Medieval Vs. Renaissance Philosophy

Comparing Aquinas and Descartes they both in a way have arguments for cause in proving the existence of God. Aquinas in that "nor indeed it is possible, that anything is the efficient cause of itself" (The Second Way, 2) and there needs to be a first cause that is the cause of all

Therefore the universe (cosmos) has a cause c) That cause is God d) Therefore God exists. For this to follow Aquinas has to exclude the possibility of infinite regression; i.e. events with their previous causes going back in time forever).

Many Historians such as W.T. Waugh found little or no evidence to support the fact that there was a significant difference between the Renaissance and the Middle Ages. “It cannot even be said that the Humanists of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries revived the study of the classics. Scholars had been nourished on the classics for centuries…” (Doc. 3) This quote from A History of Europe tells Waugh’s view of no change. He concludes that since the scholars read Greek and Roman classics he felt that the reoccurrence of bringing back these texts was just a high point of the Middle Ages. I further disagree with Mr. Waugh because there was a significant change in both times; in the Renaissance people looked towards religion, afterlife, and luxury. These were humane personalities that were not shown in the Middle Ages. Many scientists, writers and philosopher’s opposed the negative views of people like W.T. Waugh. Ingenious men like Leonardo Da Vinci and Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni with their futuristic ideas and burrokh style art preferred to differ from the views of the opposition. Da Vinci was a complex man with artistic and anatomic skills. Da Vinci

Aquinas’ first and second argument are both very similar to one another. Aquinas states “To cause change is just to draw something out of potentiality into actuality” (Aquinas 43). So here, Aquinas is saying that something has the potential to change. And if you change it that makes it a reality. Aquinas then states “this can only be done by something in actuality.” (Aquinas 43). This something that he is referring to is God. Next Aquinas states “It is therefore impossible for a thing that undergoes a change to cause that change, or for something to change itself. Therefore, whatever undergoes change must be changed by another thing. And, if this other thing undergoes change, it also must be changed by something else, and so on.” (Aquinas 43). However, Aquinas goes back on what he has said and states “But this cannot go back to infinity” (Aquinas 43). This is what we called an “infinite regress”. However, I am not a fan of Aquinas’ theory that an infinite regress is impossible. While it’s understandable, I believe that us as humans will always ask “why?” So we can follow Aquinas and say that an infinite regress is impossible and we must stop at God. But, this brings the questions of “why is God exempt from this?” and if we choose to not follow Aquinas and believe an infinite regress is possible then we can go back into infinity which dismantles 3 of his 5 arguments. After all, he is trying to prove the existence of only one God. Aquinas then wraps up his first argument by saying “We must therefore posit a first cause of change which is not itself changed by anything. And this everyone understands to be God.” (Aquinas 43).

The people of the Renaissance had a different mindset and attitude than the medieval people because what they lived for made a drastic change after the bubonic hit. During the Middle Ages, the thought of God dominated everyones mindset, the thought of heaven excited everyone, the though of hell created a sense of fear.

The middle ages were regarded as a dark and desolate time period in history. Society during this time has no social progress, incessant wars, extreme violence, and no improvement to intellect or education. The Renaissance marked the end of the middle ages lasting roughly from the early 1400s to the 17th century. The Renaissance was exceptionally different from the Dark Ages because of many evolutions to the human intellect, social climate, and the beliefs of Renaissance men. During the bridge between the middle ages and present times the Renaissance innovated art, architecture, philosophy, science, and literature. Also, there was s shift from heavily relying on the church to a focus on humanism. William Manchester author of A World Lit Only by Fire: The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance, Portrait of an Age discusses the concept of the medieval mind, the culture of the Renaissance, and significant changes during these time periods. According to Manchester the end of the middle ages and the beginning of the Renaissance is referred to as ‘The Shattering.’ ‘The Shattering’ is the destruction of the medieval world view, “the implications of the Renaissance appear to be obvious. It was astonishing that no one saw where is was leading” (Manchester, 26). The previous medieval mindset was challenged frequently by religious shifts and numerous prominent historical individuals. ‘The Shattering’ occurred because of a shift in mindset and worldview caused by changes in the church and

After the Black Plague crippled Europe, a new period of time erupted known as the Renaissance slowly developed. The Renaissance is known as the “rebirth” for Humans. The reason for this meaning during the 14th century was because of the radical changes in the culture of Europe. The Middle Ages was surrounded by religion in many aspects. The Black Plague helps stimulate the idea that religion is through the individual. Religion in Europe was starting to becoming not so literal, but more of a personal connection with God, instead of a strict public connection. The starts of the renaissance, commoners or nobility were not focused on taking over the family business, but focusing on other career options of interest. The ideas and the development of Humanism were established during the renaissance through the idea of religion being more personal.

The fifth and final argument for the existence of God that Aquinas makes, explains natural law and order. To put it simply, there is order in nature. Since this order exits, there has to be a designer to this order. This being must be powerful and intelligent enough to have created the order in which we see in nature as we know it. The only explanation of this creator is God himself.

Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument is a method for proving God’s existence and its foundation is based on the fact and observation that the universe exists. Aquinas states that in order for the universe to exist (an idea that we know to be true), there must also exist a cause that caused the existence of the universe. He concludes his argument by saying that God, an unperceivable image, is the cause of the universe, which further verifies His existence. This argument proves that in order to accept the factual, former claim that the universe exists, it is necessary to accept the latter claim that God exists as well.

The first part in which one can prove that there is a God is based on change. In the first part, Aquinas mentions that things change and that there has to be something which brings about that change, but at the same time is changeless. Aquinas states that “a thing in process of change cannot itself cause that same change; it cannot change itself” (Aquinas 45). For example, he gives an example about wood and fire. The wood is able to be hot but simply cannot make itself change without having an outside source that will cause it to become hot. The fire, that is naturally hot, will indeed make the wood hot and as a result, will change the wood.

There are many contrasts in the beliefs and values of the Renaissance and the Middle Ages. The Middle Ages was a time of great suffering, including famine and widespread disease. The Renaissance, however, was a revival of art, learning, and literature. Their views of the purpose of life in the present world and man's place in the world was, perhaps, the greatest contrast. However, their views on politics, religion, and education were very different as well.

Aquinas' second proof is similar to his first in that it relates to cause and effect. St. Thomas reasoned that in a world of order there is an order to all cause and effect. And , since there is a cause for the existence of all things there must be a cause that caused all things and had no cause itself. He points out that nothing in creation existed prior to itself and the causality cannot be traced back infinitely. If the efficient or first cause did not exist then nothing would exist. That first or efficient cause is God.

The medieval era concentrated on salvation and the afterlife and in order to obtain that

Aquinas says we experience causality Nothing is the cause of itself causes are other than their effects. There cannot be an infinite regress of caused causes. If there were an infinite regress, the effects we experience here & now would not exist. Therefore, there must be some first cause and this we call "God." There is also the law of argument by design, we naturally work towards a goal, we also lack the knowing of the outcome, but we reach our goal by being pointed in the direction, therefore there is an intelligent being pointing us in the direction and that would be proof of “God”.

On this summary I decided that I will write about the “Five ways” of Thomas Aquinas to prove the existence of God. This was what stuck more to me when I was doing the Philosophy of religion quiz. I also learned that Aquinas developed his argument from Aristotle. First way: Argument from motion. He demonstrates God's existence by the observation that each thing in the universe that moves, is moved by something else. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and responsibility in the same way. From a series of movers, it must have begun with a prime mover. Second way: Argument from efficient cause. Every efficient cause must itself have an efficient cause and because there cannot be an infinite chain of efficient causes. If the first thing in