I realize you think that doctrine in man made. I really do think highly of the power of reason and logic and you do exhibit a strong intellect. The Catholic Church pays tribute to humankind’s ability through the gift of reason to know with certainty that God does exist and WHAT God is. You are right that history shows how the Catholic Church has not exhibited what it believes and has been hypocritical and contradictory to its own teaching. You are right to be “genuinely fearful of the nitwits who would inflict theirs upon me, at pain of death.” But without asking you to agree, you have to at least understand or acknowledge that what the Catholic Church teaches about itself is that it is RELIGION OF REVELATION. …
Much of my reply here is repetitive, but my position, though simple, seems to generate a surprising amount of misunderstanding.
I was once a Catholic, and remained one in the face of outright ridicule from some scientists with whom I worked. Working late one Friday night in a NASA control room, they ordered a pair of sausage pizzas. That was back in '68. I went very hungry. I did not feel like the fool I was until the Pope lifted the ban on Friday meat.
I served mass dutifully for years, arising at 5am and getting myself to church through summer and winter. Even considered being a priest. So I know the power of faith from the inside out. I’d never propose that someone who truly believes in a good religion and is using his belief as a path to self-development ever, ever give up that faith. Not even if they were adopting my ideas instead.
I’m an engineer, too. If it works, Do Not Fix It!
My ideas have only two targets: atheists and agnostics. We could add, perhaps, those believers who are on the verge of becoming atheists.
My core premises are simple, and I believe you realize that they are true.
Yes, Christianity is a Revealed Religion, but not the only one to make this claim. However, these claims rest, in all cases, upon the words of men. Abraham says God spoke to Him. Moses says the same. And Joseph Smith was given golden tablets by an angel of God. These men were able to convince others that their experiences were true. Subsequently, other men accepted the claims of their predecessors as truth.
I’m not claiming that God did not speak directly to Moses. But, even the Bible shows no other witness. I’m claiming that
what we actually know is that these revelations came from the mouths and pens of men, and have subsequently been attributed to God. Who did the attribution? More men.
I do not trust men much.
However, my studies of the universe (all coming through the investigations of men) show me that this is necessarily a created universe. The only Bible I trust is the universe itself. Why? It is certain, absolutely certain, to be the direct work of its Creator. As such, I find it a higher authority than any words or beliefs of man.
Admittedly, the universe must be interpreted. Just like the Hebrew and Greek Bibles, when translated into English, Chinese, or whatever. But unlike the languages of man, the universe gets put into one common language, mathematics.
Note that it is the only Bible which, when accepted, is interpreted the same everywhere. Islamic terrorists use the same laws of physics when making bombs that we do. That alone marks physics as a higher level of revelation than any words of man. That is exactly what I would expect of a Bible written with the hand of God— no cross-cultural variation.
IMO the many “revealed” religions are based not upon revelation, but upon agreement. Followers argue so vehemently for their beliefs in order to buttress the only real basis for those beliefs, which is the agreement of other believers. I notice the same characteristic among most atheists posting on CAF— the same tendency to argue vehemently. Few of them actually understand any of the scientific dogma they spout, but are merely speaking from their belief that scientific dogma is somehow better than Christian dogma.
Dogma is dogma. I personally see no need for it.
In my opinion, because religions everywhere have dropped the ball, the physical universe is badly interpreted. Atheistic interpretations do not work well, but thanks to abdications by religions, atheism rules. I’m trying to change that.
And when the idea and arguments I present, using my best knowledge and logic, are beaten down by good Christians on the grounds that they conflict with religious dogmas invented by men, I get frustrated.
Of course my ideas conflict with dogma. Dogma is used to bypass logic, whether used by Christians or Darwinists.
We can understand the nature and purpose of the Creator simply by using our best minds and cleanest logic, provided we are willing to always question our hypotheses and test our conclusions. Physics, properly interpreted, explains the properties of God quite effectively, and without conflict with logic or good evidence.
Incidentally, in the process of developing my ideas I came up with a rather elegant version of the Creator as a Trinity which is perfectly logical, but only in the context of “Creators.”
