In Defence of Secondary Causation Against Occasionalism

So, if created things have no actions productive of effects, it follows that no nature of anything would ever be known through the effect. And thus, all the knowledge of natural science is taken away from us, for the demonstrations in it are chiefly derived from the effect.  (Aquinas SCG 3.69.18)

Secondary Causes: Their Relation to the Primary Cause (God)
The Primary Cause (God) is the uncaused cause, the source of all beings and existence.1“For Scholastics, in order to be caused (whether caused to exist or caused to undergo some change), a thing must in some way be a mixture of act and potency, since to change or come into being is to go from potency to act. But then what is pure actuality and thus devoid of potency not only need not have a cause, but could not have had one. Hence it is false to say that everything has a cause. The principle of causality says that what changes requires a cause, that what comes into being has a cause, that what is composite, contingent or merely participates in being needs a cause, and in general that what goes from potency to act requires a cause. But that is very different from saying that absolutely everything has a cause. When the Scholastic says that God is uncaused, that is not because God is being made an arbitrary exception to a general rule. It is rather because God is taken to be pure actuality, non-composite, non-contingent, and so forth.” Edward Feser, Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction (editiones scholasticae, 2014), p. 107. God continues to sustain the universe at every moment to ensure its continued existence and operation.

Secondary Causes like finite living beings and natural forces possess causal powers. For example, fire has the power to heat and a human has to power to make choices and initiate action. Everything must have a cause. A thing’s nature must be caused by another, that is, it is causally dependent on another agent in a chain of causes. Since these agents are dependent, there are accordingly regarded as secondary” causes. This chain of causes operates as an interactive system established by God. However, each “secondary” cause is ultimately dependent on the power of the Primary Cause (God).

What is the relationship between primary cause and secondary cause? The relationship between a craftsman and his tool provides a helpful analogy: The craftsman (God) is the primary cause of the artifact but this does not undermine the genuine role contributed by the tool (secondary cause) in the production of the artifact.

In Defence of Secondary Causation Against Occasionalism
According to occasionalism2Occasionalism was a dominant philosophy school in medieval Islam. Its prominent advocates included Al-Ash’ari (10th C), founder Ash’arite occasionalism and following him, Al-Ghazali (12th C) and Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (13th C). According to Islamic occasionalism, what appears to be causal relationships in nature are merely God’s habit (’adah) of creating certain events after others, with no necessary connection between them. “God has decreed as a matter of habit (’adah) that the succession of accidents shall correspond to a certain pattern… But it is clear that God who is the ultimate Agent could alter this course of habit freely.” See Majid Fakhry, Islamic Occasionalism (Routledge, 1958, 2008), p. 30, created substances do not have intrinsic power of causation to bring about changes or events. There is no secondary causation since all events are directly caused by God.  The discussion below defends the necessity of secondary causation by highlighting some weaknesses of occasionalism. Continue reading “In Defence of Secondary Causation Against Occasionalism”

  • 1
    “For Scholastics, in order to be caused (whether caused to exist or caused to undergo some change), a thing must in some way be a mixture of act and potency, since to change or come into being is to go from potency to act. But then what is pure actuality and thus devoid of potency not only need not have a cause, but could not have had one. Hence it is false to say that everything has a cause. The principle of causality says that what changes requires a cause, that what comes into being has a cause, that what is composite, contingent or merely participates in being needs a cause, and in general that what goes from potency to act requires a cause. But that is very different from saying that absolutely everything has a cause. When the Scholastic says that God is uncaused, that is not because God is being made an arbitrary exception to a general rule. It is rather because God is taken to be pure actuality, non-composite, non-contingent, and so forth.” Edward Feser, Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction (editiones scholasticae, 2014), p. 107.
  • 2
    Occasionalism was a dominant philosophy school in medieval Islam. Its prominent advocates included Al-Ash’ari (10th C), founder Ash’arite occasionalism and following him, Al-Ghazali (12th C) and Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (13th C). According to Islamic occasionalism, what appears to be causal relationships in nature are merely God’s habit (’adah) of creating certain events after others, with no necessary connection between them. “God has decreed as a matter of habit (’adah) that the succession of accidents shall correspond to a certain pattern… But it is clear that God who is the ultimate Agent could alter this course of habit freely.” See Majid Fakhry, Islamic Occasionalism (Routledge, 1958, 2008), p. 30

Talk: Signs of Intelligent Design in a Fine-tuned Universe and the God Hypothesis.

