Being, Natural Theology, Philosophical Theology

SPINOZA’S PHILOSOPHICAL METHOD AND AUGUSTINE’S NATURAL THEOLOGY: PART Three of three

by Dave Seng

Part one can be found here.

Part two can be found here.

It is true that natural theology reasons to a transcendent God based on the properties of being and the natural world, but the God that natural theology reasons to is far from an afterthought, or built on fictions. Many of the great Western philosophers such as Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas employ natural reasoning, appeal to being and becoming, logic, and the principle of causality to conclude that an eternal and necessary God exists. This is a very different approach than that of Spinoza’s and is worth investigating. From the standpoint of natural theology, it is illogical to presuppose that God exists in a sound deductive argument. Furthermore, according to natural theology, self-creation is a self-contradiction, and pantheism is impossible due to the laws of logic, contingency, and the principle of causation. Using this foundation, Augustine provides a helpful analysis from the perspective of natural theology.

Classical philosophers have found that natural theology is a powerful and thoughtful way to think about the existence of God. In fact, many thinkers of Western antiquity have used some form of argumentation based on the nature of Being, or reality, to reach their theological or cosmological conclusions. Natural theology is the approach many classical theologians and philosophers use to conclude the existence of a transcendent God. It is not a uniquely Christian way of argumentation either, because Plato, Aristotle, Jewish, and Muslim thinkers have used or adopted various versions of natural theology. Natural theologians and philosophers tend to focus on forms of the cosmological argument which reasons that God must exist as the ultimate cause of the contingent, physical universe.

There are many forms of the cosmological argument. In general, the argument follows from the contingency of the universe and usually adopts this line of thought: contingent, or caused, being depends for its existence on some uncaused being.1 The universe is a contingent being, therefore, the universe depends for its existence on some uncaused being. Another way of the putting the argument is this: Something exists (myself, Being, etc.). Nothing cannot produce something. Therefore, something exists eternally and necessarily. It must exist eternally because if there was absolutely nothing, nothing would exist now because nothing cannot produce something. Non-being cannot produce being. Further, it must exist necessarily because not everything can be contingent. All contingent beings require a cause due to the principle of causality—whatever comes to be (contingent being) has a cause. In general, most Western philosophical theologians argue from some aspect of Being whether it is contingency, motion, apparent design, or causality and conclude that because nothing cannot produce something, something transcendent must exist.2 The following analysis from Augustine provides additional insight into the nature and characteristics of Spinoza’s God and philosophical theology. In addition, Augustine appeals to logic and the natural order to make his case for the existence of God.

Interestingly, Augustine applies the law of noncontradiction when it comes to the nature and existence of the universe. The law of noncontradiction says that nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. As a property of being, the law of noncontradiction is fundamental to all thought, science, language, and is necessary to avoid definitional equivocation in correct reasoning. In addition, as a property of being, the laws of logic cannot be denied.3 The law of noncontradiction cannot be rejected in correct reasoning because it is self-evident and based on the idea that being and non-being are opposites and points to the nature of what is (reality). For something to exist, it cannot both exist and not exist at the same time or same relationship.4 To exist means to stand out of non-being or nothing. Being and non-being are opposites. Further, it is impossible to deny the law of noncontradiction without using the law in the denial. To say that the law of noncontradiction is false, assumes that the opposite of the claim is true. Opposites cannot both be true, which is the reason that the law of noncontradiction is foundational to all correct reasoning. This is important to keep in mind as Augustine draws on the law of noncontradiction and appeals to reality when he argues for the existence of God.

Augustine believes that the universe did not create itself and provides this natural theological argument based on the law of noncontradiction,

Earth and the heavens also proclaim that they did not create themselves. “We exist,” they tell us, “because we were made. And this is proof that we did not make ourselves. For to make ourselves, we should have had to exist before existence began.” And the fact that they plainly do exist is the voice which proclaims this truth. (Augustine, Vol. 16, 114)

Augustine is simply making the point that something cannot exist before it exists. If something did exist before it existed, it would have to be, and not be at the same time and same way, which is impossible according to the law of noncontradiction. In order for the universe to create itself, it must be before it is. Something cannot exist before it exists. Augustine thinks that self-creation violates the law of noncontradiction. According to the law of noncontradiction, the concept of self-causation is a contradiction. It is like saying there is an “uncaused effect” which is logically incoherent. Therefore, philosophers who hold to the natural theology methodology reject Spinoza’s concept of self-causation.

