Although atheism still exists as a basic presupposition of our modernistic culture, its credibility has been thoroughly exposed as fatuous. The new atheism of our current era has had its intellectual legs cut out from underneath it, and in actuality, has been demonstrated to be an illusory superstition from the very outset of its opportunistic endeavor. And despite the overall cultural embeddedness of atheistic pretension, it has been intellectually and spiritually routed by numerous minds dedicated to the perennial truths of wisdom. Indeed, atheism resides in the convenience of mantra, rationalistic sophistry, and a will to ‘suppress the truth in unrighteousness’ as Saint Paul tells us in the book of Romans.
Some of the minds that have contributed to the systematic dismantling of modern atheism hinted at above are Wolfgang Smith, David Bentley Hart, and Edward Feser. There are, of course, many others that can be mentioned because these men are merely participating in a tradition of thought inherited from the legacy of Western perennial wisdom. This tradition reaches all the way back to Plato and Aristotle, Plotinus and Porphyry, the Patristics, the Scholastics, and finally up to those who would not bend their knee to the mechanistic Weltanschauung or the postmodern metanarrative relativism that followed.
Wolfgang Smith, the philosopher and scientist par excellence, has showed us that we do not need to sacrifice even an inch of our traditional inheritance to the Goliath of scientistic presumption. Instead, Smith makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled traditionalist. David Bentley Hart, an Eastern Orthodox theologian, has triumphantly defended the tenets of classical theism against the ferocious misapprehension of those atheists erroneously proclaiming the death of God. Finally, Edward Feser, working within the Neo-Scholastic tradition of thought, has effectively established the fact that atheism is a pernicious superstition, rather than the most reasonable interpretation of reality atheism claims itself to be.
And while I am indebted to all of these great thinkers, it is Edward Feser’s thought that I would like to focus on at this time.
Throughout the extensive argumentation found in his work, Edward Feser has entirely destroyed any and all respectability the new atheist movement might have feigned to possess in their many publications of vociferous prognostications. The task of refuting the new atheists began with his great work, The Last Superstition, and has been extended in several publications that followed. His latest work, Five Proofs of the Existence of God, presents classic arguments of natural theology that demonstrate the necessary existence of God. These arguments are the Aristotelian argument, the Neoplatonic argument, the Augustinian argument, the Thomistic argument, and the Rationalist argument. Moreover, Feser dismantles the stock objections to these arguments and thoroughly defends the veracity of natural theology against those critics from the traditions of the so-called Enlightenment. I am reluctant to say that Feser’s work is the ‘last word’ regarding the positive legitimacy of natural theology and theistic ways of arguing for the existence of God, but nonetheless, Feser’s corpus is formidable. To get a glimpse of just how formidable Feser’s work is, all one must do is examine the arguments as he presents them.
Beginning with this initial installment, I will provide each classical argument in their syllogistic format as formulated by Feser. This is useful for a number of reasons, but most importantly is to pin the atheist against the wall with his own irrational slogans. If an atheist is going to reject the conclusion of the arguments, incredulity is not going to be sufficient for the task. Simply rejecting the conclusion that God exists because “I can’t see how X,” or “Science has shown X,” or the puerile reaction “What caused God,” is a desperation of the will, not an exercise of the intellect. The atheist, if he is going to live by his creed of the supremacy of reason must show which premises are in error, why they are in error, and how they invalidate the conclusion that God exists. Mindlessly appealing to the “quantum enigma” (which by the way Wolfgang Smith has solved in favor of the traditionalist) or the materialistic fallacies of Neo-Darwinian dogma do nothing to even wrestle with perennial truth.
Without further ado, here is Edward Feser’s presentation for the Aristotelian Argument for the existence of God.
Taken from Neo-Scholastic Essays, The New Atheists and the Cosmological Argument, Pg. 128:
- That the actualization of potency is a real feature of the world follows from the occurrence of the events we know of via sensory experience.
- The occurrence of any event E presupposes the operation of a substance.
- The existence of any natural substance S at any given moment presupposes the concurrent actualization of a potency.
- No mere potency can actualize a potency; only something actual can do so.
- So any actualizer A of S’s current existence must itself be actual.
- A’s own existence at the moment it actualizes S itself presupposes either (a) the concurrent actualization of a further potency or (b) A’s being purely actual.
