DOCSLIB.ORG

Evil and the Ontological Disproof

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evil and the Ontological Disproof City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 9-2017 Evil and the Ontological Disproof Carl J. Brownson III The Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/2155 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] EVIL AND THE ONTOLOGICAL DISPROOF by CARL BROWNSON A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, City University of New York 2017 1 © 2017 CARL BROWNSON All Rights Reserved ii Evil and the Ontological Disproof by Carl Brownson This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Date Graham Priest Chair of Examining Committee Date Iakovos Vasiliou Executive Officer Supervisory Committee: Stephen Grover, advisor Graham Priest Peter Simpson Nickolas Pappas Robert Lovering THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iii ABSTRACT Evil and the Ontological Disproof by Carl Brownson Advisor: Stephen Grover This dissertation is a revival of the ontological disproof, an ontological argument against the existence of God. The ontological disproof, in its original form, argues that God is impossible, because if God exists, he must exist necessarily, and necessary existence is impossible. The notion of necessary existence has been largely rehabilitated since this argument was first offered in 1948, and the argument has accordingly lost much of its force. I argue that the ontological disproof ought to be combined with the problem of evil, and that the resulting synthesis of the two arguments is far more powerful than either element could be alone. The argument is this: if God exists, then he exists necessarily. This necessary existence entails that the mere possibility of a state of affairs incompatible with God’s essential qualities, his perfect goodness and omnipotence, renders God impossible. The possibility of evil incompatible with God does exactly that. This simple argument has remarkable range: it serves as an ontological argument against the existence of God, but it can also serve as a new form of the problem of evil, allowing the resolution of that problem to rest on the mere possibility of evil incompatible with God. It can also iv serve as a contingency argument against the existence of God: God must be a necessary being to adequately explain the existence of the contingent world, but cannot be. This one argument, which I call the ontological problem of evil, can thus play several roles in the philosophy of religion, and can demonstrate the metaphysical impossibility of God from several directions simultaneously. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I owe gratitude to many people for their support as I worked on this project over the years. First, to my advisor, Stephen Grover: the genesis of the argument of this work was developed in a course I took with him on the problem of evil more than a decade ago, and he was enormously patient as those thoughts developed into the present work in pieces and threads woven around the rest of my life. Graham Priest and Peter Simpson were enormously helpful in different ways as I worked out the details. I would also like to thank Brian Madden, Damien Dupont and Morgan Horowitz for their feedback, sometimes formal and sometimes casual, over the years. On a personal level, my lovely wife Karen and my beautiful little girl Natalie: there is no measure for the peace and joy they brought me and the grounding they provided as I worked on this. The same goes for my sister-in-law Susie, who has been an essential part of our little family over the last year. Finally, I owe thanks to my mother and to my sister for being inspirations of the religious sentiment that, paradoxically, drove the questions in this work, and to my dad for being the source of the first and perhaps still most serious philosophical conversations I ever had: they happened early, cut deep, and continue to this day. vi Table of Contents 1. Evil and Necessity 1 2. From Findlay to Mackie 11 3. From Mackie to Findlay 36 4. What Does ‘Evil Incompatible with God’ Mean? 60 5. Possibility 68 6. Two Historical Advances in Possibility 91 7. The Possibility of Evil Incompatible with God 98 8. Why is Necessity Essential to God? 106 9. What Kind of Problem is This? 111 10. The Contingency Argument 118 10. Conclusions 134 Bibliography 140 vii 1. Evil and Necessity “[The problem of evil] seems to result from two distinguishable functions that the idea of God has. It is an ultimate source of explanations of why things are as they are; it is also the embodiment of the very standard by which many of them are found wanting.”1 The problem of evil raises questions about the existence and nature of God, but what exactly are those questions? Is the problem of evil a logical problem,2 or merely an evidential problem,3 or even just a “noncrucial perplexity of relatively minor importance”?4 Are only the goodness and omnipotence of God at stake,5 or are further attributes of God brought into doubt by evil as well? Omniscience is surely relevant to the problem of evil, and perhaps more qualities still – maybe a thicker concept like justice in place of goodness,6 or wisdom in place of omniscience, would make the problem more pointed. I think that amidst this ambiguity in the framing of the problem, an essential attribute of God has been neglected, one which changes the character of the problem and renders it decisive. I want to investigate what the problem of evil means for the necessary existence of God. The problem of evil raises serious difficulties for the notion that God exists necessarily. If there is a metaphysically possible state of affairs incompatible with 1 Penelhum, T. “Divine Goodness and the Problem of Evil.” Religious Studies 2 (1966): 95-107. 