Thomas Aquinas & J.L. Mackie

What was Aquinas's main philosophical project?

To reconcile Christian theology with reason, especially Aristotle's philosophy.

Which philosopher had the biggest influence on Aquinas?

Aristotle.

What is Aquinas's view of faith and reason?

Faith and reason are compatible, and reason can support and strengthen faith.

What is the difference between philosophy and theology for Aquinas?

Philosophy starts with sense experience and reasons toward God; theology starts with faith in God and revealed truths.

Does Aquinas think God's existence is self-evident to everyone?

No.

Does Aquinas think God's existence can be rationally demonstrated?

Yes.

What are Aquinas's five arguments for God's existence called?

The Five Ways.

(Aquinas) What do all Five Ways have in common?

They start with an observable fact about the world and reason toward a transcendent cause, which Aquinas identifies as God.

(Aquinas) What is a transcendent cause?

A cause that lies beyond the natural world.

(Aquinas) What is the First Way based on?

Change or "motion" in the world.

(Aquinas) What is the conclusion of the First Way?

There must be an Unmoved Mover, which is God.

(Aquinas) What is the Second Way based on?

Efficient causes.

(Aquinas) What is the conclusion of the Second Way?

There must be a first efficient cause, which is God.

(Aquinas) What is the Third Way based on?

The existence of possible/contingent beings that come into and go out of existence.

(Aquinas) What is the conclusion of the Third Way?

There must be a necessary being that ultimately explains the existence of other beings, which is God.

(Aquinas) What is the Fourth Way based on?

Different degrees of qualities such as goodness and truth.

(Aquinas) What is the Fifth Way based on?

The order and apparent purpose or goal-directed behavior found in nature.

(Aquinas) What is the conclusion of the Fifth Way?

There must be an intelligent director of nature, which is God.

(Aquinas) Does Aquinas believe everything must have a cause?

No. God is the ultimate cause and does not need another cause.

(Aquinas) What is the main thing to remember about Aquinas's Five Ways?

They use observations about the world and reason to argue that God exists as the ultimate explanation or cause.

(Mackie) What is the problem of evil?

The apparent contradiction between the existence of evil and an omnipotent, wholly good God.

(Mackie) What are the three claims that create the problem of evil?

God is omnipotent, God is wholly good, and evil exists.

(Mackie) Why do these three claims seem contradictory?

If God is all-powerful and completely good, it seems He would be able and willing to eliminate evil.

(Mackie) What does omnipotent mean?

Having unlimited power.

(Mackie) What does it mean for good to be opposed to evil?

A good being would eliminate evil as far as it is able.

(Mackie) If God is wholly good and omnipotent, what should follow?

God should eliminate evil completely.

(Mackie) What would an adequate solution to the problem of evil have to do?

Give up or change at least one of the three constituent claims.

(Mackie) What are the four major responses to the problem of evil that Mackie examines?

Good cannot exist without evil; evil is necessary as a means to good; the universe is better with some evil; evil is due to human free will.

(Mackie) Why does Mackie reject the idea that good cannot exist without evil?

It limits God's power because it suggests God cannot create good without evil.

(Mackie) Why does Mackie reject the idea that evil is necessary as a means to good?

It limits God because God would have to use evil to produce certain goods.

(Mackie) What does the idea that the universe is better with some evil claim?

Some evil may produce greater goods, such as sympathy, heroism, or progress.

(Mackie) Why does Mackie reject the idea that the universe is better with some evil?

Higher-order evil, such as cruelty and malevolence, remains unexplained and can lead to a regress.

(Mackie) What is the free-will defense?

Evil results from humans freely choosing wrong rather than directly from God.

(Mackie) What is Mackie's main objection to the free-will defense?

Why couldn't God create people who freely choose good every time?

(Mackie) Why does Mackie argue that free will does not necessarily require evil?

There is no obvious logical contradiction in people freely choosing good every time.

(Mackie) What is the problem with defining freedom as randomness?

Random choices may not count as meaningful free choices or valuable freedom.

(Mackie) What is the Paradox of Omnipotence?

It asks whether an omnipotent being can create something it cannot later control or create rules that bind itself.

(Mackie) Why is the Paradox of Omnipotence a problem?

Saying yes means the being is not omnipotent afterward; saying no means it was already unable to do something.

(Mackie) What is Mackie's overall conclusion about the problem of evil?

The traditional idea of an omnipotent, wholly good God cannot be consistently maintained with the existence of evil.

(Mackie) What is Mackie's basic argument about God and evil?

If God is all-powerful and wholly good, evil should not exist; evil exists; therefore, the traditional conception of God has a problem.

(AQUINAS) When does Aquinas think we should reason from an effect to its cause?

We should reason from an effect to its cause when the effect is easier for us to know than its cause.

(AQUINAS) Why does Aquinas think a known effect can give us a proof of its cause? Explain the connection rather than just restating the two kinds of proof.

An effect depends on its cause, so knowing an effect can help us prove that its cause exists.

(AQUINAS) How does this make a proof of God's existence possible even though God's existence is not self-evident to us?

We can observe the effects God causes and use them to reason that God exists, even if we cannot directly know God.

(AQUINAS) What does Objection 3 say is wrong with the kind of proof you reconstructed?

Objection 3 summary: God is infinite, but the effects we observe are finite. The objection argues that finite effects cannot prove the existence of an infinite cause.

It argues that we cannot prove God's existence through the effects we observe because God is infinite and those effects are limited.

(AQUINAS) In the Reply to Objection 3, what does Aquinas concede to the objection, and what does he deny?

Reply to Objection 3 summary: Aquinas agrees that effects cannot give us perfect knowledge of God's nature, but they can still help us prove that God exists.

Aquinas agrees that we cannot fully understand God's nature through his effects, but he denies that this makes it impossible to prove God's existence.

(AQUINAS) How should Reply 3 change or qualify your Analysis?

It shows that we can use effects to prove that God exists without fully understanding God's nature.

(AQUINAS) If the First Way works, what has reason established about God, and what has it not established?

The First Way argues that everything that moves is moved by something else, so there must be a First Mover that was not moved by anything else. Aquinas identifies this First Mover as God. However, this argument does not fully explain God's nature or essence.