What is the role of credulity in religion and is it useful in promoting the message?

[Abu]

It is high time to face reality.

Even Friedrich Nietzsche (‘God is dead’) wrote: “Strictly speaking there is no such thing as science ‘without any presuppositions’… a philosophy, a ‘faith’, must always be there first, so that science can acquire a direction, a meaning, a limit, a method, a right to exist… It is still a metaphysical faith that underlines our faith in science.” (Genealogy of Morals III, 23-24).

Exposing the monumental errors of Nmgauss:
‘If “science” is defined merely to coincide with empirical science, there results a false concept of science and an impoverished idea of reality. Technical science, as distinguished from common sense, is “certified knowledge,” and some assume that only the knowledge gained from empirical science is really certified, into which they might throw historical knowledge in a broader sense. But there are other areas and levels of technical science that also give certified knowledge. Not only is there true historical science, but, in the midst of the widespread confusion and misunderstanding in the field known today as “modern philosophy,” there is still an area of true philosophical science, if one can manage to find it, and it resides in Scholastic philosophy. Again, there is still an area of theological science, and it resides today especially in Scholastic theology, and the knowledge presented in these latter two sciences is also objectively true and real.’
[LT123 - Anthony Rizzi, The Science Before Science / Blessed Columba Marmion, Christ, The Life Of The Soul]](LT123 - Anthony Rizzi, The Science Before Science / Blessed Columba Marmion, Christ, The Life Of The Soul])

 

[nmgauss]

“This lack of efficiency is at the forefront of monotheism’s victory over paganism; most notably, by Constantine I. Constantine reasoned, and reasoned correctly, that one jealous god was sufficient. One god could unite his entire army. All praise, all worship, and every sacrifice could be directed to one omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient being. Here, Constantine decided that polytheism was an “outmoded illusion”, but there were still obstacles he would need to overcome. As we shall see, by integrating older pagan customs into this relatively new version of monotheism, and by unifying its doctrines, Constantine set Christianity upon a path of inexorable success.”
rlculpeper.com/2013/01/06/the…ral-diffusion/

The idea described above was adopted by Muhammad. His main quest was to unite the various tribes in Arabia so that they stopped fighting each other. Constantine’s action in making Roman Catholicism the state religion of the Roman Empire was a success story ripe for copying. Muhammad did just that. His remarkable success in uniting the quarreling Arab tribes in Arabia was continued by his successors in creating a new empire united by Islam. The vast majority of his subjects were illiterate, relying on persuasive oral messages. In evaluating the horrible lifestyles of death and destruction of the quarreling tribes compared to the cooperative environment promoted by Muhammad, why wouldn’t they opt for giving it a try, even if credulity was the order of the day?

 

[Abu]

From the acceptance of the reality of God to the truth of Catholicism – all based on facts of history.

Quadratus writes (circa 123 A.D.) that in his day there were still persons around who had been cured or raised from the dead by Jesus – prime witnesses. [Eusebius, *Church History, 4.3, 1.2; See Free From All Error, Fr W. Most, p 12].

Even Adolf von Harnack, a rationalist historian of high repute among Rationalists and Protestants, wrote that the Synoptic Gospels were written before 70 A.D. – before the fall of Jerusalem, and accepted the tradition that St Luke derived his information on the infancy of Jesus from Mary His Mother. Theologische Quartalsch, Tubingen 1929, IV, p 443-4].
[See *Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, The Saint Austin Press, 2001, Sheehan/Joseph p 89, 93].

Not only are the facts of Jesus miracles recorded by His own Apostles who were present – Saints Matthew and John were companions of Christ, and Saints Mark and Luke lived in constant contact with His contemporaries.

His miracles “were so frequent, the eyewitnesses so numerous, and the evidence so stark, that not even Christ’s enemies disputed the fact of their occurrence. Instead they ascribed them to the power of the devil, or defied Him to perform another one in His own favour.” (See Mt 12:24; 27:39-42; Jn 11:47). Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Sheehan/Joseph, Saint Austin Press, 2001, p 104].

