# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/41 "2009-02-13T02:46:20Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > He was a believer, and therefore a fool on any subject touching his religion. His intelligence is meaningless, because he was dedicated to not using it. > > And what makes you think there are just two arguments ? And for that matter, even if there are, there are exactly zero “compelling arguments” for the Christian - or any - God, so atheism is still ahead. > > There’s the logical incoherency of the whole idea; the inconsistency of God’s supposed behavior, the fact that known physical laws forbid God as he is described, and the fact that God as described is not only not “infinitely good”, but outright evil. Just off the top of my head. > > Even if true, so what ? They’ve been wrong since the beginning. So there is no point to religion for an athiest? How about religious art? Up until the beginning of the 19th century, almost all art was religious in purpose. Is none of it beautiful and pleasing to your eye? (That it doesn’t outweigh things you find bad about religion is a separate point.) ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/42 "2009-02-13T03:00:16Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > I’m beginning to think the OP’s crusade is something akin to some religious groups coming to non-believers’ doors on Saturday mornings not really to convert, but for a good dose of getting yelled at. It reaffirms their faith, due to some strangely twisted logic that makes abuse received while trying to spread their brand of One True Religion count directly as brownie points with god, _and_ there’s the smug satisfaction of having done A Righteous Thing. > > _ **I think we’ll need to come up with some cheap immediate gratification mechanisms as well if we want this atheism thing to ever really catch on…** _ _ **Highlighting mine** _ _Welcome to the SDMB!_ ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/43 "2009-02-13T04:09:18Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > So there is no point to religion for an athiest? How about religious art? Up until the beginning of the 19th century, almost all art was religious in purpose. Is none of it beautiful and pleasing to your eye? It’s like reading about a brilliant researcher going into bioweapon research, using human subjects. However good the work, it’s done in the cause of evil. Religion as far as I’m concerned is the single greatest evil that has ever existed; any resource or effort put into it is at best wasted in my eyes. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/44 "2009-02-13T04:16:58Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > In fact, I’ve previously cited two atheist scholars who were positively aghast at Dawkins’ attempts at philosohy: philosophy professor [Michael Ruse](http://christiannews.co.nz/2008/michael-ruse-reviews-richard-dawkins/) (writing in the [December 2007 issue of Isis](http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/529280)) and evolutionary biologist [H. Allen Orr](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775). Just two? Hell, see how many Christians eat their own if you are using that as a barometer. Perhaps there is something from Ruse that would show he was aghast at Dawkin’s attempts of philosophy, but I wasn’t able to access the link to the 2007 Isis issue. Were you? Is H. Allen Orr an atheist? I only read parts from him, but he never seems to use any religious label to describe himself. Where has he described himself as an atheist? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/45 "2009-02-13T04:29:22Z")
> [@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. Indeed, just like the time where you and I both summed up the same text exactly the same, and yet somehow I was misrepresenting it. So let’s see your summation of the first three items down to whatever minimum possible, and then let’s see if your versions are **appreciably** different from Dawkin’s. And in order to tell whether there is an appreciable difference, how about we take a vote? We give everyone Aquinas’ original versions, yours, and Dawkins’ and we’ll have people rank the two summations on a scale from 1 to 10, and answer a basic binary yes or no as to whether or not your and Dawkins’ summations say different things. We can also ask people to state their own religious stance to see if there’s any link between that and their answers. No need for GD, just a basic IMHO opinion poll. Only problem is that you might _lose_ when you put something up for a factual answer, like whether Einstein believed in the Christian God or what-have-you. Much safer to sit in GD and get the hyenas snapping amusingly below. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/46 "2009-02-13T04:42:48Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > \ > > Appeal to authority is always lame… In that case, one should not appeal to Richard Dawkins as an authority on evolution – or anything else. Besides which, your statement is simply incorrect. Appealing to authority is something that all scholars do. If you want an authoritative statement on gun ballistics, you appeal to an authority on that matter, unless you are personally an authority yourself. Authorities on a subject are by no means infallible, but this does not make their use “always lame.” > [@](#): > > … attacking authority as an obtuse assault on an unspoken subject is worse and intellectually dishonest. There is no “unspoken subject” here. Both Ruse and Orr made it perfectly clear that they were objecting to the logic used by Dawkins and his amateurish attempt at philosophy. That’s precisely why Ruse said that Dawkins’ book made him “embarassed to be an atheist.” But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that both Ruse and Orr are in error. Heck, let’s assume that they’re complete idiots. The point remains that one does not have to be a theist to disagree with the logic used by Dawkins. That’s why it’s foolish to equate “nitpicking Dawkins” with “trying to prove God.” That’s a strawman attack, plain and simple. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/47 "2009-02-13T04:57:05Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > Just two? Hell, see how many Christians eat their own if you are using that as a barometer. I cited Ruse and Orr as EXAMPLES of atheists who recognized that Dawkins used fallacious reasoning. I did not say that this constituted an exhaustive list. In fact, the Wikipedia entry on this book illustrates how the scholarly community does not appear to have embraced this book warmly. But for the sake of argument, let us suppose that Michael Ruse and H. Allen Orr are the only atheists in existence who take issue with the reasoning that Dawkins used. How does this refute my claim – namely, that one can agree with Dawkins’ view on God’s existence while simultaneously being appalled at the reasoning that he employed? Quite obviously, it does not. So you can take all the cheap shots at Christianity that you want, but this does nothing to refute my statement. > [@](#): > > Perhaps there is something from Ruse that would show he was aghast at Dawkin’s attempts of philosophy, but I wasn’t able to access the link to the 2007 Isis issue. Were you? Yes. In fact, I downloaded his article from the Isis site, and I invite you to do the same. I also suggest that you look at the other link that I provided. > [@](#): > > Is H. Allen Orr an atheist? I only read parts from him, but he never seems to use any religious label to describe himself. Where has he described himself as an atheist? Again, please check the link that I provided for H. Allen Orr. He emphasizes that he agrees with Dawkins regarding God, but disagrees with the abysmal logic that Dawkins used ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/48 "2009-02-13T05:09:21Z")
I don’t know why the OP thinks that attacking Dawkins will prove God exists, but I don’t see anything inaccurate about Dawkins’ paraphrasing of Aquinas’ _Quinque Viae_. Let’s take a look at Aquinas’ increasingly sophist and, indeed, quite vaccuous “proofs,” shall we? Proof I: > [@Thomas Aquinas](#): > > I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways. > > 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. Just as Dawkins says, this is unmoved mover bullshit. Aquinas asserts that the universe requires a _Prime Motor_, then blithely announces this mover to be “God.” I think one of the main things which should be noted is that Aquinas was relying on Aristotelian physics, and so had no idea that his assertion that “whatever is in motion is put in motion by another” would be proven false by Newton (see Newton’s [First Law of Motion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion)), so his premise is based on an ignorant assumption from the start. He also tries to declare by fiat that the the chain of motion can’t go back infinitely, and defends that with the laughably tautological argument that if it goes back forever, there can be no First Mover. His case for a First Mover is thus, utterly senseless, and his conclusion that the Firts Mover is “God,” even more so. The OP complains that Dawkins correctly points out that even if Aquinas’s proof held water (which it doesn’t), there would still be no reason to attribute any conventional “Godlike” properties to it. The OP says that Aquinas wasn’t assigning properties, only proving “existence,” but that’s the sheerest sophistry since there’s no reason to call it “God” (as Aquinas does) UNLESS it has those properties. God IS those properties. Without them, it’s not God, and so no existence is demonstrated. Proof II: > [@](#): > > 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 is exactly as Dawkins characterizes it, and is virtually identical to the first proof. Aquinas asserts a chain of cause and effect, which he agin tries to declare by fiat cannot be infinite, and then just as blithely says the First Cause must be “God.” As with the first proof, complaining that he is assigning no properties to God is fatuous, since there is no other reason to use the word, and since quinas himself makes no effort to qualify his use of the word. Proof III: > [@](#): > > 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. Same thing again. First Cause argued through an imagined chain of “causes of existence.” Same false assumptions. Same bogus conclusion. The OP also complains because Dawkins quite correctly points out that even if a terminus was necessary for any of these chains (and it isn’t), that “God” is not a solution but merely a regression. The OP tries to argue that this isn’t so, that the “God” terminus is conveniently define as not requiring a cause, but all that declaration does is invalidate the premise that everything needs a cause. If God doesn’t need a cause, then it’s not true that “everything requires a cause.” If it’s not true that everything requires a cause, the universe doesn’t need a cause. I’ll also reiterate that Dawkins is still absolutely correct in pointing out that even if an uncaused cause is accepted for the sake of argument, it still does not follow that the cause has any of the properties conventionally assigned to “God.” **ITR** claims that Aquinas makes the case for properties elsewhere in the _Summa_, but this is not true. Aquinas does try to make the case for God having properties, but he does not connect any dots from uncaused cause. He just inserts “God” as the Cause (with no support at all), then argues properties for God based on other reasons that do not flow out of First Cause and are not necessitated by the existence of a First Mover. Proof IV: > [@](#): > > The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God. This is such obvious logical hash, that it hardly needs refutation. Aquinas says that for every graduated quality, there has to be something with the maximum of that quality. and that this maximum causes all the sub-maximum qualities (i.e there has to be a “hottest” thing to cause all the other hot things). Aquinas claims that “good” qualities like “truth,” “nobility,” perfection," and..well…“goodness,” all have to be caused by something that is maximally “true,” noble," “perfect,” and “good,” and that this maximum good is “God.” Do I really have to explain all the problems with this? Proof V: > [@](#): > > The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. This one should be pretty familiar. It’s pure ID. Obviously, his assertion that the universe shows evidence of “design” is unsupported. His proof therefore fails in its first premise and requires no further refutation. ---
