Aquinas's Second Way

[rkwright]

I'm taking a class called Philosophy of Religion and it seems were just going to really hit the big issues (I go to a large state school, so we don't get to in depth and have classes just on Aquinas or just on Christology... this is as close as I can get, but I'm excited anyways)

The first thing we're covering is Aquinas's 5 ways, so I'm doing a bit of reading on it, trying to get a better understanding on it. I've read through them all maybe 4-5 times, but without much formal philosophy I feel that I may be missing parts. I get the main jist of every argument but how exactly they all break down is a little work... Thus my question! Could someone maybe break down the 2nd argument for me? Maybe provide some explaination of the terms involved?

Heres the argument : [quote]The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

[/quote]

I get somewhat lost in the 'because in all efficient causes following in order the first is the cause of the intermdeiate cause...'

[dspen2005]

efficient cause = agent; god = agent of by which things move and come into be.

[Cam42]

The notion of cause and effect means you cannot have the latter (effect) without the former (cause - here called efficient cause (which refers to that which brings another thing into existence or causes something to change)). There cannot be an endless regression of cause and effect thus there must be a first cause which is God. The phrase in bold, from your earlier quote, shows how there would be nothing if there was not an original cause of everything and, as far as Aquinas is concerned, challenges the notion that the physical realm is infinite (i.e. has always existed). The philosopher Leibniz also reflected on the origin of the physical realm and famously discussed why there was something (i.e. a physical realm - matter, life, a world, a universe etc.), rather than nothing.

[quote name='From Aquinas' Second Way'][b].....Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, or intermediate, cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false.[/b][/quote]

This argument, strongly related to the first, is more holistic in its approach. Whereas the first looked at the individual event and its immediately prior/associated cause, this way looks at the collection of cause and effect together and argues for all or nothing. Aquinas sees the connection between the first cause and the last, "…an earlier member causes an intermediate and the intermediate a last (whether the intermediate be one or many)." To remove any cause in the chain, he argues, would bring the whole chain down. Working back through the series, one may never reach a first point since to stop at any cause would be to bring the whole system down. This works backwards as well as forwards. So you can have no first cause and no last cause. This is nonsense, says Aquinas so he postulates God as the solution.

In summary the second way looks to the active changer. That which causes another to be changed is the observation which lends sufficient reason for the existence of God, since no cause could ever exist without God as the first cause holding the whole chain together.

Get all that? I love Philosophy.

[Cam42]

cuz people think there are too many political threads

[rkwright]

hey cam look over in the Word and apologetics forum.. I've got another one going on some similar stuff... sadly though niether one is gaining much trafic

[rkwright]

my text book would object to the infinite series not being possible...

it says something like the following...

There is no need to have an explanation of the chain or series of events. As long each event has its cause accounted for, every event is accounted for thus we have ipso facto explained the series. It is absurd to ask for the cause of the series as a whole as distinct from asking for the causes of individual members.

the counter?

[Cam42]

Does your text prove this? What it needs to do is prove that there is not a start.

It seems as if the text is changing the terms. One cannot argue causality without admitting there is a start. To say there is a cause is to say there is a start, at some point. It may be billions of years previous, but there must be a cause if there is an effect. Otherwise, there are simply a series of effects and that cannot be without a cause. So, I would question the premise of the text.