The Fifth of the Five Ways

[GrandizerII]

So in this context, evolution is not considered by this Thomist to be an essential cause of "the origin of species".

Interestingly enough, natural selection would be considered a confirmation (not a rebuttal) of the Fifth Way according to modern Thomists since it is directed towards an end.

If you want more information, please google

For starters, if evolution is so in tune with Thomistic theology then why has not the Catholic Church acknowledged evolution? At "best" the Catholic Church holds no official position on the theory of creation or evolution.

And when it comes to the research you insist I do on google to see how evolution is so in tune with Thomistic theology, then here is a book for you by Dominican Thomist Father Michael Chaberek 

"Aquinas and Evolution: Why St. Thomas' Teaching on the Origins is Incompatible with Evolutionary Theory"

https://www.amazon.com/Aquinas-Evolution...099198806X

"Dominican Thomist Father Michael Chaberek explores the areas in which Aquinas’ philosophy seems inconsistent with the theory of evolution, exposing philosophical fault lines in current evolutionary theory. Father Chaberek, the author of Catholicism and Evolution and a contributor to More Than Myth?: Seeking the Full Truth about Genesis, Creation and Evolution, takes on this sacred cow of modern science with clarity, objectivity and intelligence."

Regarding your first question. Ask the fucking pope, lol. This has nothing to do with me. All I argued is that, according to modern Thomists, the Fifth Way is not refuted by Darwinian evolution.

You also seem to misunderstand my motive here. I'm not asking you to research whether the Fifth Way is sound and therefore evolution must be compatible with it. I suggested you google for more information if you wanted to have a more informed understanding of the argument along with any relevant terminology so that you could therefore come up with a better critique of the argument and quotes made by Thomists such as in the OP. You instead followed your confirmation bias and went to look up something that would support what you choose to believe, and it wasn't even real research anyway, since you just linked to a book which I can bet you actually didn't read and have no plan of reading. Also, a look at the reviews suggests that the author acknowledges that the Fifth Way is accepted by many of his fellow Thomists to be compatible with Darwinian evolution, which lends support to what I was saying earlier.

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.

[Deesse23]

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

[GrandizerII]

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.

[Brian37]

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.

Exactly how? 

Theology IS easy to dismiss, just as easy as dismissing Superman and Tinkerbell. The hard part is deconstructing theology to those who whom are willfully ignorant.

[Fake Messiah]

With theology enthusiasts here telling us that Thomism is compatible with evolution while Thomist theologians tell us it's not, one easily gets the impression that Thomism is nothing more than Sophism where people see what they want to see.

[Anomalocaris]

With theology enthusiasts here telling us that Thomism is compatible with evolution while Thomist theologians tell us it's not, one easily gets the impression that Thomism is nothing more than Sophism where people see what they want to see.

What part of “theology” or “theologian” could ever not be sophism?

[GrandizerII]

With theology enthusiasts here telling us that Thomism is compatible with evolution while Thomist theologians tell us it's not, one easily gets the impression that Thomism is nothing more than Sophism where people see what they want to see.

Now you're being blatantly dishonest.

Some things to take note of relevant to this discussion:

Thomism and Catholicism are not the same thing. You could be a Catholic without being an advocate of everything Aquinas said in his theology works.

Some Thomist theologians disagree with Darwinian evolution, others are ok with it. And even among those who disagree with evolution (such as Feser, I believe), they'll still say the Fifth Way is compatible with evolution anyway. So the Fifth Way is compatible with both evolution and creationism therefore, as was stated in the OP quote, it doesn't matter to the argument whether evolution is true or not. In fact, that Thomist quote is a typical response used by Thomists when strawmen about evolution and natural selection are made in an attempt to refute the Fifth Way.

Furthermore, some Thomists might argue that Thomism is largely incompatible with evolution, but that is not the same thing as the Fifth Way being incompatible with evolution.

[Fireball]

Theology is the study of...what..."the nature of God and religious belief."?

All those angels dancing on the head of that pin know despair.

Fuxxake, what a waste of human effort.