What do you think?
Rate this book
Who Designed the Designer? by Michael Augros (30-Apr-2015) Paperback
The “New Atheists” are pulling no punches. If the world of nature needs a designer, they ask, then why wouldn't the designer itself need a designer, too? Or if it can exist without any designer behind it, then why can't we just say the same for the universe and wash our hands of a designer altogether?Interweaving its pursuit of the First Cause with personal stories and humor, this ground-breaking book takes a fresh approach to ultimate questions. While attentive to empirical science, it builds its case not on authoritative pronouncements of experts that readers must take on faith, but instead on a nuanced understanding of universal principles implicit in everyone's experience.Here is essential reading for all people who care about contemplating God, not exclusively as a best-explanation for the findings of science, but also as the surprising-yet-inevitable implication of our commonsense contact with reality. Augros harnesses such intellects as Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas, ushering into the light a wealth of powerful inferences that have hitherto received little or no public exposure. The result is an easygoing yet extraordinary journey, beginning from the world as we all encounter it and ending in the divine mind.
Unknown Binding
First published April 1, 2015
46 people are currently reading
200 people want to read
About the author
Michael Augros
10 books7 followersB.A., Thomas Aquinas College, 1992; M.A., philosophy, Boston College, 1993; Ph.D., philosophy, Boston College, 1995; Bradley Fellow, 1992-1994; Teaching Fellow, Department of Philosophy, Boston College, 1994-1995; Associate Professor of Philosophy, North American campus of the Pontifical University Regina Apostolorum, 1998 to 2009; Vice-President, Institute for the Study of Nature 2006-; President’s Council, The Society for Aristotelian Studies, 2007-; Tutor, Thomas Aquinas College 1995-1998, 2009-.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
March 26, 2016
The task that the author has taken up in this title is not easy by any means, and this is an age old question that probably can never be explained by logic. But I appreciate the effort. There is no new ground-breaking discovery or philosophy that has been explained in the book (and neither the author claims to do so). It rather builds the argument upon existing philosophical ideas.
I liked reading most of the book, for it taught me how to think logically on this matter. However, I soon realized that it just requires a slight change in perspective, and the entire logic and premise would crumble down. Some arguments were compelling, while others were not.
The last third of the book takes up questions around good vs. evil, morality, faith etc. It gets a little diluted there, as the approach and explanations didn't match up to the same level as the first two-thirds.
I was debating whether to give 3 or 4 stars. But I went ahead with 4 starts, as the book kept me engaged for the most parts of it.
If you have not read Thomas Aquinas or Aristotle already, you will find this book interesting. Even if you have read them and not understood (and possibly given up!), the lucid (by philosophical standards!) language of this book may engage you.
So much to know, and so little time.....choose your next read wisely!
I liked reading most of the book, for it taught me how to think logically on this matter. However, I soon realized that it just requires a slight change in perspective, and the entire logic and premise would crumble down. Some arguments were compelling, while others were not.
The last third of the book takes up questions around good vs. evil, morality, faith etc. It gets a little diluted there, as the approach and explanations didn't match up to the same level as the first two-thirds.
I was debating whether to give 3 or 4 stars. But I went ahead with 4 starts, as the book kept me engaged for the most parts of it.
If you have not read Thomas Aquinas or Aristotle already, you will find this book interesting. Even if you have read them and not understood (and possibly given up!), the lucid (by philosophical standards!) language of this book may engage you.
So much to know, and so little time.....choose your next read wisely!
April 13, 2021
Une excellente vulgarisation de l'argument du mouvement d'Aristote (ou la première voie de Thomas d'Aquin) en faveur de l'existence de Dieu. Le livre se lit comme un récit palpitant (ce n'est pas un livre aride et ennuyant), l'auteur donne énormément d'anecdotes et d'exemples, ce qui fait qu'il devient une histoire. Pourtant, cela n'affaiblit pas la valeur de ses arguments. Absolument, n'importe qui peut lire ce livre.
Il donne et défend chaque étape de l'argument : que le mouvement (tout type changement) doit forcément se terminer par une cause première, par une seule et unique cause, que ce ne peut pas être la nature, l'univers, la matière ou l'énergie. Il prouve aussi ses attributs : intelligente, immuable, immatérielle etc. Il répond à des objections courantes et populaires mais aussi à celles de philosophes connus comme Bertrand Russell, David Hume et Emmanuel Kant. Il aborde aussi d'autres questions comme le problème du mal et l'incapacité de arguments à convaincre des athées car ils refuseront quand même d'accepter l'évidence.
