St. Thomas Aquinas Responds To Modern Atheists’ Cartoon Version Of The Creator In ‘What is God?’
Ever wondered, “What is the best thing for me?”What is God?” You might be interested in the book written by Dr. Kevin Vost (an ex-atheist) that explores this very topic.
Vost uses insights from Thomas Aquinas (theologian and foundational philosopher) to show why the question and Aquinas’ answers are still relevant today.
Too often we make the mistake of thinking God is simply the most powerful Being in the universe — like us, only without our limitations. This false view is extremely popular, even among theists. Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist who also claims to be atheist. has stated:
It might be true that science is able to explain almost everything, but it doesn’t mean we need God. Also, it is wrong to claim that we don’t have the Flying Spaghetti Monster or unicorns. … If there’s not the slightest reason to believe in any of those things, why bother? It is the responsibility of anyone who believes in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies or other supernatural beings. You don’t need to prove that it is false.
We see here the flawed conception of God. Like unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, and fairies, Dawkins assumes God is merely another being in the universe — one that simply has not been discovered by science and therefore must not exist. Dawkins seems to not have realized that God might not be the kind of thing that exists in the cosmos and is just waiting for scientific discovery. As we’ll see, Aquinas and other classical theists never had such a cartoonish vision of God.
Vost states that discussions on this topic are most effective when they begin with answering the question. “What is God?” Only then, can we determine if the person or thing we are referring to actually exists.
Aquinas wouldn’t be shocked to learn that modern science failed to locate the Dawkins-proposed god, or even the elusive Aquinas. heaven Sam Harris wants to spot with a telescope.
“Where is heaven exactly, given that we have multiple telescopes up there beaming back information.” – Sam Harris pic.twitter.com/9mKbBvO3uF
— David Decosimo (@DavidDecosimo) August 18, 2022
Aquinas believes that God is not an entity in the universe. Science, while it categorizes and observes the world of matter, can’t answer questions regarding God’s existence. God, however, is itself.
For millennia classical philosophers understood that God was not an existent entity in the universe, but the entirety of it. In other words, he is not something that exists alongside us, but rather the source and sustainer for all things in existence including the universe. So it is no wonder scientific investigation has not found him lurking somewhere deep in the recesses of the cosmos — and to think science ever could simply misunderstand the nature of God.
Reason and its Role
However, science can’t discover God. Aquinas proved that reasoning can.
Vost actually does an excellent job of introducing readers to Aquinas’ famed works. “Five Ways.” These are arguments from motion, or change. “efficient cause,” “contingency,” “degrees of being,” And “final cause.”
It is important to note that Aquinas doesn’t use probabilistic reasoning. He does not believe that God is probable. He uses philosophical demonstration to show that God’s existence (not probable) is possible if his reasoning proves sound. As Vost explains, “Thomas’s five ways prove not that God may well exist, but that he absolutely must exist. Otherwise, the world brought to us by our senses, our own selves and the senses included, simply could not exist.”
The reasoning we use to get to God also helps us understand some of the attributes that are necessary for us. These attributes include simplicity, perfection, omniscience or being all knowing, omnipotence/or being all powerful, immutability/or being unchanging, eternality/existing outside of time, oneness (or unity), and goodness.
Vost explains that knowledge about these attributes is partly acquired through experience. “apophatic” knowledge, or knowledge of God by negation — by knowing what God is not. We know, for example, that God doesn’t exist in time and therefore must exist beyond time (that God is eternal).
Vost points out that our understanding of God does not only include negation. For example, we can speak analogically or analogistically about God, because certain characteristics are universally visible in the world and due to the fact that their causes must contain some effects. Also, nothing can be made from nothing.
The Problem with a ‘God of the Gaps’
These days, less people understand Aquinas’ form of philosophical reasoning than before the Enlightenment when philosophy lost the status that it once held. Today, theists often argue for God, and this is why they frequently give “probabilistic” arguments. Arguments like these tend to start with current scientific knowledge, and then argue that God can explain physical or biological findings better than naturalistic explanations.
However, this approach is too philosophical for science. “god of the gaps” framework. The framework reduces God to the ever narrower gaps in science’s explanations. Then, as science continues to advance, the gaps shrink to the point of vanishment — and voila, God disappears. Dawkins has dismissed God.
Vost’s book, however, corrects this erroneous approach. Aquinas’ method is not comparable to the more general method of classical theism and scientific advances do not pose a threat. Science and philosophy are two distinct disciplines. Reading is one example. “What is God?” This will allow us to grasp the truth, and it will enrich our knowledge about God’s existence and his nature.
David Weinberger, a writer freelancer and book reviewer, writes on philosophy, history, economics, and culture. Follow him at Twitter @DWeinberger03. Email him at [email protected].
“From St. Thomas Aquinas Responds To Modern Atheists’ Cartoon Version Of The Creator In ‘What is God?’”
“The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author of the article and not necessarily shared or endorsed by Conservative News Daily”
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
