A Catholic Doctrine is Proven False, therefore Church Infallibility is Proven False

[Chris258]

I was trolling the intarweb the other night, and I happened upon a little blog thingy.

justsomethoughts.wordpress.com/2007/07/04/modus-tolens-and-infallibility-of-the-catholic-church/

I often hear Catholic apologists of many stripes asserting that attempting to prove a Catholic doctrine (e.g. Immaculate Conception, Transubstantiation) false is a wasted effort because the Church’s infallibility must first be addressed. If the Church is infallible, then her doctrines are true.

The blog rejects this claim by using simple principles of logic, modus ponens and modus tollens. Because the statement “If the Church if infallible (p), then her proclaimed dogmas are true (q)” is thus structured, modus ponens and modus tollens apply.

He concludes that by modus tollens, by proving a Catholic dogma to be false, he proves the falsity of the Church’s infallibility or simply…

If p, then q.
Not q.
Then not p.

Seems like a valid observation to me. The blog author isn’t attempting to show that the Church is fallible or that her dogmas are false but that it is not logically valid to assert that Church infallibility must be addressed before her dogmas are. If so, Catholics shouldn’t be so ready to switch over to the issue of the Church’s infallibility whenever a dogma is challenged.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Starwynd]

So your claim is that a truth can not be a truth if it is not backed by logic?

The big weakness of logic is that many people who use logic can often come to different conclusions that are based on the exact same evidence.

For example, take evolution. Not all scientists agree on evolution, and they can come up with different answers based on logic.

The example is “29 Evidences For Evolution” and the critique of that paper for a prime example.

Logic is not as strong and unifying as those who profess in it might might think.

 

[Chris258]

So your claim is that a truth can not be a truth if it is not backed by logic?

The big weakness of logic is that many people who use logic can often come to different conclusions that are based on the exact same evidence.

For example, take evolution. Not all scientists agree on evolution, and they can come up with different answers based on logic.

The example is “29 Evidences For Evolution” and the critique of that paper for a prime example.

Logic is not as strong and unifying as those who profess in it might might think.

I suppose I didn’t make it clear enough that the truth or untruth of Church infallibility or dogma was not explicitly being discussed, only the progression of discussion.

If a non-Catholic attempts to disprove the truth of a Catholic dogma, a Catholic cannot simply revert the issue to the Church’s infallibility. The Church’s infallibility is being addressed the whole time because of modus tollens.

If the Church is infallible (p), her dogmas are true (q).
If p… then q.
If her dogmas are not true (not q), the Church is not infallible (not p).
If not q… then not p.

Thus, a Catholic must be able to at least defend the Catholic dogma against arguments against it. This at least makes the argument against the truth of a doctrine less conclusive.

I think at that point one could conceivably address the Church’s infallibility. If one can prove the Church’s infallibility more conclusively than said dogma has been proven to be untrue, then your argument supercedes (and thus, you not only successfully defend the Church’s infallibility but also the truth of her dogmas).

However, you cannot just ignore the opponent’s initial argument and change the subject to the infallibility of the Church. They are making an argument against the infallibility of the Church by calling into question the truth of one of her doctrines.

So claiming that a person cannot call into question the truth of a dogma without directly addressing the Church’s infallibility is silly.

 

[mangy_dog]

I suppose I didn’t make it clear enough that the truth or untruth of Church infallibility or dogma was not explicitly being discussed, only the progression of discussion.

If a non-Catholic attempts to disprove the truth of a Catholic dogma, a Catholic cannot simply revert the issue to the Church’s infallibility. The Church’s infallibility is being addressed the whole time because of modus tollens.

If the Church is infallible (p), her dogmas are true (q).
If p… then q.
If her dogmas are not true (not q), the Church is not infallible (not p).
If not q… then not p.

Thus, a Catholic must be able to at least defend the Catholic dogma against arguments against it. This at least makes the argument against the truth of a doctrine less conclusive.

I think at that point one could conceivably address the Church’s infallibility. If one can prove the Church’s infallibility more conclusively than said dogma has been proven to be untrue, then your argument supercedes (and thus, you not only successfully defend the Church’s infallibility but also the truth of her dogmas).

