Some truths
about God exceed the capacity of our human reason. An example of
this is the truth that God is three person in one. But there are some truths
that reason by its very nature is also able to discover. Example of these
are the truths that God exists, that there is only one God, and similar
truths. In fact, these truths about God have have been proved by several
philosophers who have relied completely on the light of their natural reason.
That God exists can be proved
in five ways.
The first and clearest way
is the argument from motion. It is certain and evident to our senses that
some things in the world are in motion. Now is something is moved, it must
be moved by something else......For nothing can change from from being
potentially in motion to being in a state of actual movement unless something
else that is in actual movement acts on it......So whatever is moving must
be moved by something else. Now if that by which it is moved is itself
moving, then it, too, must be move by something else, and that by something
else again. But this cannot go on to infinity because then there would
be no first mover. And if there were no first mover, then nothing would
move since each subsequent mover will move to the extent that it is moved
by the motion imparted by the first mover. The [other] parts of a staff,
for example, will move only to the extent that the [top of the] staff is
move by the hand. Therefore, there must be a first mover that is not moved.
And this first unmoved mover is what we mean by God.
The second way is based
on the nature of efficient causes. In the world we see around us, there
are ordered lines of efficient causes [in which each member of the line
produces the next member]. But nothing can be its own efficient cause,
since then it would have to exist prior to itself and this is impossible.
Now it is not possible for a line of efficient causes to extend to infinity.
For in any line of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the intermediate
ones, and the intermediate ones cause the last one. Now if we remove any
of the causes, we remove all the remaining effects. So if there were no
first cause then there would be no last cause nor any intermediate ones.
But if a line of efficient causes extended back to infinity, then we would
find no first cause. Consequently, if the line of causes extended back
to infinity, there would be no intermediate causes nor any last causes
in existence in the universe. But we know this is false. So it is necessary
to admit that there is a force efficient cause. And this we call God.
The third way is based on
contingency and necessity. It proceeds as follows. We find in nature things
that are contingent. These are thing that are generated and that can corrupt,
and which therefore can exist or can cease to exist. Now it is impossible
for such contingent things to exist forever. For if it is possible for
something to cease existing, then eventually a moment will come when it
will cease to exist. Therefore, if everything were contingent, then eventually
everything would have cease existing. If this happened, then even now nothing
would exist, because something can start to exist only through the action
of something that already exists. It follows that not everything is contingent,
that is, something must exist necessarily, that is, forever. Now every
necessary thing is cause to exist forever either by something else or not
by anything else. But as we prove above, it is impossible for a line of
causes to be infinite. So there must exist something which derives its
necessary existence from itself and not from something else, and which
causes the existence of all other necessary beings. This is what we all
mean by God.
The forth way is based on
the degree of perfection that we find in things. Among the objects in our
world some are more and some less good, true, noble, and the like. But
to say that a thing has more or less of a certain perfection is to say
that it resembles to a greater or lesser degree something which perfectly
exemplifies that perfection......So there must be something which is more
perfectly true, most perfectly good, most perfectly noble, and, consequently,
which most perfectly exists (since, as Aristotle shows, those things that
are perfectly true also exist perfectly). Now that which most perfectly
exemplifies some quality, also causes other things to have the quality
to a greater or lesser degree. Fire, for example, which most perfectly
exemplifies the quality of heat, is the cause of the heat in hot things.
Therefore, there must be something which is the cause of the being, goodness,
and every other perfection in things. And this we call God.
The fifth way of proving
God's existence is based on the order of the universe. We see that things
which lack knowledge, such as natural objects, act for an end. That is,
their activity is always or nearly always aimed at achieving the best result.
It is clear, therefore, that their activity is not produced by chance but
by design. Now things which lack knowledge cannot move unerringly toward
an end unless they are directed toward that end by some being that has
knowledge and intelligent much like an arrow is directed toward its target
by an archer. Therefore there must exist an intelligent Being Who directs
all natural things toward their respective ends. This Being we call God.
It is impossible for a word
to be applied univocally to both God and the creatures he produces. For
when an effect is not equal to the power of the cause that produced it,
the effect receives only an imperfect likeness of the cause: that is, the
effect will be like the cause only to an imperfect degree......Thus, when
the word "wise" is applied to human beings, the word in a way comprehends
and include in its meaning the thing to which it refers [i.e. imperfect
wisdom as we experience it and as God produced it.] But this is not so
when the word is applied to God. For when the word "wise" is applied to
God it refers to something [perfect wisdom] that exceeds the meaning of
the word and which is not comprehended.
