too intelligent to actually be intelligent?

Aquinas' statement is clearly foolish; his first premise is unsupported. He was merely trying to justify his superstitions. As one would expect, much has been learned in the long period since he wrote.Consider evolution as a counter-example. It is easy to see how the evolutionary algorithm would produce increasing complexity, since changes accumulate with time, and it does so without any intelligence being involved at all. Indeed, it is hard to see how that could be prevented from happening.I wish we could free ourselves from the errors of these ancient so-called authorities. They muck up our thinking, especially among the gullible.

If the non-physical is to be accepted, surely there must be some kind of solid evidence for it. Otherwise, why should one not regard ideas about non-physical things as intellectual aberrations arising from tolerably obvious historical processes?

Perhaps,it is just an unwillingness to believe things without good reason for doing so, and a willingness to admit it when something is not yet understood.If that amounts to rejecting theology, I'm inclined to agree with you. Philosophy comes in many different flavours, some of which are more useful than others. To which were you referring?