# The Lies of Richard Dawkins, Episode 6: Saint Thomas Aquinas **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 12, 2009, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591 "2009-02-12T20:54:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/1 "2009-02-12T20:54:46Z")
Dawkins says: > [@](#): > > The five proofs assert by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century don’t prove anything and are easily-though I hesitate to say so, given his eminence, exposed as vacuous. The first three are just different ways of saying the same things, and can be considered together. All involve an infinite regress-the answer to a question raises a prior question, and so on ad infinitum. > > 1. The unmoved mover. Nothing moves without a prior mover. This leads us to a regress from which the only escape is God. Something had to make the first move, and that something we call God. > > 2. The uncaused cause. Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause, and again we are pushed back into regress. This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call God. > > 3. There must have been a time when no physical things existed. But since physical things exists now, there must have been something non-physical to bring them into existence, and that something we call God. > > All three of these arguments rely on a regress and invoke God to terminate it. They make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God is immune to the regress. Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one, there is absolutely no need to endow that terminator with any of the properties: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, Several things stand out about this. First of all, what Dawkins presents as Aquinas’ proofs were not actually written by Aquinas. They were written by Dawkins. (Or maybe he borrowed them from elsewhere. In any case, he certainly should have quoted the real thing.) The five straw-man proofs of Dawkins include words and phrases that Aquinas never used, while carefully omitting important phrases and sentences from the real thing. The result is extremely misleading. Anyone who hasn’t actually read Aquinas will be left with a wrong impression of the text. Of course, anyone who has read [the real proofs](http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm) will spot the fakes immediately. In fact, Aquinas has already dealt with both of the objections that Dawkins raises. I will explain in reverse order. Second Dawkins says that there’s no need to give the terminator certain properties. Aquinas did not intend for the five proofs to establish any of the properties of God, only the existence of God. Aquinas tackles the properties of God throughout the remainder of the first part of the _Summa_ in a series of scores of questions, covering several hundred pages. By failing to mention this fact and suggesting that the five proofs are intended to establish the properties of God, Dawkins further misleads his readers. First Dawkins says that it’s an “unwarranted claim” that God is immune to regress. Why is this unwarranted? As usual, Dawkins does not provide any reason why I should believe what he says. In fact, Aquinas has dealt with this objection as well. This is, I think, precisely the reason why Dawkins writes fake versions of the five proofs, rather than presenting the real ones. If he presented the real ones, the reader would immediately see that Aquinas has answered Dawkin’s complaints. In the first proof, Aquinas says “It is impossible … that a thing should be mover and moved.” Hence, for every moving object, there is a mover. Furthermore, there cannot be an infinite chain, from moving objects to movers. We have confirmed these two points, through Newton’s first law and the impossibility of transcending the infinite. So Aquinas defines God as the first mover. To complain that the first mover is not “immune to the regress” is a logical error. In a mathematical proof you can debate whether the transition from one step to another is valid, but you can’t simply tell the person making the proof that you don’t like their hypothesis. Aquinas does tackle elsewhere the questions of what makes it reasonable to believe that God is an unmoved mover. He also tackles the reasons underlying God as an efficient cause and a necessary being. (Incidentally the three arguments are quite different, and Dawkins is flat wrong in describing them as “saying the same thing”.) For those wishing to see the topic analyzed at greater length, I recommend [this blog post.](http://www.consider.org/blog/?p=30) ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/2 "2009-02-12T21:07:02Z")
Well, I suspect your post could have been more clearly written, but I can’t argue. Dawkins, like many all very intelligent men, is a fool. We shuld not be surprised when he writes foolish things. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/3 "2009-02-12T21:11:19Z")
So was Thomas Aquinas a fool or unintelligent? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/4 "2009-02-12T21:13:21Z")
[Sets watch]Hmm… the bi-weekly Atheists bad, Theists good thread. [The Constitution does not forbid religious symobls on government property](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=501446) [Isn’t it time for atheists to stop telling the Galileo myth?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=498780) [Multiple universes don’t refute intelligent design](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=492239) [Dawkins on Martin Luther King, Jr.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=488228) [Charles Darwin was a Racist and Eugenicist](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=479449) [Why blame religion for Alan Turing’s prosecution?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=476309) [The atheist double-standard](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=459330) [Albert Einstein Believed in God](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10760814#post10760814) On topic: Dawkins is using an arcane rhetorical device known to the illumaniti and other shadowy forces as “summing up”. Perhaps he didn’t want to present the entire text of Aquinas’ ignorant, childish bullshit in what he was writing there? If you honestly think that Aquinas proved god’s existence then there’s no helping you. No one can force you to think clearly. You have to decide to do it. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/5 "2009-02-12T21:17:18Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Dawkins is using an arcane rhetorical device known to the illumaniti and other shadowy forces as “summing up”. No he is not. Summarizing means presenting a shortened form of a certain text, but it does not change the meaning of the text. The fabrications that Dawkins writes have different meaning than the five proofs of Aquinas. They are not a summary, nor a translation, abridgement, or anything else reasonable. They are at best a straw man argument. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/6 "2009-02-12T21:19:44Z")