However, you cannot just ignore the opponent’s initial argument and change the subject to the infallibility of the Church. They are making an argument against the infallibility of the Church by calling into question the truth of one of her doctrines.

So claiming that a person cannot call into question the truth of a dogma without directly addressing the Church’s infallibility is silly.

?¿yes?!¿…¿no?! “p”??? “q”???

ah dunno.

 

[Postmodern]

I was trolling the intarweb the other night, and I happened upon a little blog thingy.

justsomethoughts.wordpress.com/2007/07/04/modus-tolens-and-infallibility-of-the-catholic-church/

I often hear Catholic apologists of many stripes asserting that attempting to prove a Catholic doctrine (e.g. Immaculate Conception, Transubstantiation) false is a wasted effort because the Church’s infallibility must first be addressed. If the Church is infallible, then her doctrines are true.

The blog rejects this claim by using simple principles of logic, modus ponens and modus tollens. Because the statement “If the Church if infallible (p), then her proclaimed dogmas are true (q)” is thus structured, modus ponens and modus tollens apply.

He concludes that by modus tollens, by proving a Catholic dogma to be false, he proves the falsity of the Church’s infallibility or simply…

If p, then q.
Not q.
Then not p.

Seems like a valid observation to me. The blog author isn’t attempting to show that the Church is fallible or that her dogmas are false but that it is not logically valid to assert that Church infallibility must be addressed before her dogmas are. If so, Catholics shouldn’t be so ready to switch over to the issue of the Church’s infallibility whenever a dogma is challenged.

What are your thoughts?

That’s correct.

In fact

p—>q(p implies q)
and
-p(negation of p)

does not imply
-q(negation of q)

 

[ateista]

However, you cannot just ignore the opponent’s initial argument and change the subject to the infallibility of the Church. They are making an argument against the infallibility of the Church by calling into question the truth of one of her doctrines.

So claiming that a person cannot call into question the truth of a dogma without directly addressing the Church’s infallibility is silly.

Good and sound observation. However, we should not be surprised, since the same incorrect tactics is used all the time. (See the many threads about the problem of “evil”.)

The validy of the hypothesis is assumed, and the corollary is checked. The corollary is found incorrect, and then the apologists use the original hypothesis also as an argument, effectively treating the hypothesis as an unquestionable axiom!

The correct way is of course accepting that the original hypothesis was unsound, and discard or maybe modify it. But that never happens. Too much is at stake, and accepting the logically sound result (the hypothesis was wrong) is unacceptable on an emotional level.

 

[ateista]

That’s correct.

In fact

p—>q(p implies q)
and
-p(negation of p)

does not imply
-q(negation of q)

Right. But the negation of “q” does imply the negation of “p”.

p → q
~q → ~p

 

[Postmodern]

Right. But the negation of “q” does imply the negation of “p”.

p → q
~q → ~p

I am not deneying Modus Tollens

I was pointing out that not only was his assertion correct, the apologists were totally wrong. Proving the falsehood of Papal Infallibility would not disprove, for example, transubstantiation. However disproving transubstantiation would disprove Papal Infallibility.

 

[ateista]

I am not deneying Modus Tollens

I was pointing out that not only was his assertion correct, the apologists were totally wrong. Proving the falsehood of Papal Infallibility would not disprove, for example, transubstantiation. However disproving transubstantiation would disprove Papal Infallibility.

I know. I just wanted to clarify the issue, just in case someone does not look at the details.

 

[mark_a]

?¿yes?!¿…¿no?! “p”??? “q”???

ah dunno.

I agree.

 

[Foreigner]

I was trolling the intarweb the other night, and I happened upon a little blog thingy.

justsomethoughts.wordpress.com/2007/07/04/modus-tolens-and-infallibility-of-the-catholic-church/

I often hear Catholic apologists of many stripes asserting that attempting to prove a Catholic doctrine (e.g. Immaculate Conception, Transubstantiation) false is a wasted effort because the Church’s infallibility must first be addressed. If the Church is infallible, then her doctrines are true.

The blog rejects this claim by using simple principles of logic, modus ponens and modus tollens. Because the statement “If the Church if infallible (p), then her proclaimed dogmas are true (q)” is thus structured, modus ponens and modus tollens apply.

