1. Introduction.
In the first chapter of his book “Five Proofs of the Existence of God”[1], Edward Feser gives an Aristotelian Argument for the existence of God. In this essay, I will argue that even granting that there is a purely actual cause, Feser’s argument fails to establish that it’s unique, omnipotent, omniscient, or a morally good agent. Furthermore, I will argue that even granting for the sake of the argument that there is a unique, omnipotent, omniscient purely actual cause, Feser’s argument fails to establish that it is a morally good agent, whereas a different argument – that I give elsewhere - establishes that is it not so.
2. Uniqueness.
Feser argues that a purely actual cause must be unique, because two different things of the same kind are differentiated by having one or more differences in their perfections or privations, but the first cause has no privations and is maximally perfect.
According to Feser, a privation is “the absence of some feature a thing would naturally require so as to be complete. It involves the failure to realize some potential inherent in a thing.”, and he says that something is perfect if “it has actualized its potentials and is without privations”. At this point, one could raise an objection to Feser’s claims about privations and perfections, but here I intend to raise a different objection, so I will grant for the sake of the argument that something is perfect if it has actualized its potentials and is without privations [a].
My objection to Feser’s argument for the uniqueness of the purely actual cause – granting for the sake of the argument that there is at least one purely actual cause - is that things of different kinds can be distinguished by features other than unrealized potentials, and Feser’s argument fails to establish that there is a unique kind of purely actual causes[a].
Note that in the case of causes that are not purely actual, that is how things go:[a] For example, an electron and a neutrino do not need to be distinguished because of differences in their unactualized potentials. Even if all electrons and all neutrinos have some unrealized potentials, it is not the case that an electron can be distinguished from a neutrino only by unrealized potentials. They can be distinguished by having different realized potentials. Similarly, a mosquito, a tapeworm and a lion are distinguished by many features other than unrealized potentials, even if they also have unrealized potentials. But Feser’s argument does not show that the number of kinds of purely actual causes – unlike causes that are not purely actual - is one. It only establishes that there cannot be more than one purely actual causes of the same kind – a result that is compatible with there being two, a few or very many purely actual causes, one of each kind.
Granted, Feser argues for a purely actual cause on the basis of hierarchical considerations, and it might be argued that on that basis, it can be established that there is only one kind. That might or might not be so, but in this context, in any case it would have to be argued for, as it is not clear. For example, there might be some purely actual causes actualizing different not purely actual things, with different and separated hierarchies, etc. Now, I’m not suggesting that this is so – in fact, I don’t even believe in purely actual causes -, but rather, I’m arguing that Feser’s argument fails to rule out such alternatives to uniqueness, among others.
2. Omnipotence and omniscience.
Feser’s argument in support of the omnipotence of the first cause uses the premise that the first cause is unique. But as I have argued above, his argument for uniqueness fails. And since he’s not established uniqueness, Feser has not established omnipotence, either. Similarly, Feser’s argument for omniscience is based on uniqueness, and for that reason – at least -, it does not succeed. [b]
From now on, I will however grant for the sake of the argument that there is a unique, omnipotent, omniscient, purely actual cause, and will argue that even then, Feser’s argument fails to establish that the cause is a morally good agent, or indeed that it is morally good in the sense that would be relevant in this case.
3. Good mosquitoes.
Feser states:
Consider further that a thing is good, in a general sense, to the extent that it realizes the potentials inherent in it as the kind of thing it is, and bad to the extent that it fails to realize them.
From that, he concludes that a purely actual cause of the world, which has no potential, is fully good.
Let’s consider what it is to be good in this context.
For example, a good mosquito would be one that realizes the potentials inherent in it as a member of the kind “mosquito”. But then again, not being a morally good person [c] is not an unrealized potential of the mosquito. It’s not part of the mosquito’s potential to be a morally good person, in the usual sense of the expression “morally good person”. More broadly, it is not part of the potential of a mosquito to be a morally good agent, where “agent” is used in a broad sense, so as to encompass persons but also any multi-person substances that might exist – assuming that that is coherent -, or intelligent aliens who are psychologically vastly different from humans - regardless of whether they would properly be qualified as persons -, etc.
