The (Mostly Philosophical) Case for Catholicism

Note: What follows are a few extended reflections—including clarifications in the face of objections—from my previous article Why Catholicism Makes the Most Sense (some material is repeated here, because… well, I’m just lazy sometimes). In this piece, I’m digging a bit more into the critical importance of epistemic authority and why philosophical reflection on this, combined with some quite undeniable historical facts, makes Catholicism the most, if not the only really tenable, form of Christianity.

I’m assuming a good deal of background knowledge here, but hopefully not too much for the interested reader—I’ll provide links where I think they may be helpful but not distracting.

One final note—as most of my readers surely know, I generally prefer to focus on matters related to philosophy of religion and philosophy of God and metaphysics more generally. I do not, typically, wade into debates between Protestants and Catholics or Eastern Orthodoxy. Nevertheless, I have thought deeply about these matters, as a Catholic convert, and occasionally feel that I might have something to add to the conversation. I understand many Protestants and (at least some number of EO) follow my writings—here, I will say the same thing to you as I do to my atheist readers: much love and respect; I disagree with your position, of course, but always aim to produce thoughtful, charitable dialogue in the hopes that, even where you disagree with me, you might still find my thoughts, in some sense, helpful or clarifying.

The (Mostly Philosophical) Case for Catholicism

There are people or institutions we follow on the assumption that doing so will help us get more beliefs right—we call these people or institutions epistemic authorities. The idea, again, is that in following them, we are more likely to form true beliefs and avoid false ones. And in fact, we rely on epistemic authorities all the time—especially in science and medicine, but also in far more mundane situations. For example: when hiring a trail guide for a hike.

Here’s something important: our powers of reasoning and private judgment are often quite sufficient to recognize when an epistemic authority is needed, and to identify who or what that authority might be. However, while our rational faculties might be perfectly capable of identifying an epistemic authority, they are not—in many, if not most, cases—adequate to replace one.

This is obvious in cases like medicine, where a certain level of expertise is required to navigate complex conceptual terrain. We can recognize that we lack the expertise, that an epistemic authority is needed, and we can often discern such an authority (namely, a doctor). But it would be foolish to think that because we can identify a medical expert, we’re also qualified to “figure it out on our own” or just “do our own research.” In some situations, it really is unreasonable and even irresponsible to bypass an epistemic authority and try to work things out as a fallible, non-expert individual.

Now, what about religion—specifically Christianity? Here too, there are good reasons to expect epistemic authority—both that one would be required and, indeed, provided for. That is, there are good reasons—a priori reasons, actually—to think that if God reveals propositional truths, He would provide a living, authoritative preserver, transmitter, and interpreter. And not just any authority, but one capable of teaching without error on matters essential to salvation. In other words, there are good reasons to expect something like a living, infallible Magisterium—and that is precisely what the Catholic Church claims to possess.

Let us consider some of these reasons now.