Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jerry Coyne and Aquinas’ First Way (as usual, the Evo-atheists don't understand the argument)
Evolution News & Views ^ | September 9, 2009 | Michael Egnor

Posted on 09/09/2009 6:15:04 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Jerry Coyne and Aquinas’ First Way

Jerry Coyne and Jim Manzi have been mixing it up lately over the religious implications of evolution. Coyne asserts, quite rudely at times, that evolution disproves the existence of God. Manzi disagrees, and asserts that theism is compatible with evolutionary science.

I’ve had a blog discussion or two with Manzi, and he’s a thoughtful courteous interlocutor. He doesn’t believe that intelligent design is a legitimate scientific inference (so he’s not perfect), but he is logically rigorous and very well informed on scientific matters as well as on the broader philosophical issues. He believes that evolution, understood as an algorithmic process by which populations of organisms change over time, is compatible with belief in God. He asserts that evolutionary science does not demonstrate that atheism is true. He’s right.

Jerry Coyne is another matter. Coyne’s manner is sarcastic and supercilious, or at least as supercilious as one can get without relevant literacy. Coyne is an evolutionary biologist of the first rank, but that is where his competence ends. His arguments against the existence of God are embarrassing, and, like the arguments of Richard Dawkins and other New Atheists, are eliciting a backlash among intellectuals who have at least a modicum of philosophical and theological education. I don’t claim for myself any more than a marginal competence — an amateur’s competence — on such matters, but in refuting Coyne, that’s all that’s necessary.1

Coyne:

Oh dear. This chestnut [Aquinas’ First Way] is so old that it’s fossilized. And the answer to this claim hasn’t changed for decades: why is God any more an “uncaused cause” than is the universe, or the “physical laws” themselves? God is always called the “uncaused cause” without further explanation, but that simply won’t do. If He was an uncaused cause, what did He do before creating everything? Hang around twiddling His thumbs? The people who make this argument are claiming, in effect, that God is by definition an uncaused cause, but we can properly ask “What caused God?” with exactly the same tenacity that theists ask “What caused matter?” And why is God exempt from having a cause, but matter or physical laws are not? This is just sophistry. Faitheist philosophers are always telling us that we don’t grasp the subtleties of theological argument, but that won’t wash here….

Aquinas’ First Way is an elaboration of Aristotle’s argument for the existence of an Unmoved Mover. It is traditionally called the Argument from Motion, but "motion" is the traditional Aristotelian word for what we moderns call change. Motion, meaning translation in space, is only one very limited meaning of classically understood "motion," which refers to any kind of change (e.g., a change in color, a change in shape, a change in temperature, etc.).

The Argument from Motion is based on the observation that all change involves the transition from possibility ("potency") to actuality ("act"). That is, when something changes, it moves from a state of potency for a certain attribute to a state of actuality for that attribute. An acorn is in potency for an oak tree (it is potentially an oak tree). When it becomes an oak tree, it is in act for an oak tree. It’s essential to note that "potency" means that the substance does not posses that attribute, it merely can, under the right circumstances, posses it. No thing can simultaneously be in potency and in act for the same attribute.

When something changes ("moves"), it goes from potency to act with respect to that attribute. But, by definition, a substance cannot change itself, because it lacks the attribute — it is in potency, not actuality. It can’t give itself what it doesn’t have. This is the basis for Thomas' famous dictum:

"That which is moved is moved by another."

It is logically necessary that everything that changes is changed by another. When a substance changes, it begins in potency (without the attribute) and ends in actuality (with the attribute). It cannot give itself the attribute, because, by definition, it is initially in potency for that attribute and doesn't have it to give. It must be changed (moved) by another.

Thomas’ observation is a commonplace. An acorn becomes an oak tree (the actualization of its potency) by the action of radiant heat from the sun, energy and matter from the soil and the air, etc. A tree falls because of the wind. A grass fire is ignited by lightning. Everything that changes is changed by another.

Yet, Aquinas (and Aristotle) noted that the proximate cause of the change (the sunlight, the chemicals in the soil, the wind or lightning) is, generally speaking, itself in a process of change, of transitioning from potency to act. And each change in nature was itself generally the result of change in another substance, and so on. Natural change of this sort is a layered hierarchy of changes — a hierarchy of transitions from potency to act.

The salient question is: can this hierarchy of change — this hierarchy of transitions from potency to act — go on to infinite regress? To understand the answer to this question, it is first important to understand the difference between a series of causes that is accidentally ordered and a series that is essentially ordered.

