Pints With Aquinas - 46: Can you explain your argument for God from design? With Dr Robert Delfino

Episode Date: February 27, 2017

Today I chat with Dr. Robert Delfino about Thomas' 5th argument for God's existence. --- Here is the translation from the Fathers of the English Dominican Province (ST 1, Q. 2, A. 3.): "The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, 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 not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God." Here's Delfino's translation:  The fifth way is taken from the governance of things. For we see some things that lack knowledge, namely natural bodies, act for the sake of some end. This is apparent from the fact that they always or most often act in the same way and achieve what is best [i.e., what fulfils their natural needs]. From this it is obvious that they achieve their end not by chance but by natural inclination (ex intentione). But those things that lack knowledge do not tend toward an end except under the direction of something with knowledge and intelligence, as in the case of an arrow from an archer. Therefore there is some intelligent being by whom all natural things (omnes res naturales) are ordered to an end, and this we call God. --- Defino's 10 step argument: 1. We see in nature that non-intelligent things act for a goal that is good with regularity. For example, it is in the nature of an electron to be attracted to protons, which helps to form atoms. 2. If electrons did not have this natural inclination then none of the elements on the periodic table you studied in Chemistry would form, which would mean that none of the physical life forms we know (including yourself!) would exist anywhere in the physical universe. But that would be bad, because life is good. 3. In the case of electrons being attracted to protons, we cannot ascribe such behavior to chance or to biological evolution. In the case of chance, chance would not explain why the electrons act with such regularity because chance refers to what happens rarely. 4. In the case of biological evolution, this is because the regularity of action in the case of electrons exists prior to biological evolution and is necessary in order to make biological evolution possible. 5. An intelligent cause can direct something for a goal that is good with regularity. For example, consider an archer who, with routine success, directs his arrows towards the animals he is hunting for food. However, these regular actions of the arrows, which are made of wood, do not represent the natural actions of wood. Instead, they represent something imposed on the wood of the arrows by the archer. This is similar to how a puppeteer imposes movement on a puppet, and how a watchmaker orders the part of a watch to tell time. 6. An intelligent cause is able to do this because having intelligence allows one to envision something mentally that does not yet exist physically (for example, envisioning a watch before it was invented). Non-intelligent matter cannot order itself to an end that is good precisely because it is incapable of thought. 7. However, human intelligence cannot explain why an electron has, within its own nature, an inclination to be attracted to protons because electrons exist prior to humans and humans could not exist without electrons already having these natural inclinations. 8. In our attempt to explain why electrons, as non-intelligent beings, have a natural inclination to be attracted to protons, which makes life possible, we have ruled out the material aspect of the electron, chance, biological evolution, and human intelligence. 9. Therefore, there must be some non-human intelligence that is responsible for the natural inclinations of electrons. 10. This non-human intelligence cannot achieve this by imposing activity on the electron in a manner similar to a puppeteer or a watchmaker. Instead, this non-human intelligence must be capable of endowing an electron with its being and nature. Conclusion: We call this non-human intelligence God. --- SPONSORS EL Investments: https://www.elinvestments.net/pints Exodus 90: https://exodus90.com/mattfradd/  Hallow: http://hallow.app/mattfradd  STRIVE: https://www.strive21.com/  GIVING Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show. LINKS Website: https://pintswithaquinas.com/ Merch: https://teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: https://www.strive21.com/ SOCIAL Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mattfradd Twitter: https://twitter.com/mattfradd Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattfradd MY BOOKS  Does God Exist: https://www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist-Socratic-Dialogue-ebook/dp/B081ZGYJW3/ref=sr_1_9?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586377974&sr=8-9 Marian Consecration With Aquinas: https://www.amazon.com/Marian-Consecration-Aquinas-Growing-Closer-ebook/dp/B083XRQMTF/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586379026&sr=8-4 The Porn Myth: https://www.ignatius.com/The-Porn-Myth-P1985.aspx CONTACT Book me to speak: https://www.mattfradd.com/speakerrequestform

Welcome to Pints with Aquinas, episode 46. I'm Matt Fradd. If you could sit down with St. Thomas Aquinas over a pint of beer and ask him any one question, what would it be? In today's episode, we'll ask St. Thomas Aquinas to explain his fifth proof for the existence of God, the argument from design. Thank you very much for joining us once again at Pints with Aquinas. This is the show where you and I pull up a barstool next to the angelic doctor to discuss theology and philosophy. I want to say I am tremendously thankful to all of you

who are donating to keep Pints with Aquinas going. If you're listening and you want to support the show because you're an awesome person and you want to prove it, go to pintswithaquinas.com, click the Patreon banner. You can donate for as little as $2 a month. That's $12 a year. Come on, how much is this podcast worth to you? And by doing that, I give you different thank you gifts, which you can learn more about at pintswithaquinas.com, click the Patreon banner, blah, blah, blah. If you could do that, that'd be sweet for all of you who are

donating. Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. All right, we are going to be discussing again one of the arguments that St. Thomas offices, offices, no, offers for the existence of God. That's really cool, actually, because so far we've done two of Thomas's five ways. We did the first way. I did that one. That was episode 19. Go and check that out. Listen to it.

