Exposing the Intellectual Bankruptcy of Atheists Criticizing Religion

[abaris]

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?