2 Mackie, J.L. “Evil and Omnipotence.” Mind (64): 200-212, 195. 3 Rowe, W. “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism.” American Philosophical Quarterly (16). 1979. 4 Pike, N. “Hume on Evil.” In Adams, R. and Adams, M. The Problem of Evil. OUP 1990: p. 52. 5 Mackie, p. 200. 6 Kant, I. “On the Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy,” in Religion and Rational Theology, trans. Wood, A. and di Giovanni, G. CUP. 2001 1 God’s perfections, then God is not a necessary being. Necessity, however, is part of the very idea of God, an essential attribute, just as omnipotence and goodness are. If the problem of evil entails that God is not necessary, it thereby entails that God does not exist. But evil incompatible with God is possible. This simple problem amounts to a disproof of the existence of God from several directions at once – an ontological disproof, a cosmological disproof, a stronger version of the logical problem of evil. Terence Penelhum, above, does not address necessity in his account of the problem of evil, but his framework points towards the role necessity plays: the problem of evil involves the necessity of God, because necessity is an essential part of how God can be an “ultimate source of explanations of why things are as they are.” Explaining why things are as they are in a moral sense is the point of theodicy; explaining why things are as they are in a metaphysical sense is the point of the cosmological argument. These two kinds of explanation are, I believe, in tension, as some of the ways things could be are incompatible with the existence of God. But both sorts of explanations must come together if God is to exist in any meaningful way. The problem of evil arises precisely because God is supposed to serve as an explanation of why the world is this way, and evil is part of the world, so it must be a part of that explanation. Modal questions arise in both the problem of evil and the cosmological argument. Thinking through the problem of evil involves counterfactuals, comparisons of this world with alternatives, a sense that things could have been better or worse: why do children get cancer, when they might not have? Why are things not better, if God is in charge? The problem of evil is both moral and modal. 2 The cosmological argument is modal as well: God must exist necessarily rather than contingently because he must serve as an explanation of why things are as they are and not another way. His existence, his sovereignty, his power and his freedom must therefore range over those other ways things could be. This modal overlap between the two problems means that the cosmological argument and the problem of evil can and should be contested on the same field. At that intersection of the necessity of God and the problem of evil lies the following problem: 1. If God exists, then God exists necessarily. 2. If God exists necessarily, then nothing incompatible with God’s existence is metaphysically possible. 3. Evil incompatible with the existence of God is metaphysically possible. Therefore, God does not exist. It will be easier if this argument has a name, so I will call it the ontological problem of evil, to reflect its role as a synthesis of two other problems: the so-called ontological disproof, and the problem of evil.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Charity and Error-Theoretic Nominalism Hemsideversion
    Published in Ratio 28 (3), pp. 256-270, DOI: 10.1111/rati.12070 CHARITY AND ERROR-THEORETIC NOMINALISM Arvid Båve Abstract I here investigate whether there is any version of the principle of charity both strong enough to conflict with an error-theoretic version of nominalism about abstract objects (EN), and supported by the considerations adduced in favour of interpretive charity in the literature. I argue that in order to be strong enough, the principle, which I call “(Charity)”, would have to read, “For all expressions e, an acceptable interpretation must make true a sufficiently high ratio of accepted sentences containing e”. I next consider arguments based on (i) Davidson’s intuitive cases for interpretive charity, (ii) the reliability of perceptual beliefs, and (iii) the reliability of “non-abstractive inference modes”, and conclude that none support (Charity). I then propose a diagnosis of the view that there must be some universal principle of charity ruling out (EN). Finally, I present a reason to think (Charity) is false, namely, that it seems to exclude the possibility of such disagreements as that between nominalists and realists. Nominalists about abstract objects have given remarkably disparate answers to the question: how, if there are no abstract objects, should we view statements that seem to involve purported reference to or quantification over such objects?1 According to the 1 I define nominalism as the view not merely that there are no abstract objects, but also that nothing is an abstract object, contra certain “noneists” like Graham Priest (2005), who accept the Arvid Båve error-theoretic variant of nominalism (EN), these statements should be taken at face value, both semantically and pragmatically, i.e., taken both as literally entailing that there are abstract objects, and also as used and interpreted literally by ordinary speakers.