Now, it might be suggested that in the case of rational beings, it is an unrealized potential not to be a morally good agent, and so if there is a rational purely actual cause, it is a morally good agent – and indeed, a morally perfect one. But Feser has not established that in the argument under consideration or even attempted to do so, and it seems indeed very improbable. For example, let’s consider the following hypothetical scenario: on some planet in a distant galaxy, there are intelligent aliens (say, species #12182 to give them a name) that evolved from something very different from monkeys – maybe from something like, say, squid. Those aliens make spaceships and are very capable of logic, reason, language, etc., but instead of morality, they have some analogue, say #12182-morality. Now a #12182 alien may have the potential for being a #12182-morally-good agent, but not a morally good one. This sort of view is of course not compatible with Feser’s metaethics, but Feser has not showed it – or many other variants - is false, and that there are no such aliens, let alone that they beings like those are metaphysically impossible. Now the following scenario highlights the problem of the relevant senses of “good”: Surely, if the omnipotent, omniscient, unique purely actual cause is psychologically such that it values #12182-moral-goodness over moral goodness, it definitely would not count as morally perfect or morally good in the sense that is relevant for theistic arguments, even though it would be fully good in the sense that it would not fail to realize any of its potentials.
So, even granting that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, unique purely actual cause that is an agent, Feser’s argument does not establish that said cause is a morally good agent, in the relevant sense of that expression.
In fact, I have argued elsewhere that if there is an omnipotent, omniscient agent, said agent is not a morally perfect agent, or even a morally good one. That argument does not assume that the omnipotent, omniscient agent is a purely actual cause, but it does not assume that it is not, either, so it is applicable in this context as well.
8. Conclusion.
Even granting for the sake of the argument that there is a purely actual cause, Feser’s argument fails to establish that it is unique, omniscient, omnipotent or morally perfect. Even granting for the sake of the argument the uniqueness, omnipotence and omniscience of the assumed purely actual cause, Feser’s argument fails to establish moral perfection or even moral goodness, in the relevant sense of those terms. A different argument establishes that an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect agent does not exist, independently of the question of pure actuality.
Notes:
[a] I’m not conceding that an Aristotelian or Aristotelian-Thomistic view of kinds and potentials is correct. I’m just granting for the sake of the argument as much about that sort of view as I find useful to raise my objections.
[b] I’m not implying that the arguments for omnipotence and omniscience would succeed if the existence of a unique purely actual cause is granted. I’m taking no stance on that point here.
[c] It might be objected that a purely actual omniscient, eternal, etc., cause is not agent in the usual sense of “agent”, and so the fact that it’s not a morally good agent is unproblematic. I think this is not true. I think “agent” is a correct term, and I’ve chosen it deliberately because it is broad and does not make in my assessment controversial ontological claims. However, it should be clear as I make the rest of my argument, even if “agent” is not the right word, this objection would miss my point. The objection I’m raising here does not hinge on the issue of what an agent is, so you might pick the term you find more suitable (e. g., person, personal substance, or whatever you think is best).
References:
[1] Feser, Edward, “Five Proofs of the Existence of God”, San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2017.
6 comments:
Happy to see you taking on Feser, Angra. Interesting post. Do you plan on tackling his other proofs or will this be it?
Hi RP,
Thank you.
I would like to tackle some of his other arguments or to raise objections to other parts of the Aristotelian one, but posting replies to long arguments here takes longer than replying to short posts on other blogs, and I don't know when I will have enough time to do that properly again. So, I'm afraid I have no plans in that regard (I had written a draft of this post a while ago, but I wanted to make some improvements, so I didn't post it until now).
Still, once in a while I feel like posting something and I have some time in my hands, so I'm not ruling anything out. I don't expect that happening any time soon, though. Perhaps, I might tackle shorter arguments, even if they're not arguments for the existence of God, but - say - moral arguments. But I haven't decided yet.
