(Written in response to a posting by a FaceBook friend who indicated that

he was now an "Agnostic Christian--intellectually probably something akin to

a Deist but functionally Catholic".)

I think something is finally coming clear to me: A few years ago, I evidently
fell out of my time-line, and fell into another time-line, a different reality.
How else to explain the strange events of the past few years?: a beloved
bishop and pastor assaulting a faithful parish community via an apparently
phony planning process, various people whom I have thought to be stable
suddenly displaying various levels of hostility toward me for no apparent
reason (including one individual tagged on the original post who has me
*blocked* (I assume for no good reason), the media (both secular and
religious) regularly telling us of yet another churchman credibly accused of
one vile thing or another, and now Tim Kruse announcing he is some form of
agnostic. Tim Kruse. Agnostic. TIM KRUSE?!!? Clearly, I have fallen into an
alternate reality. I wonder if the Cubs win the Pennant in this one?

Well, whether I am in the correct time line, or not, the topic at hand does call
for attention.

Tim's remarks appear to have to do with both epistemology and the concept
of "religious experience."

FWIW, kindly permit me to hold forth on these matters a bit.

I have not studied Epistemology, but I do understand this: everything I claim

to know is, one way or another, filtered though "my opinion," as my entire
body of sense-derived knowledge is just that: sense-derived. My
understanding is that anything I "know" is represented in some fashion in the
gelatinous lump of wet matter between my ears which is called my "brain." If
a fact or opinion is not represented in my brain, then I do not know it or hold
it.

As a consequence, my correct perception of ANYTHING, my correct and lucid

analysis of ANYTHING, my understanding of ANYTHING -- concrete or
abstract -- is dependent on the proper functioning of the squishy hunk of
tissue between my ears and the sense organs connected to it.

As a consequence, as I know from the observations of other animals, from

the observation of other members of the species "Man," from observations of
myself, and from my limited understanding of mechanics of brain and sense
function, that malfunction of these organs is not only possible, but, to at
least some extent, a common occurrence. We have all made bad or illogical
decisions at one time or another, we've all experienced illusions of one sort
or another, we've probably all have come to the realization that some
memory of some event in our past was not accurate.
As a consequence, I admit and acknowledge that though God is by virtue of
what He is, not fallible, I certainly am. So while I profess belief in God and in
all things proclaimed by the Roman Catholic Church as belonging to the
deposit of faith, I also must admit that I can be wrong about all of this as
well, because, as my judgement as to what is true or not true, regardless of
the nature of the thing in question, must be filtered though the funnel of "my
opinion." "My opinion" would appear to be inescapably fallible given that it
depends on the operation of a series of mechanisms which would appear
most certainly to be subject to failure.

I am typing this post while seated before a table. The table exists. I claim the
existence of this table at this time is an objective fact.

What does this mean?

It means that through the mechanism of and by the data provided by my

senses, my brain has concluded that the object before me is there, and can
be classified under the category of "table." This information having been
provided to my conscious mind, I therefore develop the opinion that I am
seated before a table. Because of the nature of the data and of my
experience with the perceived table, I additionally conclude that my opinion
about the existence of the table corresponds to an objective fact. So I can
say that in my opinion, the existence of the table is an objective fact. In
reality, I would simply say that "The existence of the table is an objective
fact."

However, strictly speaking, I don't know that *absolutely.* I could be flat on

my back in bed right now, having a very lucid dream. Perhaps the evil Dr.
Bleznit from the planet Zartock kidnapped me 40 years ago, and currently
has me rigged up to a device in a laboratory on Zartock's fourth moon, which
device is currently pumping signals into my brain giving me the illusion that I
am sitting at a table on Earth. Strictly speaking, I have no way of disproving
the latter hypothesis.

So, in order to function, we human beings start out by making various

working assumptions, usually unconsciously, about the world and our senses.
Among these assumptions are:

The reality of the world around us.

That our senses give us an image of the world which is accurate for most
practical purposes.
The rules of logic, such as the principle of non-contradiction, are valid.
That the other members of our species, our fellow men, generally are
experiencing the world and life in much the same way we do.
(etc.)
These base assumptions are a leap of faith in themselves.

Starting with these assumptions, we then move on to the various logical

considerations which lead us to conclude that there is a non-contingent
Being on which all other beings depend for their existence. From thence the
structure of Religion is built from logic and from Revelation.

So, as we leap ahead to the matter of the Christian religion and the Roman
Catholic Church in particular, we find an interesting parallelism:

Just as the Church has solemnly and infallibly defined a doctrine,

transubstantiation, in the terminology of a philosophical system, Thomism,
which has NOT been deemed infallibly correct, we express a belief in the
infallibility of certain doctrines and dogmas while bearing in mind that we are
making the determination to so believe by employing our own, admittedly
fallible judgement.

