I have been an atheist until very recently. I adopted it not thoughtlessly but fallaciously when I was in middle school and was taught about the big bang and evolution. I thought that those theories contradicted the teachings of the Church (they don’t). I was already a pretty lax Catholic. I found mass and CCD boring. My “belief” was mostly motivated by fear of damnation (which constituted another misconception of Catholic teaching). So when I started learning science and thought it replaced God, I adopted that worldview readily. I went to a Catholic high school so I had an understanding of basic apologetics (although while I was there I looked for any alternative explanation to “invalidate” the arguments). I was introduced to Aquinas’s proofs but didn’t really think about them much… I guess I either found some cop out argument against them or figured that they were too simple and a fallacy was somewhere wedged in the words.
I am in college now and have been rethinking my thoughts on religion, for various reasons.
Incidentally, having a Catholic education, a lot of the people I respect most are Catholics. The stereotype is that people go to college, learn science/philosophy/whatever, and then realize religion is wrong. But I have in front of me a handful of examples of people who did the opposite (one of my high school teachers I’ve been talking to, a priest, and one of my professors): were atheists until college, read classical philosophy or the Bible for academic reasons, and converted. These were avowed atheists who argued pro-choice positions and read Nietzsche and Hesse in high school.
On the other hand, I look at my peers. They are reading Nietzsche right now and tell me religion is absurd.
I find secularism/leftism/atheism inconsistent in certain ways (particularly its handling of issues like abortion), whereas (having a Catholic education), I have for many years appreciated that Catholic teaching is internally consistent.
So what authorities do I rely on for my Faith? I guess I am impressed by those Catholics who, I think, live good lives - as well as the fact that I feel like there is such a thing as a “good life.” As far as science goes, I acknowledge that, as a child, I misinterpreted the implications of science, so I abandoned Catholicism without a legitimate reason. In some sense I should give it another try if my reasons for leaving were faulty, so I am going to mass and reading tons of books right now. I also try to judge by “effect” of one worldview or another. It’s not just about what I can prove but about what actually functions in the way it is argued. While I can reduce reality and reject God, I’m still left with moral impulses, and I’m still debating others who simultaneously value their conception of human dignity and reject the existence of human dignity. On the other hand, I think Catholicism “works.”
As far as selecting between religions goes, I have to be honest when I say I have not investigated most other religions in depth. I am Catholic rather than Protestant because a). I grew up with it and b). I don’t think that the Church formed by Jesus (if Jesus formed a Church) would exist for 1500 years before being actualized by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, or any other human. Jesus’s miracles etc. had witnesses but have not been disputed by a historical source, although I don’t take this as an absolute proof of their happening. I think they are therefore plausible.
Why not Buddhism or something else? As I said, I’ve not investigated most other religions in a lot of depth. But I think that if I agree with Aquinas’s proofs, then I have to believe in a single, omnipotent God - and I think Catholicism is the religion that best supports that conception.
In a more general sense, I conceive my Faith to be… a belief that my recognition of Goodness, Beauty, and Truth are really things imprinted on the world and on my nature rather than products of evolutionary psychology. I really can argue either way (and anyone can). It’s not something I can have absolute certainty about. But the human intellect is something impressive, I guess. For many years I have just thought of it as electrochemical reactions, but it is true that I can do some things that don’t originate from outside of me. Secular psychology assumes that this will be explained naturalistically, by way of biology. I guess what I am trying to consider now is whether or not that is the most sensible assumption.
it wasnt until 04 that i really understood who Jesus was and what He did and why.