Biomythography 151
No One Converts, Part II
Here, roughly, are the arguments for belief in God as written by Thomas Aquinas. I remember these not as the starting point of the conversation between Michael and I, nor the end, but as a mid-point of sorts. We spent considerable time walking and talking about these concepts, the way you do when you're trying to solve the universe and you're nineteen years old.
**Argument from the First Mover** — posits that there must be an initial source of motion that itself was not moved.
This is a misunderstanding of physics (just think of virtual particles, which appear wherever they want and do whatever they want until they bump into something) and it fails on the initial look, even without physics. If there's a first movement, great. There's no need for a god involved, just a first movement. I mean, what makes God move? Is he finally getting up to change the channel?
Beyond that, it's a lack of calculus. Aquinas objects to infinity because it's infinite and, to him, it can't add up to anything, which is absurd. Well, the objection is absurd itself — not everything needs to add up — and anyway calculus shows us that many infinities do reach a knowable total. On all fronts, this is the worst of arguments, and I've heard plenty of other bad arguments (including one where two people agreed at increasing volume until one stormed out of the room).
**Argument from Universal Causation** — everything that exists has a cause, leading to a first cause, which is God.
Ugh, this is the same as the first argument wearing a mustache and hoping we won't notice. Michael pretty much had to acknowledge the duplication. Also, even as a six-year-old, I could ask, "Well, what caused God?" — which is the kind of question six-year-olds are by nature required to ask, right after "why."
**Argument from Contingency** — because things exist that could "not exist," there must be a necessary being that causes existence.
Yeah, you could "not exist" instead of existing. Buddhists would say, in fact, your existence is an illusion. You don't actually exist. Conan the Barbarian had an answer to that, which was basically, "fine."
Aquinas would have hated the Multiverse Theory in physics. Non-existence and multiple potential existences are both obviously possible now.
**Argument from Degree** — varying degrees of qualities (like goodness) imply the existence of a perfect being as their source.
This is stolen from Plato's ideal forms, which isn't an argument against the concept, but the idea itself isn't an argument for anything. That there are degrees of qualities we perceive ("Whoa, this chair is even more green than the couch!") is part of our sensory perception, plus our ability to assign qualities and idealize them.
It's a good argument for humans being interesting. It's not an argument for holiness, except maybe for the delicacy of our perceptions being awe-inspiring.
**Teleological Argument** (the watchmaker argument) — order and purpose in the world indicate a designer.
I find this one the most compelling. As humans, we make things. It's very nearly our defining characteristic, second only to complaining about the things someone else made. It's natural for us to look at a hammer and think about its creator. We tend to imagine creators whether there are any or not — is this stone a tool? Did someone shape it? For sure, it's comforting to think about creations and the purpose of them, and to imagine ourselves, and humanity as a whole, as having a purpose rather than just being a ambitious species of ape that discovered fire and never really calmed down.
Being created for a purpose is a pleasing idea. It doesn't look like it's true, but it's attractive to me because I think our senses of purpose and shared imagination are what enabled us to built civilizations.