Il donne et défend chaque étape de l'argument : que le mouvement (tout type changement) doit forcément se terminer par une cause première, par une seule et unique cause, que ce ne peut pas être la nature, l'univers, la matière ou l'énergie. Il prouve aussi ses attributs : intelligente, immuable, immatérielle etc. Il répond à des objections courantes et populaires mais aussi à celles de philosophes connus comme Bertrand Russell, David Hume et Emmanuel Kant. Il aborde aussi d'autres questions comme le problème du mal et l'incapacité de arguments à convaincre des athées car ils refuseront quand même d'accepter l'évidence.
December 28, 2019
Michael Augros writes profoundly yet with a very light touch. He develops his proofs of the existence of The First Cause, i.e. God, by reference to nothing more than our normal daily experience of life. He goes from anecdotes of his own life to the insights of Ancient Greek philosophy to the knowledge of the world which we acquire by living and weaves an argument that constitutes an elegant and persuasive web. He lost a five star rating (from me at any rate) by being too dismissive of Plato's universals for my liking, plus he stumbles a bit toward the end while trying to explain (or explain away) the problems that the existence of evil posits for a belief in God. Nonetheless, this is far and away the best book on this subject (reasons to believe in God) I have read. Thoroughly recommended!
June 1, 2024
A CATHOLIC PHILOSOPHER PROPOSES DEDUCTIVE CRITERIA TO PROVE GOD & DESIGN
Author Michael Augros wrote with this 2015 book. “let us assume, for the moment, that … There is (or are) some sort of first cause (or causes) of things. By far the more difficult business… is the consequent question: What is it? Is it, for example something mindless and aimless, like inanimate matter or bungling chance?... Perhaps instead we should suppose the first cause to be intelligent… But then wouldn’t its intelligence have to be constituted of well-ordered components designed for thinking? If so, this intelligence would appear to need a cause ever bit as much as the human mind does, and so it wouldn’t be a FIRST cause after all. The purpose of this book is to put forward a solution to these vexing questions… my intention is to show, by purely rational means, that there is indeed a first cause of all things and that this cause must be a mind.” (Pg. 10)
He continues, “1. This book takes a fresh, nonpolemical approach to the question of a designer. 2. It slowly and carefully develops a single proof for the existence of a mind behind the universe. 3. It does not call on you to trust in the observations or theories of others, such as scientists, but instead reasons exclusively from things you can verify for yourself. 4. It solves certain fundamental problems of theism, of which the atheists are aware, but which current theistic books largely ignore. 5. The certainty reached in this book is greater than that attained in science-based books for or against a designer.” (Pg. 10-11) But he also firmly denies that this book is “Thomistic.” (Pg. 23)
He notes, “Purely circular causation is obviously impossible… You can’t give your own existence to yourself or receive it from yourself… Very well, why not go with infinite regression?... To exclude first causes in this way, we would have to say not only that an infinite regression of simultaneously acting causes is possible, but that it is necessary in every case. We would have to say that NO series of causes comes to a stop, and EVERY effect we see is being produced by an infinity of things acting on each other right now. Not a likely view.” (Pg. 33-34)
He outlines, “we can now frame a general deduction of the existence of a first cause: If there were caused causes, with no first cause, they would constitute a middle with nothing before it. But it is impossible for there to be a middle with nothing before it. Therefore, there cannot be caused causes with no first cause.” (Pg. 37)
He summarizes, “Two first causes would have to share a common nature. They could thus be distinguished only by some addition to that nature in at least one of them. They could thus be distinguished only by some addition to that nature in at least one of them. That distinguishing addition, since the common nature is indifferent to it, would belong to its possessor through a cause. Therefore, the possessor of the distinguishing addition would not be a first cause at all. The force of these principles has decided our question for us. There cannot be two or more first causes. There is a single one at most.” (Pg. 54)
He states, “the first cause must possess every actuality in itself, not potentially, but actually… This conclusion is the deathblow to pantheism. The pantheist makes the supreme being the sum total of things or else the stuff underlying them all and persisting through their comings and goings. But that grand collection… is changeable, increasing and decreasing the number of natures actually represented in it. It cannot, then, possess all actualities at once. But the first cause does. And so it is a superior being.” (Pg. 95)
He asserts, “Since defects as such need no productive cause, they do not come forth from the first cause, and so there is no reason to attribute defects to is, as there is a reason to attribute positive perfections to it.” (Pg. 98-99) He suggests, “The intelligence of the first cause harmonizes very nicely with our oddly beautiful world. What other kind of cause, if not an intelligent one, could be intent on producing beauty as such, rather than as a side effect or an accident? The beauty of the world is the signature of an intelligence…” (Pg. 116)
He argues, “An atheist can deny that there is any first cause at all, postulating instead an infinite regression of presently acting causes at all, postulating instead an infinite regression of presently acting causes producing any given effect. But that is practically the definition of intellectual frustration. There is no ultimate answer… But then he cannot supply any good reason why matter gets to exist and act without dependence on a cause, while other things do not.” (Pg. 135-136)
He concludes, “The illuminating power of universal truths might also reach as far as the human soul and to the great question of its mortality or immortality…matters of justice… will not go forever unaddressed. But perfect justice demands a hereafter n which it would be dispensed, since it plainly does not exist here and now… The very knowledge of god’s existence should inspire us with a new assurance about the purposefulness of living…. The deepest truths, the underlying meanings of all things, and the final outcomes of all whom we hold dear might in the end prove possible to know and to be cause for rejoicing.” (Pg. 212)
While Augros rejects the term “Thomistic” for his book, I think that is actually a fairly accurate way of portraying the “deductive” nature of his premises and arguments. This book will be of most interest to those sympathetic with Catholic metaphysical philosophy.