You'll get a lot from it if you want to understand it. Go and check that out. Listen to it. You'll get a lot from it if you want to understand it. Episode 33, I chatted with Dr. Robert Delfino about Thomas' third proof of the existence of God. And today, I'm joined round the bar table with Dr. Delfino once again. And we're going to be discussing, as I say, the fifth way. So it is a fun discussion and you're going to learn a lot. A little bit about Robert before we get underway. Robert Delfino received his PhD from the State University of New York at Buffalo,

where he specialised in metaphysics and medieval philosophy, studying under Professor Jorge J.E. Gracia. His current research interests include metaphysics, ethics, and the relationship between science, philosophy, and religion. He's published articles on Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, Husserl, philosophy of science, personal identity, and human rights in various countries. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. You get the idea, okay? He's a really, really smart guy.

You are going to love this episode. Now, I want to tell you a couple of things about the podcast. In the podcast, I nearly said Aquinas. No, Delfino is going to lay out his own version of this argument. Not so much his own version, but it's his way of elaborating on Aquinas' fifth way. He has a 10 premise argument, and it's fascinating. And so what I want to do is i'm going to put that in the show notes of this episode so go to mattfrad.com you'll find it there and it'll probably also be in the description of the podcast check it out read along you're gonna love it this is not the kind of episode that you can probably listen to while you're at the gym sit down grab a beer here we go

dr robert delfino thanks for being with us again. Oh, good to be with you, Matt. I'm not sure if our listeners have listened to the last podcast that we did together, but that was on the third way, the third argument Thomas Aquinas gives to the existence of God. And today I'm excited. We'll be jumping into the fifth way. Yes, I'm very happy that we're skipping the fourth way. It's very abstract and difficult. We'll get to that another time. But tell us a little bit about yourself for those who aren't aware. Well, real quick, I'm actually a professor at St. John's University. It's kind of funny. I was a little nervous last time and I said I was an assistant professor,

but actually in 2010, I finally got tenure. Thank God. I'm actually an associate professor, but that's all I'm going to say for now. Who wants to talk about me? Let's talk about Aquinas. He's the man. No, that's cool. And what beer are you drinking today? Ah, well, I've chosen a Samuel Adams Winter Lager.

It's snowing today in New York a little bit. Man, that's beautiful. Beautiful. Yeah, I remember my wife telling me about Samuel Adams beer. We don't have that in Australia. And I met my wife kind of doing ministry work. And we went to New York. And I remember having my first Sam Adams. And I really liked it. That's good. In front of me, I've got a new Belgium fat tire. You familiar with the fat tire beers? No, I do like Belgian beers very much, but I've never had that one.

Should be good. All right. Well, to jump into the fifth way, why don't I begin by reading the fifth way as is translated by the Dominican fathers? What's the exact? The fathers of the English Dominican province. What's the exact? The fathers of the English Dominican province. That's the one. Yep. That's the one in the five blue books. People, if they have the Summa, often have that one. It's also the one on newadvent.org. That's right. So, I'll read it and we'll go from there. Okay. The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, 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 not fortuitously but designedly do they achieve their end. Now, whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence, as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. mark by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are being directed to their end, and this being we call God. Now, before we get underway, what's your initial thoughts about the fifth way? Well, you know, to be honest with you, when I was younger, I kind of dismissed the fifth way, which is really not too fair because I, I kind of uncritically said, well, you know, he didn't know about evolution. And, uh, so maybe it just doesn't work at all, but I'm very thankful that over the years I stuck with it, try to research it. And, uh, I actually think we can salvage it, but we definitely have to make,

well, do we have to do two things. One, we have to update the argument. And frankly, I really don't like, I mean, I'm sure they're great guys and have great beers with the fathers of the English Dominican province, but I don't like their translation. Okay. Well, do you have another translation that you would like to read or specific parts of another translation? Well, sure. Maybe I'll make a few comments first why I don't like theirs and and then uh i could possibly give i have a little tweaked version yeah please yeah well tell us what you don't like about this first well you know the the the line that sticks out to me that they translated that i don't like is when uh it says

hence it is plain that not fortuitously but designedly do they achieve their end. Now, first of all, the English sounds antiquarian. Who goes around saying, but designedly, not fortuitously, right? But what they're translating is the Latin ex intentione. Right. Now, the English cognate would be intention, so doing something by intention. But I don't think that's a good translation either. So I don't like designedly and I don't like by intention. Let me talk a little bit why I don't like that. Sure. Well, he's talking about natural bodies acting for an end that routinely acting for an end. That's good. He says it obtained the best result. That's another controversy. Best result doesn't mean the absolute best result. It means something that fulfills their needs. So, for example, you know, honeybees are able to find flowers and extract what they need to make honey, even the nectar

and all that. And they do it routinely. You know, they're not confused about where the flowers are and they know how to do it, you know. So, that's fine. But he also talks about stones in other passages. I might mention this later, that they're natural bodies. And he had a kind of notion of gravity. It's actually, I think it's gravitatis in the Latin. And as a result, he wants to talk about natural bodies that are not even alive acting for an end, like a stone, you know, falling down to its center of gravity. So if you use the word intention, that's no good. In the 21st century, when we say something was done intentionally, it seems to imply

some kind of consciousness. And I don't think Thomas has that in mind all the time. And designedly, well, that's a loaded word. This is the kind of word that if Dawkins sees it, he gets all upset. He's like, what is this? Is this Paley's watchmaker argument? Is God some cosmic engineer that's going to design anything? So, I don't think Thomas is going for that conception of God either. So, I would translate it by natural inclination instead of designedly. Okay. And tell us how that's a lot better or just better. We should point out,

