Change Happens
When we observe the world around us, two fundamental observations can be made. First, it is clear that things exist. Second, it is clear that things can change. I’m not saying that things necessarily have to change but I think it is very clear that some things change sometimes.
The most basic principle in philosophy is that “nothing can come from nothing”. Its corollary is that “something cannot be and not-be at the same time”. Both are very common sensical statements. The table I am sitting at either “is” or “isn’t”. Likewise, I don’t expect coffee to suddenly appear in my empty coffee cup. Nothing is a complete absence of something. Since there is no something in nothing, something cannot suddenly appear from nothing. So, there is either being or non-being.
Now change means that something new comes to be while something old ceases to be. But if nothing comes from nothing, how can something new come to be when it didn’t exist before?
Likewise, how can some new being come to exist from something already in existence? It would seem that no new being can come from another being, since what has being already is and does not begin to be.
You may think these questions to be somewhat silly, but they represent a truly profound problem when trying to explain change. Any explanation of change must address these issues. Parmenides, a Greek philosopher living before Aristotle, arrived at the conclusion that change is impossible and that the change we observe is illusion.
Thankfully, Aristotle solved the dilemma. He agreed with the truth of the statement that “nothing can come from nothing”. However, it is not entirely true that “being cannot come from being”. Aristotle distinguished “being-in-act” from “being-in-potency”. It is true that being-in-act cannot come from being-in-act because it already is fully actualized. However being-in-act can arise from being-in-potency.
As an example, let us consider a sculptor creating a statue. He can carve the statue from a block of marble. This is possible because the block of marble has the “potential” to be shaped into the statue – it has the possibility and capacity for being transformed. The figure of the statue is in potency within the block of marble. This potency is not nothing. It is real – not in the same as the reality of being-in-act, but with the reality of being-in-potency.
Every change implies a duality. A subject in potency, by the action of some agent, passes into actuality. Change presupposes the acquisition of something and the corruption of something else. The subject of change is what stays the same throughout the change. However, through the change, it acquires something new and loses what it previously had. Change implies a passive principle and an active principle intrinsic to the thing that changes.
Thus there are three principles necessary to any change. Something new comes to be (form). Something old passes away (privation). Something stays the same throughout (matter). In the example of the statue, the form, what comes to be, is the shape of the sculptured statue. The privation, what passes away, is the formlessness of the block of marble and the potential for the statue shape. The matter, what stays the same throughout the change, is the marble. This example is an example of an accidental change – what changes are the accidents of the marble, but the substance of the marble stays the same throughout.
There are three kinds of accidental change: change in quality (alteration), change in quantity/size (growth or diminuition), and change in place (local motion). In all cases, change can be defined as the act of a being in potency insofar as it is in potency. Change is the process by which a substance loses one accidental form or actuality and gains another. Change is the act of something that does not yet have, but is acquiring, the full act of a new accidental determination, a new quality, size or position. While the change is happening, the new determination is neither fully actual (because then the change would be over) nor fully potential (for then the change would not have started). In this way, any change is an imperfect act. The implication of this is that there must be a cause sustaining the change as it is occurring.
What we have discussed about accidental change can also apply to substantial change, a passing away and coming to be of substances. For example, iron, a metal, is a different substance from oxygen, a gas. When combined, they form a third substance, rust, that is very different from either iron or oxygen. This is a substantial change. The principles of change described above apply here as well. What comes to be is the form rust. This form comes to be in the matter of iron and oxygen. However, form and matter compose a substantial unity. Form cannot exist without matter nor matter without some form.
But form means much more than a simple arrangement of atoms or molecules. While it is true that form cannot exist without matter, and in a sense, form is realized in matter in a certain configuration, the matter does not all by itself account for its configuration. Form is a cause in the sense that it is constitutive of the thing it Is the form of, just as matter is constitutive of the thing. But form has a certain priority and explanatory value because the form accounts for the matter being in a certain configuration while in that configuration, something matter cannot do. For example, a house can be made of bricks, but the bricks by themselves do not account for the house as opposed to a pile of bricks.
A change in something must have a cause. The change that something undergoes cannot be the cause of that very same process of change. The change results in a new actuality. This new actuality is a result of what is first potential to it. Therefore the resulting actuality cannot be the actuality that brings itself about. Anything changing is being made to change by some other actuating cause, and this actuating cause is an actuality prior to the change which is the effect.
In speaking of causation, we can differentiate two kinds. The prior actuality, the cause, of a change may be prior in time. Example: A cue ball rolls across the pool table and strikes another billiard ball causing the ball to begin rolling. Once the cue ball has initiated the motion of the billiard ball, the cue ball has no further part to play in the continuation or culmination of the change. In fact if the cue ball were to instantly disappear immediately after striking the billiard ball, the motion of the billiard ball would play out in the same way as if the cue ball were still present.
However, some causes of change act simultaneously with the changes they effect. Examples: a hand moving a staff; a series of interlocking gears; or a series of train cars being pulled by a locomotive engine; any system of simultaneous transfer of change or motion with net energy output. In such cases, the change is sustained only by the continued presence of the cause. If the cause is removed, the change could not occur. If the hand is removed, the staff would no longer move.
Aquinas and the Proofs of God’s Existence
Aquinas deals with the question of God’s existence in Question 2 of the First Part of his masterpiece, the Summa Theologiae. The Summa is divided into large sections called Parts. Each part is divided into questions. These questions are more like topics rather than specific questions. Each question then is divided into articles. Each article is a specific question, e.g., “Whether the existence of God is self-evident?” In responding to each article, Aquinas first lays out objections (arguments counter to his own) to the question. Next, Aquinas lays out his answer to the question, and then specifically addresses and refutes each objection.
Question 2 entails three articles. Article 1 asks, “Whether the existence of God is self-evident?” Aquinas concludes that the existence of God is not self-evident to humans. If God’s existence were self-evident, then no one would be an atheist.
Article 2 asks, “Whether it can be demonstrated that God exists?” Aquinas reminds us that there are two kinds of demonstration. A priori demonstration argues from the cause to its effect. A posteriori demonstration argues from an observed effect to its cause. Since God’s existence is not self-evident, God’s existence cannot be demonstrated a priori, for the cause, in this case God, is not self-evident. However, God’s existence can be demonstrated a posteriori, by arguing from His effects observed in the world.
Article 3 asks, “Whether God exists?” Aquinas concludes that God’s existence can be proved in five ways. We will address each of these five ways in separate posts.
However before addressing Aquinas’ first way, it is interesting to note the objections to the existence of God. Aquinas details just two objections to God’s existence. But these are, and have been historically, the strongest arguments against God’s existence.
The first objection noted arises from the existence of evil.
Aquinas writes, “It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist. “
The second objection is the quite modern argument from the power of science to explain the world.
Aquinas states, “Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence. “
It is very interesting to remember that Aquinas was writing in the 13th century. So it is clear that the “new atheism” is hardly new. If anything the arguments it puts forward in defense of itself are simple derivatives and corollaries to these very old objections. That’s not to discount the strength of these arguments. Nor is it to diminish the importance of addressing them head on. We will address each of these objections in its own right following the discussions of the five ways.
No comments:
Post a Comment