Author Michael Augros wrote with this 2015 book. “let us assume, for the moment, that … There is (or are) some sort of first cause (or causes) of things. By far the more difficult business… is the consequent question: What is it? Is it, for example something mindless and aimless, like inanimate matter or bungling chance?... Perhaps instead we should suppose the first cause to be intelligent… But then wouldn’t its intelligence have to be constituted of well-ordered components designed for thinking? If so, this intelligence would appear to need a cause ever bit as much as the human mind does, and so it wouldn’t be a FIRST cause after all. The purpose of this book is to put forward a solution to these vexing questions… my intention is to show, by purely rational means, that there is indeed a first cause of all things and that this cause must be a mind.” (Pg. 10)
He continues, “1. This book takes a fresh, nonpolemical approach to the question of a designer. 2. It slowly and carefully develops a single proof for the existence of a mind behind the universe. 3. It does not call on you to trust in the observations or theories of others, such as scientists, but instead reasons exclusively from things you can verify for yourself. 4. It solves certain fundamental problems of theism, of which the atheists are aware, but which current theistic books largely ignore. 5. The certainty reached in this book is greater than that attained in science-based books for or against a designer.” (Pg. 10-11) But he also firmly denies that this book is “Thomistic.” (Pg. 23)
He notes, “Purely circular causation is obviously impossible… You can’t give your own existence to yourself or receive it from yourself… Very well, why not go with infinite regression?... To exclude first causes in this way, we would have to say not only that an infinite regression of simultaneously acting causes is possible, but that it is necessary in every case. We would have to say that NO series of causes comes to a stop, and EVERY effect we see is being produced by an infinity of things acting on each other right now. Not a likely view.” (Pg. 33-34)
He outlines, “we can now frame a general deduction of the existence of a first cause: If there were caused causes, with no first cause, they would constitute a middle with nothing before it. But it is impossible for there to be a middle with nothing before it. Therefore, there cannot be caused causes with no first cause.” (Pg. 37)
He summarizes, “Two first causes would have to share a common nature. They could thus be distinguished only by some addition to that nature in at least one of them. They could thus be distinguished only by some addition to that nature in at least one of them. That distinguishing addition, since the common nature is indifferent to it, would belong to its possessor through a cause. Therefore, the possessor of the distinguishing addition would not be a first cause at all. The force of these principles has decided our question for us. There cannot be two or more first causes. There is a single one at most.” (Pg. 54)
He states, “the first cause must possess every actuality in itself, not potentially, but actually… This conclusion is the deathblow to pantheism. The pantheist makes the supreme being the sum total of things or else the stuff underlying them all and persisting through their comings and goings. But that grand collection… is changeable, increasing and decreasing the number of natures actually represented in it. It cannot, then, possess all actualities at once. But the first cause does. And so it is a superior being.” (Pg. 95)
He asserts, “Since defects as such need no productive cause, they do not come forth from the first cause, and so there is no reason to attribute defects to is, as there is a reason to attribute positive perfections to it.” (Pg. 98-99) He suggests, “The intelligence of the first cause harmonizes very nicely with our oddly beautiful world. What other kind of cause, if not an intelligent one, could be intent on producing beauty as such, rather than as a side effect or an accident? The beauty of the world is the signature of an intelligence…” (Pg. 116)
He argues, “An atheist can deny that there is any first cause at all, postulating instead an infinite regression of presently acting causes at all, postulating instead an infinite regression of presently acting causes producing any given effect. But that is practically the definition of intellectual frustration. There is no ultimate answer… But then he cannot supply any good reason why matter gets to exist and act without dependence on a cause, while other things do not.” (Pg. 135-136)
He concludes, “The illuminating power of universal truths might also reach as far as the human soul and to the great question of its mortality or immortality…matters of justice… will not go forever unaddressed. But perfect justice demands a hereafter n which it would be dispensed, since it plainly does not exist here and now… The very knowledge of god’s existence should inspire us with a new assurance about the purposefulness of living…. The deepest truths, the underlying meanings of all things, and the final outcomes of all whom we hold dear might in the end prove possible to know and to be cause for rejoicing.” (Pg. 212)
While Augros rejects the term “Thomistic” for his book, I think that is actually a fairly accurate way of portraying the “deductive” nature of his premises and arguments. This book will be of most interest to those sympathetic with Catholic metaphysical philosophy.
