[Serious] Thomism: Then & Now

[GUBU]

I'm inclined to give Aquinas more credit. Both in response to Jehenne's and Nomad's comments. First, many believe that Aquinas was exhorting the Church to greater mercy in its dealings with heretics. As the theory goes, he didn't want to rock the boat too much, but also pursued a criticism of the "one strike and your out" policy. He was meeting the Church half way. (Supposedly.)

As for Nomad, you have to be forgiving of pre-enlightenment philosophers. They were groping in the dark, without the benefits of modern understanding. This was even before the Renaissance. He was keeping alight the ancient flame of the Greeks and Romans. When speaking of canonical European philosophers Anselm and Aquinas are pretty much it for the entire middle ages. Don't forget that he was offering the ideas up for debate and criticism. He was trying to rationally justify belief in God, which is a damn sight better than simply setting people on fire for not believing.

When a philosopher justifies an error with reasoning, at the very least we can examine that reasoning and learn something about why it is wrong.

And Neo seldom brings up Aquinas. Just here and there. Don't forget he was prodded into bringing up the subject by another forum user.

On giving Aquinas the benefit of the doubt, a) older philosophers than him got things more right. His whole philosophy was based on proving his god real when he knew he didn't have evidence. Even in his own day his five ways received some very scathing rebuttals.
B) Even giving him the benefit of doubt that doesn't mean we should take his views seriously today when we know so much more. That'd be like saying the theory of the humours is authoritative medicine.