The question of whether God exists is one that mankind continues to grapple with. There are those who are convinced that God’s existence is not in doubt. On the other hand are those who feel that there is no compelling evidence that points to God’s existence. Thomas Aquinas and Paul Kurtz represent the two camps, respectively. While these two differed on the existence of God, they both agreed that science plays a critical role in defining perspectives on the existence of God.
Kurtz’s Response to Aquinas’ Proofs
As part of his efforts to persuade people that God does indeed exist, Aquinas provided five proofs. In his first proof, he agreed that since objects can only be in motion when acted upon by some force, God must exist (Aquinas, n.d). His second proof holds that God is the efficient cause of all that exists in the universe. Aquinas’ third proof involved the argument that God is the necessary condition for all possibilities in the universe. Through his fourth proof, he noted that God is the standard against which all goodness and perfection is measured (Aquinas, n.d). He also argued that all that is good and perfect stems from God. Lastly, Aquinas contended that all intelligent beings obtain instructions to act in a particular fashion from God (Aquinas, n.d). All the five proofs are based on logical arguments. Essentially, in all the proofs, Aquinas holds that if one thing is taken to be true, then it follows that something else is true. Herein lies the weakness that Kurtz could exploit in his response to the proofs. In his argument against the existence of God, Kurtz indicated his preference for empirical evidence. He noted that if provided with irrefutable evidence of God’s existence, most atheists would believe that God truly exists (Kurtz, n.d). None of Aquinas’ proofs are based on empirical evidence. Instead, they are founded on logical arguments. The problem with these arguments is that they do not allow room for any possibilities other than God’s existence. For instance, in his first proof, Aquinas claims that God’s existence is the only explanation for the motion of objects. He failed to account for the possibility that some other force could be responsible for the motion. Kurtz could exploit this weakness to dismiss all the proofs.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Compatibility of Faith and Reason
On the surface, faith and reason seem incompatible. Asked to share his thoughts on the compatibility of faith and reason, Aquinas is likely to state that they are indeed compatible. This is because the proofs that he offered for God’s existence are all based on logical arguments. Such arguments are an integral component of reason. On the other hand, Kurtz is likely to assert that faith and reason are incompatible. In his editorial, he observes that many scientists who are ruled by reason reject the argument that God exists (Kurtz, n.d). In essence, Kurtz suggest that those who embrace reason are unable to allow faith to define their lives.
Aquinas’ Response to Kurtz
One of the arguments that Kurtz made in his editorial is that atheism is a positive scientific and philosophical perspective. Challenged to respond to this assertion, Aquinas would undoubtedly dismiss it and insist that belief in God is necessary for a fulfilling life. To support his assertion, Aquinas would simply need to refer to the moments in history where atheist forces have used violence to crack down on religion. For example, Kurtz himself admits that the Communist authorities in the Soviet Union carried out a violent suppression of all forms of religion (Kurtz, n.d). Aquinas would clearly make the better argument since it is indeed true that atheism has had damaging impacts on society.
Violence and God’s Existence
That religion has been used to defend violent acts is one of the arguments that Kurtz presented in dismissing theism. While this argument is valid, it is irrelevant in the discussion on the existence of God. To be relevant to this discussion, all arguments raised need to be direct in answering the question of God’s existence. For example, Aquinas’ proofs seek to relate the realities in the universe to God’s existence. Since the violence that has been perpetrated in the name of religion has nothing to do with God’s existence, it is irrelevant. If anything, this violence could be used to support the argument that God exists. Why would humans murder each other in the name of a God who does not exist?
References
Aquinas, T. (n.d). The existence of God.
Kurtz, P. (n.d). In defense of unbelief: are there fundamentalist atheists?