No other religious founder claimed to be God—not Mohammed of Islam, not in Hinduism, not in Buddhism, not in Taoism, not in Confucianism.
The vast gulf between Catholicism and any other religion is that the Catholic Church has been founded by a Divine Person who lived with a human and divine nature and claimed to be God, proving that claim by His Resurrection and many recorded miracles.

Where God leads us through His Church, others fashion their own beliefs and morals.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

It seems to me at least you are providing the evidence you seek. You site Constantine and Muhammad and their take on monotheism. There is something there that they built on. It didn’t come out of thin air. A conceptual base. So even if the details are different there is an underlining attempt to describe “something”. Seeing what comes forth from that presumption is where I think you should look. Rather than, show me this is true presuppose that it is true and ask what would follow if it was true.

 

[CompSciGuy]

I think it is different for different people… however I think a balance between the two (mysticism and philosophy) is healthy. This is my approach to faith. I have a logical basis for my belief in Christianity and the Catholic faith specifically that I foster through the reading of philosophers such as Peter Kreeft as well as apologetics materials. But I also have a deep emotional connection with God as the central figure of my life upon whom all of my hope is placed, in other words, a profound relationship. I express this through prayer especially in holy hours of adoration, the rosary, divine mercy chaplet, reading of the scriptures and the Catechism (which serves both sides of this coin) and ultimately participating in the mass.

 

[nmgauss]

No other religious founder claimed to be God—not Mohammed of Islam, not in Hinduism, not in Buddhism, not in Taoism, not in Confucianism.
The vast gulf between Catholicism and any other religion is that the Catholic Church has been founded by a Divine Person who lived with a human and divine nature and claimed to be God, proving that claim by His Resurrection and many recorded miracles.

Where God leads us through His Church, others fashion their own beliefs and morals.

Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus say he is God nor is he divine. When on the cross, he is supposed to have said, “God why have you forsaken me?” He realized he was a mortal man. St. Mark describes him as an ordinary man.

Also, Mark was written just before the year 70 AD. Matthew and Luke were written in the 80’s and 90’s and used Marks’ writings as source material to the point of plagiarizing the original. St. Johns’ Gospel was written by an anonymous person just before the year 100 AD. Thus it is the least reliable account of Jesus. Because St. John would have been close to 90 years old, it is doubtful he was the author. Thus Dr. Bart Ehrman concludes it was not written by St. John.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus say he is God nor is he divine.

HAVE YOU EVER READ THEM?
I cannot take you seriously if you claim He never claimed divinity in the Gospels.

See for yourself:
scripturecatholic.com/jesus_christ_divinity.html

You might be able to filter quite a few - maybe even most - of these. But not all.

My favourite is:

John 8:58 - Jesus says, “Before Abraham was, I AM.” Exodus 3:14 - “I AM” means “Yahweh,” which means God.

I do not think we can have much of a dialogue unless we both know the facts. You don’t seem to know them, so git yerself some schooling.

When on the cross, he is supposed to have said, “God why have you forsaken me?” He realized he was a mortal man. St. Mark describes him as an ordinary man.

Read the rest of the Bible and stop playing the idiot. You’re smarter than to take ONE VERSE OUT OF CONTEXT and make it the whole Gospel.

Also, Mark was written just before the year 70 AD. Matthew and Luke were written in the 80’s and 90’s and used Marks’ writings as source material to the point of plagiarizing the original.

Paul’s writings - particularly Romans, 1 and 2 Cor, 1 and 2 Thess, and Galatians - came before them all.

Wanna know what he said?

Rom. 9:5 - Jesus Christ is God over all, blessed forever.

Titus 1:3-4 - which now at his appointed season he has brought to light through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior, To Titus, my true son in our common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

See the analogy?

Titus 2:13 - we await our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Titus 3:4 - 3:6 - great God and Savior Jesus Christ = God our Savior = Jesus Christ our Savior = Jesus is God.

And Jude has this to say:
Jude 4 - Jude calls Jesus Christ our only Master and Lord. Our only Master and Lord is God Himself.

Besides, Mark has many references to Jesus’s divinity, most of them implicit.

Who is good, but God alone?

Who can forgive sins but God alone (Mark 2)?

Who has the authority to teach that divorce is wrong - from the original Creation?

And there are others.

