The Fifth of the Five Ways

[Deesse23]

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

Want the club t-shirt?

[Anomalocaris]

That’s far to lower hurdle to be proud to jump over.

[Fireball]

One ignores admins at their own peril. 

[Anomalocaris]

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

he read aquinas, he thinks you have not.  he hangs his self perception of ineffable superiority on that presumption.    you are not to criticize the value of having read it because that would be an intolerable attack on his superiority.

[Anomalocaris]

One ignores admins at their own peril. 

not if they make themselves so annoying admins ignore them as well.

[GrandizerII]

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.

We first have to understand what is being meant by per se and per accidens causes noted in the OP quote. I know one thing at least: these phrases have specific meanings in scholastic thought, and therefore may not mean how we intuitively understand them as modern thinkers. But to get the actual meanings, the best way to do so is to jump on Google and do a relevant search there. Better than making such a hasty interpretation and then responding accordingly.

Furthermore, going back to the OP, it seems to me that this person is saying that the Fifth Way has nothing to do with evolution (as evolution is besides the point). From what I remember reading in Feser's book a while ago, the argument itself is centered around ends (final causes), not apparent/perceived design. According to Aquinas, all things in existence have final causes, and that ultimately this leads to the Final Cause "God". There's a lot of argumentation that has been made to get to such a conclusion, and it's more complex than you think (and quite tricky), which is why it's better to withhold judgement until/unless you've read the reasoning in its entirety and understood it properly.

For the record, I don't personally hold theology in high regard. I think there's a lot of mental gymnastics that goes on in theology that it gets quite ridiculous. Nevertheless, I'd rather first make sure I understand what the argument I want to respond to is really about, and if I feel qualified to respond to it, then sure, I will reply. Otherwise, just shrug it off and move on to something more intuitive.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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

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

Hmmm...when I read the 5W it seems much more to me about physical dispositions and the regularity of natural processes. Glass is disposed to shatter, as opposed to bounce. Wax melts in heat, as opposed to exploding. IMHO the 5W is a refutation of an arbitrary and absurd reality. Instead, we live in an appartly rationally ordered world. God is the the order but the seemingly cause of this order. Aquinas is setting up God to become the onltologically transcendent object of the scientific method. Brilliant really. Are you sure you're not reading "Origin of Species" back into where it never really was? If so, your painfully simple refuation may or may not apply.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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

Hmmm...I can understand the sentiment. Modern existence shapes our understanding of what it means to be human. Sometimes I find it very difficult to remember that the human experience is broader than what surviving in modernity requires.

[Fake Messiah]

But to get the actual meanings, the best way to do so is to jump on Google and do a relevant search there. Better than making such a hasty interpretation and then responding accordingly.

If you have something to say, say it. If you think that I am wrong be specific. Don't be passive-aggressive.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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



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

Boru

Hmmm...when I read the 5W it seems much more to me about physical dispositions and the regularity of natural processes. Glass is disposed to shatter, as opposed to bounce. Wax melts in heat, as opposed to exploding. IMHO the 5W is a refutation of an arbitrary and absurd reality. Instead, we live in an appartly rationally ordered world. God is the the order but the seemingly cause of this order. Aquinas is setting up God to become the onltologically transcendent object of the scientific method. Brilliant really. Are you sure you're not reading "Origin of Species" back into where it never really was? If so, your painfully simple refuation may or may not apply.

The 'Origin of Species' was about biological evolution - I'm not proposing that Aquinas was attempting to refute a theory which did not exist in his lifetime.

But I don't know how anyone can read that passage and not infer that Aquinas was positing that the universe was intelligently designed. FWIW, I suspect that Aquinas would have been an ardent supporter of descent with modification and natural selection had he known about them. I can easily imagine him attributing them as even more evidence of the glory and majesty of God.

Boru