    [Show full text]
  • Theodicy: an Overview
    1 Theodicy: An Overview Introduction All of us struggle at one time or another in life with why evil happens to someone, either ourselves, our family, our friends, our nation, or perhaps some particularly disturbing instance in the news—a child raped, a school shooting, genocide in another country, a terrorist bombing. The following material is meant to give an overview of the discussion of this issue as it takes place in several circles, especially that of the Christian church. I. The Problem of Evil Defined Three terms, "the problem of evil," "theodicy," and "defense" are important to our discussion. The first two are often used as synonyms, but strictly speaking the problem of evil is the larger issue of which theodicy is a subset because one can have a secular problem of evil. Evil is understood as a problem when we seek to explain why it exists (Unde malum?) and what its relationship is to the world as a whole. Indeed, something might be considered evil when it calls into question our basic trust in the order and structure of our world. Peter Berger in particular has argued that explanations of evil are necessary for social structures to stay themselves against chaotic forces. It follows, then, that such an explanation has an impact on the whole person. As David Blumenthal observes, a good theodicy is one that has three characteristics: 1. "[I]t should leave one with one’s sense of reality intact." (It tells the truth about reality.) 2. "[I]t should leave one empowered within the intellectual-moral system in which one lives." (Namely, it should not deny God’s basic power or goodness.) 3.
    [Show full text]
  • An Atheistic Argument from Ugliness
    AN ATHEISTIC ARGUMENT FROM UGLINESS SCOTT F. AIKIN & NICHOLAOS JONES Vanderbilt University University of Alabama in Huntsville Author posting. (c) European Journal of Philosophy of Religion 7.1 (Spring 2015). This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version is available at http://www.philosophy-of- religion.eu/contents19.html This is a penultimate draft. Please cite only the published version. Abstract The theistic argument from beauty has what we call an ‘evil twin’, the argument from ugliness. The argument yields either what we call ‘atheist win’, or, when faced with aesthetic theodicies, ‘agnostic tie’ with the argument from beauty. 1 AN ATHEISTIC ARGUMENT FROM UGLINESS I. EVIL TWINS FOR TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS The theistic argument from beauty is a teleological argument. Teleological arguments take the following form: 1. The universe (or parts of it) exhibit property X 2. Property X is usually (if not always) brought about by the purposive actions of those who created objects for them to be X. 3. The cases mentioned in Premise 1 are not explained (or fully explained) by human action 4. Therefore: The universe is (likely) the product of a purposive agent who created it to be X, namely God. The variety of teleological arguments is as broad as substitution instances for X. The standard substitutions have been features of the universe (or it all) fine-tuned for life, or the fact of moral action. One further substitution has been beauty. Thus, arguments from beauty. A truism about teleological arguments is that they have evil twins.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantified Modality and Essentialism
    Quantified Modality and Essentialism Saul A. Kripke This is the accepted version of the following article: Kripke, S. A. (2017), Quantified Modality and Essentialism. Noûs, 51: 221-234. doi: 10.1111/nous.12126, Which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12126. 1 Quantified Modality and Essentialism1 Saul A. Kripke It is well know that the most thoroughgoing critique of modal logic has been that of W.V. Quine. Quine’s position, though uniformly critical of quantified modal systems, has nevertheless varied through the years from extreme and flat rejection of modality to a more nearly moderate critique. At times Quine urged that, for purely logico-semantical reasons based on the problem of interpreting quantified modalities, a quantified modal logic is impossible; or, alternatively, that it is possible only on the basis of a queer ontology which repudiates the individuals of the concrete world in favor of their ethereal intensions. Quine has also urged that even if these objections have been answered, modal logic would clearly commit itself to the metaphysical jungle of Aristotelian essentialism; and this essentialism is held to be a notion far more obscure than the notion of analyticity upon which modal logic was originally to be based. 1 There is a long story behind this paper. It was written for a seminar given by Quine himself in the academic year 1961/2, and discussed in class over a period of several weeks. Some years later, I was surprised to hear from Héctor-Neri Castañeda that it had received wider circulation among philosophers.
