And those lawyerly techniques of distraction work in the courtroom, do they? There's plenty of substance in this article, such as the criticisms of the circularity of Thomistic epistemology, of the gap between the philosopher's and the folk's gods, and of Aquinas's Aristotelian attempt to fill that gap with shoddy personification.

Where's the substance in your comment? Are you sure it's not you who feels threatened by the article's reasoned objections?