A natural theological approach rejects Spinoza’s rational presuppositionalism. The reason why, is that Spinoza’s methodology is circular in its reasoning. The presuppositional approach asks one to assume or presuppose that God exists in order to prove that God exists. According to Spinoza, God “is in itself and is conceived through itself” and “cannot be conceived unless existing.” In other words, “God is” (presupposition, one cannot think of God unless existing), therefore “God exists” (because a Perfect Being must exist). This is the heart of Spinoza’s methodology and presents an error in logic because the conclusion is present in the premises.5 It is the informal fallacy of begging the question. When the conclusion is present in one of the premises, the argument fails because it is circular and begs the question. It does little practical good when investigating the question of whether or not God exists, to assume that God exists in the first place. Finally, according to Augustinian natural theology, Spinoza’s pantheism is not correct because a transcendent cause of the universe is necessary. If the universe is contingent there must be something that is uncaused to create anything that may or may not exist. Self-creation is a self-contradiction.

On the question of God’s existence, Spinoza tells the inquirer to study the divine nature first (611), but the very question is whether or not the divine nature exists at all. On the other hand, a good valid and sound deductive cosmological argument will not (or should not) be circular. The existence of God is not assumed in a valid cosmological argument.6 Of course, no conclusion in a deductive argument can be stronger than the premises, but that is exactly where the conversation should take place (and does take place between philosophers of religion). Throughout intellectual history, there have been many doubts, challenges, and questions applied to the premises of natural theology and the cosmological argument, and that is perfectly good and appropriate. The circular reasoning of Spinoza’s overall rational presuppositionalism, however, is not helpful.

1 A contingent being is that which may or may not be or exist, any being which can be or can be made to exist or not exist.

2This is the general line of reasoning found in Aquinas’s “Five Ways” on pgs. 12 – 13 in Aquinas I, Vol. 17.

3 The three primary laws of logic are noncontradiction, excluded middle, and identity. They were first explicated by Aristotle in his Physics and Metaphysics. Here we will only focus on the law of noncontradiction.

4Many things in the world exist in relationship to one another. I, however, cannot both be my father’s father and my son’s father. That is a different relationship. Similarly, I may be the biological father of my son, but if my son were to be adopted by someone else, that would entail a different legal relationship.

5Another example of circular reasoning is Descartes’s statement, “I think, therefore I am”. Descartes presupposes an “I” and then concludes that an “I” exists. The conclusion is the premise of the argument and therefore, circular and invalid. Thankfully, Descartes later changed his statement to be understood as a self-evident first principle.

6This is true for any sound and valid argument whatsoever. The conclusion should never be a premise.

Works cited

Augustine. The Confessions, The City of God, On Christian Doctrine. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 16. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.

Spinoza. Bacon, Descartes, Spinoza. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 28. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.

Intellectual History, Metaphysics, Philosophy

Aristotle and Augustine on Being, Truth, and Logic: Part Three

by Dave Seng

Part one can be found here.

Part two can be found here.

The law of noncontradiction holds primacy in another way as well. Aristotle believes that the law of noncontradiction is self-evident and it must be assumed before any other study, or science can get started:

For a principle which every one must know who knows anything that is, is not a hypothesis; and that which every one must know who who knows anything, he must already have when he comes to a special study. Evidently then such a principle is the most certain of all; which principle this is, let us proceed to say. It is, that the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect. (524)

