You seem to forget that I'm an atheist, so I obviously don't think that the religious have satisfied their burden.
Just because one is an atheist does not mean that must continually commit the fallacy of question-begging.
When asked about it, all that's left is for me to explain why I'm not convinced by theism.
Feel free to do that, or else to leave out the assertion, for the mere assertion is pointless in our conversation.
But with a view to defending dogma.
Sure. If I believe something to be divinely revealed, then I believe things which contradict that revelation to be false. That's good reasoning. Are you attempting to fault religious for this reasoning?
Based on how you've described these disciplines, it would be more appropriate to say that it gives you a way of defending the faith with apologetics.
I reorder this quote because it brings up an important point. You began this vein of the conversation by claiming that theology provides no means of adjudication for competing religious claims. I answered that it does.
...first, a brief interlude. We are speaking about Christian theology, but I am referring primarily to the Catholic Church. Therefore from now on instead of speaking about "theology" generally, I will just speak of the Church. This is significant because it makes sense to speak of the Church's use of philosophy, but not so much of theology's use; and because many Protestants would not see rational adjudication as possible...
...again, "I answered that it does." Yet the Church's adjudication will inevitably favor Christianity. That doesn't make it any less of an adjudication. One can adjudicate and defend the faith at the same time. Again, my primary point is that it is simply false to claim that the Church leaves us with nothing to say about contradicting religions or religious claims (although there is a very substantial amount of doctrine in which different religions hold in common).
The task of Catholic apologetics is to build a strong defence of Catholic dogma; one that will assuage the doubts of the faithful and dispel the skepticism of nonbelievers. Given these motivations, apologetics is poorly suited to the task of adjudication, which requires a critical examination of dogma, including the dogmas of one's own church.
Why is a critical examination of dogma inaccessible to the Catholic apologist?
To me this is like saying, "A philosopher who is an expert in epistemology is poorly suited to the task of general philosophical adjudication, which requires a critical examination of all fields of philosophy, including those of epistemology."
The Catholic apologist is intimately familiar with Catholic dogma, including the historical details, the motives for belief, the arguments that occurred, etc. This in itself should in no way impede his ability to adjudicate between various religious claims. Your claim is that he has a bias in favor of Catholicism which would color his judgment. But there are two possibilities: 1) Either he has an irrational bias which causes him to unfairly favor Catholicism, or 2) The reason he favors Catholicism is because he has impartially considered all of the various religious options and concluded that Catholicism is superior. Why think that (1) obtains rather than (2)?
Finally, even in the case that (1) obtains there is still a measure of adjudication. The apologist will still have to make arguments from natural reason in favor of his position, which will be tested by his opponents and those who are undecided. An argument is not made valid or invalid by the character of its proponent.
You said that "the Church makes heavy use of philosophy." I didn't ignore that, but took it to mean that the Church uses whatever it can find in philosophy (or science) for the task of apologetics. That's why I said: My impression is that the common focus would be to defend dogma using whatever resources are available, whether from philosophy or science, not to examine it critically with a view to improving it. After all, how do you improve upon something already considered perfect and incontrovertible, like the "Word of God"?
Philosophy is recommended regardless of use. For example, all priests are required to have at least the equivalent of a Bachelor's degree in philosophy. And the "philosophy" portion of my answer extends to philosophy of religion, religious studies, etc. So there exists comparative religious studies from Catholic perspectives that have nothing to do with the process of adjudication (or apologetics) directly, but do contribute to adjudication indirectly insofar as they furnish other scholars with information and comparative assessments of various religions.
We aren't talking about rationality per se, but the adjudication of incompatible religious claims. You've presented apologetics as an example of a field in which this takes place. But as I noted, apologetics isn't set up that way.
I think you generalize. Suppose a Muslim Imam converts to Catholicism. Suppose they are an expert in Islamic studies as well as Catholic studies. When this person engages in argument in favor of Catholicism over and against Islam--which they are no doubt capable of--I think an apt name for it would be apologetics. Yet it is not at all clear why their Catholicism should disqualify them from this kind of adjudication, nor is it clear why it would in any way diminish their efforts. In a way, an agnostic adjudicator is just someone who hasn't yet made up their mind about the two options, whereas a Catholic, or a Muslim, or a Hindu adjudicator has. I can see why an atheist would claim that the agnostic is less biased, for the atheist agrees with the agnostic. I can see why a Christian would claim that the Catholic is less biased, for the Christian agrees with the Catholic. But I see no reason why, absolutely, one is a better adjudicator than the other. Just because someone was convinced by the arguments they considered and converted to said religion does not mean they were incapable of examining the issue objectively.
And if it's not? How would you find out except by critically examining it?
I see no reason why they can't critically examine it.
I've been working on a post that is perhaps more directly relevant to the OP, which I'll hopefully get to posting soon.
Okay, great.
Nope, not philosophy. I think that of all those you've listed only philosophy has what is required to do the job. The others are apologetic in nature and thus oriented toward defending dogma rather than assessing it critically.
Then Catholic philosophers are the answer to your inquiry.
