The Church has always been confronted with the fact that religion comes into conflict with reason. Therefore, the modern Church of the 20th and 21st centuries tries to explain and clarify this problem – unsuccessfully, of course.
Religion and faith are clearly at odds with reason. Religion is based on dogmas, and dogmas are authoritative "truths" that simply "are" "truth" and cannot be discussed. Dogmas are probably best described in the Slovak Wikipedia (even better than in the English or Czech): if you read it, you will find that dogmas are a very controversial, sensitive, and ticklish aspect of the church and religion http://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma
On the one hand, the Catholic Church admits that faith and reason do not necessarily go together, but on the other hand, it tries to explain with demagogic arguments that faith and reason do go together after all. The Church is actually contradicting itself in this.
Fides et Ratio
In 1998, Pope John Paul II issued the encyclical Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason). It would have been more objective if he had named the encyclical Dogmas and Reason, because faith is mostly about dogmas. The entire encyclical is verbose, boring, unclear, and over-intellectualized. It is not even clear what the Pope wanted to say with this encyclical. The Pope himself got completely stuck and confused. On the one hand, the Pope apparently tried to defend with some philosophical arguments (of course, completely unsuccessfully) that faith and reason are in harmony, and on the other hand, one does not even understand what he is talking about. Since religion itself is based on lies and violent illogical dogmas, it is very difficult to defend it with arguments. Faith, religion, and dogmas cannot be defended with arguments in any way – if even the Pope failed, then no one else can. I thank the Pope very much for this encyclical, because with its confusion, he showed that faith and reason are in mutual contradiction.
A side note: But on the other hand, so that I am not just black and white, the encyclical also has something positive in it – it also has a positive interpretation . The Pope at least tries to promote reason in the church, which was unimaginable for previous popes – after all, reason is from the devil , so it should not be used (some conservative Christians still have such a medieval view). Reason disrupts the understanding of religious dogmas on which the whole religion is based, and the church has never liked that throughout history. The encyclical caused the Catholic Church to become less fanatical, which is very positive. In Protestant churches, because this encyclical is not binding for them, very strong religious fanaticism and fundamentalism are maintained – this can be manifested, for example, by some Protestant preachers whose sermons resemble a public appearance by Adolf Hitler. Among Christians, I have also encountered such religious fanaticism that people in the community had such strong faith that the leaders of the community naively thought they could perform miracles, which was certainly not true.
http://www.kbs.sk/obsah/sekcia/h/dokumenty-a-vyhlasenia/p/dokumenty-papezov/c/fides-et-ratio
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Chapter Faith and Reason, quotes:
Faith is certain, more certain than any human knowledge, because it is based on the very word of God, who cannot lie (My comment: " amazingly strong" argument, I don't understand what your church's teaching has to do with God)
Of course, revealed truths may seem unclear to human reason and human experience, but "the certainty that comes from God's light is greater than that which comes from the light of natural reason" (My comment: the church itself admits that faith and reason do not go very well together, but on the other hand, they try to explain with demagogic arguments of ridiculous argumentative value that it is still in accordance with reason. Here the church contradicts itself).
In conclusion: we clearly see the argumentative desperation of the church to philosophically defend its religion and the harmony of faith and reason.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, chapter DOGMAS OF FAITH, quote:
88 The teaching office of the Church fully uses the authority it has received from Christ when it defines dogmas, that is, when it presents truths contained in Divine Revelation in a way that obliges the Christian people to irrevocable assent of faith, or when it definitively presents truths that are necessarily related to them.
89 There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and dogmas. Dogmas are lights on the path of our faith. They illuminate this path and make it safe. And conversely, if our life is right, our reason and our heart will be open to receiving the light of the dogmas of faith.
90 In the whole of the Revelation of the mystery of Christ, mutual connections and relationships between dogmas can be found. It should be recalled that "there is an order or 'hierarchy' of truths in Catholic teaching, because their connection with the foundation of Christian faith is different".
Note: here we also see the philosophical argumentative desperation to defend dogmas. According to churchmen, dogma must simply equal "truth" without discussion. You must agree with this truth without discussion, like some spiritual slave.
Dogmas and Lutherans
Lutherans/Protestants often proudly say about themselves that they are the true orthodox, because they do not believe in any dogmas, and they believe only in the Bible and nothing else.
Well, wait a minute, but in the Bible, nothing is written about the Divine Trinity , but Protestants also believe in the Divine Trinity, and in detail, in exactly the same teaching as the Catholic Church. So Protestants also actually believe in full-fledged dogmas.
And most importantly, faith in the Bible itself is a dogma in itself. What evidence do you have, dear Protestants, that the Bible alone is the true and truthful one? And how do you explain those violent parts in the Bible?
Dogmas and Islam
Islam, Islamic states are currently at about the same level of spiritual development as Europe was during the ecclesiastical Middle Ages. Religion cannot be criticized at all without being executed or sentenced to life imprisonment for blasphemy. I think that in Islam the word dogma does not exist. Instead of the word dogma, the word "truth" is used. And whoever blasphemes the Mohammedan "truth" must be executed.
