Now that I have described Aquinas' basic ways to know the existence of God, let's turn our attention to the major arguments refuting the existence of God. Specifically, I want to address the arguments and thoughts of the what is termed the “new atheism”, the most famous proponent of which (arguably) is Richard Dawkins.
In his two bestselling works, The God Delusion and The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins takes aim at belief in God specifically and religion generally. Dawkins claims that God certainly does not exist and that those who believe in such existence are deluded. In both books, he asserts that natural evolution and other scientific theories adequately explain the existence and order found in the universe.
He particularly focuses on an argument from design, more commonly termed intelligent design. He points out the age old human effort to explain the apparent design in the universe. Dawkins suggests that there are basically two competing explanations or hypotheses. One attributes this design to a divine designer. The other shows how science has shown how something more complex can arise from simple origins and principles. He goes on to assert that the alternative to an intelligent designer is not blind chance but natural selection.
Along with Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennet, Dawkins represents what has been termed the “new atheism”. But as we will see, their brand of atheism and their arguments are anything but new. In the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas was already familiar with these arguments which he clearly understood and addressed. The roots of these arguments, indeed the very arguments themselves, can be found in the writings of the ancient Greek philosophers, especially Aristotle.
Over the next several posts, I will address each of the major arguments and points made by Dawkins showing their historical roots as well as the fallacious thinking that underlies them. I invite any readers to make comments, ask questions, share insights, and even try to refute or support my ideas. All I ask is that unlike Dawkins himself, we maintain a decorum of respect and thoughtful dialogue.