The law of noncontradiction and the resulting axioms of logic are self-evident, just as being is the first thing one experiences when waking up in the morning, and the first thing a baby experiences when he or she is born. Being is undeniable, and so are the laws of logic. (Even Descartes, with his systematic doubt, ultimately concludes that being can be known.) Aristotle believes that the law of noncontradiction “is the most certain” principle one can know and, in fact, is prior and foundational to all other knowledge and learning. It is important to note, however, that the basic law of noncontradiction cannot itself be proven. Because it is self-evident, one must have to assume the law of noncontradiction in order to deny it. In other words, one must rely on the law of noncontradiction if one were to try to disprove it, which is ultimately circular and self-refuting. The basic principles of logic are among the transcendent first principles of reality. Being cannot both be, and not be at the same time and same way. Further, Aristotle claims that there must be some basic first principles of reality in order to prevent an endless regression of explanations that ultimately lead nowhere. He believes it was the mark of an uneducated person to not understand this point:

But we have now posited that it is impossible for anything at the same time to be and not to be, and by this means have shown that this is the most indisputable of all principles. Some indeed demand that even this shall be demonstrated, but this they do through want of education, for not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education. For it is impossible that there should be demonstration of absolutely everything (there would be an infinite regress, so that there would still be no demonstration); but if there are things of which one should not demand demonstration, these persons could not say what principle they maintain to be more self-evident that the present one. (525)

The laws of logic are important when one gives reasons why something is true or not, or demonstrating why something is, or is not the case. They simply provide the rational grounds for avoiding definitional equivocation1. These laws are foundational when trying to understand being because they indicate what can or cannot be, (they also help us understand what we can or cannot know). They are transcendent in nature because they are part of being. They indicate truths which all things participate in if they exist at all. Nothing whatsoever can both be, and not be in the same way and same relationship. In a very real way, the laws of logic are part of being and help one to know and understand truth, because they are fundamental properties of reality. Aristotle refers to the laws of logic in many places, primarily in his works of logic, called the Organon (Categories, On Interpretation, Prior Analytics, Posterior Analytics, Topics, and On Sophistical Refutations), and in his Metaphysics. Regarding the laws of logic themselves, he says that, “these truths hold good for everything that is, and not for some special genus apart from others” (524). In other words, the truths of logic reflect the order of being as a whole and hold for everyone regardless of time, place, or perspective.

Not surprisingly, Augustine takes a more theological position regarding the laws of logic and applies the laws of logic to science, ethics, and the existence of God2. Although Augustine rarely explicates the laws of logic directly, he does believe that logical reasoning deals with the question of how truth may be discovered (319). He thinks that the Greek philosophers who first discovered the laws of logic are essentially correct because they “made efforts to discover the hidden laws of nature and the right and wrong in ethics, and in dialectic what was consequent according to the rules of logic and what was inconsequent and erroneous” (191). He also believes that philosophy has three branches or areas of investigation and that logic is one of these fields of study: “…philosophers have aimed at a threefold division of science, or rather, were enabled to see that there was a threefold division (for they did not invent, but only discovered it), of which one part is physical, another logical, the third ethical” (389). The natural (physical), rational (logical), and moral elements of philosophy have being in focus in some way, just as the field of ethics has to do with the discovery of right or wrong actions, the possibility of natural law, and the being of moral life—questions about whether or not humans are moral beings, rests upon metaphysical assumptions of freedom, the will, and what it means to be human and to flourish in this world. (Although it is beyond the scope of this essay, both Aristotle and Augustine believe that there are metaphysical foundations to the science of ethics.) For Augustine, however, the ultimate ground of all reason, logic, and ethics is found in the existence of God and is in agreement with the ancient Jewish understanding of God as the “ground of being3.” Augustine explains this position when he says, “And yet the validity of logical sequences is not a thing devised by men, but is observed and noted by them that they may be able to learn and teach it; for it exists eternally in the reason of things, and has its origin with God” (734). Augustine believes that logic is a natural part of reality.

Interestingly, Augustine applies the law of noncontradiction when it comes to the nature and existence of the universe. He believes that the universe did not create itself:

Earth and the heavens also proclaim that they did not create themselves. “We exist,” they tell us, “because we were made. And this is proof that we did not make ourselves. For to make ourselves, we should have had to exist before existence began.” And the fact that they plainly do exist is the voice which proclaims this truth. (114)

Augustine is simply making the point that something cannot exist before it exists. If something did exist before it existed, it would have to be, and not be at the same time and same way, which is impossible according to the law of noncontradiction. In order for the universe to create itself, it must be before it is. Augustine thinks that self-creation violates the law of noncontradiction. But in a larger perspective, Augustine agrees with Aristotle, that the principles of logic are properties of being because they exist eternally in the “reason of things” (734). For each thinker, at least one way being corresponds to reality is through the laws of logic, the first metaphysical principles of existence.

