The Five Ways and God's Existence: The Fifth Way

Now, we come at last to Aquinas's fifth and final proof for the existence of God. To cut to the chase, this proof basically uses the fact of design in the world to prove that a Designer would have to exist. Just as the beauty and complexity of a Renaissance painting demands a skillful artist, so to the universe and the intricacies it contains demands a Designer, indeed, an artist of considerable skill.

This argument is used quite commonly in Christian circles to prove God's existence. This is most likely because the order and beauty we see in the world around us is quite evident and stands out in a tremendous way. So, let's construct a basic argument from this fact.

First, the existence of complex and detailed beings and both their existence and coexistence is easily observable in the universe around us. Take the human body, for example. Just one individual cell is so very complex and displays an incredible amount of design and governance. All the different parts in a cell (mitochondria, Golgi bodies, ribosomes, ect.) act together towards the good of the entire cell and, in the broad scheme of things, the whole human person. This is just one example of complex beings and structures we see in nature. We could also examine the intricacies of the ecosystem as a whole, the food chain, or even weather itself.

Now, we must ask ourselves whether or not all these things could have been produced by the design of an intelligence or by mere chance. It is clear that, given the definite fact of governance and design in the universe, the only satisfactory option we have is to say that intelligible universe is designed by an intelligence and not blind chance. After all, as the principle of sufficient reason postulates, a greater effect cannot come from a lesser cause. And so, an intelligent being is required for any intelligence we observe in the universe we live in.

Also, the existence of transcendent moral truths attest to God's existence. As we have seen in previous posts, objective truth is an undeniable fact. Now, some might argue that moral truths don't come from a divine being primarily nor from a religious authority in a secondary way but rather, they come from scientific research itself. In fact, the world-famous atheistic author and philosopher Sam Harris wrote a whole book titled The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Moral Values. However, there are several things to be said about this approach to moral truths.

First, I will definitely affirm the fact that science can indeed tell us many things about the well-being of humans and how it can be served in the most optimal way. For example, consider the many breakthroughs in medicine and in the studies of disease and how to prevent it. These are great things that science has given us. However, we must ask, can science tell us in the first place that the well-being of humans ought to be pursued and served? The answer is no because science, while great for questions concerning empirical and sensory materials, cannot begin to contribute to philosophical questions of right and wrong until we determine the fact that human flourishing ought to be accommodated in the first place.

Secondly, we must ask where morality resides. What I mean is, where are moral truths determined or found to be true? Is something considered morally good when a given number of people hold that it is good and bad when a large group thinks that it is bad? Are moral laws basically just like civil laws, that is, decided by majority-rule? The answer, once again, is a straight no. Contrary to what people like David Hume have thought, morality is not simply just my good and bad feelings or "vibes" towards a given action. Though it is true that we do feel a repulsion towards things like murder or suicide, the wrongness of those actions is not determined by my feelings or by the feelings of any number of people. Murder is always wrong, in and of its very nature. Moral truths are exterior and separate from what I personally think about them. Even if I was a German Nazi and Hitler's Germany thought killing Jews was a good thing, it would still be wrong for me to kill Jewish people. The objective truths of good and bad actions are not in any way dependent on flimsy things like feelings or emotions for their goodness and badness. They are wrong by their very nature and essence just as a triangle always has three sides by it very nature and essence.

However, in our world today, there are people who strongly hold to the relativism of moral truths. Astoundingly, these people say that certain actions like murder and rape are good for some cultures and peoples and that we Americans, though we hold that these actions are wrong, should nonetheless tolerate these people who hold a different moral code than we do. This view of tolerating moral diversity is extremely flawed and it totally ignores the clear nature of goodness and evil. Sam Harris, the renowned atheist I mentioned earlier, says, "Most moral relativists believe that toleration of cultural diversity is better, in some sense, than outright bigotry. This may be perfectly reasonable, of course, but it amounts to an overarching claim about how all human beings should live. Moral relativism, when used as a rationale for tolerance of diversity, is self-contradictory."

The situation the moral relativist confronts proves to be too much for his worldview. He says that all cultures are to be tolerated but what happens when he meets a culture who doesn't believe in toleration, taking their views to a dangerous extreme such as we find in Islam? The moral relativist walks right into the pit he dug for himself.

Now, after examining the fact of objective moral truths, we must finally ask whether or not a divine being, God, is required for these to exist. I offer a basic line of argumentation:

All moral truths are indeed objective and universally-binding on all people.

No mere natural cause can explain these truths because a greater effect (inherently-objective morality) cannot come from a lesser cause (mere matter produced by chance processes).

Therefore, since no natural cause either on a lower or equal footing with us humans can explain moral truths, we need a higher cause to explain them. This higher cause we call God.

To conclude this post, I will offer Aquinas's own formulation of this proof. Hopefully, after reading through my own breakdown of this Fifth Way, Thomas's actual writings will make some sense. Here are his words:

"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."