- If A’s existence at the moment it actualizes S presupposes the concurrent actualization of a further potency, then there exists a regress of concurrent actualizers that is either infinite or terminates in a purely actual actualizer.
- But such a regress of concurrent actualizers would constitute an essentially ordered causal series, and such a series cannot regress infinitely.
- So either A itself is purely actual or there is a purely actual actualizer which terminates the regress of concurrent actualizers.
- So the occurrence of E and thus the existence of S at any given moment presupposes the existence of a purely actual actualizer.
Taken From Five Proofs of the Existence of God, Pg. 35-37
- Change is a real feature of the world.
- But change is the actualization of a potential.
- So, the actualization of potential is a real feature of the world.
- No potential can be actualized unless something already actual actualizes it (the principle of causality).
- So, any change is caused by something already actual.
- The occurrence of any change C presupposes some thing or substance S which changes.
- The existence of S at any given moment itself presupposes the concurrent actualization of S’s potential for existence.
- So, any substance S has at any moment some actualizer A of its existence.
- A’s own existence at the moment it actualizes S itself presupposes either (a) the concurrent actualization of its on potential for existence or (b) A’s being purely actual.
- If A’s existence at the moment it actualizes S presupposes the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence, then there exists a regress of concurrent actualizers that is either infinite or terminates in a purely actual actualizer.
- But such a regress of concurrent actualizers would constitute a hierarchical causal series, and such a series cannot regress infinitely.
- So either A itself is a purely actual actualizer or there is a purely actual actualizer which terminates the regress that begins with the actualization of A.
- So, the occurrence of C and thus the existence of S at any given moment presupposes the existence of a purely actual actualizer.
- So, there is a purely actual actualizer.
- In order for there to be more than one purely actual actualizer, there would have to be some differentiating feature that one such actualizer has that the others lack.
- But there could be such a differentiating feature only if a purely actual actualizer had some unactualized potential, which, being purely actual, it does not have.
- So, there can be no such differentiating feature, and thus no way for there to be more than one purely actual actualizer.
- So, there is only one purely actual actualizer.
- In order for this purely actual actualizer to be capable of change, it would have to have potentials capable of actualization.
- But being purely actual, it lacks any such potentials.
- So, it is immutable or incapable of change.
- If this purely actual actualizer existed in time, then it would be capable of change, which it is not.
- So, this purely actual actualizer is eternal, existing outside of time.
- If the purely actual actualizer were material, then it would be changeable and exist in time, which it does not.
- So, the purely actual actualizer is immaterial.
- If the purely actual actualizer were corporeal, then it would be material, which it is not.
- So, the purely actual actualizer is incorporeal.
- If the purely actual actualizer were imperfect in any way, it would have some unactualized potential, which, being purely actual, it does not have.
- So, the purely actual actualizer is perfect.
- For something to be less than fully good is for it to have a privation – that is, to fail to actualize some feature proper to it.
- A purely actual actualizer, being purely actual, can have no such privation.
- So, the purely actual actualizer is fully good.
- To have power entails being able to actualize potentials.
- Any potential that is actualized is either actualized by the purely actual actualizer or by a series of actualizers which terminates in the purely actual actualizer.
- So, all power derives from the purely actual actualizer.
- But to be from which all power derives is to be omnipotent.
- So, the purely actual actualizer is omnipotent.
- Whatever is in an effect is in its cause in some way, whether formally, virtually, or eminently (the principle of proportionate causality.)
- The purely actual actualizer is the cause of all things.
- So, the forms or patterns manifest in all things it causes must in some way be in the purely actual actualizer.
- These forms or patters can exist either in the concrete way in which they exist in individual particular things, or in the abstract way in which they exist in the thoughts of an intellect.
- They cannot exist in the purely actual actualizer in the same way they exist in individual particular things.
- So, they must exist in the purely actual actualizer in the abstract way in which they exist in the thoughts of an intellect.
- So, the purely actual actualizer has intellect or intelligence.
- Since it is the forms or patterns of all things that are in the thoughts of this intellect, there is nothing that is outside the range of those thoughts.
- For there to be nothing outside the range of something’s thoughts is for that thing to be omniscient.
- So, the purely actual actualizer is omniscient.
- So, there exists a purely actual cause of the existence of things, which is one, immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, fully good, omnipotent, intelligent, and omniscient.
- But for there to be such a cause of things is just what it is for God to exist.
- So, God Exists.
– Lucas G. Westman