The modern belief that mindless forces can be ultimate efficient causes of natural events is a conceptual impossibility. The logically ultimate cause of any change, the something that is ultimately making it occur in the present moment, is either a mind or not. More specifically, the cause either chooses to act or it does not. By choice here, I mean an act of free will in the libertarian sense. Where there is choosing in this sense there must be a mind. And when we say that an agent acts thus freely, we mean that it acts without being causally determined to act by anything beyond itself. However, this is conceptually indistinguishable from the idea of an ultimate efficient cause. To say that an agent is the ultimate cause in a causal chain is, by definition, to say that it acts without being caused to act by anything beyond itself. It is the head of the causal chain. It is, therefore, a matter of conceptual necessity that ultimate causes be minds, a fact that we have been blind to since the Scientific Revolution on the bad analogy of machines. Thus, every force ultimately governing the universe must be a mind corresponding either to the polytheist’s or the monotheist’s generic definition of divinity, and monotheism’s eternal mind will always be the most complete and justifiable explanation for the existence of the universe as a whole, even for the existence of the gods themselves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
This being would necessarily transcend time.
This is the translation that Tyson uses in his article. The italics are mine.
The italics are mine.
Aquinas is obviously not using “ultimate” here in the sense that I do throughout this paper (i.e., as a synonym for “first” cause when tracing the causal chain from effect to cause).
The italics are mine.
He says this a few minutes into his opening remarks in the first of their three debates hosted by City Bible Forum in Australia.
Aquinas, T. (1948). Summa Theologica, ed. Anton C. Pegis. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc..
Bunge, M. (2009). Causality and modern science: Fourth (Revised ed.). New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Copi, I. (1986). Introduction to logic (Seventh ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Craig, W. L. (2002). Must the beginning of the universe have a personal cause? A rejoinder. Faith and Philosophy, 19(1), 94–105.
Craig, W.L. (2012). Question 265, “Q and A with William Lane Craig,” Reasonable Faith with William Lane Craig. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-causal-principle. Accessed 2/24/16.
Craig, W. L., & Smith, Q. (1993). Theism, atheism, and big bang cosmology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Davies, P. (1985). Superforce. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Dawkins, R. (2006). The god delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Deason, G. B. (1986). “Reformation theology and the mechanistic conception of nature,” in God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science (pp. 167–192). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hawking, S. (1988). A brief history of time. Toronto: Bantam Books.
Hawking, S. (1993). Is everything determined? In Black holes and baby universes and other essays (pp. 132–133). New York: Bantam Books.
Kaku, M. (2008). Physics of the impossible. New York: Doubleday.
Kant, I. (2006). Critique of Pure Reason, trans. J. M. D. Meiklejohn. Amherst: Prometheus Books.
Moreland, J.P. (1998). Libertarian agency and the Craig/Grundbaum debate about theistic explanation of the initial singularity. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly LXXI(4):539-554
Morriston, W. (2000). Must the beginning of the universe have a personal cause? A critical examination of the Kalam cosmological argument. Faith and Philosophy, 17, 149–169.
Newton, I. (1726). Scholium Generale to Principia Mathematica https://newtonprojectca.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/newton-general-scholium-1726-latin-text letter-size1.Pdf. Accessed 3/27/15.
Newton, I. (1995). “General scholium” to Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy in Newton: A Norton Critical Edition, eds. I. Bernard Cohen and Richard S. Westfall (New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Oppy, G. (2006). Arguing about Gods. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pruss, A. R. (2006). The principle of sufficient reason: A reassessment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Roger, J. (1986). “The mechanistic conception of life,” in God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science (pp. 277–295). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Spade, P. V. (1999). “Ockham’s Nominalist Metaphysics,” in The Cambridge Companion to Ockham. In P. V. Spade (Ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stenger, V.J. (1997). “Intelligent Design: Humans, Cockroaches, and the Laws of Physics,” http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html. Accessed 3/27/15.
Swinburne, R. (2013). Mind, brain, and free will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tyson, N. (2005). The perimeters of ignorance. Natural History, 114(9), 28–34.
About this article
Cite this article
Hunt, L. Æternus Est: Divinity as a Conceptual Necessity in the Principle of Causation. Philosophia 46, 895–910 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-018-9952-2
- Conceptual necessity
- Cosmological argument
- Ockham’s razor
- Libertarian free will
- God of the gaps