Mark23

Asaris,

Firstly, let me point out that my views on evidence say nothing of whether I am right or wrong. You seem to be implying that if I somehow had a broad-minded view on evidence I would be right.

Secondly, it is perfectly reasonable to point out ignorance and stupidity in other people. I hear this sort of thing all the time, that saying someone is stupid by some peculiar default makes that person stupid. This is simple, straightforward nonsense and I cannot see where you are coming from at all. It is perfectly reasonable to point out negative character traits in other people if they are true.

In addition to this, people in the 16th and 17th century <i>were</i> ignorant. Of course they were, and for good reasons too. They lived almost 300 years ago! The scientific method as we know it today did not even exist before the 19th century, so one can hardly expect people of those times to be anywhere nearly as well-informed as modern people of today are. Summa Contra Gentiles was written in the 13th century.

As for stupidity, for heaven's sake look around you. Let's not be so politically correct or respectful as to cloud the truth. It is also important to note that I am not implying that everyone is stupid; quite a large number of people are, but not everyone.

Thirdly, there is much modern objection and criticism of both the texts you mention, in particular Descartes' work; I see little point in going into this at any depth, but a quick internet search will suffice if you wish to learn more.

And finally, you seem to be rather well informed as to both my intelligence and that of Thomas Aquinas, not to mention Descartes. It is not helpful to form arguments based on the intellect of someone you know next to nothing about.

To finish, religious faith is not based on any useful evidence. Ancient, pre-dated texts that have been superceded by modern-day thinking are not evidence for god, whether being read by George W. Bush or Albert Einstein.

If texts like these were even slightly considerable as proof for the existence of god then there would be no controversy in the first place.