> If we don’t accept revelation as a source of knowledge in its own right, there is no reason left to believe a good God exists at all.
This doesn't seem right. I would think that based on your pre-existing metaphysical worldview (if it's broadly Aristotelian at least) you can not only argue for God's existence in the sense of the prime mover, first cause or even the thomistic "pure actuality", but it quite convincingly follows that such a God could not be anything else than purely good (see for example David Oderberg's paper on convertibility of being and goodness on jstor). You would thus not need to accept revelation to believe in a good God.
The dilemma at the end of the article, that based on whether you accept revelation as a source of knowledge you must - if you're being logically consistent - either end up Catholic or aligned with Hitler, also seems like an exaggeration :D
Also, in my experience, people profess to hold all sorts of views, yet they don't behave like Nazis. Still, I can distinguish two groups: one behaves as if "the Catholic" God existed, while the other abandons their stated views under the slightest pressure. And I think almost no pressure is needed for the majority of people (many Catholics included) to become monstrously cruel.
I think we're operating with different understandings of what "belief that a good God exists" actually means. You seem to understand it as "believing and practically conforming your life to the particular Catholic God". In such a case I obviously agree with you that you can't reason your way into it without revelation.
But various people clearly arrived at some understanding of (a good) God without special revelation. Aristotle considered the unmoved mover to be a perfect, eternal substance engaged in continuous self-contemplation. Plato saw the form of the Good as the highest reality and source of all existence. The stoics thought they universe governed by "Logos" - a kind of cosmic reason (even if not personal).
You can insist that this is not the kind of God you're talking about and not the kind of belief put into action Christianity requires of one who professes it. Or that such a concept of God isn't compelling to you personally enough and that you would still be an atheist if that was all God was. Fair enough then. But that doesn't refute my point that taken at face value, the statement that without revelation "there is no reason left to believe a good God exists at all" is simply false. You would have to have a very narrow definition of God to make it true. If you wrote "there is no reason left to believe the Catholic God exists", I would have no problem with it :)
You can argue that such a belief is practically useless or indistinguishable from non-belief, that many people live with cognitive dissonance and don't fully think through the logical implications of their beliefs on morality etc. All that might be true, I'm not contesting that, those are separate questions in my eyes.
However, if I'm right about my first point, then obviously my second point - that Plato's or Aristotle's view don't compel one as a matter of logical necessity to align themselves to Hitler - stands as well.
> If we don’t accept revelation as a source of knowledge in its own right, there is no reason left to believe a good God exists at all.
This doesn't seem right. I would think that based on your pre-existing metaphysical worldview (if it's broadly Aristotelian at least) you can not only argue for God's existence in the sense of the prime mover, first cause or even the thomistic "pure actuality", but it quite convincingly follows that such a God could not be anything else than purely good (see for example David Oderberg's paper on convertibility of being and goodness on jstor). You would thus not need to accept revelation to believe in a good God.
The dilemma at the end of the article, that based on whether you accept revelation as a source of knowledge you must - if you're being logically consistent - either end up Catholic or aligned with Hitler, also seems like an exaggeration :D
I think it's a common misconception that the Aristotelian view can serve as a basis for faith. I would be an atheist if I relied on it, as I argue in https://www.catholicnextsteps.com/p/why-arent-all-thoughtful-people-believers . But it's a useful method once you are already a believer.
Also, in my experience, people profess to hold all sorts of views, yet they don't behave like Nazis. Still, I can distinguish two groups: one behaves as if "the Catholic" God existed, while the other abandons their stated views under the slightest pressure. And I think almost no pressure is needed for the majority of people (many Catholics included) to become monstrously cruel.
I think we're operating with different understandings of what "belief that a good God exists" actually means. You seem to understand it as "believing and practically conforming your life to the particular Catholic God". In such a case I obviously agree with you that you can't reason your way into it without revelation.
But various people clearly arrived at some understanding of (a good) God without special revelation. Aristotle considered the unmoved mover to be a perfect, eternal substance engaged in continuous self-contemplation. Plato saw the form of the Good as the highest reality and source of all existence. The stoics thought they universe governed by "Logos" - a kind of cosmic reason (even if not personal).
You can insist that this is not the kind of God you're talking about and not the kind of belief put into action Christianity requires of one who professes it. Or that such a concept of God isn't compelling to you personally enough and that you would still be an atheist if that was all God was. Fair enough then. But that doesn't refute my point that taken at face value, the statement that without revelation "there is no reason left to believe a good God exists at all" is simply false. You would have to have a very narrow definition of God to make it true. If you wrote "there is no reason left to believe the Catholic God exists", I would have no problem with it :)
You can argue that such a belief is practically useless or indistinguishable from non-belief, that many people live with cognitive dissonance and don't fully think through the logical implications of their beliefs on morality etc. All that might be true, I'm not contesting that, those are separate questions in my eyes.
However, if I'm right about my first point, then obviously my second point - that Plato's or Aristotle's view don't compel one as a matter of logical necessity to align themselves to Hitler - stands as well.
OK, you're right. I plead guilty as charged. :-)