it might sound to some people that we're just, you know, splitting hairs, but, you know, Aquinas in the Summa writes so briefly, right? There's probably, what, two or three sentences here that he spends on just laying out the third way. This isn't meant to be an exhaustive... Wait, you mean the fifth way? Sorry, the fifth way. Yeah. So, it's really important, since he's going to explain it so briefly, that we get the words right. Absolutely. The fifth way is the shortest of all, if you count the number of words, it's the shortest of all the five ways he gives. And look, I love Aquinas. I really do. And I know

he's writing the Summa for beginners. He says in the beginning, he's writing it for incipientes and he, and he wants to simplify some things for them. But, and I know it's not fair to say that, you know, you should be writing for me 700 years later, but, but, uh, he really, um, maybe oversimplified it. I hate to say that the angelic doctor is fantastic, but it's just a little too terse for me. So I'm going to do a few things here. First, let me read you my little rewording of the Dominican's father. That'll be great. It'll be good for us to hear it again anyway. Right. And then I'm going to talk about why I made some of those choices when I reworded some of it. All right. So let me get you my tweet translation. All right, here it is. Now, again, I don't have the great, cool-sounding speaking voice you do, but I'll do my best. Okay.

All right. bodies, act for the sake of some end. This is apparent from the fact that they always, or most often, act in the same way and achieve what is best, and in brackets I put what fulfills their natural needs. From this, it is obvious that they achieve their end not by chance, but by natural inclination. That's the ex intentione. But those things that lack knowledge do not tend to an end except under the direction of something with knowledge and intelligence, as in the case of an arrow from an archer. Therefore, there is some intelligent being by whom all natural things, stones, living things, etc., are ordered to an end, and this we call God. My name is Gomer, and I'm the co-host of Catching Foxes.

Foxes. F-F-F-Foxes. Catching Foxes. Foxes. I would like to tell you about something more important than my podcast. What? Pints with Aquinas. Pint, pint, p-p-p-p-pints with Aquinas.

Matt Fradd actually wrote a book on 50-plus deep thoughts from the angelic doctor. Pints with Aquinas. Here's the deal. Beer is easily lovable, but medieval monastic philosophers, they can be quite intimidating. Yet in this short pithy book, and I don't use that word often. In fact, I never use the word pithy, but I'm going to use it here and you're going to agree with me. Matt Fradd made the greatest mind in the history of the church as easily accessible as your favorite beer. You'll laugh, you'll cry. Well, you won't cry, but you'll laugh and you'll discover that this old school philosopher's wisdom is just as relevant today

as it was back then. So do yourself a favor. Get a copy of this enlightening, pithy little book from Amazon right now. And when it arrives, pour yourself a frothy pint and dig in. You'll be glad you did. Now, you already brought up Dawkins a moment ago when you said this whole idea of intentionality gets him all upset. Well, actually, design gets him upset. Design, right. Design gets them. Design, right. Do you mind if I read to you a brief paragraph from Dawkins, The God Delusion, and maybe have you respond to some questions about how evolution may or may not count against this argument?

Sure. Okay, so this is from The God Delusion. We should say it's pretty pathetic. I'm sorry, but what, two pages? Three pages? Aquinas? I mean, Aquinas. Dawkins?

He tries to shoot down the five ways in three pages. Three pages. Way too short, yeah. Yeah. I mean, if you think he's wrong, and maybe you're, even if he is wrong, you've got to spend more time than three pages refuting the most popular arguments for the existence of God that we know of. But anyway, here's what he says. And yes, it's as brief as this. The teleological

argument, says Dawkins, or argument from design. Things in the world, especially living things, look as though they have been designed. Nothing that we know looks designed unless it is designed. that we know looks designed unless it is designed. Therefore, there must have been a designer, and we call him God. Aquinas himself used the analogy of an arrow moving towards a target, but a modern heat-seeking anti-aircraft missile would have suited his purposes better. And he says, the argument from design is the only one still in regular use today,

and it still sounds to many like the ultimate knockdown argument. The young Darwin was impressed by it when, as a Cambridge undergraduate, he read it in William Paley's Natural Theology. Unfortunately for Paley, the mature Darwin blew it out of the water. There has probably never been a more devastating rout of popular belief by clever reasoning than Charles Darwin's destruction of the argument from design. It was so unexpected. Thanks to Darwin, it's no longer true to say that nothing that we know looks designed unless

it is designed. Evolution by natural selection produces an excellent simulacrum of design, mounting prodigious heights of complexity and elegance. And among these eminences of pseudo-design are nervous systems, which, among their more modest accomplishments, manifest goal-seeking behavior that, even in tiny insects, resembles a sophisticated heat-seeking missile more than a simple arrow on target. So, what would your response be if you were sitting on an airplane with Dawkins and he said that?

