This paper reasons that although Cleanthes and St. Thomas Aquinas offer different descriptions of nature itself, their attempts to prove the existence of God by means of teleological arguments are complementary. It examines in detail the related analogies that the two philosophers use to infer the existence of God. It ultimately argues that Cleanthes’s and Aquinas’s arguments are equally flawed in their conclusion that God exists.

Hume’s Cleanthes and Aquinas’s Fifth Way each present a version of the argument from design. An argument by design asserts that the empirical study of nature offers evidence that the world and its parts have purpose and direction.1 Advocates of the theory conclude that the world is designed. Thus, both Cleanthes and Aquinas argue that from the smallest blade of grass to the largest mammal on the planet, every part of the natural world is deliberate and designed. Naturally following this belief is the need for a designer of the natural world. This designer, both Cleanthes and Aquinas assert, is God.2

Although their proofs for God’s existence are essentially the same, the two philosophers’ depictions of nature differ considerably. Cleanthes’s account of the natural world is mechanistic. From this perspective, everything in the world follows certain natural laws, regardless of size or complexity. In fact, Cleanthes asserts that the world is “nothing but one great machine” where closer examination reveals “an infinite number of lesser machines” that regress to a point that even intelligent human beings cannot observe and understand.3 Therefore, in the same way that a desk lamp and a stadium floodlight are different objects built to operate in a similar way, so too in nature, a small flower and a large forest are built to operate in a similar way. On the other hand, Aquinas describes the world in terms of “natural bodies” that lack any type of intelligence or knowledge.4 A natural body, to Aquinas, could be anything from a bit of algae to an entire lake of water. Evidently, the two philosophers’ views of nature portray the world in to very distinct ways.

However, despite differences in terminology describing the world, both Cleanthes’s and Aquinas’s a posteriori methods lead them to the conclusion that all of nature has purpose and is therefore designed. Cleanthes argues that from the “one great machine” to the smallest machine imaginable, all have “an accuracy” about them.5It is this mechanical accuracy, Cleanthes maintains, that allows the parts and the whole of nature to act for a purpose, as “means to ends.”6 For Cleanthes, it follows that there must be an “Author of Nature,” a designer, who creates such accuracy of function.7 Aquinas agrees that nature acts for a purpose. He believes that, although natural bodies may lack any internal knowledge,8 they still “act for an end” in the world.9 For instance, rain falling from the sky will nurture plants, which in turn will transpire water into the air, which in turn will fall from the sky as rain again. Aquinas does not believe it is an accident that natural bodies, such as water in all its forms, act for specific, unchanging purposes.10Indeed, he argues that the natural bodies have been designed in order to reach their ends.11 Therefore, despite their striking differences in descriptions of the natural world, both Cleanthes and Aquinas advocate a fundamentally similar teleological argument.

Cleanthes and Aquinas also agree that the designer of the world is God. To reach this conclusion, they both employ analogies that equate human capabilities to God’s capabilities. Cleanthes argues that the accuracy evident in the natural world “resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the production of human contrivance.”12 He believes that the design of nature is comparable to a human design, such as a piece of architecture or an entire city comprised of such architecture.13 By stating that these two designs are similar, Cleanthes feels he can infer that the two creators of such designs must be similar too.14 Following the notion that no human design, no matter the size of the building or the magnificence of the city, will ever be as great as the design of nature, Cleanthes argues that the mind that designed nature must also be greater then the mind of a human.15 He further states that this great mind is God’s.16 To Cleanthes, it is therefore God who directs nature’s “machines” to reach certain ends.17 Aquinas uses a comparable, though simpler, analogy to arrive at his need for a designer of the world. He notes that the designed nature of the world cannot exist without an intelligent being to guide it, “as the arrow is directed by the archer.”18 Again, Aquinas has described a human intelligence, in this case an archer. In the same way that the archer directs an arrow, Aquinas reasons that another, similar entity directs natural bodies towards their respective ends. He too believes this entity is God. Hence, like Cleanthes, Aquinas also infers that this intelligent, human-like designer is God.

