Richard Dawkins has taken some time to address some of the philosophical arguments for the existence of God. Some very old arguments were presented by Thomas Aquinas.

Aquinas observed that all things have a cause. The stone fell because the boy first dropped it. Of course, something also caused the boy to exist. We cannot go back indefinitely. There must have been a first cause. The first cause is God. Nothing is caused by itself. There was a time when nothing existed. The being that created everything is God.

Dawkins asserts that all of these ideas are dependent upon regress. Dawkins is unimpressed with the power of regression.

Dawkins first asks why God is immune from the regression. In other words, what created God? Dawkins then notes that the argument does not demonstrate the attributes of God: that he is omnipotent, omniscient, good or creative. Dawkins thinks it more helpful to regress back to the big bang or some yet discovered scientific theory. Finally, Dawkins notes that infinite regression is nonsense. He describes a recipe for Crumboblious Cutlets which requires the cook to cut beef into the smallest pieces and then cut them another nine times.

Dawkins’s objections reveal a startling misunderstanding of Aquinas’s line of reasoning. Let us examine his first point.

Aquinas is attempting to demonstrate the existence of the Christian God. The Christian God created all things. He stands outside of time and nature. He created time and nature. He is dependent on no one and nothing. Aquinas traces all causes back to the first cause: God. Dawkins question, “What caused God?” is no refutation to this argument. God is the one thing that, by definition, has no cause. In fact, if Aquinas obliged Dawkins and showed what caused God, he would disprove the existence of God.

Dawkins complains that Aquinas’s argument does not demonstrate that God is omnipotent, omniscient, good or creative. This assertion causes me to ponder whether Dawkins reads what he writes. Aquinas is trying to demonstrate that God created all things. In my mind, someone who created the universe is powerful, knowledgeable and creative. Dawkins is correct in asserting that this does not demonstrate that God is good.

However, this is, once again, no refutation of Aquinas’s argument. Every good argument does not answer every question. Aquinas is demonstrating through natural law and philosophy that the universe was the handiwork of a creator God. Such a God is described in Holy Scripture.

Aquinas is not relying on natural law and philosophy to describe all the attributes of God. These attributes are described in a special revelation from God contained in the Bible. In fact, Christianity presupposes that you cannot answer all questions through natural law and philosophy. If you could, there would be no need for special revelation.

Dawkins would prefer that we regress back to the Big Bang. He also believes that science will come up with a better explanation soon. However, these arguments do not help him at all.

If anything, the Big Bang supports Aquinas. According to Big Bang Theory, all things can be traced back to this singularity. Time, space and energy were created with the Big Bang. Before the singularity, nothing existed. But if nothing existed, what caused the Big Bang? It would have to be something that had no space or substance. It would have to be something that existed outside of nature and outside of time. For 2000 years Christians have been describing such a being. We call Him God.

Dawkins offers a promissory note. Science will soon have a better explanation. This is possible. But it is a terrible argument. We have to make decisions based on evidence that is available to us. It is foolhardy to make decisions based on evidence that may become available in the future. The person who invokes future evidence is always imagining evidence that will support his position. Because the imaginary evidence is always in his favor, it cannot be trusted at all and has no weight.

Finally, Dawkins decries Aquinas’s dependence on infinite regress. He mockingly evokes Edward Lear’s recipe for Crumboblious Cutlets. “Procure some strips of beef, and having cut them into the smallest possible pieces, proceed to cut them smaller, eight or perhaps nine times.” (Dawkins 78) He then declares, “It is by no means clear that God provides a natural terminator to the regresses of Aquinas” (Dawkins 78).

It is difficult to perceive the argument that Dawkins is trying to make here. Dawkins has desperately grasped upon the word regress and attempted to tie Aquinas’s argument with the absurdity of Crumboblious Cutlets. There are two problems with Dawkins argument.

First, the fact that regress makes Crumboblious Cutlets absurd, does not mean that everything with regress is absurd. Lear is pointing to the absurdity of cutting something that is the smallest possible piece. This is a logical absurdity. Aquinas is talking about tracing back all causes to a first cause. Aquinas’s first cause occurs in a finite (albeit distant) period of time. There is no logical absurdity in this.

It is a little surprising that Dawkins has attempted to confront the great philosopher with a poem from the genre of literary nonsense. Trying to comprehend the meaning of any such poem is dubious. Nonetheless, the absurdity of the Lear quotation depends on the fact that some things cannot regress forever. This is exactly the point that Aquinas is trying to make. Dawkins has attempted to confront Aquinas with a children’s poem that he himself does not understand.

Dawkins’s critique of Aquinas is dripping with sarcasm. This is a little surprising. Aquinas openly admits that his argument relies heavily upon the writings of Aristotle. Aristotle is sometimes regarded as the father of science.

Dawkins crows that he has demolished Aquinas. He has failed completely. Aquinas armed himself with Aristotle and reason. Dawkins put on the shield of derision and the sword of Crumboblious Cutlets.

(All citations are from The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.)