What is Truth?
I find it really interesting when people put down Catholicism as mere opinion, then put forth some suspect science as "reality" with the only proof being that it is "new". Reminds me of Stanford Nutting:
Proposed Amendment 28
Section 1. That the following language be stricken as unworkable from the US Constitution, Article I, Section 10: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress." Section 2. And be replaced with "All States, for the protection of their citizens, may reject any Treaty, Alliance, or Confe...
Comments
So, if this is true, then I am choosing not to have faith at my own peril. Yeah. But it isn't, so....
But then again so is Zen Buddhism, on that scale.
The real point is that objective data isn't what we think it is. Most Americans think objective=repeatable, when in reality objective=outside one's own mind.
All the dogma was proclaimed 2000 years ago and hasn't changed, that's true. But there's a layer of doctrine *on top* of the dogma that changes whenever the magisterium thinks they are right (and they're darn careful about that, doctrine, on average, takes 854 years between first being proposed as a theological theory and being actually taught, and plenty of theological theories get proven wrong/useless along the way, just ask anybody who still believes in selling sacraments/sacramentals or in Limbo). In addition to that there's discipline, the small t traditions that are constantly being introduced, renewed, revoked, retranslated, re,re,re.
If anything, Catholic teaching from the magisterium is the prototype for the scientific method. It's just far more conservative than the scientific method- and requires a much, much higher standard of proof.
I don't know what proof you are talking about. Just about everything the Church declares is accepted on faith and does not need to be proven. That is the problem.