Nitpicking Dawkins to prove god exists is like nitpicking the pope to prove god doesn’t exist, but you won’t catch an Atheist doing the later. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/7 "2009-02-12T21:23:17Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > No he is not. Summarizing means presenting a shortened form of a certain text, but it does not change the meaning of the text. The fabrications that Dawkins writes have different meaning than the five proofs of Aquinas. They are not a summary, nor a translation, abridgement, or anything else reasonable. They are at best a straw man argument. What are you talking about? How is ‘The unmoved mover’ not a summation of Aquinas first argument? You summed it up yourself in your OP, and ‘unmoved mover’ is a summation of that paragraph. Yes, it leaves out details, because that’s what a summation does. How would you give a short one sentence summary of Aquinas first argument? ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/8 "2009-02-12T21:24:47Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > In the first proof, Aquinas says “It is impossible … that a thing should be mover and moved.” Hence, for every moving object, there is a mover. Furthermore, there cannot be an infinite chain, from moving objects to movers. We have confirmed these two points, through Newton’s first law and the impossibility of transcending the infinite. So Aquinas defines God as the first mover. To complain that the first mover is not “immune to the regress” is a logical error. In a mathematical proof you can debate whether the transition from one step to another is valid, but you can’t simply tell the person making the proof that you don’t like their hypothesis. Newton’s first law doesn’t say every moving object has a mover… it says an object moves at constant velocity unless acted upon by a net force. How do you get from the latter to the former? Furthermore, if we accept both the hypotheses “Every moving object must have a mover” and “Well, actually, some things can possibly move with no mover”, we can prove _anything_ we like, since they contradict each other. Which is all good and well in terms of sound mathematical deduction, but also rather uninteresting; I could prove that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone from the hypothesis that 20 was prime, if I liked, but no one would care. Supposing, then, that we start only with “There can not be an infinite descending movement-causation chain” (itself not logically mandated, but one we can agree to assume as a hypothesis) and “At least one thing moves”, we can conclude that “At least one thing moves without being under the influence of a mover”. Great. We have proved the existence of at least one unmoved mover. But we have not proved uniqueness; i.e., we have not proved that there is only one unmoved mover, so that taking “God” as “the unmoved mover”, the term is not guaranteed to be well-defined. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/9 "2009-02-12T21:26:32Z")
**ITR** , when your post contains an admonishment to someone for not quoting sources, you should probably make sure you don’t yourself not quote a source, as you have not for the Dawkins’ quote that you post here. I’m guessing The God Delusion? > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Dawkins says: > Several things stand out about this. First of all, what Dawkins presents as Aquinas’ proofs were not actually written by Aquinas. They were written by Dawkins. (Or maybe he borrowed them from elsewhere. In any case, he certainly should have quoted the real thing.) The five straw-man proofs of Dawkins include words and phrases that Aquinas never used, while carefully omitting important phrases and sentences from the real thing. The result is extremely misleading. Anyone who hasn’t actually read Aquinas will be left with a wrong impression of the text. Of course, anyone who has read [the real proofs](http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm) will spot the fakes immediately. Well, certainly, these are paraphrases. Unless we are to claim that the only fair representation of something is the exact words themselves, the question is really whether or not the paraphrasing is fair - that is, the words themselves are changed, but is the meaning of them changed, whether deliberately or accidentally? Let’s compare Dawkins’ paraphrasings with your cite. > [@](#): > > 1. The unmoved mover. Nothing moves without a prior mover. This leads us to a regress from which the only escape is God. Something had to make the first move, and that something we call God. > [@](#): > > The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. I do see a flaw in this paraphrasing, and it is that it misses out on Aquinas’ logic on how that which is moved cannot itself be the cause of the movement; that one way out of the regress is for something to be both the moved and the mover of itself, and that Aquinas shows this not to be possible (well, he says it, and offers no reason to believe him, as I believe you are fond of saying). So i’d say a black mark against Dawkins on this one, but since Dawkins does not then go on to use the excised part against Aquinas, I don’t think we can call it a deliberate excision for purposes of lying. > [@](#): > > 1. The uncaused cause. Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause, and again we are pushed back into regress. This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call God. > [@](#): > > The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God. This seems an entirely fair paraphrasing. > [@](#): > > 1. There must have been a time when no physical things existed. But since physical things exists now, there must have been something non-physical to bring them into existence, and that something we call God. > [@](#): > > The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God. Dawkins misses out entirely here on Aquinas’ point on necessity. Major black mark here, since that seems to be the main point of Aquinas’ proof here. And I say that as a person who finds that particular proof practically entirely devoid of logic. I’d add also there’s the slight problem that you’ve referred to the “five” strawman proofs of Dawkins, but he appears to only have offered three of them. I’d check up to see if he added points on the other two, but I don’t know where your quote is from. > [@](#): > > Second Dawkins says that there’s no need to give the terminator certain properties. Aquinas did not intend for the five proofs to establish any of the properties of God, only the existence of God. Aquinas tackles the properties of God throughout the remainder of the first part of the _Summa_ in a series of scores of questions, covering several hundred pages. By failing to mention this fact and suggesting that the five proofs are intended to establish the properties of God, Dawkins further misleads his readers. Incorrect. And you’ve rather failed on that point, too. Aquinas does not mention the properties of god. He mentions the properties of God, as do you. If Aquinas were only talking of gods in general, then he’d not capatalise it. And here we have something of a problem, since I assume the Summa Theologica was originally in Latin, not English. By that translation you have provided, I think it’s fair to say he was talking about God, since, you know, that’s the word put down. Furthermore, even to assume the existence of a god is to assume further than the proofs; the proofs only suggest the existence of a first mover, first causer, and so on. Yet Aquinas (and you) happily refer to this being as a god. I rather think Dawkins point on what Aquinas believes is correct - while yours and the man himself’s assumes too much. > [@](#): > > First Dawkins says that it’s an “unwarranted claim” that God is immune to regress. Why is this unwarranted? As usual, Dawkins does not provide any reason why I should believe what he says. You’ve pointed out that we must judge what Aquinas says based not on his writings in that specific section, but in the entirety of his text. So, to be fair, we should do the same with Dawkins. Does he not address the issue of God’s immunity to regress \*anywhere \*within the unnamed text from which you quote? I hope you have scoured the book, lest you be presenting a double standard. > [@](#): > > In the first proof, Aquinas says “It is impossible … that a thing should be mover and moved.” Hence, for every moving object, there is a mover. Furthermore, there cannot be an infinite chain, from moving objects to movers. We have confirmed these two points, through Newton’s first law and the impossibility of transcending the infinite. So Aquinas defines God as the first mover. To complain that the first mover is not “immune to the regress” is a logical error. In a mathematical proof you can debate whether the transition from one step to another is valid, but you can’t simply tell the person making the proof that you don’t like their hypothesis. But that is what is happening. Dawkins is pointing out that if the initial idea is “for every moving object, there is a mover”, then it does not follow to end up with “there is, however, a moving object which has no mover”. Contending that there is a first mover at all is a logical error, one which cannot be resolved unless we amend the first statement to “some moving objects have no movers”, which opens up rather a can of worms but at least is logically sound. > [@](#): > > Aquinas does tackle elsewhere the questions of what makes it reasonable to believe that God is an unmoved mover. He also tackles the reasons underlying God as an efficient cause and a necessary being. (Incidentally the three arguments are quite different, and Dawkins is flat wrong in describing them as “saying the same thing”.) For someone who dislikes being asked to take them at their word on something, you appear to be quite willing to ask people to take you on your word. By your own example, you should have provided direct proof right there. Please, stop making the mistakes you castigate in others, especially in the same post. It’s just impolite. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/10 "2009-02-12T21:28:09Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > Nitpicking Dawkins to prove god exists is like nitpicking the pope to prove god doesn’t exist, but you won’t catch an Atheist doing the later. (I don’t always do this, but I have to say it here: ) THIS. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/11 "2009-02-12T21:28:10Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > In the first proof, Aquinas says “It is impossible … that a thing should be mover and moved.” Too bad Newton and Aquinas couldn’t sit down for a beer and, in the vein of the OP, start from the end with the third law of motion. > [@](#): > > Furthermore, there cannot be an infinite chain, from moving objects to movers. We have confirmed these two points, through Newton’s first law and the impossibility of transcending the infinite. Huh? > [@](#): > > To complain that the first mover is not “immune to the regress” is a logical error. In a mathematical proof you can debate whether the transition from one step to another is valid, but you can’t simply tell the person making the proof that you don’t like their hypothesis. :dubious: Disputing premises is not a logical error. ---
**Author:** ![Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sophistry_and_Illusion)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/12 "2009-02-12T21:32:49Z")
Weak, **ITR** , weak. But also par for the course. First, Dawkins’ presentation of the first two arguments is fine. They are the unmoved mover and first cause arguments. As you quote Dawkins, that is precisely what he is saying. Aquinas’ third way is strictly speaking about necessary vs. contingent beings. It’s probably a mistake to gloss this in terms of physical/non-physical beings, but hey; why call something an error when you can call it a lie? Also, Newtonian physics doesn’t claim that we have to explain why things are in motion. AIUI Newtonian mechanics only requires that a \*change \*in something’s motion requires explanation. And finally, criticizing Aquinas for claiming that everything needs a mover/explanation/etc. except for God is not a “logical error”. It is merely a standard atheist complaint that God is for the theist quite literally a deus ex machina which the theist can use to explain anything without actually having to do any heavy lifting. Frankly, the God hypothesis is a handy mechanism for begging the question. “Everything needs a cause. Except, of course, God. Everything is contingent. Except, of course, God. Everything requires a mover. Except, of course, God.” It’s easy to win debates if you stipulate all the rules in your favor at the outset. I’m no Dawkins apologist. Frankly, I found _The God Delusion_ disappointing, as I find nearly every work by scientists trying to do philosophy. But criticize the man on legitimate grounds. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/13 "2009-02-12T21:36:26Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Several things stand out about this. First of all, what Dawkins presents as Aquinas’ proofs were not actually written by Aquinas. They were written by Dawkins. (Or maybe he borrowed them from elsewhere. In any case, he certainly should have quoted the real thing.) The five straw-man proofs of Dawkins include words and phrases that Aquinas never used, while carefully omitting important phrases and sentences from the real thing. The result is extremely misleading. Anyone who hasn’t actually read Aquinas will be left with a wrong impression of the text. Of course, anyone who has read [the real proofs](http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm) will spot the fakes immediately. Don’t you find it somewhat amusing that in your accusations against Dawkins misrepresenting what Aquinas wrote, you provide no citation as to where you have pulled the Dawkins’ quote, thus allowing no way for anyone who has not memorized his work to check the accuracy of your representation? Not that I am suggesting you would misquote him, but including a citation would be good form, especially given the type of attack you are launching. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/14 "2009-02-12T21:38:16Z")
I dunno about Dawkins, but Aquinas sounds like a doof, just writing off things he can’t explain by slapping a “God” label on them. ---
**Author:** ![Saintly\_Loser](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saintly_loser/32/4045_2.png) [@Saintly\_Loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saintly_Loser)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/15 "2009-02-12T21:47:16Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > Nitpicking Dawkins to prove god exists is like nitpicking the pope to prove god doesn’t exist, but you won’t catch an Atheist doing the later. Well, yes, you will, all the time. Otherwise, I agree. Dawkins may be right, and he may be wrong. He’s certainly wrong if he asserts that the existence of God can be disproven. He’s right when he says that the proposition that God exists is unnecessary to prove anything about the physical world. Aquinas is wrong when he asserts that the existence of God can be proven, and that His existence is necessary to explain anything about the physical world. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/16 "2009-02-12T22:01:21Z")
He does say god means infinite goodness. What a joke. Die with a sin and get an eternity of flame and pain. That is infinite goodness. I will pass. In infinite regression god is not a logical conclusion. it is a man made construct to define away what makes people feel insecure. It provides an illogical answer to the unanswerable. it should only work on children. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/17 "2009-02-12T22:04:13Z")
**ITR Champion** ’s threads are not about Dawkins or Einstein or Darwin or Turing. And I should have said ‘but you wont catch an _intellectually honest_ Atheist doing the later.’ ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/18 "2009-02-12T22:17:54Z")
If god exists, he would not approve of what you’re doing, ITR ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/19 "2009-02-12T23:09:25Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > He does say god means infinite goodness. What a joke. Die with a sin and get an eternity of flame and pain. That is infinite goodness. I will pass. > In infinite regression god is not a logical conclusion. it is a man made construct to define away what makes people feel insecure. It provides an illogical answer to the unanswerable. it should only work on children. Did you actually READ what Aquinas said? Aquinas was smarter than you are, and he took atheiasm seriously hundreds of years before you were born. He spelled out here, in just two paragraphs, the ENTIRE argument for atheism (yes, Aquinas managed to say in just two paragraphs what it’s taken Richard Dawkins 5 books to say): * * * \*\*Article 3. Whether God exists? Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word “God” means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist. Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God’s existence. \*\* * * * There are EXACTLY two compelling arguments against the existence of the Christian God, and Aquinas wrestles with both. When Aquinas speaks of “infinite goodness,” he’s speaking just as an atheist would. He’s asking, on behalf of atheists, “If there’s a God who’s all good, why is there evil in the world?” The second argument he considers is, “God is unnecessary. There are other, natural explanations for everything that exists.” Understand, there are NO other real arguments against the existence of God! Richard Dawkins and others have killed thousands of trees and published a host of books, but ultimately, they have nothing more to say than: “If there’s a God who’s all good, why do bad things happend,” and “Natural causes explain everything, and there’s no need for a God.” See? You didn’t need to read a single atheist screed. Dawkins has nothing to say that the Church hasn’t heard a million times befor. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/20 "2009-02-12T23:21:01Z")
And Aquinas fails at coming up with a reasonable defence against those two attacks, whats your point? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591.md?page=2)