the thing that really truly differentiates all these arguments from anything we would call rationality is that all the effort takes place afterthe bottom line has been written. There’s already been a decision that God exists, that the pope is infallible, etc. The arguments written above the line are chosen based on whether or not they support the bottom line. That is the mark of rationalization, and not rationality.
This criticism would be valid if they were using evidence to argue above the line that god exists (the bottom line). However, the Catholic Church would not use evidence to assert that God exists, as the dogma is that the existence of God cannot be proven or demonstrated.
the thing that really truly differentiates all these arguments from anything we would call rationality is that all the effort takes place after the bottom line has been written. There’s already been a decision that God exists, that the pope is infallible, etc. The arguments written above the line are chosen based on whether or not they support the bottom line. That is the mark of rationalization, and not rationality.
This criticism would be valid if they were using evidence to argue above the line that god exists (the bottom line). However, the Catholic Church would not use evidence to assert that God exists, as the dogma is that the existence of God cannot be proven or demonstrated.