Buddhism and Hinduism
These religions are of a non-dogmatic type and are concerned with truth. While dogmatic religions (Islam and Christianity) are based on lies and pride, in non-dogmatic religions (Hinduism and Buddhism) discussion is possible, they are based on humility and do not absolutize truth for the sake of humility.
In a documentary, I saw Buddhist monks discussing Buddha's teachings among themselves, and also how they argued with each other. Buddhism is not only non-dogmatic and does not absolutize truth, but it also openly encourages discussion about Buddha's teachings. In Christianity, such a thing is strictly forbidden; only one interpretation of the Bible is allowed, any other interpretation is delusion and heresy. Discussing religious teachings in Christianity is strictly forbidden.
I apologize for straying from the topic a bit, but now I'm returning to it:
Faith and reason vs. shamanism
First of all, there is no faith in shamanism. What does the word faith actually mean? The word faith essentially originated only in connection with dogmas and the Christian religion. If a person is to be convinced of some religious nonsense in clear contradiction to common sense, it is not that simple. So, a person must just blindly believe in the given nonsense to be convinced of it.
Shamanism is about knowledge; in shamanism, one does not believe, but knows and sees (in the sense that a person in shamanism sees and knows, for example, if they travel astrally. During astral travel, a person does not believe but sees that there are demonic beings, supai, or angelic light beings. This is how shamanism differs from religion). Shamanism is about logic and logical judgments. While faith/religion/dogmas are contrary to reason, shamanism is in full accordance with reason. In shamanism, there is no uncritical belief in something; instead, things are critically examined and verified.
I personally believe in fully orthodox shamanism, which is cleansed of even the last so-called traditional layers, which in themselves are counterproductive.
Faith and reason vs. atheism
As a spiritual person (who is closest to shamanism), since I do not have a black-and-white way of thinking, I must admit and acknowledge that atheism is right in many ways when it comes to religion. This may be very surprising to some. I can fully agree with atheists' strongly rejected attitude towards religion, and I also agree with their view on the senselessness and stupidity of church dogmas, which are in complete contradiction to common sense.
Atheists are right that religion is at odds with science, but they are wrong that religion is not at odds with everything spiritual. This is a misconception and a mistake. People have very black-and-white thinking and resort to two extremes: either religion or atheism. Both are extreme philosophical currents that cannot discuss with each other.
Atheists will be very surprised when I say that they make the same mistakes as Christians: they think in black and white, they believe only in matter, it is not possible to discuss with them, and their thinking is dogmatic. Atheists themselves do not realize how much they have in common with Christians.
The right path is something between atheism and religion – shamanism is the golden mean.
Philosophy is also a serious science.
It is not true that truth cannot be objectively determined in philosophy and in spiritual philosophical currents, as it is in science. There is a widespread lie and myth that it cannot be done. Lies and truth about philosophy can be distinguished as easily as in classical empirical science. Through philosophical evidence, we can easily refute all the lies of atheism and religion itself, and this is as reliably and unambiguously as it is in unambiguous empirical science, such as some basic physical formula. We can easily verify the truth of a given physical formula by testing it in practice. Similarly, we can also prove in philosophy that shamanism is the philosophical direction closest to the truth.
Of course, it is difficult for philosophers to find the truth when all known philosophical currents and religions are based on lies or incomplete truth – that is why it is impossible to get oriented in it and that is why, according to current belief, there is a gap between philosophy and science and it is something immiscible. However, if we get acquainted with shamanism, which is the philosophy of truth, then everything will become clear to us, then we will be able to completely question all religions and philosophies as incorrect with clear evidence. If a person knows only all philosophical currents of lies, then a person has nothing to rely on and is disoriented. But if a person finds the truth of shamanism, then everything begins to be clear, then philosophy begins to be a serious science.
But despite the clear evidence, people will ignore the truth and hate it – this applies to all people who are programmed and manipulated by religion, atheism, and primitive esotericism. People who stubbornly oppose the truth can be perceived as psychiatrically ill – I mean this seriously – I don't mean it as a joke or ironically.
Empirical science vs. philosophical currents
Atheism and Christianity are in conflict with science, while shamanism is in line with science: Religious dogmas are in conflict with reason and common sense. The theory of intelligent design based on clear scientific evidence challenges strict atheism-materialism. Everything indicates that there is still something above us.
Shamanism speaks of a multi-dimensional world, a world that consists of a huge number of layers/worlds. We can only see one layer of these many worlds. Today, it has been clearly proven in official physics that there is at least one such dimension, which is called the Higgs field. Albert Einstein, on the other hand, spoke of another dimension called spacetime, and he spoke of yet another dimension, which he called the ether. Science confirms the shamanic view of the world, quite independently, without scientists knowing anything about shamanism.
While not long ago scientists would have almost sent you to a psychiatrist if you had spoken about a multi-dimensional shamanic view of the world, today science has advanced so much that hypotheses about parallel universes and multi-dimensional realities are very popular among mainstream scientists. There is no empirical evidence for this yet, but from a logical deductive point of view, everything points to it.
Even with atheism, we are able to prove that it is in clear contradiction with science as such.
In conclusion: regardless of whether someone likes it or not, we have clearly proven that shamanism is definitely the closest to empirical science.