We continue our series in natural theology with special guest, Dr. Gaven Kerr, author of Aquinas’s Way to God: The Proof in the De Ente et Essentia.
In this episode, Dr. Kerr takes us through a famous Thomistic proof — specifically, the argument from essence and existence — to see what can be deduced from this metaphysical distinction to affirm the existence (and nature) of God. We also discuss the importance of philosopher Bernard Lonergan, Kantian epistemology, and more.
Aquinas’s Way to God with Dr. Gaven Kerr
OR, ==> CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE EPISODE.
…
Note: Free Document Containing Arguments of Natural Theology:
==> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13mAT3BtobxA4-VYGaNPIqvGVCWOiVt8eOddEd9sp1Kc/edit?usp=sharing
…
PS – You might also enjoy Dr. Kerr’s lecture on God, Evolution and The Big Bang here ==> https://soundcloud.com/thomisticinstitute/god-evolution-and-the-big-bang-the-theology-of-creation-according-to-aquinas-prof-gaven-kerr
…
About Dr. Kerr
Gaven Kerr is a Thomist from Belfast, Northern Ireland, a married father of three, and a Third Order Dominican. He teaches theology at Mary Immaculate College Limerick. He has focused on philosophy and theology throughout his student days and into his academic career, in particular the thought of St Thomas Aquinas. He defends Aquinas’s thought within a contemporary context, and by means of that thought he engages with the other non-Thomist traditions.
On a more personal note, Dr. Kerr is a thoroughgoing metal head, martial arts enthusiast, and tattoo aficionado. His newest book is Aquinas and the Metaphysics of Creation.
…
Related Episodes
…
The Pat Flynn Show
If you enjoyed this episode, it would mean the world to me if you could subscribe to, and leave a review for, The Pat Flynn show on iTunes HERE or Stitcher HERE.
Reading your reviews and hearing your feedback is what keeps me fired up to make The Pat Flynn Show happen. Thank you!
Thank you for laying the groundwork for the philosophy Dr. Kerr. I had no idea what essences or existences meant in philosophical terms until you explained it. Not everyone tuning in has a vast background in philosophy, but they can by coming here and spending time with Pat and guests like you.
Dr. Kerr is not just a great philosopher, but also a great teacher. He does a wonderful job of making complex ideas accessible. Thanks for tuning in, Karl.
This was a deep lesson but you guys made it easier to understand than I ever expected. Dr. Gavin seems like a wonderful teacher. What I think was also important is Pat’s ability to ask questions and guide the conversation so people could understand what was just said, and how it pertains to what’s coming next. Excellent work by both of you gentlemen.
I’ve always wondered what Dominicans do and who they are. Very basic but informative explanation by Gavin. Never knew that the Catholic Church had preachers. Also associated them with Protestant Churches.
Pat, as you know, I am starting to get into philosophy (in fact, I listened to a lesson on the philosophy of religion) and St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas are high on my reading list (I’ll also be getting Dr. Kerr’s book). The whole concept of existence and essence is mind-boggling to me (thanks for explaining the difference too). The existence of God, of course, is a program that’s been around forever and I like the ability to explain it rationally. Myself, I never thought of things in an intrinsic vs. extrinsic way. It’s pretty deep and I’m not sure if I understand it right. Is there any text or podcasts you’d recommend? I’m always looking to expand my knowledge (and build my skill sets via your principles of being a generalist).
Hi Mike,
For Thomistic metaphysics, I would endorse Fr. Norris Clarke’s book The One and the Many. Also, Aquinas by Ed Feser, and Aquinas (yep, same title) by Eleonore Stump. Of course, Dr. Kerr’s books, as well.
God bless, and thanks as always for the kind words!
– Pat
I forgot to mention this before. Sometimes I am blown away by the people who still sit down and reflect on past philosophical discourses and criticize them (in a positive sense of the word) to see if there’s any room for new thinking on them. It’s sure better than binge-watching a show or spending 12 hours playing a video game (not that a person can’t enjoy either thing). I’ve wasted time but I find myself looking more into intellectual pursuits to expand my knowledge and understand how things work. That’s why I enjoy coming here, Pat.
As much as I enjoy catching up on television (oddly, I’ve just discovered the show 24, and been pretty sucked in by it), I have to agree!