    [Show full text]
  • Creation As Theodicy: in Defense of a Kabbalistic Approach to Evil
    Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 14 Issue 4 Article 6 10-1-1997 Creation as Theodicy: In Defense of a Kabbalistic Approach to Evil Robert Oakes Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Oakes, Robert (1997) "Creation as Theodicy: In Defense of a Kabbalistic Approach to Evil," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 14 : Iss. 4 , Article 6. DOI: 10.5840/faithphil199714441 Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol14/iss4/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. CREATION AS THEODICY: IN DEFENSE OF A KABBALISTIC APPROACH TO EVIL Robert Oakes The doctrine of Tzimzum (or divine "withdrawal") occupies pride of place in the Jewish mystical tradition as a response to what is arguably the chief theo­ logical or metaphysical concern of that tradition: namely, how God's Infinity or Absolute Unlimitedness does not preclude the existence of a distinct domain of finite being. Alternatively, how can it be that God, by virtue of His Maximal Plenteousness, does not exhaust the whole of Reality? I attempt to show that, while a plausible argument - one that does not involve the idea of Tzimzum - can be mounted against this "pantheism" problem, the doctrine of Tzimzum has considerable force as the nucleus of a theodicy.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Logic of the Ontological Argument∗ X
    Paul E. Oppenheimer and Edward N. Zalta 2 by `9y(y =x)' and the claim that x has the property of existence by `E!x'. That is, we represent the difference between the two claims by exploiting the distinction between quantifying over x and predicating existence of On the Logic of the Ontological Argument∗ x. We shall sometimes refer to this as the distinction between the being of x and the existence of x. Thus, instead of reading Anselm as having discovered a way of inferring God's actuality from His mere possibility, Paul E. Oppenheimer we read him as having discovered a way of inferring God's existence from Thinking Machines Corporation His mere being. Another important feature of our reading concerns the fact that we and take the phrase \that than which none greater can be conceived" seriously. Certain inferences in the ontological argument are intimately linked to the logical behavior of this phrase, which is best represented as a definite Edward N. Zalta description.3 If we are to do justice to Anselm's argument, we must not Philosophy Department syntactically eliminate descriptions the way Russell does. One of the Stanford University highlights of our interpretation is that a very simple inference involving descriptions stands at the heart of the argument.4 Saint Anselm of Canterbury offered several arguments for the existence The Language and Logic Required for the Argument of God. We examine the famous ontological argument in Proslogium ii. Many recent authors have interpreted this argument as a modal one.1 But We shall cast our new reading in a standard first-order language.
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas Aquinas' Argument from Motion & the Kalām Cosmological
    University of Central Florida STARS Honors Undergraduate Theses UCF Theses and Dissertations 2020 Rethinking Causality: Thomas Aquinas' Argument From Motion & the Kalām Cosmological Argument Derwin Sánchez Jr. University of Central Florida Part of the Philosophy Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the UCF Theses and Dissertations at STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Undergraduate Theses by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recommended Citation Sánchez, Derwin Jr., "Rethinking Causality: Thomas Aquinas' Argument From Motion & the Kalām Cosmological Argument" (2020). Honors Undergraduate Theses. 858. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses/858 RETHINKING CAUSALITY: THOMAS AQUINAS’ ARGUMENT FROM MOTION & THE KALĀM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT by DERWIN SANCHEZ, JR. A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Honors in the Major Program in Philosophy in the College of Arts and Humanities and in the Burnett Honors College at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Fall Term 2020 Thesis Chair: Dr. Cyrus Zargar i ABSTRACT Ever since they were formulated in the Middle Ages, St. Thomas Aquinas’ famous Five Ways to demonstrate the existence of God have been frequently debated. During this process there have been several misconceptions of what Aquinas actually meant, especially when discussing his cosmological arguments. While previous researchers have managed to tease out why Aquinas accepts some infinite regresses and rejects others, I attempt to add on to this by demonstrating the centrality of his metaphysics in his argument from motion.
    [Show full text]
  • |FREE| God, Freedom and Evil
    GOD, FREEDOM AND EVIL EBOOK Author: Alvin Plantinga Number of Pages: 121 pages Published Date: 21 Mar 1989 Publisher: William B Eerdmans Publishing Co Publication Country: Grand Rapids, United States Language: English ISBN: 9780802817310 Download Link: CLICK HERE God, Freedom And Evil Online Read Hick claims that it would be impossible Freedom and Evil the deity to have created human with free will and yet not with the ability to choose evil. Now that we have these definitions, Plantinga returns to the original question: could God have created any world He wanted to? Therefore, every world that God creates must have not only the possibility of evil in it but actual evil as well. Freedom and Evil contingent being is dependent on external states of affairs for its existence; it could either God or not exist. For those who hold that Freedom and Evil attempt at proving that there is a deity of any kind have failed because they are not psychologically convincing or logically compelling there is no Problem of Evil. God for the Existence of God. Feb 12, Wyatt Houtz rated it did not like it Shelves: abandoned. Coming Soon. God is not a contingent being. Related Papers. July 8, at pm. Why create a universe with even the possibility of corruption? Reviews God, Freedom And Evil Plantinga argues convincingly, I think the contrary: there is no contradiction. Now, add to this the observation that there is evil in the world. I worry a bit that modal logic is too weak of a tool to prove the existence of God in the sense that he is a being of maximal greatness.
