The history of the Church is replete with passionate disputes over beliefs. We can cite the Arian heresy, which propagated the idea that Jesus was not equal but inferior to God the Father, or Catharism, which posited the existence of two gods—one of the body and evil, and the other of the soul and good. We can also delve into the internal theological debates of the Church, such as the Dominicans versus the Jesuits on the theme of free will. Do we act with complete freedom, or does God predetermine our will from the moment of creation? These debates have rightfully found their place in the annals of scholasticism.
However, human passions are resilient, perpetuating across generations under different labels and guises. Ultimately, these disputes often boil down to matters of semantics. We still witness the fervour of contenders in more contemporary fields of study, such as physiology, philosophy, and physics. Whenever a physicist publishes a book on the origin of the universe, millions of copies are printed and sold. Some physicists even change their stances repeatedly, as exemplified by figures like Stephen Hawking, often bolstered by British media and academic support. Karl Popper’s theory of falsifiability, meanwhile, stands ready to defend science against accusations of contradiction.
In the past decade, the University of Oxford and The Guardian newspaper have enthusiastically promoted a modern scholastic controversy: atheism, championed by Richard Dawkins, versus various stereotypes of religious theology. The spectacle Dawkins has orchestrated has undoubtedly been captivating, marked by the sale of two million copies of a book fuelled by advertisements on London buses suggesting that God might not exist.
It is unquestionable that this dispute primarily resides within the realm of theology. Dawkins has attempted in vain to frame it as a battle between science and religion. However, since science has never taken a keen interest in theological matters, Dawkins has been forced to construct a flimsy façade—a facade of science pitted against religion. The results are quite comical. I watched the series he recorded for the BBC, in which he engaged with some of the least prepared theologians globally. In one scene, he adopts a martyr’s countenance when expelled from a Protestant church in the United States. But are these theologians Dawkins is conversing with? It would be unfair to refer to the individuals chosen by Dawkins for his debates in books and videos as theologians. He takes great pleasure in highlighting their ignorance of Darwin’s seminal work, much as a British laureate poet would delight in showcasing the obsolescence of a poet still composing sonnets.
Dawkins’ discourse on the theory of evolution is rather limited. He attempts to posit that the laws of selection are so sagacious as to randomly construct the universe, while neglecting to address the fundamental question: why were those laws established in the first place? He cannot explain the fate of all the remnants produced by such a process of selection. Where are the failed Homo sapiens—residing in the cottages of Oxford or in the slums of New Delhi?
The sad reality is that Dawkins aspired to be a theologian. He falls into the category of philosophers denounced by Plato in “The Republic,” individuals who feign philosophy by dismissing it as rubbish. Dawkins’ books are replete with feeble theological arguments. At least in this newfound theological arena, he stands as a member of the Docta Ignorantia, with no reference to figures like Nicholas of Cusa, whom Dawkins would do well to acquaint himself with. Cusa is the author of “De docta ignorantia” (Learned Ignorance), in which he argues that human knowledge is inherently limited and that only through the recognition of our “learned ignorance” can we come closer to understanding God. Cusa developed the idea of the “coincidence of opposites” (coincidentia oppositorum), which suggests that God is the coincidence of all contradictions and that ultimately all contradictions find unity in God.
Furthermore, Dawkins represents another manifestation of what Emil Cioran termed in “A Short History of Decay” as “the individual drive to prevail.” He perceives himself as the wisest of the wise, the one being who would never entertain the possibility of revelation. His arguments exemplify modern sophistry. Consider his recent article in which he attempted to ridicule the theological dogma of original sin, “according to Saint Thomas Aquinas: “Adam (who never existed) purportedly transmitted his ‘sin’ through his bodily semen (a charming notion) to all of humanity. This sin, with which every new-born baby is supposedly hideously stained (another charming notion), was so heinous that it could only be absolved through the blood sacrifice of a scapegoat. But not just any scapegoat would suffice; the sin of humanity was so immense that the sole adequate sacrificial victim had to be God Himself.””
Had Dawkins taken the time to study theology—rather than revelling in interactions with zealots for his amusement—he might have discovered that Adam is indeed a symbolic figure in biblical texts. Additionally, Saint Thomas Aquinas referred in all his writings to semen as the generative force of life, not solely in the context of original sin. He would have been perplexed to learn that original sin is associated with consciousness, with the human condition that enables us to discern between good and evil—a “gift” shared neither by monkeys nor fishes.
His refutation of Saint Thomas Aquinas’ proofs of the existence of God display both arrogance and uncertainty:
“To return to the infinite regress and the futility of invoking God to terminate it, it is more parsimonious to conjure up, say, a ‘big bang singularity’, or some other physical concept as yet unknown. Calling it God is at best unhelpful and at worst perniciously misleading[1]”
Here we a flimsy argument from an scientist that prefers “some other physical concept as yet unknown” to the certainty revealed to civilizations throughout history. Dawkins reasoning is that of the child who hates his mother, and gets angry to see that all his siblings thank her for having given them life, instead of attributing their existence hormonal attraction or “some other physical concept as yet unknown”.
Saint Thomas Aquinas metaphysical proofs of God have been the target of nominalists, empiricists, materialists and physics since Ockham. But metaphysics, at least from Parmenides, is a metaphysical or spiritual reflection. Let’s analyse, for instance his first proof of God’s existence:
Saint Thomas Aquinas’ First Way – The Unmoved Mover
Nothing moves without a prior mover. This leads us to a regress, from which the only escape is God. Something had to make the first move, and that something we call God.
