Thomas Aquinas
Faith and Darwin
18/05/11 20:23 Filed in: Human Nature
Many people, especially of the religious persuasion, believe Darwin was an atheist. In fact, Darwin denied this. He wrote in a letter
In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of God.
In fact, Darwin gave some credence to the design argument for God's existence:
Another source of conviction in the existence of Do ... follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe ... as the result of blind chance.
We should be more careful, then, in what we attribute to Darwin as a belief. While he was not an atheist, Darwin was not a believer either. He called himself an agnostic, which, according to Thomas Huxley who coined the term, means that one asserts the "human inability to solve, by strictly rational argumentation, theistic or theological matters."
Of course, people of faith will say that faith begins just where rational argumentation ends. That is, the whole point of having faith is to believe in something we cannot determine by a rational means.
This attitude diverges from that of St. Thomas Aquinas, among others. For Thomas, we have inductive proof of God's existence through several means, one of which is Darwin's design argument. For Thomas, however, these arguments can only tell us that God exists; they cannot tell us who God is -- we need faith and revelation to do that. Moreover, because the arguments for God's existence are inductive, they do not lead to absolute certainty. There is, then, room for agnosticism within the Thomistic framework. Of course, Thomas would look at this askance and would go on to say that, even without reason, one should believe in God through faith.
Darwin was unwilling to make that leap. Yet, his unwillingness was not anti-religious or fanatical the way that many think. Indeed, his study of evolution opens up new possibilities of faith as well as new ways of understanding God's creativity.
It is faith and reason which helps us to understand how we fit into that evolved world as evolved creatures subject to God's design and grace.
In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of God.
In fact, Darwin gave some credence to the design argument for God's existence:
Another source of conviction in the existence of Do ... follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe ... as the result of blind chance.
We should be more careful, then, in what we attribute to Darwin as a belief. While he was not an atheist, Darwin was not a believer either. He called himself an agnostic, which, according to Thomas Huxley who coined the term, means that one asserts the "human inability to solve, by strictly rational argumentation, theistic or theological matters."
Of course, people of faith will say that faith begins just where rational argumentation ends. That is, the whole point of having faith is to believe in something we cannot determine by a rational means.
This attitude diverges from that of St. Thomas Aquinas, among others. For Thomas, we have inductive proof of God's existence through several means, one of which is Darwin's design argument. For Thomas, however, these arguments can only tell us that God exists; they cannot tell us who God is -- we need faith and revelation to do that. Moreover, because the arguments for God's existence are inductive, they do not lead to absolute certainty. There is, then, room for agnosticism within the Thomistic framework. Of course, Thomas would look at this askance and would go on to say that, even without reason, one should believe in God through faith.
Darwin was unwilling to make that leap. Yet, his unwillingness was not anti-religious or fanatical the way that many think. Indeed, his study of evolution opens up new possibilities of faith as well as new ways of understanding God's creativity.
It is faith and reason which helps us to understand how we fit into that evolved world as evolved creatures subject to God's design and grace.
Comments
Careful of Deistic Proofs
07/01/11 18:43 Filed in: Human Nature
A recent Colbert Report episode demonstrated why is so difficult for religious, even - or maybe especially - the pope, to talk about science. I found it amusing, as I am sure you will too, to watch Bill O’Reilly argue that he could not explain how tides come in and go out or how the sun “comes up and goes down.” As Colbert elegantly says, O’Reilly knows God exists because he can’t explain things.
If we Christians insist on trying to use God to explain the mechanical workings of things we will lose the debate and we will misunderstand God, ourselves, and nature. God is the cause of nature, but that does not make Him the efficient cause of everything in nature, except in the way I explained in a previous post on the big bang.
I also want to point out that proofs for God’s existence are generally inductive. The only deductive argument I know of is the Ontological Argument in its various formulations. As Thomas says, however, we cannot grasp the idea of God, so the Ontological Argument does not work for us. The proofs Thomas gives us are all inductive: which means that they lead to the conclusion that God exists but they do not demonstrate the way mathematics proofs demonstrate a conclusion. Inductive arguments are never definitive.
This point proves important if you are familiar with Dawkins’ The God Delusion. In there, Dawkins recounts Thomas’ proofs and says that Thomas asserted he proved God’s existence deductively, then Dawkins goes on to how that they are inductive arguments that prove nothing. First, as I’ve already said, Thomas admits that they are inductive arguments. Second, inductive arguments to prove conclusions. If they did not, we would know no science and we would never be able to convict someone of a crime.
In short, proof does not come in one flavor, and philosophers, theologians, and news pundits should be more careful when they argue for God’s existence or for anything else.
If we Christians insist on trying to use God to explain the mechanical workings of things we will lose the debate and we will misunderstand God, ourselves, and nature. God is the cause of nature, but that does not make Him the efficient cause of everything in nature, except in the way I explained in a previous post on the big bang.
I also want to point out that proofs for God’s existence are generally inductive. The only deductive argument I know of is the Ontological Argument in its various formulations. As Thomas says, however, we cannot grasp the idea of God, so the Ontological Argument does not work for us. The proofs Thomas gives us are all inductive: which means that they lead to the conclusion that God exists but they do not demonstrate the way mathematics proofs demonstrate a conclusion. Inductive arguments are never definitive.
This point proves important if you are familiar with Dawkins’ The God Delusion. In there, Dawkins recounts Thomas’ proofs and says that Thomas asserted he proved God’s existence deductively, then Dawkins goes on to how that they are inductive arguments that prove nothing. First, as I’ve already said, Thomas admits that they are inductive arguments. Second, inductive arguments to prove conclusions. If they did not, we would know no science and we would never be able to convict someone of a crime.
In short, proof does not come in one flavor, and philosophers, theologians, and news pundits should be more careful when they argue for God’s existence or for anything else.