Science and God - Darwin and Thomas: Some Heavy Lifting

When Progressives and Conservatives argue over specifics - this action or that; this policy or that - it can be entertaining but is usually unproductive.  Neither side is enlightened; each retreats to its established beliefs, convinced that the other is wrong or stupid or both.

Trying to understand what lies behind our respective points of view and why we arrived at them takes work - the 'heavy lifting'.  But, it is important to do the hard work and without doing so--unless we ask more of each other and ourselves--we each stand in the same place.

A thread which will run through this blog and which underpins the philosophical gulf between Progressives and Conservatives is the relationship between science and religion (or, if you prefer, faith).  Progressives, in general, tend to see science as the only way to understand the world whereas Conservatives, in general, would suggest that there are somethings which science cannot and may never know.

Science and the "scientific method" have become so dominant in our culture that to suggest that science doesn't sit alone on the "throne of human knowledge" confounds the modern mind.  The thought that science is not solely a matter of reason and logic; that even science is bent, twisted and morphed by something other than careful reasoning and demonstrable experiment is unsettling.  I am not talking about errors of logic or science; what I am saying is that science is not complete unto itself and its conclusions are often at odds with logic and reason.

Anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) - the assertion that the planet is getting warmer due to human-generated CO2 emissions - is a flash point between Progressives and Conservatives. That disagreement is based on observable phenomena and interpretation of data.  But there's another and perhaps more flash point - one that goes to the heart of the differences in First Principles or world views:  Darwinian evolution vs Intelligent Design (ID).   To understand what science is and what it is not, it is useful to delve deeper into this topic.

Science Has Attitude

"All science is philosophical."  Those aren't my word; they belong to George Simpson, a distinguished prof of paleontology at Harvard (who, among other things, is quoted as saying: "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind." - hardly someone sympathetic to ID).

What Simpson was acknowledging is that science begins with an "attitude," that is assumptions of the world and reality. Attitude and assumptions are the principles - unspoken and often unrealized - that determine how we understand and answer the core scientific question "Why....?" with a supportable and defensible "Because....".

Thomas Aquinas - a 13th century Dominican priest and scholar who was made a saint of the Catholic church in 1326 - articulated the core principles of science (yes, there are others who wrote similarly but Aquinas' simplicity and elegance are exceptional). Thomas can be challenged but any serious inquirer cannot ignore him. 

The chief idea (which Aquinas harvested from Aristotle) was the notion that things which changed, required an unchanging source. Here are some key Thomistic concepts:

MOTION 

It is certain, and evident to our sense, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is moved is moved by another, for nothing can be moved except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is moved; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality.  But nothing can be moved from a state of potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality... it is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is moved must be moved by another. If that by which it is moved must itself be moved, then this also needs to be moved by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and consequently, no other mover, seeing as subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are moved by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is moved by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at the first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

CAUSATION 

The second way is from the nature of efficient cause. In the world of sensible things 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, whether the intermediate cause be several, or one only.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. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God. 

Now, let me ask: Is it not consistent with reason and logic that the idea of cause and effect means you cannot have effect without a cause (what Aquinas calls an efficient cause because it is the means of causing something to change)? 

These two "proofs" should be self-evident and obvious; they are pivotal in the discussion about evolution but implicitly rejected by Darwinians.  

Now here's the hard part - the 'heavy lifting': for Aquinas (and Aristotle) there cannot be an endless regression of cause and effect, and as such there must be a First Cause.  The "Big Bang" needed an ignition, didn't it? Some sort of spark to make the "big" (whatever it may have been) to go "bang."  Or, are we really being asked to believe that there was an effect (the bang) with a cause (a First Cause or, ouch, God)?  As Aquinas wrote in regard to MOTION, "whatever is moved is moved by another."

Let's continue - the lifting gets heavier but close reading and patience will produce rewards.

CONTINGENCY 

We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to be corrupted [destroyed], and consequently, it is possible for them to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which can not-be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist begins to exist only through something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence - which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has already been proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore, we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity.

Aquinas is stating that what is not cannot also be at the same time.  Moreover, he is saying that if nothing existed - a great 'void' before the Big Bang - then nothing can be as something (atoms, molecules, rocks, life) yet come from nothing.  Some scientists would argue that "matter" had no "form" prior to the Big Bang; that "matter" was some sort of amorphous "thing". I can't get my mind around that argument and, honestly, think it is just so much sophistry.

DESIGN 

We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. 

Yikes! What's going on here?!

Aquinas just said that inanimate objects (e.g. planets), could not have ordered themselves (put themselves into orbits) because they lack the "intelligence" to do so. Yet as the planets are aligned so perfectly this means alignment must have been done by a force outside the planets themselves--by an intelligence. Leaving aside the silly argument that things only appear to be ordered, scientists may argue that the order exist because of "laws" - gravity, centrifugal force, atomic reaction, E=MC2, etc.  But doesn't this line of argument put the cart before the horse?  That is, what we discern or posit as "laws" are observable phenomena, right?  I mean, gravity existed before Newton and the apple, no?  So, the laws - the laws of the universe - are human constructs by which we order and explain observable phenomena. But the phenomena - gravity - was operating before the law of gravity. 

Now why go through all this?  Because those four things Aquinas described so brilliantly directly threaten Darwinian evolution (not to mention scientific materialism).  To suggest that the Universe may not have "sprung" into existence (no matter how big the bang), that the order within in it arose from something other than random happenstance or that cause and effect may be guided, however remotely, by "intelligence" challenges the cultural and political primacy of science.

In few places is mankind's original sin - hubris - more evident than science, especially the science of Dawkins, Gould, Hawking, Hitchens and the like.  They are brilliant men without doubt; and their contributions to scientific knowledge are immeasurable.  But their science is based on a philosophy of materialism - a materialism which defies reason and logic. I cannot explain why they've arrived at that philosophy - I posses neither the insight nor the hubris to try.  But I do know that their research would be rewarded were it open to the possibility that first causes, order and design exist.

One may continue to view those who advocate Intelligent Design as "creationists."  Rather, based on the logic and reason of Thomas, should not the mind be open to the possibility that ID may hold truth?  The ferocity of Darwinian evolutionists attack on ID suggests that it may be the atheists who are the true believers - believers in the supremacy of science, their intellects...I'm not sure what.  As all true believers, they are threaten by any challenge to orthodoxy - especially a serious challenge such as Thomas, based on reason and logic. 

Science as pure logic unadorned by philosophy?  Hardly.  I invite you to refute Thomas's reasoning presented here. Think carefully - reason - without reverting to cant or the "safe place" of what you've known, heard or believed before.