Neither can we say that
words that are applied to God and creatures have a purely equivocal sense,
although some thinkers have held this view. If words that applied to both
God and creatures were purely equivocal, then our experience of creatures
would not allow us to know anything about God. For the words we used in
our reasoning would always be exposed to the fallacy of equivocation. [They
would have one meaning in part of our reasoning and another meaning in
another part.] Now this is contrary to the procedure of some philosophers,
such as Aristotle, who managed to prove many things about God. It also
contradicts scripture which says "The invisible things of God are clearly
seen, being understood from the things that He created."
We have to conclude that
these words are applied to both God and creatures in an analogous
sense, that is, with a meaning that is based on a relationship......For
example, the word "healthy" can be applied to medicine as well as to an
animal because of the relationship the medicine has to the animal's health.
In a similar way, words can be applied to both creatures and to God in
an analogous and not in a purely univocal nor in a purely equivocal sense.
Consider that we can apply to God only words whose meanings we draw from
our experience of creatures. Consequently, when we apply a word to both
God and creatures, its meaning has to be based on the relationship that
creatures have to God: they are related to God as to their origin and their
cause in whom all their perfections pre-exist in a way that excels their
existence in creatures. Now this kind of common possession of perfections
is the basis of a kind of meaning that is midway between pure invocation
and pure equivocation. When a word is applied analogically in this way
to two different beings its meaning does not remain completely identical
as with univocal uses, nor does it have completely different meanings as
in equivocal uses.
Before any craftsman makes
something, he must have in his mind an idea of what he will make. Similarly,
before a ruler governs his subjects, he must have in his mind some idea
of what his subjects are to do. The craftsman's idea of what he will make
constitutes a plan of the objects to be made (it is also part of what we
call his skill). And the ruler's idea of what his subjects are to do constitutes
a kind of law......Now since God is the wise creator of the universe, He
is like a craftsman who make something. And He is also like the ruler since
He governs every act and motion of every single creature. Consequently,
the idea in God's wise mind, according to which everything was created,
can be called a plan (or an ideal model, or even a part of God's skill);
and since everything is also governed according to this same idea, it can
also be called a law. So the eternal law is nothing more than a plan in
God's mind, in accordance with every act and motion of the universe is
directed.
It is clear from the preceding
article that the eternal law is the guide and standard for everything that
is subject to God's provident direction. Clearly, therefore, the activities
of all creatures are equally determined by the eternal law. Their activities
are determined by the natural forces and inclinations that were made part
of their natures when they were created [by God]. These natural forces
are inclinations cause creatures to engage in their appropriate activities
and attain their appropriate ends.
Now rational creatures [such
as humans] are also subject to God's provident direction, but in a way
that makes them more like God than all other creatures. For God directs
rational creatures by instilling in them certain natural inclinations and
[reasoning] abilities that enable them to direct themselves as well as
other creatures. Thus human beings also are subject to the eternal law
and they too derive from that law certain natural inclination to seek their
proper ends and proper activities. These inclinations of our nature constitute
what we call the "natural law" and they are effects of the eternal law
imprinted in our nature.
Thus, even scripture suggests
that our natural ability to reason (by which we distinguish right from
wrong) in which a natural law resides, is nothing more than the image of
God's own reason imprinted on us. For Psalm Four asked,"Who will show us
what is right?" and it answers,"The light of Thy Mind, O Lord, which has
been imprinted upon us."
A thing is good if it is
an end that we have a natural inclination to desire; it is evil if it is
destructive of what our nature is inclined to desire. Consequently, those
kinds of things that our nature is inclined to desire are perceived by
our reason as good for our human nature. And our reason will conclude that
those kinds of things ought to be pursued in our actions. But if our reason
sees a certain type of thing as destructive of what human nature is inclined
to desire, it will conclude that type of thing ought to be avoided.
We can therefore list the
basic [moral] precepts of the natural law by listing the kinds of things
that we naturally desire. First, like every other nature, human nature
is inclined to desire its own survival. Consequently it is a natural [moral]
law that we ought to preserve human life. Secondly, like other animals,
human nature is inclined to desire those things that nature teaches all
animals to desire by instinct. For example, all animals have an instinctive
desire to come together in a union of male and female, and an instinctive
desire to care for young. [So it is morally right to pursue these things.]
Thirdly, human nature is inclined to desire those good and satisfy our
intellects. This aspect of our nature is inclined to desire knowledge (for
example, to know the truth about God) and to desire an orderly social life.
Consequently, it is a natural [moral] law that we ought to dispel ignorance
and avoid harming those among whom we live.
Quote from, Philosophy, A text with readings,
5th ed by Velasquez Pg.198-202
Dennis Yap Tsong Hsih