Because of their shared use of analogy, Cleanthes’s and Aquinas’s arguments are comparable in the way that they fail to prove the existence of God. Although both philosophers take pride in their use of empirical methods, the human-to-God analogy is ultimately unempirical.

Cleanthes’s analogy can be written as:

Man’s effects (a city) • God’s Effects (nature)

Man (city planner) • God (creator of nature)

Aquinas’ analogy can be written as:

Arrow • Natural Bodies

Archer • God

The proportion aspect present in these analogies – that nature is greater than a city and God is greater than a human – is clear and easy to accept. In fact, it is an argument commonly used by theologians.19 However, both the analogies not only show proportion, but also presume that there is more than a similarity between man and God and their respective effects. Cleanthes maintains that the city planner and his city are the exact same type of thing that God and “His” nature are. 20 In effect, Aquinas argues that the arrow and his archer are essentially the same as natural bodies and God21.

The common mistake in Cleanthes’s and Aquinas’s respective arguments is the assumption that God’s intelligence is the same type of intelligence as a human intelligence. In essence, they anthropomorphize God by claiming that God has human-like intelligence. Yet, as Cleanthes himself notes, such an intelligence could not create nature.22 For a fuller understanding of this problem, it helps to look at an example of an good analogy. For instance, a city is to a planner as a house is to a builder. Here, there is sameness, rather than resemblance, since both the planner and the builder have human intelligence, and both the city and the house are created from this same type of intelligence. However, the analogies between a human’s characteristics and a God’s characteristics fail because they claim the two are equivalent, when they have no empirical evidence to suggest this.

Consequently, the differences in Cleanthes’s and Aquinas’s descriptions of nature are not sufficient to prevent their respective arguments’ shared downfall. It is easy, however, to understand why they both fall into the trap of flawed analogies. It is extremely difficult to grasp with a human mind (the only one that I, and presumably you, the reader, have ever known) that something other than a human-like mind, and therefore human-like intelligence, could create a world in which so many patterns and laws can be found empirically by our minds.

This concept is even harder to grasp for believers like Aquinas and Cleanthes. Every day believers make a “leap of faith” by accepting there is a God. But Aquinas and Cleanthes attempt to rationally prove God’s existence to atheists. Accordingly, there can be no “leap of faith” in this reasoning. Yet, the philosophers do make a leap in their arguments. They anthropomorphize that which by their own definitions is beyond human capacity. Thus, their main fault lies in the fact that they do not distinguish between the belief in God based on faith, and one which appeals only to reason. Thus, Scott Adams sarcastic quip: “The creator of the universe works in mysterious ways. But he uses a base ten counting system and likes round numbers.”23

Bibliography

Adams, Scott. 2009. “Scott Adams Quotes.” Retrieved January 29, 2009.

“http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/scott_adams.html”

Aquinas, St. Thomas, “Summa Theologiae” In First Philosophy, Fundamental Problems

and Readings in Philosophy, edited by Andrew Bailey, 42-47. (Canada: Broadview Press 2002).

Hume, David, “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion” In First Philosophy,

Fundamental Problems and Readings in Philosophy, edited by Andrew Bailey, 54-89. (Canada: Broadview Press 2002).

1 Philosophy or Religion – Does God Exist? 18: “these arguments begin from the premise that the natural world shows signs of intelligent design or purpose.”

2 Hume 56, Aquinas 46

3 Hume 56

4 Aquinas 46: “We see things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies.”

5 Hume 56

6 Ibid

7 Ibid

8 By this I mean that these bodies lack intelligence

9 Aquinas 46

10 Ibid

11 Ibid

12 Hume 56

13 Ibid

14 Ibid

15 Ibid

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Aquinas 47

19 In Class 01-20-2009

20 Hume 56

21 Aquinas 47

22 Hume 56: “The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all of nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the production of human contrivance; of human designs, thought, wisdom, and intelligence.”

23 Scott Adams, the creator of the Dilbert Comic Strip and writer of the relatively unknown thought experiment God’s Debris