matter behaving according to natural laws requires any intelligence or guidance.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I understand. What they both have in common is that they argue for a deos, not a theos. And I feel that it is even harder with the 5th way to get any further.

A teleological argument argues for the existence of the supreme intelligence (responsible for the order/design/purpose in the world). Other attributes require some further proof...

Things act reliably in regular patterns. Even things with intelligence do so, though in a more complex way. That precludes any theistic intervention.

Exactly. Aquinas's argument is not about intervention. It's about inherent goal-directedness of things.

 

[PearlSeeker]

But the argument is trying to make the case that order requires intelligence. If it looks like regular motion of a planet can be explained by gravity, Aquinas is claiming that intelligence must be behind gravity for it to create such regular motion.

Exactly. Gravity itself doesn't explain this goal-directedness.

IOW, it's like someone with extreme pareidolia assuming that everyone else has it and that it's about external nature instead of how he views it.

It's definitely not pareidolia - detecting a pattern where there is none. It's an explanation of actual patterns, order, regularity in nature... - what we all see.

 

[PearlSeeker]

We do not know. But what we do know is that what is/is not possible is NOT RANDOM. And is NOT ACCIDENTAL. It is complex and purposeful, because the results of these possibilities/ompossibilities as they are being fulfilled are also complex and purposeful. Like the acorn.

Agree. Just one comment: complexity per se is not important for the 5th Way. Regularity is.