There seems to be a clear non-sequitur here. Merely from the fact that x is distinct from something’s essence, it doesn’t follow that x must therefore be derived from some extrinsic principle. Hence, merely from the fact that existence is distinct from something’s essence, it does not follow that existence must be derived from some extrinsic cause.
To see why this is a poor inference, consider again risibility in humans. Importantly, my essence is not identical to risibility as such. What I am is not merely “to be risible” or “to have the capacity for humor”. Indeed, if my essence were identical to risibility, I wouldn’t be a human after all — I would be risibility! Hence risibility is not identical to my essence. But to be not identical is just to be distinct. Hence, risibility is distinct from my essence. But, yet, Gaven already claimed earlier that risibility flows from the intrinsic principles of my essence. But this couldn’t be the case if the mere fact that x is distinct from my essence entailed that x must be derived from some extrinsic principle. Hence, it is simply false that x’s being distinct from my essence entails that x must be accounted for in terms of some extrinsic principle.
But if that is false, then the proffered justification as to why existence must be derived from an extrinsic principle (namely, because it is distinct from (say) my essence) is simply false.
Hi Joe,
Thanks for contributing. Objections like these are helpful; they offer opportunities for clarification. Here’s how I think the objection can be overcome, and a further distinction drawn.
Risibility, as you’ve noted, is distinct from human essence, but it also has a cause distinct from itself: in this case, it comes from human essence (if you will, rational animality) itself. In other words, rational animality is the cause of risibility, in which case risibility is not – in Dr. Kerr’s phrasing – “a self-standing uncaused characteristic of a thing”, but rather results from the intrinsic principles of rational animality. But in the case of existence, given that too is distinct from essence, it cannot be caused by the essence of a thing, nor can it be like risibility and caused by the principles of the essence of the thing, since if existence is distinct from essence, the essence does not exist to cause the existence (causa sui, as I think you’d agree, is absurd), unlike in the risibility case the essence does exist to cause the risibility. Hence, there is a cause of the existence extrinsic to the essence.
An important point of clarification, so I’m glad you brought this up. Anyway, more to be said along these lines (and hopefully more from Dr. Kerr, as well) once I have the notes for the Google Doc assembled, along with the objections section. Also, hoping for another episode with Dr. Kerr soon.
Best to you,
– Pat
Thanks for the reply.
In response, you state:
“But in the case of existence, given that too is distinct from essence, it cannot be caused by the essence of a thing, nor can it be like risibility and caused by the principles of the essence of the thing, since if existence is distinct from essence, the essence does not exist to cause the existence (causa sui, as I think you’d agree, is absurd), unlike in the risibility case the essence does exist to cause the risibility.”
First, it is important to note that features of things may be causal (actualizing) or non-causal (actual but not *actualizing* anything). For instance, my rational animality (we are supposing) is a feature that is in some sense causally capable: it causes my ability to laugh, to reason, to take in nutrients, to imagine, and to sense things. But other features of me are not causal features (i.e. they are *actual* despite are not *actualizing* anything). So, for instance, presumably my hair is actually brown, but the actual brownness of my hair is surely not *actualizing* anything. The brownness of my hair, although being an actual feature of me, isn’t actualizing or causing other things to be true of me.
But with this in mind, we can see that your argument concerning self-causation presupposes that the esse of a thing is not only the *actuality* of it, but an *actualizing* principle of it. In other words, we are supposing that this feature (in a suitably broad sense of feature) is not only actual, but is also a causal feature — it causes my essence to be. But with this presupposition pinpointed, we have been given no sufficient reason to grant its truth. In particular, what is incoherent about conceiving of esse *not* as an actualizing, causative principle of me, but rather as a non-causal *actuality* of me? If it is a non-causal actuality of me, then we avoid the problem of my essence causally accounting for its own existence — which I agree is metaphysically impossible.
Finally, you note that “if existence is distinct from essence, the essence does not exist to cause the existence…”. But something can still be distinct from another thing and yet still be a part of it or a constitutive principle of it. So, merely from the fact that existence is distinct from some given essence, it doesn’t follow that the “default state/mode” of that essence is non-existence, pure and utter non-being — for it could be the case that existence is contained in or built into the very nature or essence of the thing in question as a part or as a constitutive principle. And this is perfectly compatible with its being *distinct* from the essence, since distinct =/= non-contained.