Well, I don't know if he'd really talk to me on an airplane. Well, look, you know, as Christians, we have to love everybody. So I would try to be nice with Dawkins. First, I would point out to him, I'd go, Richard, even if you have something of a point here, and you might have a little point, evolution does, it is something that's important we need to talk about in the context of this argument. You're not giving the same argument Thomas gives in the fifth way. That would be my first point. For example, he says, especially living things, look if they've been designed. he says, especially living things, look if they've been designed. Now, Thomas probably was thinking about living things, but he is very clear in the Latin that he's talking about not just living things, but everything. He says, omnes res naturalis,

every natural thing. So, stones, if he knew about electrons, that would be in there too. things. So, stones, if you knew about electrons, that would be in there too. So, what I would tell the Dawkins would be this. I would say, look, the electron, we've come to know through science, which we love so much, Richard, the electron has a natural inclination to be attracted to protons, and this is vastly important, all right? The periodic table that all of us studied in chemistry in high school or somewhere, you know, those elements won't form if the electrons are not attracted to protons. And the fact that electrons are attracted to protons predates biological evolution by billions of years. So, it can't be the product of evolution. So, I would say if you want to be fair to Aquinas, you know, you have to, you know,

you don't want to make a straw man argument here. You got to give Aquinas, you know, the strongest version of his argument possible and see if you could take that down. And I would say, well, how do you explain how the electron, which clearly is not intelligent, it's not a conscious intelligent being, why does it have that natural inclination? And you can't explain it by evolution. So, what would you say, Richard? And I'd be very interested in hearing what he has to say with that. All right, very good. Well, what else?

What are some other thoughts? About the Dawkins passage? Well, the Dawkins, or maybe we can go, if you think you're done with Dawkins, we could move back to the fifth way. Let me see. I'm just gonna make a quick comment that I'll probably return to later.

But I love this idea that he has the heat-seeking anti-aircraft missile. Man, of all the things. I know why he wants it. You know, obviously a heat-seeking missile does act for an end. It's engineered to, you know, track heat and destroy the target. you know, track heat and destroy the target. But you see, I would tell him, I go, look, if you really think that's the way that God interacts with the world, as if he's some engineer imposing his will on things like human engineers do, I go, well, that's not the God that we Catholics and most Christians, I think most religious believers believe in at all. You know,

he's got it wrong on that level too. You know, maybe this would be a good time to talk, if you want, I could talk a little bit about how, you know, God and evolution are not in conflict. Let's do that. All right, let's do that. So, let me try to show you what I think the fundamental mistake that Dawkins and some of the new atheists are making, and also a fundamental mistake that some of the intelligent design people like William Dembski and Michael Behe are making too. All right. So let me try to set this up in a way your audience will like it. But to do that, I need a little bit of a beer. Go for it, mate. Let's do it. do it okay one of the things that's difficult is to think in layers or levels of causality what dawkins wants to do is he wants to think that there's only one level of causality

and there's competition between god and the mechanisms of evolution, such as natural selection and mutation, right? So, what Dawkins wants to say is, well, look, if we can explain how life evolves just using, you know, mutation and natural selection and things like that, we don't need God, right? It's all on that one level of explanation. That's it. We don't need God. Right. God, right? It's all on that one level of explanation. That's it. We don't need God. Right. But that's total, in fact, Aquinas, to his credit, 700 years ago, said that's not the right way to look about, look at God and the way he acts. For example, if I pick up a piece of paper

and I hand it to you, Aquinas will say that, you know, God actually is helping me in that, but he's not helping me on the same level of causality. It's not like, you know, part of the electrons in my hand move my arm and God is also pushing the arm. If that were the case, everything would be occurring on one level of causality, the physical level of causality. What Aquinas wants to say is, no, no, no. There's a higher second level of causality that God's working on. So there's no competition. Now, the best way – I know this gets very complicated, but the best way to think about this, I have a good example from my colleague Marie George.

It involves a laptop computer. And I know people have iPads and all that stuff. It's all the rage, but I'm old school. I like a laptop. So let me explain this to you, okay? If you're typing on Microsoft Word on your laptop, I don't know whether you know this or not, but every few minutes it auto-saves. Now, there's a physical level of causality that that happens on. As long as the battery is working in that laptop, the hard drive will communicate with the CPU and the software, and the auto-save happens automatically.

There's no gaps. God doesn't have to help it autosave even the engineer who made the laptop doesn't need to be present there for the autosave the laptop can do it all on its own as long as it has battery power but that's only the physical level of causality there's a higher level of causality why is microsoft word autosaving every five minutes because the computer programmer programmed it that way. So that's a higher intellectual level of causality, the programmer, right? So here we have two levels of causality. They're not in competition with each other, but both are necessary to explain why the Microsoft Word is autosaving every five minutes.

And it's the same thing with evolution. God can create on his level of reality, he can create things that exist with certain natures such that they can evolve to some degree on their own. You get it? So, you have two levels of causality. So, for example, and so this is what the era of Dawkins is. He thinks, well, we don't need God because, you know, the mutation and the natural selection does it all, etc., etc. But actually, no, you do need God because how did electrons get that natural inclination to cling to protons, which is necessary for evolution, which makes evolution possible, right? In order for evolution to be possible, the world has to be structured in a certain way.

It has to be orderly in a certain way so that evolution is possible. And that's where you need God. You need God for things to exist and for them to have natures such that they act in a regular way so that evolution is possible. And that's where you need God. You need God for things to exist and for them to have natures such that they act in a regular routine way to form atoms and do certain things. And Aquinas is asking, how do these non-intelligent electrons and other things that are necessary for elements in life to form, how do they get these natural inclinations? And you can appeal to evolution evolution that's what i would tell to dawkins let me throw a thought out there and and get your take on it it sounds like you know you might say to dawkins explaining the material cause of something or some things by no means

does away with uh the question of the efficient cause of that thing or those things. In other words, just because you might be able to explain what a thing is or even how that thing developed, that doesn't do away with the need for a designer. That would be like this. Suppose that after a thorough scientific investigation of the famous painting Mona Lisa, one concluded that it was the result of collisions of paint and canvas, which gradually, you know, was leading from indecipherable shapes and patches of colors and stuff to a beautiful and intriguing picture of a woman, right? Like, that analysis would be correct. That is what the Mona Lisa is, and that is how it developed. But just like I said a moment ago, my analysis by no means disproves or makes unnecessary Leonardo da Vinci. I think I get your point. Are we speaking on, we might be speaking on two different levels, and if we are, that's my fault.

