Superstitious Fool wrote:Our (Catholic) position is that we start from a foundation of belief (or, as we call it, "revealed truth"), and then build a logical structure on it.
Would it be true to say that you start from an absence of empirical evidence for one position, which you take as proof of the opposite, and then build a logical structure on the opposite?
I can only speak for myself Michael, but my answer would be: no, not at all. I start from the observation of a purely natural world around me, and then build a logical structure on that. When the building process reveals time, and time again, that the initial observation appears to be correct, I accept that it probably was, but I don't give up building, or asking searching questions.
Wouldn't it be more true to say, that from the traditional Catholic's perspective, once the "truth" has been "revealed" no more questions are necessary, all the evidence you need is in? And that having assumed the unproven existence of truth you cannot see, touch, measure, or describe, that you affirm all other points of view to be false?
And they're not mischievous questions either...