The claims that Mark is the only reliable source of knowledge about Jesus is based in an ignorance of the total of Scripture, either in the wishful hopes that the letters of Paul might actually have no content, or in a shortsighted infatuation with the heretical principle “sola evangelia” - only the Gospels.

I might also ask: where do you think Matthew and Luke got their sources from? Did that ever occur to you? Where would Saint Luke have gotten the narratives about Anna and Simeon, or Mary and Elizabeth? And where did Matthew get the stories about the Pharisees paying off the temple guards to claim the Apostles stole the body?

In fact, I’ll ask this: why did they say THAT instead of just pointing out Christ was still in the tomb? Hm? If He is not God, and did not rise, why was there - by all implications - no body in the tomb?

 

[nmgauss]

How credulity can lead to acceptance of distorted Christian messages.

newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/susan_k_smith/2010/03/god_yes_organized_religion_no.html
God, yes; organized religion, no

Mahatma Gandhi was said to be studying Christianity and was impressed with Jesus. He was studying law in South Africa, and was on his way toward becoming a Christian. He decided to go to a Christian church to worship.

A white elder met him at the door and asked him what he was doing; Gandhi said he wanted to enter the church to worship. The elder told him he’d do no such thing: “There is no place for you here, Kaffir. Go away or I will throw you down the stairs.”

Gandhi left, and later said, when asked about Christianity, “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians.” He admired Jesus but said that followers of Jesus were not like their Christ at all.
I say all of that to say that I believe in God, but I believe less and less in organized religion. Christianity is a disappointment, not because of God and not because of Jesus, but because of people.

Christians have been taught by organized religion, and organized religion and its dogma and doctrine are as far away from the ideal and idea of God that I hold onto as the east is from west. Organized religion has pushed my idea and ideal of God to the side and replaced it with human desires and interests. Organized religion has denigrated my idea and ideal of God.
But therein lies a big problem: there is no ONE theology. Niebuhr says that theology is anthropology; he says that theology is “interested language,” meaning the language about God is shaped by the interests of the people who are teaching God.
So, too often, God has been taught as an arm of people who oppress others and use God as justification. This God has been at the helm of oppression, sanctifying racism, sexism, heterosexism, militarism, and exclusion of others.

I am not surprised that there may be a lot of preachers/pastors who are non-believers, and the reason I am not surprised is because the state of the world bespeaks the phenomenon. We either have non-believers or fundamentalists. Non-believers leave God out of the picture; fundamentalists push a mean-spirited, racist, controlling God down our throats.
When I was at seminary I was surprised when, on my first Sunday there, instead of heading out to church, many of my classmates were heading to the tennis courts.

I could not understand it. Why come to seminary if you’re not going to go to church?

I now believe that even as they began to study, they did not believe in God. Seminary was just a step toward getting to where they really wanted to be. On the other hand, “believers” came to seminary with zeal and excitement, but sadly, many of them have used God to their purposes, to manipulate and control people to do their bidding. God is no more in their pulpits than in the pulpits of the non-believers.

So, when God does not do our bidding, which is often, we are at a loss. We wrestle with theodicy; we come up wanting.

. I believe in this God. I believe in Jesus, and I believe that both God and Jesus would hate how organized religion devalues them.
Like Gandhi, I love Jesus. It is the followers of Jesus, we Christians, with whom I struggle. We Christians who build the doctrinal and dogmatic walls of organized religion.

By Susan K. Smith | March 18, 2010; 9:43 AM ET

 

[BlaineTog]

Evolution is accepted as the theory that fits observations. Evolution has not been proven absolutely, but using it as a basis for thinking about the development of life has worked better than any other theory. If the theory of God’s existence is supported by as much evidence as the huge mass of evidence supporting evolution, it might receive more attention from scientists. Show me a pattern of God’s work that has as much convincing evidence as that for evolution, and I’ll take a look at it.

You’re not thinking deeply enough about the nature of belief.

God’s existence is not a theory. It is a first principle, a belief used as a building block for a belief system. While I’m sure each individual person who believes in a deity has their own subjective reasons that lead them to hold such a belief, there isn’t a deductive or inductive chain of logic connecting those reasons to the belief. Beliefs, by definition, transcend logical deduction. They are where deduction starts. They are premises.

