Please read about Thomas Aquinas’ “The Existence of God” and Richard Dawkins’ "The God Delusion.” Relate the two articles to your understanding of God and faith. If you believe in God, is faith in God incompatible with a belief in evolution or science? How would you support your position? How do you think Thomas Aquinas may have responded to Richard Dawkins if he were alive?
As human beings, we have the capacity to use our reasoning to come up with some supposedly plausible conclusions. That’s is exactly what Aquinas did by presenting five arguments/claims to support his thesis concerning “The Existence of God.” On the other hand, Dawkins did the same. He tried to refute Aquinas’ first three assertions (i.e., unmoved mover, uncaused cause, and cosmological argument), which he simply viewed as that of infinite regresses to end later as proofs about God’s existence. The last two (i.e., arguments from degree and design) were just a vacuous and an uncalled for claims. For my part, however, to prove the existence of God is to consider biblical, scientific, empirical or factual evidences (which is not sufficient for this paper to accommodate).
In line with the above, Aquinas made his point clear using biblical hermeneutics and his reasoning ability whereas Dawkins, used for example Darwin’s theory, to refute the former’s claims. In clear reiteration, Aquinas used his knowledge about logic and religion while Dawkins used his own reasoning ability and non-religiousness to discredit the former. If we try to look deeper into what the two opposing minds have vented out, there would not be a very convincing conclusion. For lack of sufficient knowledge about religion, science, logic, and other standards, the two – theologian and atheist – seemed (in themselves) to have proved or disproved God’s existence. They tried to prove God’s existence by simply looking at their limited understanding as human beings; wherein, for my part as a Christian, I can offer biblical-based evidences to prove that God exists and that He is not omnipotent and omniscient (that is, there are things God cannot do such as prevaricate or change Himself).
No doubt Aquinas believed in God. He may have even defined biblically faith as belief in things not yet seen or things to come. He may have even considered faith in God as being compatible with science (but not exactly about evolution per se because those were the old days) As with many other peoples’ understanding, Aquinas has belief in a God that is invisible, that is, without flesh and blood, but only Spirit. If Aquinas is still alive, he would have simply replied to Dawkins using one word – Faith! However, the connective question remains: How can faith being compatible with science? The answer lies in the theistic belief that everything came from things not visible – just like two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen are initially both invisible, but through chemical bonding water is made, which then becomes a visible and tangible matter.
In conclusion, if we based everything we believed in only on those things which are seen and perceived by our limited mind (or reasoning power), we are no better than animals. If we only relied on our own understanding of the world, our human civilization would have not come this far in the annals of history. We do not simply argue whether God exists or not, but must have the faith that no atheist would neither understand nor embrace. Thus, there are really people who have faith in the unseen and individuals whose belief lies in their limited perspective of the world (or universe) we live in. We have to part ways with the latter group to give them the extra benefits of the doubt to continue doubting even at their own absurd, mindless doodling and existing.
References
Aquinas, T. (2011). The Existence of God. In J. Boss, THiNK: Critical Thinking and Logic Skills for Everyday Life (2nd Edition ed., p. 57). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Dawkins, R. (2011). The God Delusion. In J. Boss, THiNK: Critical Thinking and Logic Skills for Everyday Life (2nd Edition ed., p. 58). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