An accidental series is a series of causes extended in time; it is not essential to the continuation of the series that any of the prior causes remain in existence. The classic example of an accidentally ordered series of causes is a father begetting a son who begets a son who begets… and so on. Aquinas pointed out that this kind of casual series can go on to infinite regress (or at least there’s nothing self-contradictory about it).

But that is not the only kind of change. There are changes — causal series — that are ordered in priority, not in time. That is, there are causal series in which each of the causes must be in existence for the series to be actualized. For example, I use a hammer to hit a nail. The nail changes because it is hit by the hammer; the hammer changes because my hand moved it; my hand moved because my muscles contracted; my muscles contracted because of biochemical changes in my muscle cells; the biochemistry in my muscle cells changed because of action potentials in my nerves, etc.

This kind of casual series in which the series depends on the continuing existence of each component is called an essential series. The components of an essential series depend on the simultaneous existence of prior components. If one one member of the series doesn't exist (the nerve in my arm is cut), then all of the subsequent changes cease. Aquinas (and Aristotle before him) observed that, for an essential series, infinite regress of potency-to-act is not possible.

This is why: in an essentially ordered series of changes, each change depends simultaneously on a change from a prior member of the series. If all members of the series were merely in potency, but not in act, the series could never get started, because potency means lack of actuality. No subsequent "down-the-line" member of an essentially ordered series has independent causal power of its own. So an infinite essentially-ordered series of changes is impossible, because without a first act, it is merely potency (not actuality) all the way down, and nothing could get started. An essentially-ordered causal series must begin with act, not potency. There must be a first member of the series that is in pure act, without potency, or the essential series — the change — would not occur at all. The First Mover in the series must be itself unmoved, because if it were moved — that is, if it went from potency to act — it would necessarily be moved by another, and then wouldn’t be the first member of the series. An essentially ordered casual series must have a First Mover that is itself unmoved.

It's important to point out that Aquinas (and Aristotle) assumed an eternal universe for the purposes of the Argument from Motion. The First Mover is necessary for each and every essentially ordered series of changes in nature. The First Mover is necessary for change occurring at each moment. The argument is unrelated to the Big Bang; as noted, Aquinas assumed (for the sake of the First Way) that there was no temporal beginning of the universe. The argument works irrespective of whether or not the universe had a beginning in time.

The only way to explain change in the natural world is to posit the existence of an unmoved First Mover. Aquinas goes on (in Summa Contra Gentiles and Summa Theologica) to draw out in meticulous detail the necessary attributes of the First Mover, and he demonstrates that it is logically necessary that the First Mover have many attributes (simplicity, omnipotence, etc) that are traditionally attributed to God as understood in the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Argument from Motion is rigorous, and I have merely summarized its salient points, but it is straightforward once the premises are established. It is a very powerful argument. Yet I am not here proposing that Aquinas’s First Way is irrefutable. I believe that it is valid, but thinkers much smarter than I am have debated it for millennia, and still debate it. It is disputed; it has certainly not been refuted. It is a very strong argument, and it has engaged the best philosophers for a very long time.

Enough with philosophical rigor; let’s get back to Coyne. He asserts:

Oh dear. This chestnut [Aquinas’ First Way] is so old that it’s fossilized. And the answer to this claim hasn’t changed for decades…

The philosophical debate on the Argument from Motion (“this chestnut”) has been ongoing for two and a half millennia (since Aristotle). Coyne, for reasons that are obscure, seems to think that the definitive answer was given “decades” ago. Coyne again:

… why is God any more an “uncaused cause” than is the universe, or the “physical laws” themselves? God is always called the “uncaused cause” without further explanation, but that simply won’t do. If He was an uncaused cause, what did He do before creating everything? Hang around twiddling His thumbs?...

Coyne doesn't understand the argument. Aquinas assumed an eternal universe; the First Mover is necessary for all essentially ordered change in the natural world at every moment; it depends not at all on a moment of creation in time. The argument is of course equally valid in a universe with a finite past, but assumptions as to the eternal or finite nature of the past have no bearing whatsoever on the argument. The First Mover is necessary for change at all moments in time; the First Mover is logically necessary once the nature of change is carefully understood.

Furthermore, contra Coyne, the conclusion that a First Mover is logically necessary to explain change in the natural world is the denouement of extraordinarily detailed “further explanation”; in Summa Contra Gentiles, Aquinas devoted hundreds of pages of meticulous philosophical reasoning to the explication of the argument. Coyne again:

The people who make this argument are claiming, in effect, that God is by definition an uncaused cause, but we can properly ask “What caused God?” with exactly the same tenacity that theists ask “What caused matter?”

