The view you present is the opposite of the tradition of Fundamentalist and Evangelical born again experiences and much closer to the Catholic persuasion model, so to speak. You must have noticed that.
I don't believe you are correct. However, because you have left certain assumptions unstated, I am forced to guess at your full meaning, and so I may err in stating your position. If so, please feel free to correct me. The essence of the problem is this. Does faith act:
1) independent of reason, or
2) logically prior to reason, or
3) in equal partnership with reason, or
4) as the weaker or stronger half of the partnership?
The above may not be a perfect description of all the categories, but it is at least the beginnings of an outline, and I think it covers the categories of interest to us.
Catholicism, formally, I believe, has rejected fideism. Fideism is the first category stated above, faith acting independent of reason. This is what (and I speculate here) I think you are associating with the Fundamentalist/Evangelical position (hereinafter F/E), the idea being that faith just zaps you out of the blue and instantly your mind is full of right beliefs. The good news is that although this view may explain much of what goes on in the liberal churches, i.e., those who have surrendered to postmodernism's rejection of rational truth altogether, it does NOT describe the vast majority of F/E believers. I can say this with some confidence because the conservative F/E's are my people, and I have been among them my entire life. I know what is being taught in the poorly heated basement Sunday School classes of conservative F/E churches, and it is NOT the abandonment of all reason for emotionally driven impulses of a purely subjective faith.
But this does not mean that Catholicism formally operates the same as the conservative F/E, as there are other categories to choose from in describing the relationship between faith and reason. As I understand it, and again, feel free to correct me if I get this wrong, Catholicism is basically Thomistic, at least formally. Thomism allows that faith and reason have a nearly equal role in persuasion. That is, by either reason or by faith, one might discover certain divine facts, such as the existence of God.
But Thomism is a rejection of the Augustinian model, which did not dispute the value of reason, but gave faith the place of logical priority, such that Augustine could say that to know, we must first believe. By this he did not mean we must believe in disreputable facts. We do not need to believe the moon is made of green cheese by faith, as if that will fix bad data. What he means is we cannot perceive the truth of certain kinds of intangible facts, for example the existence of God, without a starting point of readiness to believe.
But Thomism turns that order on its head. Thomas' view of what is called the "noetic effect of the fall," was that the fall did not ruin reason to such an extent it could not be used to determine, for example, the existence of God. Thus Aquinas raises reason from servant of faith to equal partner with faith. From a conservative perspective, this is highly problematic, because the philosophical schools that were spawned by Thomism expanded this equality back into a mutual independence of faith from reason. That is, either faith OR reason could be used to arrive at a knowledge of divine truth. On the foundation of this horrendous conclusion the entire edifice of enlightenment rationalism was built, and what an unwholesome progeny it has produced! The end result has been a return to fideism, only this time the emphasis has been the abandonment of truth as an objective reality in the existential and postmodern expressions of the idea.
Now I say formally, because in praxis I see something quite degenerate from Thomism. Again, my Catholic relatives up north. They are liberal and they are fideists. Catholics here on FR so often complain about their poorly catechized brethren, but they need to understand it isn't entirely the fault of the poor beleaguered parish leadership. The culture as a whole is being fractured by a cultural Marxism that is fideist to the core. It lies at the root of the liberal subjectivism that is presently balkanizing us into all manner of competing victim classes. This is a deliberate strategy of the left, and it is fully implemented in the indoctrination patterns of the public education system, the entertainment industry, higher education, etc. It is daunting indeed. There is no path out simply by "doing better" with catechism. This applies equally well to F/Es.
So where then do F/Es fall on this spectrum? Conservative F/Es pretty much follow the reformed epistemology, with varying degrees of consistency, depending on the particular tradition. Which means we are much closer to Augustine than Aquinas. See option 2 above. Faith is still the precedent step in logic, and is necessary given the severely damaging effects of the fall. Our reason as unregenerate persons is so defective we come up with monstrosities like Marxism and think, against all facts, we're making the world a better place. But once we have faith, and are born again, coming to trust in Christ, through the work of the Holy Spirit our reason is then supplied with the unabridged version of reality we need in order to use reason rightly.
But neither is reason set aside. If anything it is made stronger. It is given an anchor point in God's reality. From that anchor we can reason from universal principles we find in divine revelation to novel circumstances we encounter in the course of life. When the Bible was written, it was not possible to even think of freezing a human embryo, but because we have revelation AND right reason subjected to it, we can know how we should approach this new situation, because the divine principles are timeless, and will always apply, and can be applied with reason to aid us.
And this is how we avoid the trap of postmodern subjectivism. We will not believe disreputable facts, no matter which "victim group" holds those facts as sacred cows. There is objective truth, and it can be discovered. Global warming? Show me. Gay marriage is harmless? Prove it. Islam is the Religion of Peace? Baloney. Book of Mormon tells "the rest of the story?" Not if it can't be backed up with both Scripture and history.
And the same applies to our question of pope lists. Facts do not stop being important when we have faith. In reality, they become even more important than they were before. Those who worship God must do so in spirit and in truth. God requires us to love Him how?
Luke 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
Fact-checking is obedience to the love we have for God. That's why us F/Es do it. We love God. It's pretty much just that simple.
SR: Thomas on the other hand admits up front he's not there yet. Like the Bereans, he sets a reasonable condition, corroborating evidence. Does Jesus reprimand him for desiring evidence? Or does Jesus offer him the evidence he seeks?
AF: I think it erroneous to project that view to the Apostles as they were living in real time. They were already believers, already sheep, save Judas who was lost. The Resurrection had just happened. The Holy Spirit had not, for lack of a better phrase, traded places with Messiah yet. The Apostle Thomas is a wonderful lesson to those that believe, but not to an unbeliever looking for an excuse to insist on evidence rather than faith.
No projection necessary. Thomas explicitly said he would not believe unless a factual condition was met:
John 20:24-25 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. (25) The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
I choose not to quibble with the Apostle Thomas' own words. What is the spiritual state of one who rejects the resurrection? I know Thomas was elect, and the eventual outcome certain. But in spite of ten other eye witnesses, all of whom he knew personally, he chose to set a condition for belief, a point at which, in his personal, private judgment, the truth could be assured. He wanted to see the risen Jesus with his own eyes, touch Him with his own hands. Jesus accommodated him.
But your dichotomy between faith and evidence is intriguing. I do not see the two as in conflict, but as reinforcing each other, as stated above. Thomas wanted evidence, because he wanted a reason to believe. The Pharisees demanded a sign, because they were looking for an excuse to disbelieve. When reason has innocent motives and good information, it can perform a godly and useful service, up to and including demonstrating our love for God. When it is merely a tool to further rebellion, it will only lead to dark places, no matter how brilliantly executed.
Peace,
SR