Friday, August 31, 2012
Reason for Faith
The concept of Thomas Aquinas has permeated western civilization theological and philosophical circles since the medieval times. In more modern times the philosophical influences of the Cartesian, Kantian, and Humistic opinions, conveyed a methodological doubt of dogmatic statements. With the rise of such philosophical rationalistic and skeptical thoughts the Christian church apparently had not much to include to the dialogue of faith and reason for some, and the truths of Christian faith were held with uncertainty for several. St. Thomas brings forth an enhanced dialogue of faith and reason, by providing systematic arguments against those who do not hold the Christian faith,[1] and to Christians for a fuller account of one’s beliefs. He acknowledges the importance of the study of philosophy to provide a better grasp of divine Revelation would be brought forth.[2]
Argument from Motion
Aquinas states that it is “…evident to our sense, that in the world some things are in motion.”[1] The argument from motion begins with change in the world that is evident to all. A primary realization of the terminology Aquinas uses for the argument for God in motion must be comprehended initially. There is a distinction between a potentiality and actuality. He states: “…for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion, whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act.”[2] A “potential” thing can be better understood as the thing being possible, and not actual. An actual thing has already come to be, the potency in the thing has been actualized. An illustration of planting an apple tree might better demonstrate. One must recognize that there are necessary circumstances that exist for the appearance of the tree to come to be (there is dirt, grass, heat, rain, etc.). An individual eating an apple takes the core and plants it in the ground. The potentiality, viz. the core of the apple, becomes actualized (the full grown tree). The events that happen between the potentiality and actuality are named “change” or “motion.” As Aquinas states that that there is “motion” or “change” and this is evident to the individual (as previously noted), these things would be considered as “potentialities” becoming “actualized.”
Carefully considering the previously stated premise, then it would be accurate to state that a potential thing does not actualize itself. He states, “Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at one in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects.[3] No potential reality becomes that reality by the actualization of itself. “The same thing cannot be at once in act and in potency with respect to the same thing.”[4] In this case, the seed has to be either potential, potentially the apple tree, or actual, already in the form of an apple tree. It cannot be both. The apple seed must be one or the either. It does not cause itself to be actual, in this case an apple tree. The tree is not capable of moving itself from potentiality (the core) to actuality (the fully grown apple tree) by itself. In this illustration, potentiality is nothing in itself. Rather potentiality is the possibility for the thing to be what it will be, the apple tree from the apple seed.
An individual cannot actualize themselves. There is a time when an individual was not (actual). An individual does not cause themselves to be actual, into being, from ex nihilo out of nothing. The individual comes into being from other factors (viz. efficient causes) that are in effort to help explain the individual.[5] The individual cannot cause their own being. St. Thomas states, “Now, whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion..”[6] The individual human person cannot actualize their own potentiality in this regard. “But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality.”[7] Everything that an individual comes upon in the sensual world was once potential. The thing becomes a reality by something that was actualized. It is not both actual and potential at the same time. “For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold.”[8] It needs another to bring the thing from potentiality to actuality. “Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another.”[9] Only things that are actual can cause another to be actual.
The Piece of Wood
The example that St. Thomas uses is a piece of wood. The piece of wood is potentially a source of heat. The wood becoming this source of heat would have to be acted upon. “Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it.”[10] The wood becoming a source of heat would have to have heat acted upon the wood to become itself a source of heat. Following the analogy, the wood would need a match to actualize its potentiality (become fire). However, the match does not actualize itself.[11] The match needs another to actualize it, the individual. The individual does not actualize themselves (as previously noted). The individual human person needs the parents. But the parents do not actualize themselves. As Aquinas states, “therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again.”[12] The parents are actualized by the grandparents, the grandparents by their parents, and so forth. No one thing in the chain of events accounts for its own actuality. They were potential, now actual, and actualizes another potentiality. “Everything that is moved is moved by another.”[13] The actualization cannot continue forever. Things are only because they have been actualized by another. “But, this cannot go on to infinity”[14] To continue the chain of potentialities becoming actual would only keep deferring the actualization and question of where does the thing come from[15]. There has to be a first cause. If there were not a first mover, then there would be no subsequent acts. “…it is necessarily the fact that, when the first mover is removed or ceases to move, no other mover will be moved.”[16]
“If however, the mover is moved by another species of motion, so that (namely) the altering cause is moved according to place, and the cause moving according to place is increased, and so forth, since the genera and species of motion are infinite in number, it will follow that we cannot proceed to infinity.”[17]
Sensational experience demonstrates a series of dependant relationships of continual potentialities becoming actualized. The question that is brought forth is how does anything become actualized to begin with? One needs actuality first, not dependant on another thing to actualize it. If there is continual change and requires act to actualize its potentiality then there must be pure act, the cause of all subsequent motion.
“…because then there would be no first mover and consequently, no other mover, seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other, and this everyone understands to be God.”[18]
God is the first cause. “It remains, therefore, that we must posit some first mover that is not moved by an exterior moving cause.”[19] He is necessary existence. If He did not exist there would not be potentialities becoming actual, no motion.
Now, this is just one "reason for our faith". There are many!!! Throughout a series of posts, I will lay out just a few. Now, to state to be a diest is unreasonable, is simply "unreasonable."
[1] ST I, 2,3
[2] Ibid
[3] Ibid
[4] Summa Contra Gentiles I, 13, 9
[5] It would be fruitful for each individual human person to ponder their own actualization (coming into life). There are many causes that allow for an individual to be.
[6] Summa Theologica I, 2,3
[7] Ibid
[8] Ibid
[9] Ibid
[10] Ibid
[11] Of course there are other efficient causes: the wick on the match, the oxygen, etc…
[12] ST I, 2,3
[13] Summa Contra Gentiles I, 13, 3
[14] ST I, 2, 3
[15] It would be an “infinite regress,” only deferring the question. No one thing accounts for its own existence, or actuality.
[16] SCG I, 13, 14
[17]SCG I, 13, 19
[18] ST I, 2, 2
[19] SCG I, 13, 20
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment