I am not convinced with Richard Dawkins’s claims. Dawkins mostly
questioned Aquinas’s proofs and did not really provide any evidence that supports
his side. He rejected Aquinas’s views but did not disprove them, making his
overall argument weak and unconvincing. Dawkins almost has a tone of
offensiveness or obnoxiousness in some parts of this excerpt that is quite
off-putting and unprofessional for arguing something serious. He also overly
praises Charles Darwin’s work at the end. If Aquinas were alive today, he would
probably still stand by what he believes in. I feel like he wouldn’t argue with
Dawkins by using Dawkins’s claims as tools for refutation but would instead argue
his own side with his own perceptions.
Actually, I kind of believe in both evolution and God. I
accept the idea of evolution but I am also a Catholic who prays every day. Nobody
really knows anyway, right? Are ghosts real? How about aliens? If you believe
in evolution and not God, then continue with discovering more scientific
evidence that supports your side. If you believe in God and not evolution, then
continue professing your faith. The best thing we can probably do is just
respect each other’s beliefs and move on.
I agree, Dawkins rejected Aquinas’ views and questioned his proof making it a very unconvincing and weak argument on his part. I also agree that he was gave of an offensive tone and seemed unprofessional about it, almost like mocking him. They both had different views about something and usually the least spiritual may sound offensive, but it is what they believe. I think that Dawkins and Aquinas’ different views show how they reason in life. With different views come different beliefs, especially one that is more spiritual and one that is realist. I believe that having these two wont mix and would be an endless argument especially coming from Dawkins.
ReplyDelete