One could pick examples from other bodies of human experience, and the
same thing is true:

Though we may appeal to an authority outside of ourselves for the defining

of a truth or of some other principle, the decision to regard that authority --
even if the authority is objectively authoritative -- *as* authoritative, is made
by our own fallible judgments forming our own personal opinions about that
authority.

In this sense, the epistemological uncertainty of which Tim writes is

inescapable.

So, what do we do?

Many years ago, when considering this challenge, I came to the conclusion
that all we can try to do is make our best judgement and move forward with
life. My judgment in these matters has been, and remains, that the Christian
view of reality is the most accurate one, and that the Roman Catholic Church
is what she purports to be. I do not claim to be infallible in my judgments; I
simply exercise the best judgment I can muster, and act in good faith. That is
all anyone can do.

Given that, what can be said of creeds? Well, they, too, are the best we can
do.

Revelatory religion is defined by it's credal statements to a great extent. If

one concludes that a given religion is worthy of belief, then one adheres to
its creed. In my case, a view of the broad sweep of history, the internal
consistency of Christianity, especially as proclaimed by the Roman Catholic
Church, and my own interior experience have me convinced that God
became a man two thousand years ago, died for our sins, rose from the
dead, and founded a church to carry on his mission. Having been convinced
of that, I then use the credal statements, doctrines, and documents (e.g. the
Bible) developed or transmitted by his Church as a basis (in addition to those
bases already available in nature) for judging the veracity of theological,
ecclesiological, moral, etc. hypotheses proffered by individuals and groups
from time to time. (Again, these leaps of Faith are on top of those leaps of
faith needed to be convinced that the bed one gets out of in the morning is
real.) If something were to lead me to definitively conclude that some article
of faith (e.g. the Resurrection) cannot be true, or some substantial, long-held
moral instruction (e.g. the ban on directly and deliberately taking an
innocent human life) is and has been completely wrong, then I would have to
question my judgments about the historical truth of Christianity.

Again, we can only make our best judgments; we are capable of no more
than that.

(Regarding the call to "not be tossed around by every wind of doctrine:" I

think this was simply intended to be a plea not to follow whatever fad came
over the hill any given day. Nowadays we have people pushing every strange
religious idea under the sun: Don't eat meat! Sunday worship is wrong! Jesus
was the Archangel Michael! You must follow Jewish dietary laws! The body is
evil! Sex is wrong! God is unitary! Jesus was a mushroom! Mary Magdalene
was Jesus' wife! It was, no doubt, even worse when St. Paul wrote, as Church
structures were not yet fully established. Far from being a call to abandon
judgment, I think the inspired writer was pleading for people to exercise it.)

What might be termed "religious experience" also has to be examined with

an eye toward our physical make up, and the functioning of the wet stuff
between our respective ears. Much is often made of extraordinary
phenomena (visions, cures, "tongues," locutions, ecstasies, levitation, etc.) in
certain circles. My understanding is that a maternal cousin of mine living in
the 19th century, who eventually entered a monastery, was somewhat
telekinetic. However, I suspect that most or all of these extraordinary
phenomena, while probably "miraculous" in context, i.e. permitted or
brought about in particular circumstances to elicit faith on the part of those
intended to benefit from the phenomena, are, on some level, natural
phenomena. Consequently, while they can help particular individuals make a
movement toward Faith, they probably do not constitute actual proof in a
general way. Similarly, while "feelings" may help particular individuals move
to make an act of Faith, the movement toward faith is primarily done in the
intellect. While the intellect is convinced of the truth of the Faith, one can act
on that conviction regardless of one's feelings. If the movement toward Faith
is based principally on an emotional response, it is almost impossible to act
by Faith if and when the feelings are absent. Consequently, I do not think
that Tim's lack of "affective contact with God" is of great significance. I think
it is a common state among believers.

Is God "uptight" about what we believe? As He made us with the wet stuff
between our ears and knows it's limitations, especially as we are not in a
pre-fall, preternatural state, but in a natural state, my best judgment is that
he only demands that each of us does the best he can do in this regard,
acting in good faith. My best judgment is that Roman Catholic orthodoxy is
the closest thing to the complete truth in matters of faith and morals.
Someone else acting in good faith according to his best judgment may come
to a different conclusion. My best judgment is that God so respects the free
will of men that he even allows His inspirations into the minds of men to be
refracted by the processing of that inspiration by the wet stuff between our
ears, and looks not for complete "correctness," but for that fundamental
orientation in a man which acknowledges God as God, and seeks to return
love to Love.

In the meantime, I live in hope of that being the case, and that I will not
wake up one day to find myself plugged into a device in Dr. Bleznit's lab on
the fourth moon of Zartock.