But you're taking different levels of causation, right? No, actually, I think there's a relationship here to two levels of causation because what you're saying is, look, yes, paint was pressed into the canvas, but that's just not the end of the story. I like to use an example from John Hort. He says, you know, if there's a tea kettle and it's boiling and it's whistling, right, on the stove, you say to yourself, you know, why is the water boiling? Well, you could say, kind of like pressing things on the canvas with paint, you could say, well, you know, there's heat reactions occurring and all of that. But that doesn't fully explain why. That's one level of causation. Exactly.

The other level of causation is I want tea. Right. It's an intellectual level of causation. Yeah, so I think we're on the same page with this. That's one level of causation. Exactly. The other level of causation is I want tea. Right. It's an intellectual level of causation. Yeah, so I think we're on the same page with this. That's good. Okay. So, what did I want to say? So, just to get back to God and evolution, why I don't think there's any fundamental conflict between God and evolution is because I think God has designed the world in such a way that he has given material things some level of causal power. It's

called secondary causality. It's not as if God does everything himself and everything is just a puppet or a marionette. No, he actually endows things, including electrons, with some kind of causal power. So, on their own level of causality, they can do some things. And he creates the world in such a way that there can be mutation and natural selection. But again, that doesn't remove the need for God because we still have to explain why do things exist? Why do they have these natures that allow evolution to be possible? And so, you know, they can be totally in harmony. God can, of course, use evolution to make sure there's a lot of diversity of life and that things adapt,

but that doesn't remove the need for God. I've always found it strange that people found evolution and God to be in conflict. We should point out, just as an aside here, Robert, that, you know, many of the church fathers looked at the first opening chapters of Genesis and said, well, obviously, we aren't to take them literally, you know, the sun wasn't created until the third day. The third day, I think I got that right. So, how do you determine what a day is prior to that and so forth? So, it's not like you and I are retreating in the face of modern science, you know, in saying this.

St. Augustine, 1,500 years ago, wrote a piece exactly on this, where he was very firm about we should not take that book of Genesis literally. And so often, Dawkins and company want to make it seem like, well, up until, you know, Darwin, you've just looked around and said, it looks designed, therefore God exists. You're like, no, not at all. And besides, that isn't what Aquinas did. It certainly isn't what Anselm did. Goodness gracious, with the ontological argument, that really is to make a straw man. Well, you know, Dagens is a wonderful stylist and he's got a great speaking voice, but when it comes to the history of philosophy, he's not a super historian scholar. Let's just leave it at that. Yeah, well, he's no more a philosopher than you and I are biologists.

Right. All right. Well, hey, in the last time we chatted, tell me if you want to go here now or not. In the last time we chatted, you came up with an adapted version of the third way in which you broke it out into a dozen or so premises so you could kind of help someone through each step of the argument. You've done this with the fifth way as well. Would you like to go through that now or would you like to say some more things before we get to that? No, you know what? I think it'll be good for us to go through that now because what's, well, I worked on this for a while. I've been working on the fifth way for quite a few years and I try to design, I try to do two things with my updated version. I just

want to stress to your audience that what I'm going to give now, this 10-step formulation, isn't like a rewording of a translation. I'm going to try to fill in some of the missing premises, because like I said, the fifth way is very short, but in other passages in the Summa and other passages in the Summa Contra Gentiles and elsewhere, he fills in some of this more. Plus, I'm going to adapt it to things that we've learned in science since Thomas Aquinas. So hopefully this version will make some of the controversies clear, even controversies involving Dawkins and evolution and intelligent design. So whenever you're ready, I'll lay it out.

Well, that's good. Let's go through them one at a time, and I will play the role of skeptic, and you can try and convince me of each premise. Sound good? Just send me the money through PayPal, and as soon as it clears, I will read the role of skeptic. And you can try and convince me of each premise. Sound good? Just send me the money through PayPal. And as soon as it clears, I will read you the 10 steps. Send. Go.

Philosophers don't earn a lot of money. I got to do something. Okay. So, yes, you can play the role of the skeptic. I know you like that. So, step one, grab your beer. I did that last time. Yeah, got it.

I got to grab some beer here. All right. We see in nature that non-intelligent things act for a goal that is good with regularity. For example, it is in the nature of an electron to be attracted to protons, which helps to form atoms. All right. If you have any skeptical objections, let me know. I'm going to move to step two. No, with you so far,

is there a reason that you went straight to the electron instead of something more common like a bee or a badger? I wanted to choose something that the objection could never be raised that well. It got that way due to evolution. Well, wait a minute. I mean, you say that bees and badgers came about through evolution, and you're right, but how do you know electrons didn't come about by evolution?

Well, every physics book I've ever read seems to say that they were there from the very first. All right, all right. Fine, fine, fine. Continue. All right. Step two. If electrons did not have this natural inclination, you know, towards the proton, then none of the elements on the periodic table you studied in chemistry would form. Which would mean that none of the physical life forms we know, including yourself, Fred, would exist anywhere in this physical universe.

