Critique of Aquinas's cosmological argument - 3rd way(Contingency)
Critique of Aquinas's cosmological argument - 3rd way (Contingency)
Aquinas's 3rd way suggests that the world consists of contingent beings. As all contingent beings have a cause, namely another contingent being, there must have been a time when nothing existed, (unless contingent beings exist as a brute fact). Therefore, contingent beings could not have come into existence unless there is a necessary being which is non- contingent that caused them. Aquinas named this being God. The problem with Aquinas's view is that as physicians have suggested matter is eternal and therefore a necessary being is not required to cause contingent beings.
The basis of Aquinas's argument depends on the fact that contingent beings require a cause which is in turn contingent. "Contingent beings require contingent causes", as stated by Stephen Evans in Philosophy Of Religion(55). This basis leads one to believe that an infinite series of contingent beings exists, but Aquinas claims this to be "illogical", thus the need for a necessary being. The objections occur due to the nature of contingency and the recently suggested, eternal nature of matter.
Contingency was defined as "beings that are generated and perish" by Aquinas in Peter Cole's Philosophy of religion(21). Therefore, by definition, the necessary being must be eternal and have existed through all time. But is it not possible that the necessary being's contingency will be shown in the future through its perishing? This is suggested in Philosophy of religion by Peter Cole. Thus the necessary being will be proved to be contingent and further prove that an infinite series of contingent beings is possible and that a necessary being has not existed.
Also, the nature of contingency is questioned by the argument that matter is eternal which thus contradicts Aquinas, as will be shown below. If matter is eternal then it must always have existed and thus is a brute fact and needs no explanation. Therefore, the universe is not contingent as the matter is never generated or perished, it is only the objects that are made of the matter that perish. Thus, contingent objects exist within the universe but the universe as a whole is essentially brute fact and non-contingent as it is all matter. Thus as Peter Cole ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Also, the nature of contingency is questioned by the argument that matter is eternal which thus contradicts Aquinas, as will be shown below. If matter is eternal then it must always have existed and thus is a brute fact and needs no explanation. Therefore, the universe is not contingent as the matter is never generated or perished, it is only the objects that are made of the matter that perish. Thus, contingent objects exist within the universe but the universe as a whole is essentially brute fact and non-contingent as it is all matter. Thus as Peter Cole suggests in Philosophy Of Religion(22), the cause of the universe is not about the metaphysical necessary being called God, it is about the nature of matter. In continuance to this, the matter itself could be defined as the necessary being as it is eternal and therefore could not have failed to exist. Thus "Matter would be a necessary being and would satisfy the arguments definition of God" ( Stephen Evans in Philosophy Of Religion(55). This would undermine Aquinas as he stated that the necessary being was separate from the universe. In essence, this view of matter as eternal means that if God exists, then far from being separate from the universe, God is the universe. Therefore, God would be defined as the matter of the universe which thus means that pantheism applies which undermines Aquinas. So if a belief in God is needed, then God is the universe, and not God was the cause of the universe as Aquinas argued.
A further criticism of this argument, which also applies to Aquinas' 1st and 2nd ways, is that he never considered that the universe has always existed, and not finite as he suggested(i.e. a first cause). Therefore, the need for a necessary being is extinguished as the universe is a 'brute fact' and could not have failed to exist. This also means that time must be infinite and thus implies that time is circular rather than linear as required if a actual infinite can exist. Therefore, if time is circular and it had no beginning, then the universe also had no beginning which implies a series of infinite oscillations of the universe rather than one expansion from a single point in time as Aquinas's arguments suggest. Thus there is no need for a necessary being. Therefore if the universe is infinite, it reinforces the idea that matter is eternal and that the universe is in fact not contingent as Aquinas suggested.
However, a criticism of the proposed argument stems from the principle of sufficient reason. This principle suggested by Leibniz states that "For any positive truth, there is some sufficient reason for it whether it be known or unknown" (Philosophy of Religion by Peter Cole(23). Therefore everything in the universe including the universe as a whole should have an adequate reason for existence. The consequence of this principle is that, even if the universe has always existed and matter is eternal, there is no reason for its existence. Thus, Leibniz suggested that according to his principle the reason for the universe is God; God is the sufficient reason for the universe.
As shown above, the matter of the universe and therefore the universe itself as a whole should have a finally adequate explanation. Kant points out in Philosophy of Religion p.190 (various authors), " the existence of a being whose essence included existence itself would not be self explanatory". As my argument has shown, this being is the matter the universe is comprised of (pantheism). Therefore, there is a clear contradiction between Kant's point and the fact of eternal matter. Because matter's essence does contain existence (a brute fact), it would mean that it would not be self-explanatory according to Kant. Thus the principle of sufficient reason has not been adhered to because the universe is not only without cause, it is without a reason for existence. This contradiction undermines the fact of eternal matter and to some extent invalidates it .
However, as pointed out in Philosophy of Religion(selected readings) p.191, "we have no right to assume that the universe will comply with out intellectual preferences". This 'intellectual preference' refers to the principle of sufficient reason. Therefore, just because our observations of the world around us point to the fact that everything has an adequate reason i.e. the principle of sufficient reason, it is presumptuous to assume that it applies to the whole universe and much less the matter it is comprised of. Thus, the principle is doubtful as a universal truth and does not offer a conclusive objection to my argument that matter is eternal and is a brute fact.
In conclusion, Aquinas theory of contingency within the universe is very doubtful in light of matter being eternal. It seems that if a necessary being does exist then it is within the universe and can be defined as matter which is a brute fact and thus implies the universes eternality. This undermines Aquinas because he stated that the necessary being was separate from the universe and also that the universe was finite. Thus, this argument has cast doubt over Aquinas's argument and leads to a belief in the infinite oscillation theory as well as pantheism.
Bibliography
Cole, Peter. Philosophy Of Religion. Great Britain: Hodder & Stoughton 1999
Evans, C.Stephen. Philosophy of Religion: Thinking about faith. Illinois: InterVarsity Press 1982
Peterson, Michael. Philosophy of Religion. Trans. J.L. Mackie. New York: Oxford University press 1996