Evolution is a “third-order” belief. That is, it builds off the belief system that is science which is in turn built on a specific set of first-order beliefs. Some examples of those first-order beliefs, or first principles, include the belief that a world outside the self resembles our intuitions of it, the belief that the future will tend to resemble the past, and the belief in the efficacy of logic. None of those axioms can be proven logically:

1. The only data we have to draw from about the world is our sensory data. But as Descartes famously put it, what if an evil genius had conspired to feed us false sensory data? We could have a false idea of how the world works and not have any way of knowing differently.
2. It cannot be proven that the future tends to resemble the past without citing examples from the past. But that’s circular logic, trying to prove a point with itself. Heck, how do you know the past even happened at all? How can you know the universe didn’t simply spring into existence at this very moment with all your memories of the past implanted in your head? How could you even consider trying to disprove such a notion without resorting to one of those implanted memories of a past that never happened?
3. Logic itself cannot be proven, because proofs are an exercise of logic and it is fallacious to try to prove something with itself. You would need to prove logic without using logic, but that is a contradiction in terms.

Axioms don’t simply “get” to be true. There is no a priori knowledge which must necessarily universally be held by all people in all times and places as the absolute truth. Now I’m no relativist; I do believe that some things are universally truth and others are universally false. However, no one gets to know that what they know is true. One merely believes.

And I believe that our sensory data gives us real insights about the world, and I believe that the future does tend to resemble the past, and I very much believe in the efficacy of logic, but I also, in a categorically identical way, that God exists and that He sent His only begotten son Jesus to help save us from ourselves, if only we let him. These are all first principles and they cannot logically be given preferential treatment over each other when it comes to matters of objective certainty.

Objective certainty is a pipe dream. You are, of course, free to believe otherwise. Such a believe would be in conflict with a belief in logic, but if you don’t believe in logic then that shouldn’t bother you at all. I’m not trying to be glib when I say that, by the way: it is perfectly reasonable to not believe in logic. Logically speaking.

 

[TarkanAttila]

nmgauss…

Do you believe in truth?

If so, then surely you must believe some things can also be false.

You say Jesus is not God, while the vast majority of Christians say He is God, don’t you see this is not a small discrepancy? If you are correct, then almost 2 billion Christians are committing gross idolatry. If we are, then you are not giving God His just due.

Similarly, the Catholic Church teaches a literal interpretation of John 6. Most Protestants (who are not Lutherans) teach an exclusively symbolic understanding. This is no small discrepancy, either. Either the Catholics are committing idolatry every day, or most Protestants are disobeying Christ, treating Christ unjustly through blasphemy, and depriving their souls of a massive gift of grace Christ promised to them.

So who is right? Or does it matter? Does idolatry matter? Does depriving yourself of God’s blessing matter? Does blasphemy matter? Or is it all just a matter of your blessed anthropology?

 

[nmgauss]

You’re not thinking deeply enough about the nature of belief.

God’s existence is not a theory. It is a first principle, a belief used as a building block for a belief system. While I’m sure each individual person who believes in a deity has their own subjective reasons that lead them to hold such a belief, there isn’t a deductive or inductive chain of logic connecting those reasons to the belief. Beliefs, by definition, transcend logical deduction. They are where deduction starts. They are premises.

Evolution is a “third-order” belief. That is, it builds off the belief system that is science which is in turn built on a specific set of first-order beliefs. Some examples of those first-order beliefs, or first principles, include the belief that a world outside the self resembles our intuitions of it, the belief that the future will tend to resemble the past, and the belief in the efficacy of logic. None of those axioms can be proven logically:

1. The only data we have to draw from about the world is our sensory data. But as Descartes famously put it, what if an evil genius had conspired to feed us false sensory data? We could have a false idea of how the world works and not have any way of knowing differently.
2. It cannot be proven that the future tends to resemble the past without citing examples from the past. But that’s circular logic, trying to prove a point with itself. Heck, how do you know the past even happened at all? How can you know the universe didn’t simply spring into existence at this very moment with all your memories of the past implanted in your head? How could you even consider trying to disprove such a notion without resorting to one of those implanted memories of a past that never happened?
3. Logic itself cannot be proven, because proofs are an exercise of logic and it is fallacious to try to prove something with itself. You would need to prove logic without using logic, but that is a contradiction in terms.

