(January 5, 2023 at 11:59 am)Deesse23 Wrote:(January 5, 2023 at 11:33 am)GrandizerII Wrote: Aquinas could have been a young earth creationist for all I care, it doesn't change how the argument itself is interpreted by modern Thomists. And it's the updated arguments/interpretations that the atheist who wishes to critique arguments for God should focus on ... after, of course, first understanding the argument properly.What you are saying is that the original intent does not matter but modern interpretations (or shall we say "retrofits" to match modern knowledge and understanding) do? If Aquinas uses a methodology (philosophy) and comes to wrong conclusions* (young earth creationism), then it does matter very much, because then we can conclude that his method is not the very best fo rfinding out what is true. "Massaging" his original methods and results into what you want it to say today, or retrofitting it to match more recent findings, that is dishonest.
* or even worse (and matter of fact in Aquinas´case): creating a method/philosophy to match what you already believe
I don't see anything in the wording that suggests the Fifth Way has to be a creationist sort of argument anyway. From what I have read, it works quite well with evolution because the argument isn't about direct creation of organisms. It's about ends (final causes) leading to the conclusion that the final final end "God" must exist (or, from what I remember reading from some Thomists, "God" is really the only final cause of everything in existence).
But let's agree for the sake of argument, it is a creationist sort of argument, and that modern Thomists are dishonestly interpreting it to be not, but they nevertheless have a more convincing argument worth critiquing instead. I guess it depends on what your aim is when it comes to critiquing arguments for God. Do you care to argue outdated arguments or updated ones? That is the question.