Link to video – Intelligent Design & the GOD Hypothesis

This talk was delivered originally at the Christian STEM Nexus Forum in Nov. 2023. It explains why the “God Hypothesis” offers an explanation of the origin of the universe better than chance in the light of new developments in contemporary cosmology. Issues discussed include (1) How the Universe came into existence, (2) Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity in fine-tuned universe.

1 The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
2 Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge.
3 There is no speech, nor are there words,
whose voice is not heard.
4 Their voice goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world (Psalm 19: 1-4).

Originally published on 25 Nov 2023. Updated on 13 June 2024

Part 8: Many Scientists Reject the Idea of Multiverse. Why?

Series: Fine-tuning of the Universe and Intelligent Design

Question: The multiverse theory suggests that there are many universes beyond what we can observe, thus increasing the chances of finding a universe with just the right conditions for life to emerge. However, many scientists reject the idea of multiverse. Why?

Discussants: Dr. Ng Kam Weng and Dr. Rodney Toh.

You are welcome to join the discussion at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJVUwA_SoTE

Please forward this message if you find the video discussion helpful.

Earlier Post:
7. Why is the fine-tuning of the universe not by chance

Part 6: Historical Precursors of Argument from Fine-Tuning and Intelligent Design

Series: Fine-tuning of the Universe and Intelligent Design

Question: The discovery of fine-tuning of the universe which makes life possible has led many scientists to think that this cannot be mere coincidence. Explain what is meant by fine-tuning of the universe and why this discovery is important for Christianity.

Discussants: Dr. Ng Kam Weng and Dr. Rodney Toh.

You are welcome to join the discussion at:
Part 6: Historical Precursors of Argument from Fine-Tuning and Intelligent Design

Please forward this message if you find the video discussion helpful.

Faith and Integration of Knowledge. Part 4. Christian Foundation of Modern Empirical Science

Faith and Integration of Knowledge
Christian Foundation of Modern Empirical Science

Part 4. Question: Christians have argued that the emergence of modern science is premised on presuppositions of the Christian worldview. What are some of these unique features in the Christian worldview that contribute to the emergence of modern empirical science?

Discussants: Dr. Ng Kam Weng and Dr. Rodney Toh.

You are welcome to join the discussion at:
Part 4. Christian Foundation of Modern Empirical Science

Please forward this message if you find the video discussion helpful.

Faith and Integration of Knowledge. Part 3. How Do We Integrate Science and Christianity?

Faith and Integration of Knowledge

Part 3. Question: How do we integrate science and Christianity?

Discussants: Dr. Ng Kam Weng and Dr. Rodney Toh.

There are six ways to relate science and Christianity: conflict, independence,  complementation, dialogue, integration and transformation.

You are welcome to join the discussion at:

Part 3. Question: How do we integrate science and Christianity?

Please forward this message if you find the video discussion helpful.

Faith and Integration of Knowledge. Part 2. What is the Relationship Between the Bible and science?

Question: If there is no conflict between Christianity and science, does this mean that the Bible is scientifically reliable? What is the relationship between the Bible and science?

Discussants: Dr. Ng Kam Weng and Dr. Rodney Toh.

You are welcome to join the discussion at:

What is the Relationship Between the Bible and science?

Please forward this message if you find the video discussion helpful.

 

 

Faith and Integration of Knowledge. Part 1 – Alleged Conflict between Science & Christianity

Part 1. Alleged Conflict between Science & Christianity

Question: If Christianity is based on faith in the supernatural world, whereas science is based on facts in the natural world, then they are incompatible. To what extent is this correct?

Discussants: Dr. Ng Kam Weng and Dr. Rodney Toh.

You are welcome to watch the video and join the discussion at:

Alleged Conflict between Science & Christianity

 

Bertrand Russell’s Pointless Universe versus John Calvin’s Purposeful Providence

 

Bertrand Russell: Unyielding Grimace Against a Pointless Universe
Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That Man is the product of causes which had no provision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built (p. 39). Continue reading “Bertrand Russell’s Pointless Universe versus John Calvin’s Purposeful Providence”