Angry Atheists and Anti-Theists

[vulcanlogician]

Aquinas was a great philosopher by any measure. He did important work in just about every field of philosophy, from aesthetics to epistemology to ethics. Some of this is long out-moded, of course, but a lot is still fascinating to work on. If people knew it better and engaged with it fairly, they would see that. 

We looked at the scholastics in a few of my classes, usually as their arguments pertained to religion. I can't say I found them enjoyable to read, nor did they take hold of me and occupy my thoughts (like a great many other philosophers have). That being said, I admit that I haven't taken a proper dip into scholasticism. If you wanted to present some of their less religion-oriented ideas for discussion, it might be an educational experience for some of us. One thing I'm interested in are their elaborations on Plato... epistemology concerning intelligibility... that sort of thing.

We also have to be careful about the common view of intellectual history, in which the wonderful rational Greeks and Romans were held underwater and drowned by the evil Christians, who were defeated in their turn after a thousand years of Dark Ages by super-hero Francis Bacon and the Enlightenment Avengers.

I think you know how I feel about distortions of the reality. Yes, the picture of history you portrayed is certainly a distortion... but it is not a complete misrepresentation of the facts. To me, Christianity isn't the only boogeyman. It is true that anti-intellectualism has nonreligious forms. After all, Socrates was executed for -mostly- nonreligious reasons. Also, much of the widespread ignorance of the Dark Ages/feudal era can be attributed to the "barbarian culture" which swept over Europe, and (as you say) cannot be wholly attributed to the influence of Christianity. Who knows? Maybe Christianity (alone) carried the beacon of Rome through the Dark Ages, and we ought to thank them for it. But I feel like this view is a distortion too. I try to look at things more neutrally. Sure, the Church didn't burn every non-Biblical book it came across... but they don't need to be commended for this. They did their fair share of suppressing thinkers. Popular religion has an undeniable anti-intellectual bent to it.  

I despise this component of religion. 

Baruch Spinoza is a good example. He was shunned by his Jewish religious community. He was attacked with a knife by a crazy person shouting "Heretic!" His works were banned across Europe for containing atheistic ideas, prompting him to publish his greatest work, the Ethics posthumously. Anyone who has read Spinoza knows that his ideas are far from dangerous. To the contrary:

Spinoza believed in a "Philosophy of tolerance and benevolence"[62] and actually lived the life which he preached. He was criticized and ridiculed during his life and afterwards for his alleged atheism. However, even those who were against him "had to admit he lived a saintly life".[62] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spi...and_career

There is only one reason why Spinoza, a rather gentle person who lived a humble life faced so much opposition: religion. It is hard to imagine any of those hardships listed above happening in any other context. It didn't matter what that man's philosophy actually said: he doubted the existence of God. That was enough to warrant the banning of all his works by the Catholic Church. This man's ideas should have been widely circulated around Europe and discussed openly in the salons. The Ethics should have been published when Spinoza was still alive, included in academic curricula, and responded to by all thinkers of the day. But it wasn't... it was suppressed... for one reason and one reason only. Religion. And it pisses me off.

I know you think that atheists give "this side of religion" too much attention and ignore many of Christianity's merits. I disagree. You yourself commended the scholastics for "folding Aristotle into Christian thinking" (or something like that). I think that's commendable too. But, ask yourself,  WHY is it commendable? Because they were protecting ancient philosophy from the vultures, that's why! They knew that the dogmatists might possibly pile Greek manuscripts in the churchyard and burn them! So it was rather wise and thoughtful of them to baptize those ancient works, given the circumstances. It's rather like Nietzsche says, religion wants to be patted on the head and held in esteem for curing diseases that religion itself has introduced.

---

Though he might wanna go and take another look at the sophists.  They were professional teachers.  Plato was a cranky ass old man, lol.  I think we all know better than to blindly trust in one partisans hit piece on an entire discipline, by now.

Yes, many sophists were extremely talented, intelligent, and did good work. Plato was undeniably a cranky ass old man, but he had some good criticisms too.

My view on the sophists is more nuanced than I let on. Plato admired a great many sophists, btw. It's just that (as a whole) he considered sophistry to be a mess... filled to the brim with snake oil salesmen, self help gurus, and people who advised taking positions on issues because "that position will go over well with the crowd." They often adopted relativistic positions concerning things like morality-- and even truth. So you gotta forgive Plato for shaking his head at them.

Admittedly, Plato was too hard on them. They were (for the most part) sincere devotees of knowledge. Many of the issues they raised were dismissed and paved over by Platonism, only to reappear in modern philosophy. So there's that side of things too.