Axioms don’t simply “get” to be true. There is no a priori knowledge which must necessarily universally be held by all people in all times and places as the absolute truth. Now I’m no relativist; I do believe that some things are universally truth and others are universally false. However, no one gets to know that what they know is true. One merely believes.

And I believe that our sensory data gives us real insights about the world, and I believe that the future does tend to resemble the past, and I very much believe in the efficacy of logic, but I also, in a categorically identical way, that God exists and that He sent His only begotten son Jesus to help save us from ourselves, if only we let him. These are all first principles and they cannot logically be given preferential treatment over each other when it comes to matters of objective certainty.

Objective certainty is a pipe dream. You are, of course, free to believe otherwise. Such a believe would be in conflict with a belief in logic, but if you don’t believe in logic then that shouldn’t bother you at all. I’m not trying to be glib when I say that, by the way: it is perfectly reasonable to not believe in logic. Logically speaking.

Why was the Logos cited in the forming the laws of the universe and why does one hear of Jesus being the Logos Incarnate? Here are three aspects of promulgating a message:

"Ethos: the source’s credibility, the speaker’s/author’s authority

Logos: the logic used to support a claim (induction and deduction); can also be the facts and statistics used to help support the argument.

Pathos: the emotional or motivational appeals; vivid language, emotional language and numerous sensory details."

For credulity to be an important aspect of a person’s acceptance of a message, Ethos and Pathos seem to outweigh Logos.

 

[BlaineTog]

Why was the Logos cited in the forming the laws of the universe and why does one hear of Jesus being the Logos Incarnate? Here are three aspects of promulgating a message:

"Ethos: the source’s credibility, the speaker’s/author’s authority

Logos: the logic used to support a claim (induction and deduction); can also be the facts and statistics used to help support the argument.

Pathos: the emotional or motivational appeals; vivid language, emotional language and numerous sensory details."

For credulity to be an important aspect of a person’s acceptance of a message, Ethos and Pathos seem to outweigh Logos.

Your response confuses me. Are you saying the credibility of the source and the emotional language they use is more important than the logic of their argument? If so, why are you demanded unquestionable Logos as a condition of belief? Your response seems like you’re dodging the issue I was speaking of, but perhaps you can explain what you mean more plainly.

 

[nmgauss]

Your response confuses me. Are you saying the credibility of the source and the emotional language they use is more important than the logic of their argument? If so, why are you demanded unquestionable Logos as a condition of belief? Your response seems like you’re dodging the issue I was speaking of, but perhaps you can explain what you mean more plainly.

I am saying that if people feel Jesus’ love or the presence of God, the experience can be so powerful as to outweigh Logos. For people not used to thinking logically, Ethos and Pathos can be the persuasive element.

 

[Aloysium]

I am saying that if people feel Jesus’ love or the presence of God, the experience can be so powerful as to outweigh Logos. For people not used to thinking logically, Ethos and Pathos can be the persuasive element.

Not sure I agree with your definitions but definitely Paul stopped killing Christians after meeting Christ on the way to Damascus, not because He figured it all out.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I am saying that if people feel Jesus’ love or the presence of God, the experience can be so powerful as to outweigh Logos. For people not used to thinking logically, Ethos and Pathos can be the persuasive element.

It can be.

It’s troubling to use it, however, because many things can be emotionally or authoritatively moving. For example, the “burning of the bosom” Mormons will tell you is the sign the BoM is the word of God. Or the argument that abortion should be legal because the law says foetuses are not people (i.e, the Law is right because the Law says so). These can be very compelling while being totally illogical.

Pathos, ethos, and logos must collaborate in order for the use of ethos or pathos to be righteous - even if the hearer never sees the logos.

So if you tell someone that Jesus Christ is risen in a very emotionally or authoritatively compelling way, as long as you understand it is logical, it is perfectly fine.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

It can be.