Coyne can indeed ask what caused the First Mover with “tenacity,” but not with cogency. The logical conclusion of the Argument from Motion is that the First Mover can't be "caused." The First Mover is pure actuality. The First Mover cannot move from potency to act (i.e., "be caused") because it has no potency. Matter (substance) is caused because it has potency; it's not pure actuality. It changes, and thus it is a mixture of potency and act. Matter (substance) cannot be the First Mover, because it's not pure actuality. Coyne:

And why is God exempt from having a cause, but matter or physical laws are not? This is just sophistry.

Coyne doesn’t understand the Argument from Motion. The natural world needs a cause that is pure act because an essentially ordered series requires a First Mover that is Itself unmoved. This isn’t sophistry — it’s a detailed logic argument that Coyne doesn’t understand.

Faitheist philosophers are always telling us that we don’t grasp the subtleties of theological argument, but that won’t wash here…

The Argument from Motion was originally made by a pagan (Aristotle), not a “faitheist philosopher.” It has been held by countless thinkers representing an enormous range of metaphysical persuasions. It is an argument that depends entirely on philosophical, not "theological," premises. And if you make a modicum of effort to understand it, it's not particularly "subtle." It's routinely mastered by freshmen in Introduction to Philosophy courses.

There have been brilliant atheists (Hume, Russell, Quine) who have struggled with the profound philosophical issues raised by Aquinas’ Five Ways and by a host of other demonstrations for the existence of God. Their contributions warrant respect, but they have never successfully refuted the classical arguments. These powerful and elegant demonstrations of the necessary existence of a First Cause have been set aside by stipulation, not by refutation. It is merely fashionable to deny them. Yet this denial isn’t a denial of the truth of the arguments; it’s a denial of philosophical rigor. It’s a sneer. It now seems that our materialist intelligentsia’s understanding of classical philosophy has degenerated to the point where public intellectuals like Coyne can make arguments that would embarass a teenager in a first semester philosophy course.

Coyne doesn't understand the Argument from Motion. His arguments are too uninformed to even be sophistry. He’s all spittle. But there are people who do understand, and they’re taking notice. Thanks to the high public visibility of New Atheists like Coyne and Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens and Dennett, the anti-intellectual nature of New Atheism and the sheer malignity and fatuousness of what passes for New Atheist thought is becoming increasingly apparent to those who are paying attention to this debate. Many non-theists are cutting ties with New Atheism. The damage that Coyne and other New Atheists are doing to their own atheist cause is incalculable.


1 For a marvelous expert discussion of the New Atheists’ philosophical incompetence and a superb introduction to the Aristotelian/Thomist approach to arguments for God’s existence and the application of Thomism to modern science, I heartily recommend Ed Feser’s book, The Last Superstition. Feser, an academic philosopher and a Catholic who was converted to Christianity from atheism by the force of Thomist arguments, has a gift for exposition. The Last Superstition is one of the best books I’ve read in a very long time.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: belongsinreligion; catholic; christian; creation; evolution; godsgravesglyphs; intelligentdesign; moralabsolutes; philosophy; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041 next last

1 posted on 09/09/2009 6:15:05 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 09/09/2009 6:16:27 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

When I studied St Thomas’ Five Ways, we had a dear Jesuit priest teaching, who was an avid sportsman. His pointed out that the more perfect the mover, the more unmoved it is. The analogy he liked to use was that of the professional athlete. The better the athlete, the less motion involved to achieve the effect. This applies to golf, tennis, baseball, football, just about any sport.


3 posted on 09/09/2009 6:55:07 PM PDT by blackpacific
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: blackpacific

That’s more Greek than scriptural.

Scripture tells of a God who chose to be moved.


4 posted on 09/09/2009 6:59:30 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Proud Sarah-Bot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Coyne simply cannot understand an answer is not a refutation.
A “First Cause” in order to, indeed, be that must have certain characteristics. “A” is not the First Cause just because it comes before “B” but that is the argument that Coyne thinks he has refuted.
But it is an argument that hasn't been made and is not applicable to subject at hand anyway.
5 posted on 09/09/2009 7:03:53 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

[Jerry Coyne is another matter. Coyne’s manner is sarcastic and supercilious, or at least as supercilious as one can get without relevant literacy. Coyne is an evolutionary biologist of the first rank, but that is where his competence ends. His arguments against the existence of God are embarrassing, and, like the arguments of Richard Dawkins and other New Atheists, are eliciting a backlash among intellectuals who have at least a modicum of philosophical and theological education.]

