Introduction
The concept of God has eluded, fascinated and enthralled humanity since time immemorial yet despite the amount of attention, speculation and religious doctrine used to conceptualize the concept of an all powerful being there has been no definitive proof that actually shows that God is real. Based on this one must wonder whether it is rational to believe and place absolute faith in an entity that for all intents and purposes has not been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to actually exist.
Many people rationalize the existence of God by stating that nearly every single culture both in existence has believed, in one form or another, of the presence of an ultimate being or beings who have created the world as we know of it and preside over the faith of humanity. Various creation myths focusing on the origin of the world have also used divine entities as the creators of the world itself.
Not only that ancient myths connected to the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and Vikings all state the existence of Gods that control the very essence of life and death itself creating humanity in the process. Historical scripture in the form of the Koran, Torah and Bible, all of which are thousands of years old, all point to the existence of an all powerful entity that created the world, performed miracles beyond imagination and is the source of salvation for humanity (Haldane 381).
Yet despite all this evidence to prove otherwise many groups still believe that the existence of God is doubtful. Various psychological studies attempting to explain the reasoning behind the belief in God state that it is very likely that humanity itself created the concept of God/divine entities in order to create explanations for natural phenomena.
In Greek mythology thunder and lightning were connected to the anger of Zeus who was hurling lightning bolts at the ground, tidal waves and tsunamis were connected to the wrath of Poseidon while earthquakes and volcanic eruptions were associated with the Titans being sealed deep underground by the Gods who were trying to escape their prison (Usher 292). In fact human history is littered with natural occurrences being explained away as being the result of divine intervention rather than a simple scientific cause.
Religious belief, it is argued, is nothing more than an evolution of the notions humanity had in the past which evolved into the present day belief system. Is it any wonder then why people question whether it is rational to believe in God when there is no evidence of his existence and multiple lines of reasoning stating that God is nothing more than the result of the fanciful notions of the human imagination.
Confronting this line of reasoning is the Quinque viae, also known as the five proofs behind the existence of God which were summarized by St. Thomas Aquinas, a 13th century Roman Catholic philosopher and theologian whose book, the Summa Theologica, is one of the most influential philosophical works in Western Literature despite it never actually being finished.
Higgins in his examination of the work of Aquinas states that “the arguments of Aquinas center around the five proofs of God’s existence namely: the argument of the unmoved mover, the argument of the first cause, the argument of contingency, the argument from degree and finally the teleological argument” (Higgins 603).
Combined these five arguments supposedly prove that there is a God with many contemporary philosophers and scholars largely agreeing with his work (Higgins 603). As such this paper will seek to examine whether it is rational to believe in the concept of God based on the philosophical arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas
Understanding the Concept of the Unmoved mover
Under this particular concept it is perceived that everything in the world is divided under two specific categories that which is in motion and that which could potentially be put into motion.
For example a person is an entity that is constantly in motion while a rock is an object that is not in motion but has the potential to be put into motion by a person should that individual choose to pick up the rock and throw it (Higgins 605). Higgins elaborates on this idea by stating “everything which is not in motion has the potential to be put into motion by an outside force which is already in motion” (Higgins 605).
The concept of motion is not isolated to movement rather it extends to the concept of actuality and potentiality. Actuality refers to something which has already been put into motion whereas potentiality refers to something which has yet to be put into motion (Higgins 605). For example once a person is conceived that is considered a potentiality being put into actuality by an outside force namely the parents of that individual.
Using this line of reasoning it can be stated that everything that can be seen in the world today was the result of a potentiality being turned into an actuality by an outside mover. Since it is only objects in motion that can put stationary objects into motion themselves this means that if one were to trace the path of objects that have been put into motion a continuous line could be seen showing all movers of objects that came after them.
Logical reasoning dictates that such a line cannot continue on to infinity since there must a primary mover to set a chain of events into motion (Haldane 381). As such this is where the concept of God comes into play as the initial unmoved mover who began the first movement which started all other forms of movement.
In confirmation to this Masibay states “the argument of the unmoved mover is actually inherently similar to that of Isaac Newton’s law of inertia which states objects at rest tend to remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force” (Masibay 6). In this particular analogy God was the outside force necessary to precipitate the motion of all other objects in the Universe.
Understanding the Argument of the First Cause
Everything in the world today is the result of cause and effect wherein a particular action creates a specific type of result (Higgins 606). There is nothing in the world today which exists prior to itself and as such nothing is the cause of itself this means that there must be a preceding action to have brought it into existence.
Logically speaking though, similar to the argument of the first mover there must have been a cause to start off the first effect (Powlowski 17). A cause that was not influenced by any prior action before it, it is in this instance that the concept of God is introduced as being the first cause in the long line of cause and effect.
