You are accessing PhilPapers from Open University (UK), an institution that is not subscribed to PhilPapers. Starting on July 1, 2014, we ask institutions that grant philosophy degrees and are based in high-GDP countries to contribute to PhilPapers' maintenance and development through a subscription. See this page for details. Please show your support by contacting your librarian.

On misrepresenting the thomistic five ways

Sophia 48 (1):15 - 34 (2009)
Abstract
A number of recent discussions of atheism allude to cosmological arguments in support of theism. The five ways of Aquinas are classic instances, offered as rational justification for theistic belief. However, the five ways receive short shrift. They are curtly dismissed as vacuous, arbitrary, and even insulting to reason. I contend that the atheistic critique of the Thomistic five ways, and similarly formulated cosmological arguments, argues at cross purposes because it misrepresents them. I first lay out the context, intent and structure of Aquinas’ arguments, then show in what way recent discussions misrepresent them, and finally conclude with a comment on metaphysical orientation, which I take to be central, not only to a proper understanding of the Thomistic five ways but generally to the debate between atheism and theism on the existence of God.
Keywords Aquinas  Cosmological arguments  Existence of God  Atheism  Dawkins
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 10,350
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Richard M. Gale (2007). The Failure of Classical Theistic Arguments. In Michael Martin (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 86--101.
John Hick (1973). Philosophy of Religion. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,Prentice-Hall.

View all 16 references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Similar books and articles
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

44 ( #36,346 of 1,096,707 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

6 ( #39,873 of 1,096,707 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.