**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 13, 2009, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/49 "2009-02-13T06:12:15Z")
> [@Estilicon](#): > > I am no defending St. Thomas but, this sounds pretty arrogant considering that him is a great thinker, wether he was right or not in this case. Him is, is him? Suppose instead of God, he chose to call his Prime Mover “Dave”? Would “Dave” still be a member of the trinity? ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/50 "2009-02-13T06:18:42Z")
> [@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. Yes you will, Of course you will. The whole point is that Dawkins was nitpicking Thomas Aquinas to prove God does not exist. Do you really think he would hesitate to attack the Pope? > [@](#): > > And I should have said ‘but you wont catch an intellectually honest Atheist doing the later.’ No true Scotsman. And I suppose that Dawkins isn’t particularly intellectually honest. You wouldn’t catch an intellectually honest theist doing the former, if if comes to that. ---
**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 13, 2009, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/51 "2009-02-13T06:35:30Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > In that case, one should not appeal to Richard Dawkins as an authority on evolution – or anything else. I thought your problem with Dawkins was that he was a bad philosopher, not that he was a bad evolutionist. Not that he can’t be both, of course, but this isn’t really something i’ve heard before. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/52 "2009-02-13T06:48:05Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > The whole point is that Dawkins was nitpicking Thomas Aquinas to prove God does not exist. This is not true. Dawkins was not trying (and never has tried) to prove that God does not exist. He was showing why Aquinas’ 5 proofs do not work to prove that God DOES exist. And he wasn’t doing it in a nitpicky way, but pretty much showing the same flaws with Aquinas that everbody else always shows. He did not try to suggest that refuting Aquinas was a negative proof, only that Aquinas hadn’t proven anything in the affirmative. Havings aid that, it is true that many atheists make the same mistakes that **ITR** makes in trying to win EOG debates by launching _ad hominem_ attacks on adherents of the other side, and it’s fallacious when either side does it. Dawkins is not one of the people who typically does that, though he does skirt a little close in some of his broadsides against organized religion as a whole. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/53 "2009-02-13T07:04:03Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > 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 before. The problem for the Church is that neither Thomas Aquinas, nor anybody else in history, has ever been able to _overcome_ these two insurmountable objections to the God hypothesis (and they _should_ be properly understood as _objections_ to a hypothesis, not as “arguments for atheism.” Atheism is the logical default, not something that has to be argued FOR). It’s easy to say that Aquinas understood the obejections, what you’re leaving out is that he was utterly stymied by them and was never able to defeat them. Neither has anyone else. I also think you’re overrating Aquinas’ intellect. He doesn’t seem that smart to me. I’ve never read anything from Aquinas that I can’t take apart with relative ease. He strikes me as little more than a sophist and a blowhard. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/54 "2009-02-13T11:25:09Z")
> [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](#): > > 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. So, I must off hand confess that I probably haven’t delved too deep into the topic, but I’ve read a few criticisms of Dawkins, and read some variation on the above statement quite a few times in them; however, so far, I seem to have failed to notice any great substantiation of it. By that, I mean that once I got through an initial hoopla of just how much the reviewer disagrees, if not with Dawkins conclusions, with his methods, his logic and philosophizing, how he should have stuck with what he’s good at etc., after all those fireworks, when I got to the actual criticism, I was always surprised at how rather light it seemed in comparison with the initial fervour of the reviewer’s embarrassed disassociation from every word Dawkins has written. Not that there weren’t valid criticisms, but well, nobody’s ever written a perfect book, however, I found a lot of it to be nitpicking and methodological quibbling of not particularly salient points – the review linked in this thread by H. Allen Orr is a good example of what I’m talking about, since after much fluffing up and parading about of his rejection of Dawkinsian logic, what he seems to criticize most is how Dawkins ‘never squarely faces [his] opponents’, i.e. fails to examine serious theological thought. However, what Orr chooses not to tell me is how serious theological thought would, even if only in his opinion, impinge on Dawkins’ points – I can’t see how Augustine’s rejection of biblical literalism has any importance to the question of whether or not there is a god, for instance. Indeed, it seems a bit that Orr dismisses Dawkins’ claim that the emperor is, in fact, naked, by pointing out that he never even once considered the question of whether or not he might be wearing a jacket or a chemise. Anyway, I’m engaging in rather more Dawkins apologetics than I’m comfortable with, and there are some good points of criticism later on in the text, particularly concerning the ‘root of all evil’-meme, but this kind of top-heaviness – lots of scrambling disassociation, little in the way of critical discussion – seems a frustratingly common feature in reviews of Dawkins’ arguments, so I guess I just would like to see one that doesn’t do that – that actually presents a reasoned discussion of Dawkins’ points, and points out the apparently ubiquitous logical and philosophical flaws with it, that outright states why, for example, the epistemological differences between Duns Scotus and Aquinas have any bearing on the issue, rather than just making vague allusions. ---
