Efficient causation and final causation work in tandem. Science is primarily based on studying efficient causation. But it assumes the regularities of nature that final causation makes possible.
Thanks for the link. Read the blog by Freser, as well as the philosophical paper it was based on. The primary issue with this is that, as many others on this thread have suggested, you have to assume the Theist position that there is a God first, prior to relating to the argument. The argument assumed God as a given, and the goal is to reconcile his action to the reliability of out observations about the natural world. I would normally cede the existence of God either, but that has already been presented many times in this thread.
I think the way you've presented this argument, it might be worth getting into for the sake of the exercise. So let's say the assumption was true. The western Theist version of God exists, and everybody on this thread has specifically been raised Catholic, and whatnot. We, for the sake of the argument, read up on Catholic philosophy regularly, and accept that the prime focus on any intellectual inquiry is not the existence of God (which is given), but determining the the nature of Him and his relationships to the rest of reality. Our goal of this argument (under these assumptions, of course) is to reconcile the accepted truth that
God exists and is the prime mover of the universe to the
possibility of reliable empirical evidence. Bold assumptions to get to this point, but I think it might be fun to play along. Let's get esoteric!
This gives us three possibilities, as outline in the blog article by Feser (and Freddoso's paper published in
American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly). These are nifty terms:
Mere Conservationism
If yes, then the deity you allow for is cold, distant, and is as far removed from reality as to be irrelevant.
Occasionalism
If no, the all secondary causes are suspect and empirical evidence is irrelevant, because at any given moment a primary mover can alter it. There is no science, just magic.
Concurrentism
Efficient causation and final causation work in tandem. Science is primarily based on studying efficient causation. But it assumes the regularities of nature that final causation makes possible.
The issue is knowledge and lack of knowledge about God. Concurrentism assumes several aspects of God:
1. He sustains the universe's natural laws, but in a deterministic way that essentially limits his Omnipotence. If there are no limitations to his Omnipotence, then these natural laws must necessarily be suspect. Can God choose otherwise if the final causation is determined? If his will is predetermined enough to sustain a concurrent string of causal relationships, then doesn't that necessarily extend to limit our choices, or his? Does that limit God's freewill, or does it limit our agency?
2a. Under Concurrentism, the scientific method requires an additional supernatural epistemology to account for efficient causation. With every metaphor presented in the argument (not repeating here), we are successfully able to discern what part of the final cause is efficient causation, and what part is material cause. Not so when dealing with God and nature. Technically, it should be possible to determine which aspect of our empirical evidence is efficient causation and which part is not, but
God cannot be compared to anything. There is the potential for confusing material causation with efficient causation in our observations, and there are no methodologies available to to resolve the confusion.
2b. Under Concurrentism, the scientific method requires an additional supernatural epistemology to account for efficient causation. It's very ironic that the article you linked is called Middle Men, because it requires a metaphysical understanding of nature that is irrelevant. Occam's Razor. . . why complicate an issue that must account for God's hand in the natural world, when it's essentially irrelevant under concurrentism?
3. The concept of four causes comes from Aristotle.
Aristotelian theology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The initial terminology make an argument that suggests the possibility of prime movers (plural). This suggests a logical conclusion that is henotheistic, violating our theistic understand of a singular, perfect God. Furthermore, it suggests that the nature of these Gods are essentially Deistic, and can do nothing but engage in self-contemplative thought. They are, by implication, unable to contemplate anything else but themselves .I understand that Aquinas has appropriated the arguments of Aristotle (Scientist #1) to prove the claim of a singular God that does not also violate our intelligence and common sense. But take the argument to the correct conclusion instead of cherry-picking it for your own desires. Aristotle is great, but he is not compatible with the theistic wordview we assume is true.
In the end, intelligent arguments are all circular if the initial premise is not logical. If I take away the assumption that God exists, everything I wrote above falls to pieces, as does everything you have written. So ignore everything I wrote as an pointless esoteric exercise, or deal with it point by point if you want. We can be reasonable, either way.
But if you believe in God in the first place, you do so
independently of your reason. It's just that simple.