April 13, 2020
Engaging Read
I thought Augros did a good job laying out his argument, even if I thought there were some things missing. I’d recommend this book to anyone interested in philosophy of religion.
I thought Augros did a good job laying out his argument, even if I thought there were some things missing. I’d recommend this book to anyone interested in philosophy of religion.
October 18, 2018
Just brilliant thinking. He not only presents rational propositions for knowing there is a first cause but also responds to potential objections.
February 22, 2019
Pg. 176
"Such general reasons are some, and only some, of those for which god might allow evils, even unspeakable atrocities, to befall the innocent, including those who love him. I should say especially those who love him. Love, after all, is itself one of the greatest goods, the greatest manifestations of the divine goodness, which cannot exist, or not so well, without some suffering to prove its truth. I love my wife. Suppose I am never called upon to do or have done to me anything on her account that I do not also find entirely agreeable to myself. Then how will it ever become clear that I love her? And that I wish her happiness, her good, not just my own? A condition of truly proving my love is the occasional separation of what delights me from what delights her, so that when these conflict, my choice can show forth what lies invisibly within me. This is what motivates lovers to desire to suffer and to labor for their beloved - to manifest the purity of their love. Those who love god, and who therefore wish this love to be tested and manifested, will accordingly desire the opportunity and fortitude to suffer and labor for him."
I read the prologue to The Song of Bernadette where the author, Franz Werfel, pointed out the nun he interviewed at the convent that Bernadette was a part of until her death. He focused on the fact that she would put fresh fruit on her desk but never touch it. And he thought it was wrong to not indulge in the wonderful graces God has imparted on this earth. This thought process troubled me for quite some time and obviously has stuck with me. Reading this passage by Michael Augros helped me direct my intentions back to God. I would love to enjoy an apple and I know God would want me to enjoy it but not to the point where the desire to consume would be greater than the desire to love God. A lesson all husbands need to understand in their life. What I deem as a want or desire should not be indulged if it conflicts with my wife's good.
"Such general reasons are some, and only some, of those for which god might allow evils, even unspeakable atrocities, to befall the innocent, including those who love him. I should say especially those who love him. Love, after all, is itself one of the greatest goods, the greatest manifestations of the divine goodness, which cannot exist, or not so well, without some suffering to prove its truth. I love my wife. Suppose I am never called upon to do or have done to me anything on her account that I do not also find entirely agreeable to myself. Then how will it ever become clear that I love her? And that I wish her happiness, her good, not just my own? A condition of truly proving my love is the occasional separation of what delights me from what delights her, so that when these conflict, my choice can show forth what lies invisibly within me. This is what motivates lovers to desire to suffer and to labor for their beloved - to manifest the purity of their love. Those who love god, and who therefore wish this love to be tested and manifested, will accordingly desire the opportunity and fortitude to suffer and labor for him."
I read the prologue to The Song of Bernadette where the author, Franz Werfel, pointed out the nun he interviewed at the convent that Bernadette was a part of until her death. He focused on the fact that she would put fresh fruit on her desk but never touch it. And he thought it was wrong to not indulge in the wonderful graces God has imparted on this earth. This thought process troubled me for quite some time and obviously has stuck with me. Reading this passage by Michael Augros helped me direct my intentions back to God. I would love to enjoy an apple and I know God would want me to enjoy it but not to the point where the desire to consume would be greater than the desire to love God. A lesson all husbands need to understand in their life. What I deem as a want or desire should not be indulged if it conflicts with my wife's good.
October 19, 2020
This is a good approach for one of our main questions: who creates God. The answer follows a path of reasoning and conducts us to the first uncaused cause. Also, this book explores other topics as intelligent design and how we can withdraw such a conclusion from the attributes of a designer.
December 24, 2024
Beyond my comprehension.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews