[Serious] Thomism: Then & Now

[Neo-Scholastic]

Right up front, he's a presuppositional apologist. IE God is simply assumed as a given when this is not the case.

There are two issues here. The first is whether the Aquinas uses circular reasoning. The second is noting the fact that the 5W are a miniscule part of a larger work and, as such, take as given what Aquinas, thought he had already adequately demonstrated, or addresses later in the Summa.

So does Aquinas use circular reasoning, as some suggest? I say no. There is a difference between motivated and circular reasoning. As a man of faith, Thomas Aquinas would most certainly be motivated to reason towards a conclusion. Motivated reasoning increases the likelihood of making mistakes but that does not mean the outcome must be wrong. In contract to this, circular reasoning is when the initial premise and the conclusion form a closed loop. This is not the case in the 5W.

This takes me to my second point. I noted ealier that Aquinas defines God in Article 3 of the Summa as a Being whose existence is identical to His essence.

“I say that this proposition, "God exists," of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject, because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (I:3:4). Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature — namely, by effects. – Thomas of Aquinas, Question 2, Article 1 <my emphasis>

So Aquinas is very up front about his process. Step 1, Question 2, Article 1, was about defining God. Step 2, the 5W, pairs principles that transcend the natural world of appearances (like a necessary being) with divine roles (like Sustainer). Step 3, the rest of Part 1, is about pairing those transcendent principles to God (simplicity, etc.) That is a clear progression. It may be mistaken somewhere along the line, but it doesn’t loop back on itself.

Thomas says in Article 1 of Question 2, that “God exists” is a self-evident statement but only to those who already understand that the essence of God is His existence. It’s like saying, “Existence exists.” Where does one go from there? Well, it leads into the 5W (Question 2, Article 2) which demonstrates that qualities evident in the natural world are attributable to principles that transcend the limitations and imperfections of the natural world. This is the negative way. Seeing the contours of God hidden in the outline of what is evident. Then after presenting the 5W Thomas does the real heavy lifting of defining God’s essence (simplicity, unity, etc.) which takes the variable “...this everyone calls God,” and fleshes it out.

Basically, what I am saying is that critics of the 5W make the mistake of treating it like a stand-alone, self-contained paper rather than an intermediate stage within a larger work.

The first of Aquinas Five ways/Five proofs" is the teleological/cosmological/ prime cause/ the watchmaker's argument/ Intelligent design/irreducible complexity/god of the gaps.

None of the 5W are similar Paley’s watch.

THE issue is the bald statement that everything must have cause.  This claim has not been shown to be absolutely true.

@Belacqua seems to have addressed this objection by explaining the term “cause” in classical philosophy denotes something different from the denotation in contemporary use. This is well presented at around 19:30m in the video @vulcanlogic posted. The Aritotelean causes are about "whatness".

Here, I’d like to commend @emjay, for wanting to understand the 5W on their own terms. To me, it’s a bit arrogant to assume Aquinas was incoherent just because his ideas do not neatly translate into the familiar concepts of modern physics. IMO, trying to shoe-horn the metaphysics of the Summa into modern physics is like playing Go on a Chess board. Maybe you can do it, but the limitations of the board make any such game different from actual Go.

I would also like to mention that after his visionary experience, Thomas said, “All I have written is as straw.” It serves as a reminder to me, as a Christian, that an intellectual understanding of God is nice but can never compare with a direct encounter with the living God.