But that would be bad because life is good. Now, I realize that that last sentence might be controversial to some people, especially those who are suicidal, God forbid. Yes. But I think, you know, life is good. Now, I realize that that last sentence might be controversial to some people, especially those who are suicidal, God forbid. But I think, you know, life is good. Anytime you enjoy something, a beautiful sunset, holding your child, none of that would be possible if you weren't alive, right? But we wouldn't, I mean, you don't even need to add that last bit, do you? I mean, all you're trying to prove is that none of the physical life forms we know would exist, whether it's good or bad. That's the point you want to make, right? I probably don't need to go that far, but Aquinas often talks about, you know, he does talk about in the fifth way, things acting for an end that's good.

I see. So, I wanted to get that in there. And life is good. I mean, it can be bad at times. I mean, I am a married man, but it can be very good. I'm kidding. I love my wife. Speaking of life and good times, beer. Beer, yeah. All right. Step Speaking of life and good times, beer. Beer, yes. All right. Step three.

This is getting crazy, Fred. In the case of electrons being attracted to protons, we cannot ascribe such behavior to chance or to biological evolution. Why? Here's why. In the case of chance, chance would not explain why the electrons act with such regularity, because chance refers to what happens rarely. Step four. Just stop me if you haven't observed. Step four. In the case of biological evolution, you know, that won't explain why the electron has the natural inclination to the proton, because the regularity of action in the case of electrons exists prior to biological evolution by billions of years and is necessary in order to make biological evolution possible

right step five we're almost halfway through this is a big step though so prepare yourselves grab a drink of beer iron step five an intelligent cause can direct something for a goal that is good with regularity for example consider an archer who with routine success directs his arrows towards the animals he is hunting for food however these quote-unquote regular actions of the arrows which are made of wood do not represent the natural actions of wood. Wood generally doesn't fly through the air like an arrow does. Instead, they represent something imposed on the wood of the arrows by the archer. This is similar to how a puppeteer, moving puppets, imposes movement on a puppet, or how a watchmaker ordering the parts of a watch to tell time

now i'm going to go to step six this is great there's been no skeptical objections i'm very proud well i'm not very proud i'm very happy i don't have to six an intelligent cause is able to order things for an end because having intelligence allows one to envision something mentally that does not yet exist physically for example as an inventor or as an engineer i can envision making a watch before a watch was ever invented that's what you can do if you have intelligence non-intelligent matter like an electron cannot order itself to an end that is good precisely because it is incapable of thought. Matter just is what it is. It can't transcend the here and now.

It can't imagine or conceive of what doesn't exist yet because it doesn't have the capacity of thought. By the way, I have to tell you parenthetically. I've been talking with some of my friends. I have an interesting variety of friends, and some of them are talking about panpsychism and the electrons do have thought. And that's interesting stuff, but it gets kind of crazy because if electrons have thought, then my hand is like lots of little persons, all the electrons. Right, and then what would you be? Well, exactly. Am I one of the electrons or am I something else?

Am I a ghost trapped in a machine? It gets kind of tricky. electrons or am i something else am i a ghost trapped in the machine it just it gets kind of tricky and all right not that you're not that your friends are saying this necessarily to avoid theism but he is oh i'm sorry not not this guy but go ahead well my point was just that if someone wants to point to something like that in order to avoid theism it might be a sign that they're in quite a desperate state, you know? Yeah, it sounds a little desperate. Okay. So, step seven. All right, now we're cooking with gas because there's only a few more steps here and this is going to get interesting now, I hope. Yeah. Step seven. However, human intelligence, and by the way, I would not say not just human

intelligence, but Klingons or any other kind of alien beings that are like humanoid, but would be counted in this. But human intelligence cannot explain why an electron has within its own nature an inclination to be attracted to protons. Because electrons exist prior to humans, and humans could not exist, or physical bodies could not exist, without electrons already having these natural inclinations. Right. physical bodies could not exist without electrons already having these natural inclinations all right so one of the one of the reasons for that step is to show that god just can't be like a human engineer imposing something but i'll get back to that shortly step eight in our attempt to explain why electrons as non-intelligent beings have a natural inclination to be attracted to protons which makes life possible and life is good. We have

ruled out the material aspect of the electron. We've ruled out chance. We've ruled out biological evolution. And we've ruled out human intelligence and humanoid intelligence. Therefore, this is step nine, there must be some non-human intelligence that is responsible for the natural inclinations of electrons. And the last step before the conclusion is 10. This non-human intelligence cannot achieve this by imposing activity on the electron in a manner similar to a puppeteer or a watchmaker. Instead, this non-human intelligence must be capable of endowing an electron with its existence and its nature, or its being and its nature. And we call, excuse me, this non-intelligent, I'm sorry, we call this non-human intelligence God. Now, that's brilliant. Thank you. Explain to us

why a non-human intelligence can't achieve this by imposing activity on the electron. Okay, this is a good question. That's not, don't worry, it's not a sophisticated, I'm just a little baffled. What's the point of that? Okay, because you see, the way that the proof starts off, the fifth way, and actually all the five ways, it starts with observing natural things, you know, the natural activity of things. But, you know, if I'm a puppeteer and I'm moving the puppet by moving my little hands and pulling the strings, that's not, and say the puppet's made out of wood or something, you know, that's not natural actions of wood. That's something imposed. That's no good. Something being manipulated. Exactly. So, if the

