Aquinas's Fifth Way

[Neo-Scholastic]

A quick summary of Aquinas’s Fifth Way:

“…things that lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting, or nearly always, in the same way…watever lacks knowledge cannot move towards and end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence…therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are ordered to their end.”

Without some background in neo-Scholastic philosophy this can argument seems arcane so, with no small measure of trepidation I have tried to put the argument forward using more modern nomenclature as follows:
Causes are linked to effects by conceptual necessity.

1: Things (composites of material and form) remain as they are and do not change unless an external influence or power within themselves acts, i.e. a cause or reason.

2: The regularity of efficient causation requires that causes be determined to particular effects; such that, when, in the absence of a countervailing influence, cause C is directed to effect E, then C tends to have E as a result.

3: An efficient cause is an actualizing event that tends toward a specific end, that is to say, cause C attains effect E by means of intentionality.

4: Intentionality is characteristic of intelligent agency.

5: Unthinking causes do not have within themselves the power to intend toward regular effects.

6: Therefore, some intelligent agent directs unthinking causes toward their effects.

I think that’s pretty good modern summary, but I’m open to suggestions.

[abaris]

He lived in the 13th century. By many historians it's considered the stupidest in human history. The fact that he was rather educated and had some original thoughts back then, doesn't change the fact, that he was a theologian, firmly based in christian belief and had no access to what science teaches us today.

Of course he believed in intelligent design, because first he was a christian clergy man and second, everybody did, since there was no alternative in a time when hardly anyone could even read.

[Ben Davis]

1: Things (composites of material and form) remain as they are and do not change unless an external influence or power within themselves acts, i.e. a cause or reason.

Okay.

2: The regularity of efficient causation requires that causes be determined to particular effects; such that, when, in the absence of a countervailing influence, cause C is directed to effect E, then C tends to have E as a result.

Okay.

3: An efficient cause is an actualizing event that tends toward a specific end, that is to say, cause C attains effect E by means of intentionality.

Not okay. We're aware of many causes which require no intelligence for efficacy. Physics & chemistry are replete with them.

4: Intentionality is characteristic of intelligent agency.

Yes but not all effects are the result of intentional causes.

5: Unthinking causes do not have within themselves the power to intend toward regular effects.

Yes they do. I'll point you at physics & chemistry again. Not only are the effect of many unthinking causes regular, they're repeatable and reproducible.

6: Therefore, some intelligent agent directs unthinking causes toward their effects.

Consequently, this conclusion is wrong.

[Jenny A]

It's number five in particular that blows the fifth way out of the water.

Unthinking causes, like gravity, do have regular effects. The assumption that an intelligent designer or creator is necessary for there the be predictable results is not warranted..

[abaris]

He's a clergy man from the 13th fucking century. Full stop. That's as biased as can be, considering the sad state of general education back then and what people actually knew about the world around them. In short, next to nothing.

[Neo-Scholastic]

It's number five in particular that blows the fifth way out of the water. Unthinking causes, like gravity, do have regular effects.

Yes but why are the effects regular? That's the point of the argument.

[Jenny A]

It's number five in particular that blows the fifth way out of the water. Unthinking causes, like gravity, do have regular effects.

Yes but why are the effects regular? That's the point of the argument.

There's no need to require a designer or outside controller of events for effects to be regular. It is natural that the same action produces the same results consistently. It is a result of the natural properties of the objects involved. Change the properties, change the results. But regardless, the results will be regular.

[Esquilax]

It's number five in particular that blows the fifth way out of the water. Unthinking causes, like gravity, do have regular effects.

Yes but why are the effects regular? That's the point of the argument.

Why wouldn't they be? Why is it that you think that, absent an intelligent mind directing things, the same causes in the same context would create completely different effects?

We observe that cause A causes effect B, assuming that there isn't anything else to interfere with it. Aquinas' argument, that the only reason this is so is because of an intelligent agent directing it begs the question by not offering any justification for assuming that things would be otherwise without that interference. We have the same observation, that A causes B consistently, and no indication either of an intelligent agent being involved in the process, or that A even could cause something other than B to happen in identical circumstances. Hell, we don't even have a mechanism for how that could happen.

There's a burden of proof here that's not even being attempted.

[Jenny A]

A skeptic sees regular laws of nature and says that's how things are, let find out how they work. A person attempting to prove god says that's how things are and there must be a reason things are the way they are, god is a good all purpose explanation, therefore god. Setting aside the question of whether regular laws require a god, the problem is that god himself would then require an explanation beyond that's how things are. Such an explanation is never forthcoming.

[Anomalocaris]

Yes but why are the effects regular? That's the point of the argument.

Why wouldn't they be? Why is it that you think that, absent an intelligent mind directing things, the same causes in the same context would create completely different effects?

We observe that cause A causes effect B, assuming that there isn't anything else to interfere with it. Aquinas' argument, that the only reason this is so is because of an intelligent agent directing it begs the question by not offering any justification for assuming that things would be otherwise without that interference. We have the same observation, that A causes B consistently, and no indication either of an intelligent agent being involved in the process, or that A even could cause something other than B to happen in identical circumstances. Hell, we don't even have a mechanism for how that could happen.

There's a burden of proof here that's not even being attempted.

Wooter's one single operating principle is

"If wooters can ask stupid questions or make stupid assertions faster- sometimes by the simple expedient repeating the same thing as if there were different - than intelligent people can be bothered to humor him by answering and rebutting, then ta da god".