Proof is not Found in the Quinque Viae

A seldom-referenced (and often misinterpreted) explanation for God’s existence is alluded to in the works of Saint Thomas Aquinas, a 13th century medieval Italian theologian and Dominican friar of the Catholic Church Church.. Most modern Christians are completely unaware of the breadth of Aquinas’ work, or perhaps unaware of him at all; so, when rare opportunity comes up where one mentions Aquinas it is a gem in hopes of a fruitful discussion about religiosity’s misunderstanding of some of their more highly regarded theologians (and philosophers).

Aquinas’ work includes the quinque viae, mentioned in his book, “Summa Theologica.” Christians who are familiar with this will often read this as Aquinas proving the existence of God, when in fact Aquinas’ implications are merely what man’s interpretation of meaning and their associated belief of God is, not actual proof of the existence of God, himself. The quinque viae only postulates man’s presumptions of God based on phenomenon not yet explained at the time; not based on any divine revelations or religious experiences at all.

In fact, as a philosopher, Thomas is emphatically Aristotelian. When Thomas referred to Aristotle as the Philosopher, he was not merely adopting what many in Aristotle’s time viewed as creative imagination. He adopted Aristotle's analysis of physical objects, his view of place, time and motion, and his cosmology. Aquinas was greatly influenced by and used Aristotle's account of sense perception and intellectual knowledge. His philosophy is closely based on what he learned from Aristotle and his commentary on Metaphysics.

(Remember, in quinque viae, Aquinas was supposing man’s perception of these things in the 13^th century, 300 to 400 years before men like Johannes Kepler or Isaac Newton defined various laws of motion).

Looking at the “five ways to prove God exists” according to the Christian misinterpretation of Aquinas’ work, and as stated [in part] in Aquinas’ “quinque viae:”

First, motion: “Some things undoubtedly move, though cannot cause their own motion.” Since, as Thomas believed, “there can be no infinite chain of causes of motion, there must be a first mover not moved by anything else, and this is what everyone understands by God.”

In quite simpler terms, “This ball moved, and I don’t know how it moved because I didn’t move it, so God must have been the force behind the ball’s movement.”

Again, this was human interpretation at the time; not proof. Science has since defined everything from planetary motion to gravity to potential energy to thermodynamics. These are only a few that can explain the reason behind forcible motion of an object that wasn’t yet understood in the 1200’s.

(The ancient Greeks were sure the world was not flat, but that information was lost in the dark ages, and hence during Aquinas’ lifetime, most of the Christian world still believed the world was flat. This would understandably stunt their ability to comprehend the many forces that could impact an object’s motion).

Using only the first part of Newton’s First Law of Motion is an easy way to test this; “An object at rest remains at rest unless acted upon by a force” – Place a tennis ball on a surface. The tennis ball should not move on its own. However, the tennis ball has gravitational potential energy. If the surface is not flat gravity will cause the ball to move; not God. This is as simple an argument I can make to debunk Aquinas’ first postulate of man’s interpretation. But, on a larger scale, the same can be applied to planetary rotation and the gravitational forces of the sun.

Second, causation: “As in the case of motion, nothing can cause itself, and an infinite chain of causation is impossible, so there must be a First Cause, called God.”

This is actually more recently defined as transcendental idealism by German philosopher Immanuel Kant in the 18th century. This implies that human experience of things is similar only to the way they appear to us, rather than being an activity that creates a direct and obvious link for causation; such as evolution.

One important thing to consider is that even the Church has deferred to scientists on matters such as the age of the earth and the authenticity of the fossil record. Papal pronouncements, along with commentaries by cardinals, have accepted the findings of scientists on the gradual appearance of life. In fact, the International Theological Commission in a July 2004 statement endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger, then president of the Commission and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, previously Pope Benedict XVI, includes this paragraph:

"According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth."

The Vatican’s concurrence with science, while irrelevant to the actual science itself, pretty much puts a nail in the coffin of Aquinas’ second postulate of man’s interpretation.

Third: Existence of necessary and the unnecessary: “Our experience includes things certainly existing but apparently unnecessary. Not everything can be unnecessary, for then once there was nothing and there would still be nothing. Therefore, we are compelled to suppose something that exists necessarily, having this necessity only from itself; in fact itself the cause for other things to exist.”

I’ll keep this one short as it is pretty much resolved and debunked in the previous point, but evolutionary processes would certainly provide examples of things that exist but are unnecessary and are not the cause for other things to exist; wisdom teeth, men with nipples, or the remnants of a vestigial tail are just a few. One could even argue that Christianity exists but is unnecessary, as its assumed purpose of morality is merely coincidental to time, tradition, and geographical impregnation, and it is ambiguously tied to something that cannot in fact be proven to have ever existed. I'll admit that's a loose tangent, as Christianity is a belief system and not a physical property. But, if it were singular and absolute in purpose, there wouldn’t have been more than 2,500 other gods worshipped across the globe as far back as there is evidence for worship of. (Pay attention to the fact that I said “worship of,” not existence of).

Fourth: Gradation: “If we can notice a gradation in things in the sense that some things are more hot, good, etc., there must be a superlative which is the truest and noblest thing, and so most fully existing. This then, we call God”

Gradation happens around us every day, but was certainly not as understood in Aquinas’ time. At least not as prevalent as it is in the world around us today. Changes in our atmosphere, changes in the sun’s radiation, changes in the linguistics of our human language(s), even chameleons (and other animals) use a form of gradation as a defense against predators. These are not supernatural phenomenon but rather testable biological and physical properties. And, they are only a couple of many millions of examples.

Fifth: Ordered tendencies of nature: “A direction of actions to an end is noticed in all bodies following natural laws. Anything without awareness tends to a goal under the guidance of one who is aware. This we call God.”

There is so much wrong with this postulate that it could require its own blog, but I will try to be brief. It’s far too ambiguous to be considered accurate proof of anything at all, outside of Aquinas’ thoughts on man's reason for belief. (Note that even when we guide objects, in Thomas' account of man’s view on God, it views the source of all knowledge coming from God as well. We absolutely know this is untrue. If you’ve taken even one class in your life, read one book, looked at one price tag, this is disproved).

This statement by Aquinas again berths Epicurus’ evaluation of God, which we know conflicts with the Christian assertion that he also gave us free will. He cannot be in complete control yet have no control at the same time. It’s one or the other. If we have free will, then it is entirely our own actions and those actions of the environment and cultures around us that combine to account for our circumstances and eventual ultimatum. If we don’t have free will, then “sin” is impossible. Which is it? That is the flawed perception of man in Aquinas’ fifth postulate.

Lastly, those things considered “natural laws” (divine laws) in the 13^th century have been irrefutably replaced by scientific laws by the year 2013.

Saint Thomas Aquinas was a thinker, as shown by his deep affinity for Aristotle. However he was also a theologian and ranking member of the Catholic Church. He sought to understand existence and cause, but he never implied proof, only what his perceptions of man’s reasoning for belief were. That is important to note, because there is a very distinct difference between proof and belief (or hope). The quinque viae is not proof of God’s existence. It’s merely proof of man’s reasoning for his belief in that existence. We are 800 years advanced from the age of Thomas Aquinas. We understand the world much better now. (Mis)using Saint Thomas Aquinas’ assertions is no more effective than using the Bible to prove the existence of God.