The truth value of a proposition itself is objective. Since liking chocolate or not liking it is a personal preference, "liking chocolate" doesn't have a truth value except for each (internally consistent!) individual. It is true that I like chocolate. YUM. You can take that one to the bank! Chocolate exists, whether you "like" it or not . . . that is likewise true.
As someone who hasn't recieved this revealed truth, how can I, Person, know that YOU are right and Abdul is wrong?
You have to rationally and intellectually assess the various claims to the truth . . .
Reason, the collecting and the collating of evidense is, in a nutshell, science. So you are argueing that science will lead to an understanding of the immaterial, if there is such.
Reason can lead to some understanding of the immaterial. Science employs human reason. But human reason can be employed in areas outside of science (which scientists and philosophers of science describe as the study of the material world producing verifiable results, etc). . . . Some scientists don't give a bean for metaphysics; others do, but honest scientists don't claim that their views on metaphysical questions are "scientific" or scientifically verifiable . . .
Very badly summed up.
When I publish, it will be in better form. :)
Using the gift of rational thought does not lead an outsider to become a Catholic, or any other religion >It has for some and conversion biographies are out there. And it has led other OUT of Catholocism.
Seriously, some have been/are attracted to Catholicism intellectually. The truth value of the set of propositions and body of thought that constitutes formal Catholicism exists independently of any flawed human representation of same. Some people get very annoyed at the wicked and illadvised things done "in the name of . . ." and throw out the baby with the bathwater. That tends to be an emotional rather than rational rejection? Anyway, the Pope over the past several years has apoligized for most known offenses . . .
I don't know exactly what you might be looking for to prove or refute the proposition that some have converted to Catholicism because of its rational or intellectual appeal and/or truth value. The counter example that some people may have rejected Catholicism because they found its truth claims lacking (i.e. rather than rejecting it for some other reason) does not negate the truth of the statement I posited, nor does it directly refute the truth claims of Catholicism . . . ;)
Problem is, I am going from memory and don't want to misstate anything. C.S. Lewis is a good read, but of course he stopped at "mere Christianity" not Catholicism. Augustine another good read for the rational mind but I admit to having read more about him than of him! :). And he likely better fits one of the other models Aquinasfan pointed out as he prayed for conversion, but "not yet" . . .