electron actually, you know, has a natural inclination to go to protons, then it's something within its nature. Got it. By the way, this is probably a good time really quickly to say one other thing, and then I'll let you ask whatever questions you'd like. When you're trying to figure out what possibilities are there, there basically are four. Either – or maybe there's five, but let me see. Either the electron is intelligent and it can make its own you know choices for acting but most of us don't believe the electron's intelligent so that's out right uh either it's happening by chance but that's no good because

uh it wouldn't explain the regularity or uh it's coming from bio level biological evolution but but that's no good because electrons have this inclination prior to evolution. It makes it possible. Or God, like a puppeteer, is doing it to them, but then it wouldn't be their own natural actions, right? It'd be forced on them or something. So, really, the only thing we're left with is it has a natural inclination, and we have to explain, well, how did something non-intelligent get this natural inclination? Well, it had to be some non-human intelligence that actually gives it within its very being in nature, this orientation. Wonderful. Thanks very much. You know, it feels great. You know, it's funny,

before the time of the internet, someone could have proposed an argument like this to me, something very commonsensical. And I could have went, wow, that's really interesting. Thank you so much. And maybe would have changed my mind. But in the digital age, there's always somebody out there who thinks your opinion is wrong. Isn't that right? You know, and this can be very difficult for people, especially those like myself and others who aren't, you know, reading the peer-reviewed literature or writing in it ourselves, we just have a myriad of websites, all of which say people like Robert Delfino are idiots for thinking the fifth way can't be explained by evolution, and it can be rather perplexing. Well, you know, a lot of scholars definitely argue about the fifth

way. Actually, there's one other quick thing I want to bring up, but if you have a question, I don't want to stop you. No, no, no. I think we've answered most of the things I, most of my questions had to do with evolution, but as you said, you've sort of, you know, you've been able to subvert those sorts of questions by appealing to the electron, etc. Right. The last thing I want to do is, a lot of people will point to the analogy that Thomas gives, the archer and the arrow. And the tricky thing here is we can't take the – all analogies fail to some extent. They're not perfect. They're just analogies.

And that's where the intelligent design stuff might come in. Some people might say, well, you see God's exterior to the arrow and he's imposing something on the arrow. But you got to understand this. Thomas couldn't do any better than the archer arrow example. And the reason is only God can actually bring something into being from nothing. You know, humans can change things. We can make chemicals react by pouring them in a test tube or something, but we can't, you know, snap our fingers and make new stuff come into being. So, Thomas couldn't have, only God has that power to endow things with existence and a nature and a kind of causality. So the best he could have done is to give this rough analogy like, well, look, humans are intelligent causes and we can kind of make the arrow, you know, go to the

target many times because, you know, we're intelligent, we can do that. But God can do this in a deeper way. He can actually give causal powers to things by giving them a nature, an essence. And there's a beautiful quotation. I have to read you. It's really so beautiful because it tells you about the love of God with all of this.

And there's a kind of irony here too that I want to get out. So let me read you, talk about this beautiful quotation. Please. and it actually might make some evolutionists happy because um and there's a kind of an irony to it too so let me see if i can explain all of this um i'm gonna go look for this uh quotation okay so with the rise of modern science you you know, with Galileo, post-Galileo and all that fun stuff, scientists were amazed at the beauty of nature and the power of nature. And Dawkins is amazed that, you know, there's a kind of, you know, nature is so powerful and look what evolution can do and all these things. And to some degree, they're right.

Things have natures. Electrons can do things. There's lightning bolts and all this wonderful stuff. And, you know, something had to give them that power is what Thomas would ultimately argue. And he gave nature so much power. The irony is some people think, well, why do we need God? Look how powerful nature is. That's the first part of the irony. But listen to what Thomas says in the Summa Contra Gentiles. He says that, you know, he's talking about God giving power to things. And he says, you know, the fact that nature is so powerful, he goes, quote, this is not a result of the inadequacy of divine power,

of God's power, but of the immensity of his goodness, whereby he has willed to communicate his likeness to things, not only so that they might exist, but also that they might be causes for other things. For example, he gives human beings the ability to be causes for other beings. We can help in some way cause our children, we can love them, we can teach them. You know, I mean, this is wonderful. He wants us to participate in his divine life rather than just be a static clump of coal or stone you know he actually is given some things in nature especially living things and intelligent things like us this power you know and and and it's it's it's a gift

of love and grace beautiful yeah not the inadequacy of god but his goodness you know the immensity of his good this is a roundabout argument or at at least it shows why Catholics pray to the saints. You know, it's not because, you know, any deficiency on God's part, but because of His immense goodness that He allows us to help each other. Right. That's beautifully put, Matt. Even to participate in the work of evangelization. Yes, now, listen, that's your gift. I'm

not really good at that kind of stuff. I just, I teach my philosophy class. I drink my beer, but that's your stuff, Matt. I want us to discuss two quick things, and then we might begin to wrap up. We've mentioned William Paley's watchmaker argument without really explaining it. Maybe we should have done that earlier, but never mind. Do you want to just give us a brief rundown on what that is? Well, full disclosure here. I'm not an expert on Paley. I'm not a Paley scholar. Sure.

