Angry Atheists and Anti-Theists

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Sam Harris is a problem as well, concerning "new atheists." Not that I think Harris is some kind of dumbass or anything. But he writes "pop philosophy." (Bleh...) Pop philosophy is nothing new. Plato and Socrates named it "sophistry" back in the day. And it's simply no good... except, perhaps, to reach a broad audience. As a basic rule of thumb everybody thinks that they can do philosophy expertly. Dawkins is no exception.

There is only a small class of people who think they are incapable of doing philosophy all that well. Thus they proceed very carefully when they try. There is a name for these people: philosophers. These are the only guys who could ever suck at philosophy; everyone else is great at it.

***

As far as Aquinas... I gave him a shot. I really did. I always give theistic philosophers more leeway when weighing the merits of their ideas, especially concerning proofs of God. Aquinas nor Anselm ever budged me. As far as theistic philosophers, John Hick and William James are probably the best I've encountered. Compared to them, Aquinas and Anselm seem pretty agenda-driven. IMO, the only time you are going to get worthwhile theistic philosophy is in a backdrop where people take atheism/skepticism seriously.

If you think St. Thomas has a good argument, I'd be willing to look it over, but he always struck me as someone whose proofs work only if one begins with the assumption that God exists. In that way, I found much of his thinking to be circular.

I know you appreciate him, Belequa, because he kept intellectualism alive in an age when the candle of wisdom the ancients lit for us was nearly extinguished. Some may credit the Catholic Church for doing something similar. But there are two sides to this. The Church more so "horded and monopolized" knowledge than kept it alive. After all, they arguably could have done more to share their knowledge with everyone else. Add to that their periodic opposition to intellectuals like Spinoza or (perhaps) Galileo, and the Church's contribution to the intellectual health of Europe becomes quite a murky issue.

What does it take to do philosophy “right”?  Or be good at it?  Why is Sam Harris not good at philosophy? I’m not trying to be a smart ass here; I’m genuinely want to know what skill sets and training are required to be good at doing philosophy, and what exactly is bad philosophy?

There's only one thing required for "philosophy" because it is only one thing.  The love of wisdom.  You can make a million mistakes trying to figure something out, but a lot of it is about the journey.  Gaining knowledge and learning how it applies to you and the world around you.