Understanding the Argument of Contingency
In this particular argument everything in nature is assumed to exist and to not exist with the necessity of something currently existing to bring about that which does not exist (Higgins 607). For example the person that is reading this paper right now was initially nothing until brought into existence by his/her parents. Under the argument of contingency it is assumed that every being in existence is a contingent being namely an entity that came into being from nothingness as a result of beings which are already in existence.
Therefore it can be assumed that there is need for a being currently in existence to bring about a contingent being that is in nothingness. Powloski clarifies this idea by stating “since everything in nature shifts between existing and not existing it can be assumed that at one time in the past nothing existed however such an argument is highly improbable since right now we are currently existing if there was a period where nothing existed there would not have been an existence to bring us into being” (Powlowski 17).
As such this brings up the topic of a sort of necessary existence already in place that brings about the existence of all other things that does not require the existence of anything that comes before it. Such an existence is thus described as God being the creator of all things.
Understanding the Argument of Degree
Everything in the world today has certain gradations namely some things are described as hotter, colder, better or worse. As such it assumed by Aquinas that the maximum of any genus, namely the hottest of the hot and coldest of the cold is the cause and origin of that particular genus (Higgins 608).
Based on this argument if everything has an origin which is at the maximum or height of that specific type of genus then the highest genus or the absolute maximum measure for all things namely utter and complete perfection is God. This does make sense since if everything has certain gradations with some things being better than others. It goes without saying that following this line of thought to its absolute zenith will result in something that has no equal and is absolutely perfect.
The Teleological Argument
The teleological argument states that all natural bodies in the world work toward some predetermined goal, even animals such a birds seem to explicitly know where to go when its winter its water, what is ok to eat and where they can fish (Higgins 609).
This argument assumes that all natural things in the world lack knowledge and as such it does not make sense that they would know such things such as which particular direction would be the best to fly towards. An example of an arrow released by an archer would be the best way to explain this. An arrow lacks any form of brain yet hits its goal due to the actions of the archer guiding it before hand. As such the teleological argument presents the idea that there is something that directs nature towards a particular design.
Comparing Scientific Examination to the Arguments of Aquinas
First and foremost I would like to state that it would have been far easier to simply focus on scientific evidence to disprove God rather than try to prove his existence through philosophical and theological means. Haldane in his work states “the inherent problem with using science as a means to disprove the existence of God is that while it is able to show evidence that God does not exist it is unable to disprove that God does exist” (Haldane 390).
In other words “science can neither prove nor disprove with absolute certainty the existence of God” (Haldane 390). Science does confirm that the world does follow certain immutable laws however this only serves to prove the teleological argument of Aquinas in that God acts as the grand designer for all things. Science has yet to prove how such laws came into being and as such cannot state with absolute certainty that they were not the result of a grand design created by God.
Another factor to consider is that science also cannot explain the how the concept of instinct comes about in animals. While it apparent that some form of learning process does occur through certain animal species the fact remains that some of the feats seen by some animals (migratory birds, spawning salmon etc) seem to go beyond what normal teaching methods in the animal kingdom can provide.
Finally while it is generally believed in most scientific communities that the Big Bang was the start of the universe few can sectors can explain how the needed energy utilized during the event came into existence since it is generally perceived that the universe was initially nothingness. As such if one were to examine the five proofs of God as stated by Aquinas one cannot help but rationalize that in the absence of contending scientific fact to prove otherwise proves there most certainly is a God.
Conclusion
After elaborating on the five proofs of God’s existence and combining them in an examination of current scientific reasoning it can be said that it is rational to believe in the concept of God based on the philosophical arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Earlier on it was mentioned that it would be irrational to believe in something that did not exist at all yet if God does exist as shown through the five proofs of Aquinas it would not be irrational at all to worship him. As such despite the lack of solid scientific data to prove it does seem somewhat rational to worship the concept of God so long as it is done with the knowledge of the five proofs of his existence in mind.
Works Cited
Haldane, John. “Common Sense, Metaphysics, and the Existence of God.” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly: Journal of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 77.3 (2003): 381-398.EBSCO. Web.
Higgins, James. “St. Thomas’ Pedagogy – Ignored, Discovered, Applied.” Heythrop Journal 50.4 (2009): 603-619. EBSCO. Web.
Masibay, Kim Y. “Thrills and Spills.” Science World 58.14 (2002): 6. EBSCO. Web.
PawĹ‚owski, MiĹ‚osz. “Traversing the Infinite and Proving the Existence of God.” Forum Philosophicum: International Journal for Philosophy 12.1 (2007): 17-31. EBSCO. Web.
Usher, M. D. “Theomachy, Creation, and the Poetics of Quotation in Longinus Chapter 9.” Classical Philology 102.3 (2007): 292-303 EBSCO. Web.