I am struggling to reconcile these statements. The first one shows a person honest enough to look at an issue and come to a conclusion based on facts. The second one … doesn’t. There are many valid reasons for doubting - nor does belief eliminate doubt - or rejecting the Church, but the church you reject bears no relation to the one in which we believe. If your beliefs are valid they should surely be able to stand up to real Catholicism and not just a caricature of it.
Ender
Yours is a pertinent and poignant question. I can only scratch at the surface of an answer here. You may have skimmed enough of my website to understand why.
A brief trip into personal history: Upon entering a university to study physics I was a super-devout Catholic with 12 years of Catholic schooling. I’d considered becoming a priest until I discovered girls and science, and do not know which persuaded otherwise. Probably girls.
I’d been warned about intellectual threats to my faith, and decided to take no philosophy classes, keeping this resolve until my first pseudo-philosophy book was published. But I found physics and mathematics to be compelling applications of logic— perhaps the onset of an eventual seduction from faith.
The first step in my turning from Catholicism came in a dormitory discussion between self and the only avowed atheist in our building, an argument which filled my dorm room and clogged the hallway, which I was congratulated by fellow Christians for “winning.” I did not sleep that night, because I had not won. The young man had asked a question which I’d personally wondered about but never articulated or brought to question: Why did an omnipotent God create man? This topic engaged us and a few other participants for hours, and I “won” by pretty much b.s’ing my way around it. But when our housefellow broke up the conversation because he couldn’t sleep on the floor above, I was left uncertain and troubled. My faith had been shaken for the first time.
At about 4 in the morning I realized that the only way to answer the atheist’s question was not to take it in the context of his argument, which was to utilize the absurdity of the creation of humans as proof against the existence of God, but to conclude that God created everything in the universe except the human “soul.” From there it was a simple matter to devise a more complete theory which defines God and soul in the context of physics.
Several years later I gathered my ideas into a 20-page paper and presented it to the Church, hoping that men more educated and intelligent than I could get about the job of fleshing out these ideas and finding, perhaps, a new balance between faith and physics. Pretty much what Galileo had tried to do a few centuries back. I was happy that the Inquisition had been formally disbanded.
The CAF is a recent discovery for me, and I’ve been using it to explore the real nature of Catholicism today. I find that the powerful philosophical core which had attracted me as a youth is like the vestigial tail at the base of our spines, and that the Church has degenerated into mindless symbolism. Ideas which I once found profound, which I once freely discussed with my teachers, seem to be unimportant today. Perhaps this is because my Norbertine teachers were more special than I realized at the time, and have not been replaced.
I realize that the symbols and rituals and dogma have always been there to keep the masses happy, but now I find little else. All interesting questions about the relationship between theology and physics are resolved by reference to dogma. Just like in the 17th century. This saddens me, for at the core of my mind, I love the Church. I’m sure that this is an emotional imprint, like loving a parent, or the Lombardi era Packers, and that I may get over it.
At the center of my ideas is the opinion that the physical universe is a far more certain truth than any written words of mankind. The universe is the only Bible certain to have been written by God, if, as I believe, there is such an entity. The Catholic Bible is only certain to have been written by men, and certified to have been God-inspired— but who did the certification?
I am surprised that you find my use of the Church’s own images to be incorrect or inappropriate, or however negative you find them. Physical images of a non-physical God are commonplace in Catholic lore, and accepted by the Church. It seems to me that by allowing such images, the Church has drawn its own caricatures.
A few centuries ago Galileo tried unsuccessfully to assist his beloved Church into the 17th century. A half century ago I tried to point it in the direction of the 20th century. I’ll die trying to drag it, kicking and whining, and any members who want to believe in both God and physics, into the 21st century.
Re: your remark, “…the one in which
we believe.” (Italics mine.) On this site I’ve been fortunate to find a few individuals capable of recognizing a valid point and addressing it reasonably and logically. “Few” is the operative word. The philosophy section of CAF is the most engaging of all, but most of its participants ignore serious questions or reply by parroting scripture or dogma. So, who exactly represents the “we” in your statement?
The Lone Ranger and Tonto found themselves stuck in a blind canyon, surrounded by Indians… Remember that old joke, Kemosaby?
Ultimately, I’d rather that my ideas stand alongside Catholicism, rather than stand up to it.