Why does one find so much overlap and commonality between Augustine and Aristotle? It is important to note that Augustine does not always follow Plato exactly. (I have written more about how Augustine modifies his Platonism, here.) As with Plotinus, he makes changes to his Platonism to better take account of reality. Augustine modifies his Platonism by placing forms or essences in the particular things—at least when it comes to describing change in physical reality4. Augustine believes that the form must be in the material object itself in order to account for change. “There can be no change where there is no form” (129), according to Augustine. This parallels exactly what Aristotle holds about nature and reality in general. Augustine realizes that without the potentiality of form, something can not change. If the acorn does not have the form and potency of the oak tree, it will not grow into a majestic oak tree. Augustine, then, has a higher respect for physical reality than Plato. That is why he can conclude that logic and truth are properties of being which reside in the nature of things. Aristotle, of course, agrees with this line of thought. Plato, however, would disagree due to his strict emphasis on the Forms and his “divided line” of reality5.

Questions of being, truth, and correct reasoning underlie humanity’s most important concerns and conversations about the meaning of reality and one’s place within it. Without the ability to reason correctly, investigations and discussions of perennial questions would lapse into conceptual incoherence, and it would be impossible to discuss anything in a meaningful way. In different ways, both Aristotle and Augustine help one to realize that truth is essential when it comes to understanding reality, and logic is a helpful tool that allows one to discover these most basic and ultimate concerns.

Works Cited

Aristotle. The Works of Aristotle: 1. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 7. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.

Augustine. The Confessions, The City of God, On Christian Doctrine. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 16. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.

1 Although there are places when much common ground is possible in different positions, the laws of logic simply point out that only one thing or concept can be what it is at a time. If equivocation occurs the argument or discussion looses conceptual coherence and language becomes meaningless.

2Aristotle, however, believes that theology is a branch of metaphyics, see his Metaphysics, book I.3 and book VI.1.

3God’s self-disclosure to Moses in Exodus 3:14, “I am who I am” is generally understood to mean that God is the ground of all being. Another valid translation of the verse is “I am who causes to be.”

4While it is true that Augustine, as a Platonist, places the ultimate forms in the mind of God, in several places he has to modify his Platonism to account for physical change, which Plato is unable to do. For the brevity of this essay, I can only provide one example from Augustine here.

5Plato’s “divided line” is in book six of the Republic, Vol. 6, pages 386 – 387.

Intellectual History, Metaphysics, Philosophy

Aristotle and Augustine on Being, Truth, and Logic: Part One

by Dave Seng

It is right also that philosophy should be called knowledge of the truth.–Aristotle

If truth is genuinely true, then it will be discovered regardless of one’s philosophical outlook or frame of reference. For example, Aristotle and Augustine have both discovered important metaphysical connections between the perennial questions of truth, reality or being, and the metaphysical principles that make being a possibility in the first place. Although it might be unusual to find connections between Aristotle and Augustine, due to their different methods and perspectives, it should not be surprising that they arrive at similar conclusions. Even though each thinker has a different metaphysical starting point and prior commitments (Augustine being a Platonist, and Aristotle utilizing a more empirical and inductive approach) there is still a lot of common ground between the two philosophers. As I will demonstrate, there are several reasons for this shared commonality. Each thinker has a commitment to discover truth and believes real knowledge about the world and ultimate reality is possible. Since reality, itself, is the determinant of order (not one’s theories about it, because those could be wrong), it should not be surprising that each thinker arrives at similar conclusions even if each is employing different approaches.1 The structure of reality is not different for either philosopher. Even though each thinker is working in different historical eras and regions of the world, truth still endures across time and space. In addition, it may be discovered that each philosopher’s approach, though different, is actually complementary to one another. For this essay, the specific overlapping areas between these thinkers are the themes of being, truth, and the role of logic as foundational to understanding reality. Hopefully, it will be discovered how these great ideas and intuitions of being, truth, and logic must be among the first principles of reality.

