Thomist: The Teleological Argument is actually about the per se cause of the tendency of each creature to an end. The origin of species via evolution is completely irrelevant, as evolution is a per accidens cause.

I answer that,

Natural selection and deep time results in the simulacrum of design. Aquatic mammals resemble fish because their form, after many reproductive iterations, is optimal for their environment. A valid argument from design must first rule out whether the design is merely apparent.

(December 31, 2022 at 8:19 pm)LinuxGal Wrote: Thomist: The Teleological Argument is actually about the per se cause of the tendency of each creature to an end. The origin of species via evolution is completely irrelevant, as evolution is a per accidens cause.

I answer that,

Natural selection and deep time results in the simulacrum of design. Aquatic mammals resemble fish because their form, after many reproductive iterations, is optimal for their environment. A valid argument from design must first rule out whether the design is merely apparent.

It might be beneficial to ask that person to elaborate on what they mean exactly, so we can avoid responding to strawman arguments.

(December 31, 2022 at 8:19 pm)LinuxGal Wrote: Thomist: The Teleological Argument is actually about the per se cause of the tendency of each creature to an end. The origin of species via evolution is completely irrelevant, as evolution is a per accidens cause.

I answer that,

Natural selection and deep time results in the simulacrum of design. Aquatic mammals resemble fish because their form, after many reproductive iterations, is optimal for their environment. A valid argument from design must first rule out whether the design is merely apparent.

Your response to the Thomist is a complete non sequitur. 

If you're interested in understanding what the Fifth Way really says (as opposed to whatever it is you're arguing against) you can read Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide by Edward Feser. He does a good job of explaining how the Fifth Way is not like an intelligent design argument, or Paley's watchmaker argument. 

It looks as though the guy you were talking to understood it better than you. If you ask him he may be willing to explain it to you.

(January 2, 2023 at 1:38 am)Belacqua Wrote: It looks as though the guy you were talking to understood it better than you. If you ask him he may be willing to explain it to you.

He may have understood the Fifth Way but he didn't understand evolution since he claims that evolution is caused by accidents and LG tried to explain that it is not accidents but natural selection.

(January 2, 2023 at 1:38 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(December 31, 2022 at 8:19 pm)LinuxGal Wrote: Thomist: The Teleological Argument is actually about the per se cause of the tendency of each creature to an end. The origin of species via evolution is completely irrelevant, as evolution is a per accidens cause.

I answer that,

Natural selection and deep time results in the simulacrum of design. Aquatic mammals resemble fish because their form, after many reproductive iterations, is optimal for their environment. A valid argument from design must first rule out whether the design is merely apparent.

Your response to the Thomist is a complete non sequitur. 

If you're interested in understanding what the Fifth Way really says (as opposed to whatever it is you're arguing against) you can read Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide by Edward Feser. He does a good job of explaining how the Fifth Way is not like an intelligent design argument, or Paley's watchmaker argument. 

It looks as though the guy you were talking to understood it better than you. If you ask him he may be willing to explain it to you.

Of COURSE the Fifth Way is an intelligent design argument. Instead of Feser, try reading Aquinas - he said it was an intelligent design argument.

Quote:We see that things which lack knowledge, 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. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God (Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Article 3, Question 2).

(the refutation of the Fifth Way is painfully simple, but beyond the scope of this thread)

Boru

I think that Hitchens and Dawkins and people like that really did terrible damage to human understanding.

They wrote with the idea that theology is so easy and so obviously wrong that you don't even really need to know what it says. You can just show that it's wrong with no effort or thought. Dawkins' description of the Fifth Way is so blatantly wrong that he should never be trusted with anything again. He lives in Oxford -- he could get on his bicycle and go to the home of two dozen people who could explain it to him. But that would take a teeny bit of effort, and he doesn't think that's necessary.

The OP is repeating the same error he made, knowingly or not.

(January 2, 2023 at 8:21 am)Belacqua Wrote: I think that Hitchens and Dawkins and people like that really did terrible damage to human understanding.

And Plato, Augustine and Aquinus didn’t ????

(January 2, 2023 at 8:21 am)Belacqua Wrote: I think that Hitchens and Dawkins and people like that really did terrible damage to human understanding.

They wrote with the idea that theology is so easy and so obviously wrong that you don't even really need to know what it says. You can just show that it's wrong with no effort or thought. Dawkins' description of the Fifth Way is so blatantly wrong that he should never be trusted with anything again. He lives in Oxford -- he could get on his bicycle and go to the home of two dozen people who could explain it to him. But that would take a teeny bit of effort, and he doesn't think that's necessary.

The OP is repeating the same error he made, knowingly or not.

NONE of that addresses what Boru sad: That Aquinas himself said his idea was about intelligent design. Its once again a big straw man: Suggesting what Boru, or anyone else, thinks and says about Aquinas was informed by Dawkins or Hitchens, suggesting that for NO GOOD REASON.
Then again, the general accusation (again, Bels usual modus operandi) that people disagreeing with him are either lazy, stupid or both.

(January 2, 2023 at 9:04 am)Deesse23 Wrote:

(January 2, 2023 at 8:21 am)Belacqua Wrote: I think that Hitchens and Dawkins and people like that really did terrible damage to human understanding.

They wrote with the idea that theology is so easy and so obviously wrong that you don't even really need to know what it says. You can just show that it's wrong with no effort or thought. Dawkins' description of the Fifth Way is so blatantly wrong that he should never be trusted with anything again. He lives in Oxford -- he could get on his bicycle and go to the home of two dozen people who could explain it to him. But that would take a teeny bit of effort, and he doesn't think that's necessary.

The OP is repeating the same error he made, knowingly or not.

NONE of that addresses what Boru sad: That Aquinas himself said his idea was about intelligent design. Its once again a big straw man: Suggesting what Boru, or anyone else, thinks and says about Aquinas was informed by Dawkins or Hitchens, suggesting that for NO GOOD REASON.
Then again, the general accusation (again, Bels usual modus operandi) that people disagreeing with him are either lazy, stupid or both.

He can’t address what I said - he’s got me on ignore, along with 30+ other members.

Way to engage, amirite?

Boru

I have a difficult time believing that people of the 21st century still find Aquinas' arguments convincing.