I believe that Richard Dawkins brings up some very good points in his piece of writing The God Delusion. This piece is a direct argument to Thomas Aquinas's statements proving that there is a god. As Dawkins explains his rendition of Aquinas's statements, I think that the main point he is trying to make is that evolution and God can't exist at the same time. What I also feel, however, is that he doesn't really tackle the situation at hand. He goes on and tries to disprove the statements in the first article, but does nothing to suggest that it could be any different. I think that Dawkins lacks in providing his ideas and ways of thinking and focuses too much on bashing the first author. This argument does nothing to disprove evolution or god. I think the way they both describe it makes it possible for both to coexist.
CesarCOMM41
I agree with you that Dawkins does not effectively tackle the main point he is arguing and that he does not provide any other insight on the topic. I also agree with you that he focuses too much in attacking Aquinas’s views. That sort of threw me off while reading the excerpt because he was kind of arguing in an off-putting way, like his being “smart” by using the smelly person idea. It seems like he was using his emotions irrationally in making his claims which makes the whole argument sort of childish. After reading both of their claims, I also think that both can exist.
ReplyDelete