M
meme1961
Guest
If there is one true religion, then there have to be differences between the various religions.
If there are differences, then by reason one can determine which is more or less true by how much or how little one can falsify a particular religion, or class of religions.
These realizations pushed me into motion, and I spent many years bouncing through religion after religion (including atheism, though that one was so easy to falsify I was atheist for just about one week before I gave up in disgust and moved on).
Their are classes (types) of religions. Purely Fideistic religions are unreasonable, so after trying a number of these, I realized I could discard the entire class as being false. A religion must be dependent on and include reason to be the one true religion.
At that point, I could constrain the search to only those religions that were inextricably related to and dependent on an assert-able, reasoned argument. That limited the field dramatically.
The remaining religions still took nearly a decade to work my way through (I didn’t just study and read, I tried them all as religion is also experiential), but each one I tried I eventually falsified sufficiently to give up on. I did compile a list of similarities between all the religions I tried, though, and that proved useful.
Now, the Catholic Church was the last place I wanted to be, so I left it to almost the very last. But every time time I thought I had managed to falsify it, I was wrong. Every time I found some challenge I thought had validity, I charged ahead and . . . slammed nose first into failure.
Being a cradle Protestant, I kept cycling back, and tried especially hard to falsify Catholicism using Protestant arguments. In the process, I discovered and studied the history of Protestantism in greater detail than I ever had before, and in the process of trying to falsify Catholicism, ended up falsifying three of the five Solae. Big Oops! moments, those.
Which left me with only one religion, Catholicism. By God’s grace, it was also the one that was experientially the best, as well.
If there are differences, then by reason one can determine which is more or less true by how much or how little one can falsify a particular religion, or class of religions.
These realizations pushed me into motion, and I spent many years bouncing through religion after religion (including atheism, though that one was so easy to falsify I was atheist for just about one week before I gave up in disgust and moved on).
Their are classes (types) of religions. Purely Fideistic religions are unreasonable, so after trying a number of these, I realized I could discard the entire class as being false. A religion must be dependent on and include reason to be the one true religion.
At that point, I could constrain the search to only those religions that were inextricably related to and dependent on an assert-able, reasoned argument. That limited the field dramatically.
The remaining religions still took nearly a decade to work my way through (I didn’t just study and read, I tried them all as religion is also experiential), but each one I tried I eventually falsified sufficiently to give up on. I did compile a list of similarities between all the religions I tried, though, and that proved useful.
Now, the Catholic Church was the last place I wanted to be, so I left it to almost the very last. But every time time I thought I had managed to falsify it, I was wrong. Every time I found some challenge I thought had validity, I charged ahead and . . . slammed nose first into failure.
Being a cradle Protestant, I kept cycling back, and tried especially hard to falsify Catholicism using Protestant arguments. In the process, I discovered and studied the history of Protestantism in greater detail than I ever had before, and in the process of trying to falsify Catholicism, ended up falsifying three of the five Solae. Big Oops! moments, those.
Which left me with only one religion, Catholicism. By God’s grace, it was also the one that was experientially the best, as well.
