Quote:Chad -

You know, I feel bad for getting so sharp with you, just then.

Don't.  He's been peddling the same silly shit for years and he never learns.

It may surprise many atheists to know that Thomas Aquinas staunchly defended empiricism. He neither ‘logics’ anything into existence nor does he make assertions without reference to observable experience. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the first ten articles of Question 1 of the Summa that proceed the 5 Ways in Question 2. The evidence of God does not come from some subset of reality; but rather, from the whole of reality. That whole and the features common to everything within that whole serve as the sensible data from which Aquinas reasons about the fundamental causes of it all things. For anyone that wants to criticize Aquinas, at least have the intellectual honesty to criticize the arguments Aquinas actually made rather than the ones you wish he had.

(November 2, 2015 at 1:20 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: You know, I feel bad for getting so sharp with you...but lately I have been feeling pretty irritated by a host of smug Christians who spend their time calling us arrogant, etc.

Smug is my M.O. :-) Regardless, I will look at all your links and give them due consideration and serious reflection.

(November 1, 2015 at 1:13 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: He can't be as intellectually bankrupt as Drich, in this thread: http://atheistforums.org/thread-38103-page-23.html

Guy just wrote-off two of the top Biblical scholars with what amounts to a hand-wave, because they don't agree with his position. It's actually pretty amazing, the depths of self-deception to which Christians can sink during the process of accusing atheists of being ignorant about the religious beliefs of the Christians.

That's Drich for you ... worth about as much as a pisshole drilled in a snowbank.

(November 2, 2015 at 2:53 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: It may surprise many atheists to know that Thomas Aquinas staunchly defended empiricism. He neither ‘logics’ anything into existence nor does he make assertions without reference to observable experience. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the first ten articles of Question 1 of the Summa that proceed the 5 Ways in Question 2. The evidence of God does not come from some subset of reality; but rather, from the whole of reality. That whole and the features common to everything within that whole serve as the sensible data from which Aquinas reasons about the fundamental causes of it all things. For anyone that wants to criticize Aquinas, at least have the intellectual honesty to criticize the arguments Aquinas actually made rather than the ones you wish he had.

I don't doubt that Aquinas was one of the brightest minds of his time. It doesn't change the fact though that he was a 13th century clergyman. He could have been as liberal as you like, but he could only know what his time knew. So he didn't know what we know about the universe and he couldn't know what we know about earth and he didn't have access to DNA analysis, showing that we and the Great Apes share a common ancestor.

That's my problem with basing anything on Aquinas. He's an interesting character, but a man from the 13th century can't offer knowledge for the 21st century. What he can offer is philosophy and that's not up for debate, or is it?

(November 2, 2015 at 1:37 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(November 2, 2015 at 1:28 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: I agree. The Jains are the worst, always minding their own business, observing non-violence as a way of life, maintaining open-minded attitudes toward others and their views, and putting into practice precisely the non-covetousness to which the Abrahamic faiths only pay lip service.

THANK YOU for getting the joke! I was worried that one would flop or fly over everyone.

Sam Harris is my intellectual hero, I find myself linking videos and quotes from him so much on these forums:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri_hruUhJUw

RocketSurgeon, I’m disappointed by the articles to which you linked. They remind me of the objections Metis plagiarized in our formal debate (http://atheistforums.org/thread-34889-po...pid1001512). Patheos.com seems to have a better understanding of Aquinas than the first two, but I have a hard time understanding exactly what it is that he finds problematic. The objection seems to rest on an acceptance of actual infinities. That is the topic of another thread started by Nestor and I still haven’t finished my reply for that one.

Immanuel Kant debunked Aquinas hands down. As did Dawkins in TGD.

I just grabbed the first four I ran into, after a cursory read-through to make sure they were what I claimed they were, which is people addressing Aquinas' arguments from an atheistic perspective. I'm not surprised that you're disappointed, since you seem to interpret Aquinas in a way that is, to put it mildly, different from the way almost everyone else seems to read it. You might think they oversimplify his arguments, sure, but that's hardly surprising, given the length of Summa Theologica and the amount of space one generally has in an online blog entry, let alone a discussion-thread forum like this.

I have seen your assertions that Aquinas is misunderstood, but from my point of view, I don't think the misunderstanding is on this end. Very few people outside of Catholicism take Aquinas' arguments seriously anymore, both Christian and non-Christian scholars alike. What Aquinas did, though, was lay the philosophical basis for things like Intelligent Design and related "modern" stealth Christians to push theology into science classrooms.

Whether or not those are good critiques, they at least give you some framework by which to tell us in more direct wording, "this right here (quoted text) is why what Aquinas said is not correctly understood in your philosophical circles".

My point was simply that, if you want to see some atheist critiques, Google is your friend.

(Edit to Add: Google is your friend, as opposed to harassing us about it.)

Hmmm...Intelligent Design is in no way supported by Aquinas. ID advocates follow Paley's line of reasoning. Kant does pose the best challenge to Aquinas. The challenge is complex and technical but it is a vast overstatement to call it a 'slam dunk'.