Angra
I think Feser would argue that in Pure Act all possible potentials are realized.
So, in that case i think the Fiest Cuase would indeed be unique.
Hi Walter,
I'm not sure I understand that. There are potentials that are realized in a mosquito - for example, the potential to suck blood from certain animals -, and those potentials wouldn't be realized in the first cause, so I'd like to ask what you have in mind. Could you clarify, please?
Other than that, even if he clarifies which potentials are realized in the first cause, there is still the following alternative (among others):
One purely actual cause C1 creates a universe U1, with planets, stars, etc., another one C2 creates U2 (with different laws, perhaps), etc., that up to some natural number n, or infinitely many. Moreover, some other purely actual cause D1 creates something other than something recognizable with planets, stars, etc. - even with different laws -, but some more exotic variant; the same for D2, etc. Now I'm not suggesting that this it true, but rather, that this - and many other variants - have not been ruled out, and don't appear a priori less probable than an omnipotent, omniscient purely actual cause (well, maybe they appear more likely to him, but without argument, he has not established uniqueness).
Ultimately, though, I think that the matter of moral goodness in the relevant sense is a tougher challenge than the uniqueness challenge. It seems to me he would have to establish some metaethical theory in order to show that if there is an omnipotent, omniscient, unique purely actual cause, it is also morally good (and further, perfect), but I'm pretty confident one can defeat any such arguments (in the case of uniqueness, I think one might or might not beat the arguments: I would have to see them to evaluate that, so I'm uncertain about the odds, but I'm familiar enough with the potential metaethical arguments and the theories they support to be confident they won't succeed).
Angra
God is understood as being "all that He can be" That is what I mean by "all possible potentials". Maybe "all possible perfections" would be a better description.
Immaterial beings or Purely Actual beings are perfect without sucking blood from certain animals. The need for sucking blood, e.g. can be seen as a kind of privation, because the mosquito is in need of something, while Pure Act is not in need of anything.
As for moral goodness, Feser's God is not a moral agent. Actually, the "goodness" of Feser's God is the same as His perfection. Basically, Feser's God is, by many metaethical standards, a-moral.
To put it somewhat simplified: evil is some kind of mistake and a perfect being makes no mistakes.
Walter,
Regarding uniqueness, Feser has not shown that there is a single kind of purely actual causes. For example, there might be purely actual causes C1, C2, etc., each of which has no privations whatsoever, and have all of the realized potentials of their kind. Indeed, Feser's argument shows that there cannot be more than one purely actual cause of a given kind, for precisely the reasons you're giving. But that does not imply that there is a single purely actual cause (I give more details in the post above).
In re: morality: you say that Feser's God is amoral. But that is not what Feser claims. While he might say that God is not a moral agent, that's a terminological issue. More to the point, Feser's argument does not establish that the purely actual cause (even assuming it exists and is unique, omniscient and omnipotent, which he has not established, either) does not have a preference for something other than goodness - such as, for example, an analogue but different property that some aliens might care about.
As for whether evil is some kind of mistake, that would have to be argued for - Feser has not established that -, but even assuming it is, that would not help the case.
Suppose, for example, that some aliens evolved on another planet, and they have something analogue to morality, but not quite the same. They evolved from, say, something more like squid, and they have something like squid - let's call them "2-squids". Now, 2-squids have 2-moral language that refers to 2-moral goodness. But moral goodness is not the same as 2-moral goodness (you can find more details in this previous post). Now, a 2-squid makes no mistake if it prefers 2-moral goodness over moral goodness. But Feser has not established that the purely actual cause (assuming there is one, etc.) does not prefer something like 2-squid-moral goodness over moral goodness. In the other post, I argue it's extremely improbable that an omnipotent, omniscient creator (purely actual or not; that's not relevant) would be morally perfect in the relevant sense of the words.
Post a Comment