The inherent nature to have an end arises not from an extrinsic imposition in an already existing being, but insofar as the essence of something received existence from God. In this sense, while the teleos is dependent upon God as an extrinsic agent, it’s given in an essential series of contingency rather than an accidental one. It would therefore be simultaneously inherent with its being, as opposed the an essentialist notion of something existing as such then ascertaining an end.
In this way we cannot really arrive at a notion of teleos from an accidental series of contingency. We might have an inference of it via probability, but the deductive work of the metaphysics of Aristotle and Aquinas’ work On Being and Essence seem to fundamentally underlie the argument. Whereas material cause and agent cause cannot reach such a conclusion if studied in isolation from form and compositional contingencies.
Thank you, Father! The intrinsic nature of finality in God's intelligent design of Creation, as explained in St. Thomas's Fifth Way, is certainly distinct from the extrinsinc nature of finality as imposed upon already-existing things by human art. Nothing can exist or act at all without the preexisting, exemplary finality designed into it by the mind of God. I think William Paley supports this view, although he lacks the metaphysical background to state it clearly, though he does hint at it. Nevertheless, St. Thomas, like Paley, also used analogies from human artifice to explain God imparting finality to Creation, so Paley's argument still obtains and is strengthened when connected to the metaphysical argument of the Fifth Way.
I think the most significant point given by Paley which modern scientists deny is that finality must derive from intelligence, not randomness or some kind of physical necessity, and in this way human artificers imitate the creativity of God.
The analogy that is offered is certainly helpful, but it doesn't serve as anything of an inference unless it is merely an illustration of principles explained. I think that is Feser's ultimate point, which is that even if an analogy is a similar manner of illustration, the scientistic approach still come short of the argument. So if someone says that his argument is deductive, while being merely developing the principles of matter and agency, then it will not arrive at the 5th. But if your point is simply that there is a more precise account of those scientific notions, as illustrative, then I suppose it is at the service of Aquinas 5th way.
Despite Paley's use of anatomy, his argument is not essentially scientific but philosophical, due to his focus on finality. This is the fundamental point of my article which I believe Feser and others miss in their considerations of Paley's argument. The analogies given by St. Thomas which I included are equivalent to Paley's use of anatomy as a source of analogies proving that finality in design requires intelligence, which is the point of St. Thomas's Fifth Way. Since it is demonstrative rather than scientific, it does not rely on inference but deduction from the principle that design requires intelligence. But as I said before, the Fifth Way goes beyond Paley and grounds intelligent design in St. Thomas's superior metaphysics. They support one another but are not identical.
I think Feser and others do not account for the similarities between Paley and St. Thomas regarding intelligent design and confuse it too much with modern intelligent design, which tends to be more scientific, as I mentioned at the end of my article.
Interesting essay. You have read Fr. Chaberek. Do you know he is an intelligent design advocate as well as a Dominican priest well versed in Thomism?
Arguments can be made both from science and philosophy. It is not necessary to choose one over the other. They support one another. As what we know of science grows, and the amazing discoveries increase, I suspect that Aquinas would make use of this new knowledge in his arguments.
We hope to release a book soon that deals with many aspects of Catholic teaching that are absolutely consistent with the claim that we are the product of intelligent design and not chance and necessity. Paley agrees. Aquinas agrees. The science reveals it also. Hurrah! This should be cause for celebration.
Being and essence are imparted by God. How that is done we don't know. The Church teaches we receive our souls from God at the moment of conception. Our souls (now I am out on a philosophical limb) "inform" our bodies. Together they bring into being who we are meant to be--unique human beings. I can speculate a lot here based on what I know of developmental biology ( the area of my PhD) but it would far exceed my knowledge of philosophy. But this I know. Science and philosophy point to the One Truth. They cannot conflict when rightly understood.
Thank you, Ann! I am familiar with Fr. Chaberek, specifically through the book which I quote in my article. His research is thorough and meticulous and I think warrants more serious consideration from Catholics today and especially Thomists, most of whom treat evolution as a settled issue without any theological or philosophical implications. Many feel that to contest evolution is to reject science and thus to appear irrational to the modern world, but one can fully embrace the findings of science without accepting the (often suppositional) claims of evolutionary theory. I think intelligent design, as presented in a Thomistic context by Fr. Chaberek, fits both with Catholic teaching and modern science far better than evolution.
I will be on the lookout for your upcoming book, it sounds very intriguing! God bless!