First, it is important to have a working definition of being before making an analysis of each philosopher’s position. Being is the object of study of metaphysics (the branch of philosophy which investigates the first principles and causes of all reality). Being is simply that to which existence belongs, and it is the task of the metaphysician to describe the causes, principles, and limitations which belong to different kinds of things. It is believed that understanding the modes and properties of being through the philosophical lenses of being and becoming, or being and non-being, that a greater apprehension of reality is achieved. Being is the exploration of reality, although, it may include more than physical reality because the metaphysician is also interested in how immaterial things like mathematics (including the axioms and laws of logic such as noncontradiction, identity, and excluded middle), the mind or intellect (or at least, objects of the mind), and moral truths such as justice, the good, or the concepts of right and wrong, relate to being. Metaphysicians explore the question, “Is there an ultimate foundation to these things that make them possible?” Therefore, when Aristotle, Augustine, or any other classical metaphysician discusses themes such as being and truth, or logic, they are investigating the first principles of reality and how they relate to the world around us.2

It is important to point out as Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas do, that there is a transcendent and universal quality to being. Briefly, these philosophers believe there is a transcendent nature to being because it is a universal concept just like truth, goodness, justice, and human nature (among others) are. These concepts are considered transcendent and universal because any number of particular things can participate in them. For example, many particular people can pursue justice and even experience instances of it. To the degree that a particular instance of justice is genuine, it resembles or takes part in the universal and transcendent definition of what it means to achieve justice which is true at all times and places. This is why an historian can say that a particular event in the past is just or unjust3. Similarly, when Aristotle says, “being is predicated of all things” (588), he is saying that being is a universally transcendent concept. Just like truth, justice, and the good, being must be transcendent and universal in order to make any meaningful statements about it.

We now have a reasonable understanding of what being is and why it is considered a universal. In part two we will examine the relationship between being and truth and explore important commonalities between the perspectives of Aristotle and Augustine.

1Reality, here, is used to indicate that which exists outside the human mind. In this sense, reality is the determinate of order because sometimes there is a real difference between appearance and reality, just as there is a difference between our theories of reality (epistemology) and reality itself (ontology). Moving on in this essay, however, the term “being” will be used to include all of reality which can be divided along the lines of subjective and objective, mental and external, actual and possible, and so forth.

2Although there were those before him who touched on the question, Aristotle posed the question of being this way, “And indeed the question which was raised of old and is raised now and always, and is always the subject of doubt, viz. What being is, is just the question, what is substance” (Vol. 7, 550). In this passage, some translations describe “substance” as “beingness” which might be more helpful. Substance, of course, for Aristotle was a combination of form, or essence, and matter (essence being the limiting factor of matter). Nonetheless, the question of being is a perennial one.

3Here, it is claimed that although the past no longer exists, it is a real object of study and perceptual thought and, therefore, has reality. That is, it has being and is related to being even though it is no longer in act or has actual existence. Humans are cognitively wired in some way to discern the past. Moral truths apply to history because of their transcendent nature.

Intellectual History, Metaphysics, Philosophy

Augustine’s Modified Platonism

by Dave Seng

There can be no change where there is no form.—St. Augustine

One thing that I have discovered in my reading of classical and contemporary philosophers is how those who consider themselves Platonists often have to modify their position to account for a more accurate understanding of concrete reality. For example, Plotinus had to adopt Aristotle’s categories of act and potency to account for change in the world, and Augustine, too, had to concede that form and matter must be united (in order to understand motion, change, and avoid some theological concerns). Contemporary Platonists are rarely strict Platonists. One way or another, everyone on the philosophical spectrum has to come to terms with physical reality. The question is, what is the correct approach? I believe Aristotle and Aquinas provide the best understanding of ontology (the nature of existing things) and metaphysics (the nature and properties of existence). I have already pointed out how Aristotle argues for the union of form and matter. Here, I want to explicate how and why Augustine, a Platonist, needs to modify his position in order to account for reality. Although it is rare to compare Augustine with Aristotle, in some ways he must adjust his overall approach and comes very close to Aristotle’s position.