Infinite Regress Objection: Critics argue that if everything requires a mover, then God, as the Unmoved Mover, would also need a mover. This leads to an infinite regress, similar to the problem Saint Thomas Aquinas sought to avoid.
Counterargument: Saint Thomas Aquinas distinguishes between movers in a series and a primary mover. While there can be an infinite series of moved movers, Saint Thomas Aquinas argues for the necessity of a first, unmoved mover to initiate the entire series. To understand this concept we will quote Nicholas of Cusa, who prescribed that every line is the curvature of an infinite circle, and that the only possible infinite Being is God:
“The fact that the infinite line is a sphere makes it evident as follows; The line ab is a circumference of the great circle, moreover, it is also a circle, as has been proven before. In the case of the triangle it is taken from b to c, as said before; but bc is an infinite line, as was also proven. Therefore ab, makes a complete turn on itself in c; and when this occurs it follows that the sphere is born from such a revolution of the circle on itself. And since it has been proven before that ABC is a circle, a triangle and a line, we have now proven that it is also a sphere[2].”
“The angle of your eye, O God, has no quantity, but is infinite, it is a circle, or even more so it is the infinite sphere, since your sight is an eye endowed with sphericity and infinite perfection. Therefore, he sees simultaneously, in a circular manner both up and down, all things[3].”
Assumption of Linear Causality Objection: Saint Thomas Aquinas assumes a linear causality, where every effect has a single direct cause. This may not align with modern understandings of causality, especially in quantum mechanics.
Counterargument: Saint Thomas Aquinas’s arguments are based on classical metaphysics and discussions in modern physics do not necessarily deny the need for a first cause or prime mover. Recent postulates of quantum mechanics have, in fact, confirmed that matter dissolves at some point into nothingness, or, as playwrights at Marvel and DC Comics have made vox populi through their Hollywood Block Busters, into a still unknown metauniverse.
Nature Itself as Uncaused Objection: Some critics propose that the universe or certain aspects of it, such as quantum events, might be uncaused or self-caused.
Counterargument: Saint Thomas Aquinas argues that the nature of contingent beings implies a necessary being as their cause. Even if there are uncaused events within the universe, the entire framework of contingent beings requires a necessary existence. As we note, all the attacks against Aquinas’s metaphysics presuppose the palpable existence of matter as the only one in the universe, when God is the creator of both the invisible and the invisible world, a postulate that the physics of recent decades accept when they propose the existence of a dark or invisible matter that would account for large-scale cosmic gravitational movements (constellations, galaxies) that evade Newtonian physics.
Causal Inertia Objection: Critics question why the first cause or unmoved mover must still be active in sustaining the universe. Saint Thomas Aquinas seems to suggest a continuous sustaining influence, but this is not necessarily evident.
Counterargument: Some defenders of Saint Thomas Aquinas argue that the continuous influence of the unmoved mover is necessary for the ongoing existence of the universe. The analogy is often made to a hand continually guiding a stick to keep it moving.
Presumption of Purpose Objection: Saint Thomas Aquinas assumes purpose in the existence of the unmoved mover. Critics may question why the ultimate cause must have a purpose or intention.
Counterargument: Saint Thomas Aquinas indeed attributes intellect and will to the unmoved mover, but this is derived from his understanding of God as a perfect being. The purpose is inherent in the idea of a perfect and intentional cause.
Dawkins is refuted by the very science he purports to endorse; His anger at being refuted by Deepak Chopra is legendary, but even more so is the refutation that the priest Father Gerardo Remolina S.J., my philosophy teacher, made of Dawkins’s technocratic ideas. Remolina asks at the end of the debate what is important to us as human beings, a universe that exists and dies mechanically, or the invisible love that we express towards others, towards creation, towards life itself. To deny the primacy of love in the universe, in its geometries, in its harmonious dance of planets, stars and constellations, is to fall into the nihilism so fashionable in the 20th century, a consequence of positivism and the rise of materialism and utilitarianism in its most negative meaning.
Dawkins’ popularity is also a sad sign of our times. Dawkins offers people eager to succeed in the world, to become famous, powerful and/or rich, everything they need to trample on others. Without God or immortality there is no love to be grateful for and no obligation to love either an animal or a human being.
Dawkins’ sophistry is self-contained within his writings. He appears to engage in a discussion about original sin when, in reality, he is debating a passage from Saint Thomas Aquinas on the transmission of life from father to son.
One wonders whether Oxford should once again include the illuminating precepts of “De Docta Ignorancia” in its basic bibliography:
“All our wisest, most divine and most holy doctors agree that the visible things really are images of the invisible, and that our creator can see himself in a knowable way through the creatures, almost as in a mirror or in a enigma. And that spiritual things, which for us are intangible in themselves, can be investigated symbolically[4].”
Hugo Noël Santander Ferreira
Chapter of Being God – Global Metaphysics (Stanley, 2024).
[1] Dawkins, Richard (2014). The God Delusion. Mariner Books, 100.
[2] Cusa, Nicolas De (2000). La docta ignorancia. Aguilar, 29.
[3] Cusa, Nicolas De (2009). La Visión de Dios, tr. Ángel Luis González. Eunsa, 88.
[4] Cusa, Nicolas De (2000). La docta ignorancia. Aguilar, 24.
Hugo Noël Santander Ferreira 