    [Show full text]
  • The Teleological Argument Looks at the Purpose of Something and from That
    The teleological argument looks at the purpose of something and Cosmological arguments start with observations about the way The Third Way: contingency and necessity William Paley (1742 – 1805) observed that complex objects work from that he reasons that God must exist. Aquinas (1224 – 1274) the universe works and from there these try to explain why the with regularity, (seasons, gravity, etc). This order seems to be the gave five ‘ways’ of proving God exists and this, his teleological universe exists. Aquinas gives three versions of the cosmological Aquinas’ point here is that everything in the universe is result of the work of a designer who has put this regularity and arguments, starting with three different (although similar) argument, is the fifth of his five ways. contingent – it relies on something to have brought it into order into place deliberately and with purpose. For example, the observations: motion, causation and contingency. Aquinas, influenced by Aristotle, believed that all things have a existence and also things to let it continue to exist. eye is constructed perfectly to see. For Palely, all of this pointed to purpose, but we cannot achieve that purpose without something The First Way: the unmoved mover a designer, who is God. In nature, there are things that are possible ‘to be’ and to make it happen – some sort of guide, which is God. Inspired by Aristotle, Aquinas noticed that the ways in which things ‘not to be’ (contingent beings) The analogy of the watch move or change (changing state is a form of motion) must mean These things could not always have existed because that something has made that motion take place.
    [Show full text]
  • Divine Utilitarianism
    Liberty University DIVINE UTILITARIANISM A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Masters of Arts in Philosophical Studies By Jimmy R. Lewis January 16, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter One: Introduction ……………………………...……………..……....3 Statement of the Problem…………………………….………………………….3 Statement of the Purpose…………………………….………………………….5 Statement of the Importance of the Problem…………………….……………...6 Statement of Position on the Problem………………………...…………….......7 Limitations…………………………………………….………………………...8 Development of Thesis……………………………………………….…………9 Chapter Two: What is meant by “Divine Utilitarianism”..................................11 Introduction……………………………….…………………………………….11 A Definition of God.……………………………………………………………13 Anselm’s God …………………………………………………………..14 Thomas’ God …………………………………………………………...19 A Definition of Utility .…………………………………………………………22 Augustine and the Good .……………………………………………......23 Bentham and Mill on Utility ……………………………………………25 Divine Utilitarianism in the Past .……………………………………………….28 New Divine Utilitarianism .……………………………………………………..35 Chapter Three: The Ethics of God ……………………………………………45 Divine Command Theory: A Juxtaposition .……………………………………45 What Divine Command Theory Explains ………………….…………...47 What Divine Command Theory Fails to Explain ………………………47 What Divine Utilitarianism Explains …………………………………………...50 Assessing the Juxtaposition .…………………………………………………....58 Chapter Four: Summary and Conclusion……………………………………...60 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………..64 2 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Statement of the
    [Show full text]
  • Why William Rowe's Argument from Natural Evil Fails
    Scholars Crossing Other Graduate Scholarship School of Divinity 2015 Why William Rowe’s Argument from Natural Evil Fails Douglas Taylor Liberty University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lts_grad_schol Part of the Christianity Commons, Metaphysics Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Taylor, Douglas, "Why William Rowe’s Argument from Natural Evil Fails" (2015). Other Graduate Scholarship. 2. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lts_grad_schol/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Divinity at Scholars Crossing. It has been accepted for inclusion in Other Graduate Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholars Crossing. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LIBERTY UNIVERSITY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY Why William Rowe’s Argument from Natural Evil Fails Submitted to the Evangelical Theological Society Southeastern Region Meeting by Doug Taylor February 14, 2015 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................3 BUILDING THE THEODICY ............................................................................................6 Culpability ...................................................................................................................6 Growth .........................................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • The Design Argument
    The design argument The different versions of the cosmological argument we discussed over the last few weeks were arguments for the existence of God based on extremely abstract and general features of the universe, such as the fact that some things come into existence, and that there are some contingent things. The argument we’ll be discussing today is not like this. The basic idea of the argument is that if we pay close attention to the details of the universe in which we live, we’ll be able to see that that universe must have been created by an intelligent designer. This design argument, or, as its sometimes called, the teleological argument, has probably been the most influential argument for the existence of God throughout most of history. You will by now not be surprised that a version of the teleological argument can be found in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. You will by now not be surprised that a version of the teleological argument can be found in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas is noting that things we observe in nature, like plants and animals, typically act in ways which are advantageous to themselves. Think, for example, of the way that many plants grow in the direction of light. Clearly, as Aquinas says, plants don’t do this because they know where the light is; as he says, they “lack knowledge.” But then how do they manage this? What does explain the fact that plants grow in the direction of light, if not knowledge? Aquinas’ answer to this question is that they must be “directed to their end” -- i.e., designed to be such as to grow toward the light -- by God.
    [Show full text]