The inherent nature to have an end arises not from an extrinsic imposition in an already existing being, but insofar as the essence of something received existence from God. In this sense, while the teleos is dependent upon God as an extrinsic agent, it’s given in an essential series of contingency rather than an accidental one. It would therefore be simultaneously inherent with its being, as opposed the an essentialist notion of something existing as such then ascertaining an end.
In this way we cannot really arrive at a notion of teleos from an accidental series of contingency. We might have an inference of it via probability, but the deductive work of the metaphysics of Aristotle and Aquinas’ work On Being and Essence seem to fundamentally underlie the argument. Whereas material cause and agent cause cannot reach such a conclusion if studied in isolation from form and compositional contingencies.
Thank you, Father! The intrinsic nature of finality in God's intelligent design of Creation, as explained in St. Thomas's Fifth Way, is certainly distinct from the extrinsinc nature of finality as imposed upon already-existing things by human art. Nothing can exist or act at all without the preexisting, exemplary finality designed into it by the mind of God. I think William Paley supports this view, although he lacks the metaphysical background to state it clearly, though he does hint at it. Nevertheless, St. Thomas, like Paley, also used analogies from human artifice to explain God imparting finality to Creation, so Paley's argument still obtains and is strengthened when connected to the metaphysical argument of the Fifth Way.
I think the most significant point given by Paley which modern scientists deny is that finality must derive from intelligence, not randomness or some kind of physical necessity, and in this way human artificers imitate the creativity of God.
God bless!
The analogy that is offered is certainly helpful, but it doesn't serve as anything of an inference unless it is merely an illustration of principles explained. I think that is Feser's ultimate point, which is that even if an analogy is a similar manner of illustration, the scientistic approach still come short of the argument. So if someone says that his argument is deductive, while being merely developing the principles of matter and agency, then it will not arrive at the 5th. But if your point is simply that there is a more precise account of those scientific notions, as illustrative, then I suppose it is at the service of Aquinas 5th way.
Despite Paley's use of anatomy, his argument is not essentially scientific but philosophical, due to his focus on finality. This is the fundamental point of my article which I believe Feser and others miss in their considerations of Paley's argument. The analogies given by St. Thomas which I included are equivalent to Paley's use of anatomy as a source of analogies proving that finality in design requires intelligence, which is the point of St. Thomas's Fifth Way. Since it is demonstrative rather than scientific, it does not rely on inference but deduction from the principle that design requires intelligence. But as I said before, the Fifth Way goes beyond Paley and grounds intelligent design in St. Thomas's superior metaphysics. They support one another but are not identical.
I think Feser and others do not account for the similarities between Paley and St. Thomas regarding intelligent design and confuse it too much with modern intelligent design, which tends to be more scientific, as I mentioned at the end of my article.
Is there an article this is originating from
I wrote this in imitation of the quastio format of St. Thomas Aquinas. It isn't directly sourced from any of his articles.
Interesting essay. You have read Fr. Chaberek. Do you know he is an intelligent design advocate as well as a Dominican priest well versed in Thomism?
Arguments can be made both from science and philosophy. It is not necessary to choose one over the other. They support one another. As what we know of science grows, and the amazing discoveries increase, I suspect that Aquinas would make use of this new knowledge in his arguments.
We hope to release a book soon that deals with many aspects of Catholic teaching that are absolutely consistent with the claim that we are the product of intelligent design and not chance and necessity. Paley agrees. Aquinas agrees. The science reveals it also. Hurrah! This should be cause for celebration.
Being and essence are imparted by God. How that is done we don't know. The Church teaches we receive our souls from God at the moment of conception. Our souls (now I am out on a philosophical limb) "inform" our bodies. Together they bring into being who we are meant to be--unique human beings. I can speculate a lot here based on what I know of developmental biology ( the area of my PhD) but it would far exceed my knowledge of philosophy. But this I know. Science and philosophy point to the One Truth. They cannot conflict when rightly understood.
Thank you, Ann! I am familiar with Fr. Chaberek, specifically through the book which I quote in my article. His research is thorough and meticulous and I think warrants more serious consideration from Catholics today and especially Thomists, most of whom treat evolution as a settled issue without any theological or philosophical implications. Many feel that to contest evolution is to reject science and thus to appear irrational to the modern world, but one can fully embrace the findings of science without accepting the (often suppositional) claims of evolutionary theory. I think intelligent design, as presented in a Thomistic context by Fr. Chaberek, fits both with Catholic teaching and modern science far better than evolution.
I will be on the lookout for your upcoming book, it sounds very intriguing! God bless!