Well one of the unintended but I think happy consequences of the new atheism
is a renewed interest in the arguments for God's existence, so a lot of Catholic
evangelists and apologists, eager to stave off the new atheist
critique have recovered
the so-called rationalist demonstrations, and the atheists
eager to defend their position, have entered the fray and
I think in the process, these arguments have founda new relevance.
and, actually, in the give and take, arguments of both advocates and critics have been
refined. So I want to revisit,
Thomas Aquinas, you know, famously
gave us five arguments for God's existence, but he said
there is one that is the first
and most manifest
way: the argument from motion. I can lay it out
very simply and schematically.
Things moves.
Nothing moves itself.
There can be no infinite regress
of moved movers
Hence there must be some
first unmoved mover
and this all people
call God.
So that is the argument if you lay it out
very simply.
But now let's examine
it a bit to avoid
some misunderstandings that have
happened over the centuries.
From the middle ages to today,
that argument has been seriously misconstrued. First of all,
the word that's used
that Thomas uses is motus in Latin, and you can
render that as motion in English
but motus
has more the sense of change
not just change of place, but
what we call motion,
like the motion of my hand, but
it means any kind of change.
So someone growing in
knowledge
someone learning a language,
being born and dying,
all of these are forms of
motus in Thomas.
Motus, he
charactertizes as
the transition of
something from
potency to act.
From potential
reality to
actual reality.
Once we see that,
we see why
his second principle
holds, "nothing
can move itself."
If you are undergoing
motion, you are
in the state of potentiality.
Think of someone now who is
learning French.
He doesn't know French, he is potentially
in possession of French, but he doesn't know it.
He is undergoing the transition.
But the cause of motion,
the one who is teaching French,
must know the language,
and thereby moves
the student to
actualization.
What follows is
no one can be both
mover and moved at the same time
in the same respect.
You don't strictly speaking
teach yourself
French. You
might take up a book on your own, but then
the book is teaching you French.
The guy who wrote the book
was in possession of French.
So in a strict sense,
nothing reduces
itself
from potency to act.
There's no
self-moved
reality.
So let's suppose,
something is in motion,
it's changing.
We therefore know it's
being changed by another,
by some extrinsic cause
Let's suppose now that
that extrinsic cause
is itself
being moved.
Think for example of a..
this stole
being moved by my hand,
which is here and now being moved by
muscles in my arm,
which are being stimulated by
nerves, which are
now grounded in
the brain, etc.
If that
which causes the motion is itself
being put in motion,
it must be put in motion,
and by something extrinsic
to itself
and that by
another again and by another again.
That process cannot be
go on indefinitely. Why?
Because if I suppress the first
element in that chain,
then there is no
subsequent movers. If there are no
subsequent movers,
there is no motion.
But the motion, I can see with
right before me.
With my own eyes.
Therefore there has to be,
Aquinas concludes, some
first element,
the first unmoved mover,
a first
unenergized energizer.
A first unactualized, actualizer.
To explain
the actual
-izations taking place
within the universe.
There is a comment made by
Bertrand Russell, the 20th century
philosopher, which I've always found
remarkably unhelpful.
As he is considering this famous
argument, he says:
Well, the reason Thomas denied infinite series,
is he just couldn't
imagine them.
because they hadn't come
into vogue until the
20th century with
mathematical logic
and so on and so forth. Well,
nothing can be further from the truth.
Thomas had no trouble whatsoever
imagining infinite series.
He speculated about them all the time.
What he was denying was
this particular
type of infinite series,
infinite causal series, whereby each element
in the chain is
is here and now dependent upon
the one antecedent to it
In that kind of chain,
the suppression of the first
element
would lead necessarily
to the suppression of
of the subsequent elements, and therefore to the suppression of that chain
which we could see here and now.
So, the conclusion is
there must exist this
first...
call it unactualized actualizer
And then the little tag line at the end:
This all people call God.
Now, at this point,
there are some agnostics and atheists
who say
"You know, the argument's fine,
I think the argument
is logically air-tight."
They know that infinite
causal series
violates the principle of sufficient reason.
If you say, oh just
it goes back indefinitely, well, you haven't
explained anything.
They understand that,
that it a violation of this most fundamental
law of science.
That you have got to find a sufficient explanation
but they will
balk at that little tag line
"and this all people call God."
What they'll say,
especially today, is "look, there might be a first mover, okay
an unactualized, actualizer
but it's just
matter itself.
Or it's energy."
Often they will point to the
law of the conservation of energy,
energy never really comes
into being or passes away,
it just assumes other forms.
Forever and ever. So the fundamental
stuff, if you want,
the unmoved mover,
is energy.
Well, here's the
problem.
See if you follow Thomas's argument,
the conclusion you come to,
is this reality
which provides
actualization
which provides
actualization
but is itself not actualized
It is therefore actus
purus
That means pure act.
Actus translates in Latin to
energia in the Greek
I love that. Energy, energy.
The real first mover
if you really come to this reality
You found that thing which is
utterly
energized in its being.
That means realized
in its being.
And can itself
in principle receive no outside
influence.
Because it is the first element in this causal chain.
Matter or energy cannot
be this reality. Why?
Because matter, or to use the more contemporary,
term energy,
is by its very nature, infinitely malleable.
Matter exists in this particular configuration
but it can be in a thousand different
configurations.
If you say "matter," you mean something of a particular shape, size,
location, velocity,
You say energy, you mean
energy in what form, in what configuration, at what
quantum level, right.
Matter or energy are potential, to use the classical
philosophical language. They have a certain actuality, but they are marked by
extraordinary potentiality.
Now, do a little thought experiment. I've been hinting at it
already.
Imagine some thing, some existent thing
this stole or
these books on the bookshelf.
There is matter in a particular configuration
but it could be in a million other
configurations.
Therefore we are compelled to ask, you see it lies behind all of science
We are compelled to ask, well, what put it in
that particular form?
Now I am looking for extrinsic causes.
Sure, the publisher
put the matter in that particular form, covered it
that particular way.
Fine, fine. It could be in a thousand other
forms, but it is in that form because of an extrinsic
cause. A mover, if you want to call it.
Now, is that caused itself?
Was it potential? Was it put in that form by another cause. Well, sure it, was.
That process cannot go on infinitely.
otherwise we have explained nothing.
If we simply appeal
indefinitely to the
material causes, we haven't solved our problem.
Because matter remains essentially
potential. But the unmoved mover is
actus purus.
See, now you understand why Thomas can say
"This all people call God."
Once you understand the nature of the real unmoved mover,
who is
utterly realized in his being.
Who is completely energized in
his existence.
That which experiences no ontological restriction whatsoever.
Actus puras is that which exists through the power
of its own essence. What's God's name?
From the book of Exodus, "what is your name?"
I am who I am. Do you see now why
Thomas, borrowing this of course from Aristotle, can
very reasonably make the correlation between actus
puras, the unmoved mover,
and what all people call God.