**Author:** ![Rolken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/df788c/32.png) [@Rolken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rolken)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/55 "2009-02-13T11:48:24Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > So, either Dawkins is incapable of grasping Aquinas or paraphrasing accurately or else he misrepresented the arguments on purpose for rhetorical effect. > > The latter seems the more reasonable assumption. Especially given that in the same passage, he misrepresented _himself_ for rhetorical effect. > [@](#): > > 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. We’re really expected to believe that in a book called “The God Delusion”, he is reticent to criticize somebody because he is eminent among theists? :rolleyes: I definitely don’t see any relevance to Aquinas’s arguments. Even if they _were_ viable, they only suffice to demonstrate the existence of a “God” that conceptually falls far short of a personal Christian God with all the trappings thereof. But Dawkins is nothing more than pop atheism, and does the cause more harm than good with his rhetoric. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/56 "2009-02-13T13:25:35Z")
How does he do the cause more harm than good? There’s more atheists now than ever, and “pop atheism”, along with better levels of education, goes a long way to explaining that trend. Who really has the intellectual training to get involved with the philosophical nitty-gritty of debates over epistemology, meta-physics, etc.? Who amongst those that are so trained are really being swayed by Dawkins, anyway? True, Dawkins may not be philosophical rigorous, but neither are his arguments vacuous, and his rhetoric is precisely what is needed to appeal to a wide audience. ---
**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 13, 2009, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/57 "2009-02-13T14:23:21Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > So, I must off hand confess that I probably haven’t delved too deep into the topic, but I’ve read a few criticisms of Dawkins, and read some variation on the above statement quite a few times in them; however, so far, I seem to have failed to notice any great substantiation of it. Okay, so here’s a standard complaint about Dawkins. IMO the centerpiece of Dawkins’ work is the [ultimate 747 argument](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit), which (in a nutshell) is this: if you think something complex like the universe requires a designer, then surely God needs a designer, too. The standard theological rebuttal to this would be that God is simple, not complex. Now the idea that God is simple runs into serious difficulties, I believe. But Dawkins never engages this view or even shows that he is \*aware \*of it. And don’t get me started on E.O. Wilson’s “refutation” of the naturalistic fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/58 "2009-02-13T14:40:25Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I thought your problem with Dawkins was that he was a bad philosopher, not that he was a bad evolutionist. Not that he can’t be both, of course, but this isn’t really something i’ve heard before. You’re missing the point. The claim was made that appealing to authority “is always lame.” If one truly believes that (which I don’t), then one should have serious problems with citing Dawkins as an authority on evolution – or anything else. Again, I am NOT arguing against his views on evolution, though I do think that some of his views are pretty ridiculous (memes, anyone?). Rather, I am pointing out that it’s foolish to say that one should never appeal to authority. Educated people do it all the time, and rightfully so. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/59 "2009-02-13T14:52:43Z")
> [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](#): > > Okay, so here’s a standard complaint about Dawkins. IMO the centerpiece of Dawkins’ work is the [ultimate 747 argument](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit), which (in a nutshell) is this: if you think something complex like the universe requires a designer, then surely God needs a designer, too. The standard theological rebuttal to this would be that God is simple, not complex. Now the idea that God is simple runs into serious difficulties, I believe. But Dawkins never engages this view or even shows that he is \*aware \*of it. It’s not a view that _needs_ to be addressed. It’s logically fallacious on its face. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/60 "2009-02-13T14:53:55Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > How does he do the cause more harm than good? > > There’s more atheists now than ever, and “pop atheism”, along with better levels of education, goes a long way to explaining that trend. Ignorance is ignorance. I’m sure that some people are delighted by the rise in atheism – giddy, in fact. If this rise can be attributed to the kind of sloppy thinking and “pop atheism” that Dawkins promotes though, is that truly something to be proud of? Skeptics often ridicule theists as being ignorant and using sloppy argumentation. Whether such criticisms are deserved or not, how can one persist in such criticisms and yet condone the kind of musings that Dawkins promotes – musings that make professional philosophers positively cringe? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591.md?page=4)