My background in science leads me to accept evolution as the valid explanation for the diversity of life on Earth and it also leads me to choose to not hold any religious beliefs. But this is where I part ways with Richard Dawkins and other atheists whose intolerance of and contempt for those of faith is indeed damaging to the cause of science.

Science is not equipped to disprove the existence of God and it’s embarrassing to watch some scientists (who should know better) try to do so.

Dawkins’ book “The God Delusion” is saturated with fallacies of logic that should have been obvious to the author if he wasn’t so blinded by his own arrogance.


6 posted on 09/09/2009 7:26:39 PM PDT by spinestein (The answer is 42.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

And yet poor Jerry thinks he has walked away from his fight with Aquinas victorious! I wonder when it will finally dawn on Jerry that the joke is on himself?


7 posted on 09/09/2009 7:58:26 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

You must have “overlooked” my challenge to you in your last two posts.

I never thought you would run from a chance to debate the evo’s and send them away crying.

I am going to try one more time, although I doubt you have the confidence to support your “arguments” outside of this echo chamber minus your cheerleaders as it would require more than your circular reasoning, misdirection, insults, and name-calling.

As they say if you talk the talk you need to walk to walk….
Sign up and join this thread in progress.

http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=4625667


8 posted on 09/09/2009 8:08:43 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

...and HIV does not cause AIDS.....


9 posted on 09/09/2009 8:16:01 PM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with vegetarian T. rex within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

I could care less about your challenge, Ira. But if you know of any evo-atheist sites that will let me post my Creation and ID articles without pulling them, let me know and I might just turn up :o)


10 posted on 09/09/2009 8:18:24 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry

Whenever I post, if you don’t mind, could you always lead off with that? And if it’s not too much trouble, could you follow it with a link to my profile page? Much obliged d;op


11 posted on 09/09/2009 8:23:33 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
but we can properly ask “What caused God?” with exactly the same tenacity that theists ask “What caused matter?”

Coyne is,..., well, an idiot. Theists do not admit that God had a beginning. Physicists do not accept the steady state universe. IOW, materialistic science accepts as axiomatic, that all things scientific have a material cause. Atheists, then would seem to accept it as axiomatic that all things have a material cause, lest there be wiggle room for supernatural things, namely a god of any sort. So the best thing for atheists is an eternal bubbling super-universe where "normal" universes pop in an out of existence. IOW a poor man's god.

Nonetheless, it is a legitimate question to ask for the cause of matter. To which they would reply, "it needs no cause, it just is". Similarly when asked what God did before he created everything, the answer is, "He did godly things."

12 posted on 09/09/2009 8:30:53 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

So you can talk the talk, but not walk the walk?

You do not need to post your articles to support your position.

Just go in and counter their assertions with your mountains of evidence.

Should be easy since you claim to send evo’s crying from a debate with you.

Yup just like I predicted all hat, and no horse.


13 posted on 09/09/2009 8:31:32 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

Very last sentence...LOL!


14 posted on 09/09/2009 8:33:15 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

Like I said, find me an evo-atheist site that will allow me to regularly post Creation/ID articles and papers, and I might just turn up!!!


15 posted on 09/09/2009 8:36:13 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; Ira_Louvin
A typical comment from the site.

Iluvbeer: Great, we all descended from a bunch of Euro homos.

Admit it, homo erectus gives you a boner.

GGG, you are wise to steer clear. Ira, are your fingers broke on this site. Nothing is stopping you from starting a thread of your own here and inviting discussion. Is there something about the atmosphere at Fark that you require?

16 posted on 09/09/2009 8:46:30 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

You are cracking me up with every post tonight, AC! I needed a pick-me-up after listening to Obama screech. And then the only bright spot in the whole speech apologized! In short, you stole the show tonight!

All the best—GGG :o)


17 posted on 09/09/2009 8:53:13 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

Just would like to see you guys utterly destroy and send the evo’s away in tears.

You say it is so easy, then it is time to man up and do it. Talk is cheap.


18 posted on 09/09/2009 8:54:47 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin; CottShop

Sounds like you just wanted us to show up so your evo-atheists could swear at us. What’s the matter, Ira, is Free Republic cramping your style? At any rate, if you can get your evo-athiest pals to agree to let me post my Creation and ID articles without pulling them, I might just turn up anyway :o)


19 posted on 09/09/2009 9:06:29 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin; CottShop

Sounds like you just wanted us to show up so your evo-atheists could swear at us. What’s the matter, Ira, is Free Republic cramping your style? At any rate, if you can get your evo-athiest pals to agree to let me post my Creation and ID articles without pulling them, I might just turn up anyway :o)


20 posted on 09/09/2009 9:06:30 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson