Aquinas, God, and the Argument from Change – Part 1
Continuing on with the series in natural theology (first episode here), Pat goes over the argument from change (Aquinas’s 1st way) for the existence of God.
OR, ==> CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE EPISODE.
Listener Questions on Time, Proofs for God, and Philosophical Consensus – Part 2
OR, ==> CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE EPISODE.
Show Notes and Resources
==> CLICK HERE for the argument outlined in Google Docs.
Five Proofs for the Existence of God, Dr. Ed Feser
Introduction to Natural Theology
The One and the Many: a Contemporary Thomistic Metaphysics
Aquinas 101 – a free online course by the Thomistic Institute
Also, be sure to listen to my conversation with Fr. Gregory Pine on the argument from change.
Philosophy Friday: Teach Us the 1st Proof for God of St. Thomas Aquinas
…
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!
Pat. I think I’ve mentioned this in other discussions that I’ve been reading up on natural law. My understanding is that Thomas Aquinas is a major figure in natural law and if you’re going to do any kind of significant learning in the area, you have to spend time checking out Aquinas’ writings. His life story is interesting enough even if you aren’t interested in natural law. However, I think when you read his life story you’ll gain a better appreciation on how he developed his insight into natural law and natural theology.
You’re absolutely right, Mike. I think it’s easy for people to see Aquinas a sort of walking brain, but his faith and his lifelong devotion to Christ is just so incredibly moving, especially when you dive into the particulars of his life. Truly, there are many things we can learn from this man apart from his philosophy on how to live!
As for natural law, you might enjoy reading David Oderberg, he’s a great contemporary philosopher of religion and ethicist who does a powerful job making the case and laying out the metaphysical groundwork for traditional natural law: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7SKlRTfkUiebnUxMUEtc1B4VTQ/edit
What would you say to critics like Bertrand Russell who basically claim Aquinas didn’t use standard philosophical inquiries into whatever his subject was. Instead, he came up with his conclusion/thesis then he came up with reasons supporting the thesis. I’m not a philosopher but I know you are Pat so what do you think?
Hi Morgan,
Bertrand Russel was a smart guy, but, unfortunately, he never seemed to seriously engage with Aquinas, nor did he ever really attempt to grasp what philosophers of religion were saying. There’s a famous debate between him and Fr. Coppleston (give it a quick Youtube) which I think sums up his position nicely, which is arbitrarily denying the power of reason to discern reality; in other words, his famous “brute fact” response. The danger of this, as I’ve pointed out in one of the episodes, is you really can’t make this position work without undermining all of philosophical and scientific inquiry.
As to Aquinas specifically, it’s important to remember that when a deductive argument is given, which is what we have with respect to the argument from change, there is a restricted range of appropriate responses. A person can either:
1) Challenge the formal structure of the argument, judging the argument to be invalid.
2) Challenge one (or more) of the premises, judging the argument to be unsound.
And if neither of those can be done, then either:
1) Accept the conclusion
2) Say, “I need more time to think about it.”
The problem with Russel’s charge on Aquinas is it is clearly an attack on the person, rather than a critique of the argument.