(January 2, 2023 at 1:57 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:(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.
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.
