> The article starts with that but then provides no evidence for that claim
You people are sure allergic to anything religious.
The author's main point isn't that so he or she didn't support it. I don't think it's true, though he is an important figure in philosophy and theology still.
Should the author also first attempt to prove the existence of Aquinas? And that he was a monk? Before writing about him? Does he need to prove that Aquinas wrote the work the work usually attribute to him? Does he need to prove there is a god? Just to talk about Aquinas' view? But I agree his intro is a bit overestimating.
You people are sure allergic to anything religious.
The author's main point isn't that so he or she didn't support it. I don't think it's true, though he is an important figure in philosophy and theology still.
Should the author also first attempt to prove the existence of Aquinas? And that he was a monk? Before writing about him? Does he need to prove that Aquinas wrote the work the work usually attribute to him? Does he need to prove there is a god? Just to talk about Aquinas' view? But I agree his intro is a bit overestimating.