A Slip Of The Pen Perhaps?

Feser on works of natural theology done over the centuries:

As I have mentioned above, Aquinas devotes a great deal of attention, and hundreds of pages, to this question, as did the other great classical philosophical theologians. Hence we have the section Questions on God from Summa Theologiae, which in the new edition edited by Davies and Leftow runs to 287 pages; the 300 or so pages of Book One of the Summa contra Gentiles, about two-thirds of which is devoted to deriving the divine attributes; the gigantic treatise De Potentia Dei (On the Power of God); and so on. Countless other thinkers have addressed the question at length and with philosophical rigor over the centuries; to take just two random examples from a glance over at the bookshelf, there is (from the 18th century) Samuel Clarke’s famous Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God, and (from the 20th century) Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange’s God: His Existence and His Nature, Book Two of which devotes over 500 pages to the matter. And yet, Dawkins, as I have said, tells us that there is “absolutely no reason” to think that the Unmoved Mover, First Cause, etc. is omnipotent, omniscient, good, and so forth. Perhaps what he meant to say was “absolutely no reason, apart from the many thousands of pages of detailed philosophical argumentation for this conclusion that have been produced over the centuries by thinkers of genius, and which I am not going to bother trying to answer.” So, a slip of the pen, perhaps. Or, maybe Dawkins simply doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about. [97]