Thomas Aquinas' Second Way - [Cosmological Argument]
I wrote the following essay earlier this semester as part of my Introduction of Philosophy of Religion Class, and I got a 100/100 on it. I thought it warranted discussion on this forum. My main form of argumentation, in case anyone is confused, is that Aquinas is consistent and correct in asserting that there existed a first cause, however, it does not necessarily follow that this cause is God. Rather, my opinion is that it is only by religious experience and conviction that one can truly know that that is God.
Amongst the scholars, philosophers, and theologians of the Scholastic movement, the thirteenth century Dominican Monk Thomas Aquinas stands out as one of the most influential. His masterpiece Summa Theologica helped revive Classical and Aristotelian philosophy and helped Western theology to flourish in the Late Middle Ages. In it, he put forward five ways, or arguments, that attempted to prove the existence of God. His second argument, and possibly the most influential, is the Argument from Efficient Cause, which argues that the existence of objects that cannot cause themselves necessarily implies the existence of a first cause, which Aquinas terms to be God. While it is eloquent and efficient in arguing for the existence of a causal chain of events and a First Cause, it remains insufficient in proving that the first cause is in fact the God of Christianity, let alone a god at all.
Thomas Aquinas begins his argument by supposing a posteriori that there exist efficient causes, or causes that cannot be caused by themselves. For instance, a man cannot be his own grandfather nor can a knife carve its own handle and forge its own blade. If this were true, then the existence of any efficient cause would necessarily require the existence of a previous efficient cause to bring it into existence, which would then imply a chain of efficient causes to exist. If such a chain were to exist it would then imply two possible outcomes, either the chain would be infinite, or it would be finite. Aquinas, however, argues that because an infinite chain has neither a beginning nor an end, there is no First Cause, and therefore nothing to proceed from the First Cause, which would include the universe, the sun, the earth, and all its inhabitants. Since this is not the case, then there must clearly be a first uncaused cause. He calls this cause God.
It is important note that Aquinas’ notion of efficient causes is built upon both the presupposition of Aristotelian categories concerning the nature of causality and existence and in the Judeo-Christian doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, or the belief that the universe was created by God alone and from nothing (Foutz). According to the Aristotelian system, Thomas believed that existence is what the essence can or cannot do coupled with the esse, or being of an object (Howe, 4). Therefore, if existence is an action, it must be set in motion by an object other than itself. Moreover, while he thought that efficient causes could cause others to exist, he believed that the Christian God was the author of all things and was the first cause for everything (Foutz).
While few dispute the effectiveness of Aquinas’ reasoning in regards to precisely what efficient causes are, his argumentation begs the question as to why infinite causal chains are impossible. For instance, it can be conceived that there exists no beginning, middle, or end of time, and therefore the causal chain can exist in a loop and would therefore not require a first cause. Moreover, his assumption that this First Cause can be called God is also fallacious because the identity of the first cause is not defined and does not follow to be God. One might conceive that the universe could have just as easily been created by the Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or even Zoroastrian God. Furthermore, it can even be said that Thomas Aquinas commits the quantifier shift fallacy, which is the assumption that the cause of one object is the same as all objects. It is not yet justified to assume that the universe has simply one first cause, since there can be multiple chains of causality, and therefore, multiple first causes that are independent of one another. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, there is no clear indication that the first cause needs to be supernatural in origin. For instance, if one were to apply Occam’s Razor and eliminate any unnecessary assumptions, it might be more plausible to assume that the universe has always existed and is therefore the first efficient cause.
Nevertheless, a firm believer in the Thomist school of thought would argue in response that while the universe might be infinite the existence of the causal loop itself would require a sufficient reason to explain why it exists in such a way, and, since it exists, would therefore require some sort of first cause or would itself be a first cause. They would also argue that it is indeed philosophically possible that there could exist multiple chains of causality with multiple first causes independent of one another, this argument seems to fall flat in light of scientific evidence, as it would appear that the universe did in fact have one beginning, at least as far as is scientifically verifiable, and that this beginning, termed the Big Bang, was initially a singularity from which time, space, and matter arose, so space-time was created at this instant, so therefore, all things that exist arise from this one event. Still, it is difficult to say what caused the Big Bang, or even if it was itself the First Cause, as there is no clear way to determine the identity of Thomas’ conclusion (Stanford). Lastly, in light of the fact that there exists no clear reason to define the first cause as God, it might be necessary then to concede this point, and instead change the definition from merely God alone to simply a Necessary Being or cause, of which God is a possibility among many others. However, if we concede this point, then it would essentially cease to become a solid argument for the existence of God, and it would instead become merely a suggestion or a possibility that might infer to his existence.
With this evidence, it is difficult to argue that Thomas Aquinas’ argument from efficient cause is a sound argument. While he succeeds in establishing the necessity of some form of first cause, he remains unable to identify the cause, or what its nature is. In his defense, his argument could be viewed in the context of the thirteenth-century in which he took the existence of the Christian God to be axiomatic for his argument. However, in light of modern alternatives, and nearly eight-hundred years of criticism, we do not have the luxury of making such assumptions, and therefore cannot accept the validity of his conclusion as his argument stands.
Reply With Quote
