Logical Problems in Roman Catholic Theology

Catholicism has a long and complex theological tradition. But beneath the surface of its claims to authority and infallibility lie serious philosophical contradictions. Some Catholic doctrines might sound impressive, until you test them with reason. Let’s look at a few.

The "Infallible When Convenient" Paradox

Catholic theology teaches that the pope is infallible only when he speaks "ex cathedra." But if he says something heretical, Catholics simply claim, "He wasn’t speaking infallibly." In other words, the doctrine can never be falsified, which makes it logically meaningless. If no statement can ever disprove it, then it’s not a truth claim, it's a safety net.

The Infallible Arbiter Problem

Catholics say we need an infallible Church to interpret Scripture correctly. But we have to fallibly decide that the Church is the true interpreter in the first place. That means the foundation of their "infallible" system rests on a fallible human decision, the very thing they criticize Protestants for.

The Circular Authority Dilemma

• The Church is true because Scripture says so.

• Scripture is true because the Church says so.
  
  

Each authority depends on the other, forming a perfect circle, but not a solid foundation.

The Development-of-Doctrine Contradiction

The Church claims her dogmas never change, only "develop." Yet doctrines like papal infallibility (1870) or the Immaculate Conception (1854) were unknown for centuries. If something is eternally true, why does it need to be formally defined 1800 years later?

The Tradition Trap

The Church says both Scripture and Tradition are divine revelation. But since Tradition is defined by the Church, and the Church is defined by Tradition, it’s an infinite regress, one that can’t logically begin without an external authority (which Protestants locate in God’s Word alone).

Faith should be grounded in truth, not contradiction, and since God is the source and foundation of logic, logic and theology should never contradict each other.

Read More »

The Case for Properly Basic Belief in God

Even if no proof existed, it would still be rational to believe in God.

 

One of the most common objections to faith is the claim: “You can’t believe in God without proof.” But philosopher Alvin Plantinga, one of the most respected Christian thinkers of the last century, argues otherwise. He claims that belief in God can be “properly basic”—rational even without evidence or argument.

What Is a Properly Basic Belief?

Not every rational belief requires proof. You trust your memory without proving every detail of the past. You believe the world around you is real without constantly verifying it. You assume other people have minds like yours, even though you can’t prove it scientifically.

These are called properly basic beliefs—foundational truths we accept without needing arguments first.

Application to God

Plantinga argues that belief in God can be rational in the same way. If our cognitive faculties are functioning as they should, then a natural awareness of God can arise in us just as naturally as memory, perception, or our belief in other minds.

In other words, trusting in God can be as rational as trusting your own memory or senses.

Alvin Plantinga

But What About Miracles?

Someone might object: “But God involves miracles and supernatural claims, and such requires proof.”

Plantinga’s response is that the miraculous nature of God doesn’t automatically disqualify belief from being properly basic. We already accept beliefs about unusual or improbable events in everyday life without demanding constant proof.

Provable miracles or supernatural claims might provide verifiable or testable evidence, but they aren’t required for belief in God to be rational in the first place.

Arguments Still Matter

The point of this is not that arguments for God don’t exist. Many do. The claim is simply that arguments aren’t the only way belief in God can be reasonable.

Faith in God can be foundational, rational, and properly basic.

See also:  Atheism could be a Cognitive Deficiency

Read More »

Atheism could be a Cognitive Deficiency

I believe atheism is less about logic and more about a cognitive malfunction.

Alvin Plantinga, one of the most influential Christian philosophers of the modern era, developed what he called the Aquinas/Calvin (A/C) model of religious belief. In this framework, belief in God can be "properly basic".

In philosophy, a belief is called "properly basic" if it’s rational to hold it without first proving it by argument or evidence.

Think about everyday examples:

• You don’t prove your memory is reliable before you trust it—you just remember.

• You don’t prove the outside world is real before you step outside—you just assume it.

• You don’t prove other people have minds before talking to them—you just believe it.

All of these are properly basic beliefs. They’re not irrational, but they don’t rest on prior arguments. They’re part of the foundation that other reasoning builds on.

Plantinga argues that belief in God can be properly basic in the same way. Just as your mind naturally forms beliefs about the world through memory and perception, it can also naturally form belief in God through what John Calvin called sensus divinitatis—our "sense of the divine." Just as we naturally trust our senses of sight or hearing, we also have a natural capacity to recognize God’s reality.

But since the fall of man brought in brokenness of every kind—not just sickness and disease—it stands to reason that if our bodies can be negatively affected by sin, then our minds could be as well. Plantinga argues that our "God-sense" can suffer this same corruption, leaving it damaged, suppressed, or malfunctioning. Therefore, unbelief—atheism—isn’t a triumph of reason, but the result of a glitch in the mind, like a broken compass that fails to point north.

Some might object here, with something like: "If my faculties are broken, how is that my fault? Doesn’t this make God the one to blame for my unbelief?" Plantinga responds that unbelief is not mere innocent ignorance but the suppression of truth (Romans 1). The noetic effects of sin mean that humans resist and distort what they know of God. In other words, our cognitive malfunction is bound up with moral rebellion, not detached from it. The broken compass analogy still stands—but the failure is not God’s design, it’s humanity’s fall.

When we look at many of the arguments offered by atheists—claims that collapse into self-contradiction, denials of the very possibility of truth and morality, or even the attempt to use reason when our minds (on naturalism) would be built only for survival—Plantinga’s point starts to make sense. If the "God-sense" is distorted, it stands to reason that the conclusions drawn from it will often sound absurd, outrageous, or self-defeating

Atheism isn't really about lacking evidence, it's about a glitch in the mind.

See also: The Case for Properly Basic Belief in God

Read More »