It’s troubling to use it, however, because many things can be emotionally or authoritatively moving. For example, the “burning of the bosom” Mormons will tell you is the sign the BoM is the word of God. Or the argument that abortion should be legal because the law says foetuses are not people (i.e, the Law is right because the Law says so). These can be very compelling while being totally illogical.

Pathos, ethos, and logos must collaborate in order for the use of ethos or pathos to be righteous - even if the hearer never sees the logos.

So if you tell someone that Jesus Christ is risen in a very emotionally or authoritatively compelling way, as long as you understand it is logical, it is perfectly fine.

How is rising from the dead logical? (Rather than supernatural)

 

[nmgauss]

I.

Pathos, ethos, and logos must collaborate in order for the use of ethos or pathos to be righteous - even if the hearer never sees the logos.

So if you tell someone that Jesus Christ is risen in a very emotionally or authoritatively compelling way, as long as you understand it is logical, it is perfectly fine.

But who says religion has to be fine. Religion is whatever its leaders want it to be. Look at how the Japanese were hornswoggled into believing that the emperor was a God. Were L. Ron Hubbard, David Koresh of the Branch Davidians, Warren Jeffs of the FLDS fine? How about Jim jones?

My guess is that in all these so-called religions, Ethos and Pathos reigned supreme, and Logos took a back seat.

 

[Abu]

nmgauss #26
Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus say he is God nor is he divine.

False.

St. Johns’ Gospel was written by an anonymous person just before the year 100 AD

False.

Quoting this tirade from a woman “minister” is obviously anti-Christ, for Jesus established His Church with male Apostles only:

#28
organized religion and its dogma and doctrine are as far away from the ideal and idea of God that I hold onto as the east is from west. Organized religion has pushed my idea and ideal of God to the side and replaced it with human desires and interests. Organized religion has denigrated my idea and ideal of God

God has been taught as an arm of people who oppress others and use God as justification. This God has been at the helm of oppression, sanctifying racism, sexism, heterosexism, militarism, and exclusion of others.
Like Gandhi I love Jesus.

Such a tirade against Jesus of Nazareth who so clearly established His Church through the Apostles as an organised entity with His divine guidance on doctrine and dogma, shows an unbelievable gulf in such feelings (they are not reasoned, nor faithful, thought) versus reality.

That nmgauss has fallen for so much claptrap shows a total lack of knowledge of Jesus, His divinity and His love in establishing His Church:
Jesus of Nazareth gave four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Jesus mandates all eleven apostles: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

The tragedy lies in the selfism which is so crass as to proclaim “It is the followers of Jesus…… with whom I struggle….who build the doctrinal and dogmatic walls of organized religion” (#28), and in the naïveté of those who quote them.

 

[BlaineTog]

I am saying that if people feel Jesus’ love or the presence of God, the experience can be so powerful as to outweigh Logos. For people not used to thinking logically, Ethos and Pathos can be the persuasive element.

I don’t understand what that has to do with my post on the nature of belief, though. I was speaking strictly in objection to how you seemed to be trying to set up science as the a priori One True System.

As a sidepoint, religious experiences do not “outweigh” Logos. They are separate from it entirely, essentially acting as personal First Principles. Belief in God isn’t irrational, it’s nonrational and pre-rational, just like belief in science.

 

[nmgauss]

I don’t understand what that has to do with my post on the nature of belief, though. I was speaking strictly in objection to how you seemed to be trying to set up science as the a priori One True System.

As a sidepoint, religious experiences do not “outweigh” Logos. They are separate from it entirely, essentially acting as personal First Principles. Belief in God isn’t irrational, it’s nonrational and pre-rational, just like belief in science.

Science has arrived at workable theories backed up by centuries of research. If science had not discovered how the world works, we would have no knowledge of the causes of disease. If we concentrated our belief system on that of the Catholic Church, we would still be sailing by wind power and traveling on land with horses. Science is the One True System and it was originated by Aristotle. Or would you like to go back to the days of the Inquisition when people were being burned at the stake for contradicting the Church.

Religious experiences do outweigh the Logos for people who can’t relate to the Logos. The vast majority of Christians did not study philosophy, so have no idea what the Logos is. They understand being persuaded about Jesus’ love, and that is all they care about.