A few weeks ago, Ben saw Fr Robert Spitzer on EWTN and described him to me as "scary smart." I quickly downloaded a series of his talks from the EWTN Audio archives and found that Fr Spitzer is a great example of how the Catholic faith works hand-in-hand with reason.
Reason and logic uncoupled from reality can lead to really silly conclusions, but, even worse, an antagonism to God (militant atheism) can lead you away from where the data leads and therefore away from good science.
For example, the teleological argument for the existence of God as put forth by Fr Spitzer is a fascinating story of how the values of the physical constants of the universe (the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and gravity) are very fine-tuned to allow the universe to exist as it does (galaxies rather than black holes). It also tells of how the resonant force within the carbon atom is just strong enough to allow Helium atoms to combine, producing a very efficient production of Carbon, the chemical element of all life. There is a long list of such constants whose settings are not necessitated, but just happen to be values ideal for the production of our universe with our life. A small change in any of them would be enough to complete disallow life to have developed. As an aside, these values are not adjusted or changed over time to accommodate other settings, like a feedback loop. They were set at the time of the Big Bang, before any interactions were made. They are truly "constant."
The probability of those constants being set to just exactly the values they are that support our universe with our life on it is on the order of 10 raised to 10 raised to the 30th power against. If that number were written out with each zero the size of a micron, the universe would have a hard time holding just the number.
An amusing response by atheist scientists is to postulate a myriad of other universes, inaccessible to us, all of which have different combinations of those constants. We are just lucky to be in the one that worked. That postulate has no evidence (remember science needs data) to back it up, but since it is assumed there is no intelligence turning the dials they have to come up with a way to make that infinitesimal possibility more likely. That's just circular logic. You can't assume there is no God and then come up with a new, unprovable theory that is based on it in order to show there is no God. These are the lengths they will go to in order to deny the reasonable conclusion.
It is, in my opinion, disingenuous science to say "you have no evidence for God that we can see, yet we will assume a myriad of unseeable, unknowable universes to allow us to not accept a God."
This is merely a snip of ONE of Fr Spitzer's "New Arguments for the Existence of God."
Scary smart indeed.