Summa Theologica

[mcdaddy]

So MIL suggested I read this, which I believe I've wiki'ed before, but didn't submit myself to the horror of reading it all. Anyone know of some serious flaws in it that I can use to discredit it ( as if a xian writing from the dark ages isn't reason enough)? Maybe even any good points it makes?

Kthxbye

[Guest Valk0010]

I have never read it personally. But the two big things I have seen that have always come up from the author is his rebuttal to the problem of evil (the evil is only absence of good thing) and the supposed "five proofs." So I can't vouch for what the rest of book says but those are the two classic things aquinas is known for as far as I understand. The rest of the stuff from what i understand are only things that are relevant really if your a christian already. I sure there is probably more to it then that. But that is the main points he makes that relates to atheism specifically that I am aware of.

[TrueFreedom]

Classic B.S. Bon Appetite!

[mcdaddy]

From the summary i looked at, it looks like classic WLC horse sheeat. Guess not much has changed in 800 years.

[oddbird1963]

Has MIL read it? It seems weird that she wouldn't have read a book she recommends to you.

[mcdaddy]

She did, or at least the summary I think. I just had a text conversation with her about it and basically said it was chock full of logical fallacies (it is) and that it may have been good 800 years ago, but by golly, things are a little different now. If Aquinus was alive now he probly wouldn't have said much of that.

[Kaiser01]

The thing about reading classical christian literature, is the points it makes arent that relevant anymore. not only has Christianity moved beyond most of what they say, for example Aquinas and Martin were Calvinistic. Christian theologians can build great philosophical points on false premises especially on science.

[mcdaddy]

Ok, found this which obliterates Aquinus.

 

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/aquinas.html