In the physical and contingent world, matter and its forms must begin at their creation. Since matter and its forms can not exist separately, philosophers and theologians, of both Platonist and Aristotelian varieties, think that God could not have made them separately. It can not be thought, according to Augustine, “that God first created matter without form and then gave it form” (138). To explain this, he offers us an analogy of how music works. “Song is ordered sound, and although a thing may very well exist without order, order cannot be given to a thing which does not exist … We do not first emit formless sounds, which do not constitute song, and then adapt them and fashion them in the form of song (139). Thus, Augustine believes that God made form and matter at the same time. God “concreates” matter and form, puts them together at the same time and is the one who puts the form into matter. For Augustine, the form is not a separate entity, as Plato believed, but put into the matter by God. Augustine clearly modifies his Platonism at this point.

Struggling with the theological and philosophical implications of the created world, Augustine tells us “For the matter of heaven and earth is one thing, their form another. You [God] created the matter from absolutely nothing and the form of the world from the formless matter. But you created both in one act, so that the form followed upon the matter with no interval of delay” (italics added, 157).

The above passages are best read in light of Aquinas because Augustine provides the foundation for the Thomistic doctrine of concreation. Concreation simply means “created together.” In fact, it was Augustine’s teaching that form and matter had to be created at the same time, and that form must follow upon matter, that leads Aquinas to coin the term “concreation” meaning that God created Form and matter at the same time. Why do both Augustine (a Platonist) and Aquinas (an Aristotelian) believe that form and matter must have been created at the same time? Simply because it is impossible to have form without matter, and matter without form. Both Platonists and Aristotelians must face the concrete facts of reality.

Aquinas is helpful here. When examining Augustine’s position of concreation, Aquinas says “if formless matter preceded in duration, it already existed; for this is implied by duration … To say, then, that matter preceded, but without form, is to say that being existed actually, yet without actuality, which is a contradiction in terms … Hence we must assert that primary matter was not created altogether formless” (344). Neither, however can the form of a material thing be created without matter. Aquinas reminds us, “Forms and other non-subsisting things, which are said to co-exist rather than to exist, ought to be called concreated rather than created things. (245)” The old Aristotelian adage, “no form without matter, no matter without form” still holds true.

Even more fascinatingly, Augustine believes that the form must be in the material object itself in order to account for change. “There can be no change where there is no form” (129), according to Augustine. This parallels exactly what Aristotle and Aquinas hold to. Without the potentiality of form, something can not change. If the acorn does not have the form and potency of the oak tree, it will not grow into a majestic oak tree.

Aquinas was one of the first great thinkers to realize that Platonists must modify there position at times. He tells us in his Summa Theologica, “Consequently whenever Augustine, who was imbued with the doctrines of the Platonists, found in their teaching anything consistent with faith, he adopted it; and those things which he found contrary to faith he amended” (446). Clearly, Augustine understood the metaphysical and theological problems which arise when form and matter are separated. For Christians, Christ shed real human pH typable blood on the cross—not some Platonic version where the real blood exists as an ideal in the transcendent realm. The union of form and matter has significant implications when it comes to Christ’s atoning death. For rightly believing Christians, Holy Communion makes no sense without the union of form and matter.

Christian Platonists such as Augustine, do need to modify their position in order to correspond to correct theology. They also need to modify their position to account for a correct understanding of ontology and metaphysics. When I read contemporary Christian Platonists, such as J. P. Moreland and Peter van Inwagen, they too make similar adjustments to their ontology and metaphysics. It is simply very difficult to account for a pure separation of form and matter in physical reality without going into one error or another. Reality has its own intractable way of being. Aristotle was on the right path by adopting a common-sense approach which accounts for reality as we know and experience it. As T. S. Eliot discovered after converting to Christianity, reality is the determinant of order.

Works Cited:

Aquinas, Thomas. The Summa Theologica, Volume 1. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 17. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999

Augustine. Confessions. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 16. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.