Posts
We see that things that lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
This one at first glance does not seem meaningful. Is it true, and obviously true, that things in nature act for an end? What would be the “best result” for a rock toppling from a hill? To avoid shattering into smaller pieces? And do rocks so falling do anything to avoid this?
But I think what St. Thomas is getting at in saying natural bodies act for an end is the idea we now call natural law: that natural bodies act in a broadly predictable way, roughly the same way every time. Drop a stone, and it will fall down, not up or sideways. Heat a solid, and it will turn liquid. This is, of course, what science is all about.
The fact that we can predict what will happen—better and better as our science improves—implies, means, that natural processes have an end, a goal.
Hence, they are directed by some intelligent being, since inanimate objects necessarily cannot choose their own goal or behaviour.
Conversely—so as not to assume the antecedent—if there were no goal to nature, one would expect the behaviour of natural objects to be random. This time the stone would fall down; the next time it would fall up, or stay in place. The solid, heated, would grow more solid, next time disappear, next time turn into a butterfly.
1 comment:
Finally, an arguement with some meat on its bones! However, because it has been an issue over the last few years (i.e a denial to the theory of evolution), I have spent considerable time meditating about it. It would be an egregeous abuse of power to teach the delusion of intelligent design to children (as I have pointed out, the young ones already receive an overwhelming abundance of brainwashing re religion).
Re your post: First there's an obvious contradiction of natural vs. a God, which is supernatural, therefore, unnatural. Thus, in essence you and Aquinas are arguing that natural phenomena is unnatural.
Second, things that lack knowledge do not act to obtain the best result. How is an earthquake hurricane or erupting volcano the "best result?" What "best result" do the lifeless planets serve? What we have is the laws of physics opperating with the elements randomly. The supernatural need not apply.
So, how did we get here if there's noting supernatural driving the laws of physics? We exist because there is inevitablity in randomness. If you played Lotto 649 a million times, it would not be a question of IF you would win, but how many times. Because matter is ever-changing in an infinite universe, it's inevitable the physical stuff that makes us who we are will reoccur.
Now, here's a shocking argument you might not have heard: WITHOUT the random interactions of the elements, we would not exist. If there was some set, interlocking pattern to the universe, the necessary conditions for our existence could become occluded, locked out. Because an infinity of time has preceded us, our existence proves no such occulsion is possible (otherwise it would have happened already, because it has had forever to do so, the forever that existed before us).
Thus, the interaction of random varibles is a necessary condition to our inevitable existence, the exact opposite of what pontificators preach (they typically say, "Do you really think our existence can be random?"). Not only CAN existence be the function of randomness, it HAS TO BE.
When the Fine Young Cannibal, Vampiric blood drinking Christians realize this, we will enter an upprecedented era of enlightenment, discovery and peace. For one thing, the trillions spent on religious warring will instead be used for things like cancer research.
Post a Comment