When looking at both of the articles, you can see that Aquinas
believes that the existence of God is easily supported by reasoning. But, on
the other hand Dawkins opposes his proof/argues that God’s existence is bogus. He
believes that people instead are forced to believe about the nature of God and
not actually in himself. You can see that both articles butt heads which is like what
most people do when they talk about how evolution and a belief in God are incompatible.
But, when looking at both of these articles and reasoning them out, I believe
that evolution and belief can both make a point. But after reading the five ways that Aquinas
proved the existence of God, he showed numerous facts as to why someone should
believe it. In Dawkins article, he did not seem to have enough proof to explain
how everything came to be which made me disagree with his point of how evolution
and belief in God is incompatible. So if Aquinas was still alive, I think that
he would disagreed with everything Dawkins is saying. I think that he would
have even explained more reason as to how to explain about God designing the
world.
I agree with you that both sides of the belief in God or evolution issue can prove a point. In the end it all matters on what your decision is. Using reasoning you can get sense of which side you would believe most. I am already a believer in God and his teachings because of my family and what I think is true in my heart. But for someone who has not chosen, I feel like they would less likely choose Dawkin's side because it is true that he does not show as much proof as Aquinas. I also agree with you that Aquinas will state that his argument it pretty weak.
ReplyDelete