And there are some scholars who will dispute that he's giving the watchmaker argument in the way some people like Dawkins understand. that he's giving the watchmaker argument in the way some people like dawkins understand but usually the story goes something like this that you know paley uh was talking about um you know if you find a watch on the on the ground yeah on the beach or something like that and uh you know you examine it you see all these complex gears and how they move in in such a sophisticated way to tell time and the hands are telling time you're like well there's no way this could have happened by accident this is a product of intelligent design now he's right that you know watches are artifacts they don't grow on trees and if we find a watch of course we we naturally conclude design right we infer design but can we do that same kind of inference with god well it's a little trickier because you see, we don't want to say that God is just some glorified engineer or the bearded man in the sky

because then we drop God down to like an engineering level and he's too much like a human being. So, what I try to say is what Paley is talking about, at least in my view, is what I call extrinsic teleology or extrinsic finality. it's when the inventor imposes on the metal and the glass for it to tell time. But that's normally what metal – that's not normally what metal and glass do, right? So actually Aquinas talks about this. He talks about in certain passages in the Summa Theologiae, he says when the archer shoots the arrow, he goes that's not natural to the wood. He goes that's violent. It's something outside of its nature.

But he goes but that's not natural to the wood. He goes, that's violent. It's something outside of its nature. But he goes, but that's not the way God acts. He goes, God actually gives something its nature so that it can act a little bit on its own. The electron acts on its own. So, it's not something imposed on it from the external point of view. It's an imminent teleology. Right. And so, Dawkins and co., maybe some would argue an unsympathetic reading of Paley would say, well, look, evolution has done away with that because maybe before Darwin, you could look at certain animals and wonder why it looked like they were designed for their environment. But Darwinian evolution takes care of that. Well, you know, Dawkins thinks that evolution can take care of a whole lot of things. But again, how is evolution even possible?

Well, you need a stable, orderly universe for it to be possible. And how does it get that way? Well, you know, things have to have natures where they're ordered to an end prior to evolution. So I would just say he really needs to realize the argument's pushed back already. You know, evolution's not good enough. How would you say that this is different from the argument from design? I mean, I know it is an argument from design in a sense, but, you know, for example, William Lane Craig's argument, you know, from the fine-tuning of the cosmos, that sort of thing.

Well, you know, from the fine-tuning of the cosmos, that sort of thing. Well, you know, it's interesting. It's similar, but I don't know how complicated you want me to get on this, Frad, but I'll give you the quick version. First of all, I have to say, I love that you call me Frad, because no one in America calls me Frad, but when I grew up, that was my nickname. Frad, Fraddy, Fradlet, Fraddles. I'll answer to any. I hope it doesn't make you angry. No, I like it. Okay. So I can't compete with your cool voice. I got to call your friend. Okay.

So the argument I gave was about an electron. I wanted to focus on something. Now, to be fair, some people would say, well, Aquinas was talking about things we naturally observe with our eyes and we don't observe electrons, and I understand that. But Dawkins would not discount the discoveries in science that we've learned about electrons, so I think I could still make the argument. But what Craig, I think, is doing – I'm not sure if I've read his stuff recently, but he's going more beyond – he's going beyond just the life of the electron. He's trying to bring in everything, the force of gravity, other constants and laws, the strong and the weak nuclear forces. And he says, well, if you add them all together, they're necessary for life. That's a very similar argument.

So he's sort of going even beyond the electron at that point. But it's a little more complex, right? I try to stick with just the electron and how it's necessary for life and necessary for elements which are necessary for life to keep it simpler. But he's making it more grandiose. Now's not bad it's it's similar to aquinas it's just a little variation but i i didn't want to go make it that complicated right now beautiful well thank you so much for taking the time out to explain the fifth way to us i feel like we should read it at

least one more time as we wrap up here today because sometimes you hear it one time and then you explain about it and then when you hear it, it can make a whole lot more sense. So should you read it or should I? Uh, do you want me to read my tweet translation? Okay. I'll, I'll read it one more time. And by the way, if it's all right with you, I'll give you the, uh, 10 step version. You can post it like last time. Thank you. All right. So here's a Delfino's tweet translation, which I'm sure some Latin scholars are going to have a problem with, but I have defense for this. Okay. The fifth way is taken from the governance of things.

For we see some things that lack knowledge, namely natural bodies, act for the sake of some end. This is apparent from the fact that they always or most often act in the same way and achieve what is best, parenthetically what fulfills their natural needs. From this it is obvious that they achieve their end not by chance, but by natural inclination, ex intentione. But those things that lack knowledge do not tend toward an end, except under the direction of something with knowledge and intelligence, as in the case of an arrow from an archer. Therefore, there is some intelligent being by whom all natural things, omnes res naturales, are ordered to an end, and this we call God.

Excellent. Now, last time when I had you on, I asked you if you had a Twitter account and you said you weren't that cool. But I have to ask it again. People would like to learn more about you, maybe read some of the things you've written. Is there anywhere they could go to see all that? Yes. Go to the CIA's most wanted list. No, I'm kidding. Well, it's St. John's University in New York, the webpage. You can Google it and you can go to the philosophy department and you'll find me there. Fantastic. Fantastic. Thanks again for being on with us today all right it was wonderful matt thanks for inviting me thanks everybody for tuning into pints with aquinas do me a huge favor if you haven't already go to itunes and you know

what i'm going to tell you to do rate the show and then be awesome and tell your friends about it if you want to tell me what you thought of this show or previous shows, you can always write to me on Twitter, hashtag PintsWithAquinas. I promise I'll read everything that comes through there. Or if you're really eager, write to me at Matt at PintsWithAquinas.com. God bless you guys. Chat next week. Who's gonna survive? Who's gonna survive