Quinque viae

Aquinas' 5 Proofs

I saw a reference to Thomas Aquinas today and it got me thinking about his "5 Proofs". I've had a particular dislike for Aquinas' garbage since taking a philosophy of religion class years ago during which the professor presented the 5 proofs as if they were an ironclad argument. Really? 750 years old and theists still hang their hats on these. Think about how much our understanding of the universe has advanced in the last 750 years. Kind of telling where when the religious mindset is.

Here are the 5 Proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae

My own summations of the arguments:

The first three all basically saying: Everything had to be started by something right? So it must have been GOD. And, um, GOD isn't part of everything so I guess he doesn't need to have a creator like everything else.

The fourth argument: This one I really see as an argument of why superman must be real. I don't know, maybe you could apply it to GOD too.

The fifth basically boils down to: The world really looks like it was intelligently designed by someone. Here is a short video on some of that all-knowing design: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw

though historically, they do indicate that Europeans were starting to try to make philosophical arguments again, which they'd done hardly any of since the hieght of the Roman Empire.

...in backward reasoning.

I've also studied them in classes (admittedly long ago), and had them crammed down my throat by well-meaning believers. "Just read this, it explains everything LOGICALLY and you WILL believe!"

Pfft. Along with Aquinas, the two most often recommended were Augustine, who was advertised as "reconciling faith with reason." And that absolutely no-god-awful, simpering, condescending jackass, C.-fucking-S. Lewis and his Trilemma nonsense.

For me, Augustine goes right out the window just for the concept of Original Sin. Anyone who could seriously propose that gross insult to human intelligence is not going to say much of anything I care to hear.

A bishop wrote Augustine a letter after reading that stuff. He said the whole idea of Original Sin was not only un-Christian but inhuman, and questioned Augustine's sanity for coming up with it. He wasn't the only critic, either. But the Church immediately recognized it as a great marketing tool, so it's still with us.

Likewise, for me Lewis instantly falls apart with the "Trilemma." Expressed as "Jesus had to be either Lord, liar, or lunatic." Well, he could have been a lot of other things, including a collage of umpteen different holy men meandering around Judea at the time. Again, that "Trilemma" concept alone is so cosmically goofy that it invalidates anything else Lewis has to say.

Bonus Philosophy Rant - I read this when I was living in Alexandria, Egypt, and I think it came from E.M. Forster, but I'd have to check.

According to the story, the Jewish philosopher Philo occasionally wandered over to the Library of Alexandria and debated with the resident scholars there.

Philo liked to talk about his little tribal god, but he was constantly being embarassed when the scholars asked him real-life, down-to-earth questions about his religion.

Eventually, Philo realized he had to come up with some new, even more incomprehensible but hi-falutin' concept to explain his Gawd. He came up with the idea of the "Mediating Logos," which makes no more sense today than it did back then.

But again, the Xians saw his ravings as useful. Anyone who wants to beat their brain against Philo can go here:

http://www.socinian.org/philo.html

It's from him the RCC got it's anti-birth control BS. His ethical philosophy was one big Is-Ought fallacy.

Seriously, the first three are textbook special pleading. "Here is a rule that applies to everything, except this thing I am proposing which is exempt. Because I said so."

And Swiss cheese would hold more water than the 4th and 5th. His arguments there merely show how ignorant he was of the natural world, nothing more.