He concludes that by modus tollens, by proving a Catholic dogma to be false, he proves the falsity of the Church’s infallibility or simply…

If p, then q.
Not q.
Then not p.

Seems like a valid observation to me. The blog author isn’t attempting to show that the Church is fallible or that her dogmas are false but that it is not logically valid to assert that Church infallibility must be addressed before her dogmas are. If so, Catholics shouldn’t be so ready to switch over to the issue of the Church’s infallibility whenever a dogma is challenged.

What are your thoughts?

It does not take a lot of thinking to see that if you prove a dogma to be false then infallibility is proven false.

Unfortunately, many Catholic apologist wannabees like to ultimately hinge absolutely every argument on the infallibility/papal question. Many times I have observed that many of these folks are quite happy to discuss just about anything under the sun - at least until things start to become difficult and they find themselves in unfamiliar territory. At that point, they very often only wish to discuss one single thing - infallibility. (The “We are right no matter what because of infallibility” argument). In other words, they wish to argue that the doctrine of infallibility trumps all other logic and reason without really saying so. I suspect that is what this is really all about.

We always need to be honest with the facts - no matter what.

 

[packermann]

To say that the if a Catholic doctrine is proven false, then the Catholic Church is false is the same as saying that a teaching in the Bible is proven false then the Bible is not the Word of God.

Or. let’s say, suppose a Christian doctrine is proven false, then that would mean Christianity is false.

The are some Christian doctrine, believed by both Catholics AND Protestants, that may seem to be illogical.

Take the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. You have one God, but three persons. One, and yet three.

Or take the Incarnation. How can the Infinite become Finite? How can God, who cannot change, change into a finite being?

We Christians did not come to believe in the Trinity over the Incarnation by using logic. These doctrines can only come to us by God’s revelation.

So in many doctrines, such as the Trinity or the Incarnation, we do not first try to understand them and then determine whether we should believe them. Instead, we submit to God;s revelation, whether we see God’s revelation coming through His Bible or His Church.

The a Catholic saying - We do not understand in order to believe, but we believe in order to understand.

And Protestants have the same attitude. How many times has a Protestant say “The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.” No self-respecting Bible-thumpin Protestant would accept the possiblity that a teaching of the Bible can be proven false.

So why should we Catholics acceping the possibility that the Church built by Christ can be proven to have taughtn something false?

 

[scylla]

Yes, this is true. If any Catholic doctrine is false then infallibility is false.

This is nothing new, Catholics have to believe in a perfect Church since Jesus founded it. Jesus would only teach perfect truth, so the Church is 100% correct or else it doesn’t matter what we believe and we can attribute falsehood to Jesus which actually means that truth doesn’t matter.

Only Catholics believe truth matters, this can be found just talking to any non-catholic pastor and asking them a few questions. Which is what I do on my lunch breaks, I am still looking for an honest non-catholic pastor, and I am losing hope.

I am sure one exists, I just haven’t talked to one yet.

Back to the original topic, truth matters to Catholics which is the point of infallibility and if truth didn’t matter then our doctrines really don’t matter. The doctrines have to be perfect and Catholics should have no problem with that as we have to be honest with our faith, or else we are no different from non-catholics.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Just ask yourself a simple question. Do you believe in the trinity, i.e., Father, Son and Holy Spirit? If you do, we all know it cannot be proved by logic. Therefore this entire thread is faulty from the very first post.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[mangy_dog]

I agree.

I feel like Rodney Dangerfield answering his college graduation math question…

…¿4!!!

 

[Starwynd]

Church infallibility cannot be proven false. Church infallibility comes from God’s infallibility. If one proves the Church wrong then one proves God wrong, and then the universe will be destroyed.

 

[KingAlfred]

I was trolling the intarweb the other night, and I happened upon a little blog thingy.

justsomethoughts.wordpress.com/2007/07/04/modus-tolens-and-infallibility-of-the-catholic-church/

I often hear Catholic apologists of many stripes asserting that attempting to prove a Catholic doctrine (e.g. Immaculate Conception, Transubstantiation) false is a wasted effort because the Church’s infallibility must first be addressed. If the Church is infallible, then her doctrines are true.

The blog rejects this claim by using simple principles of logic, modus ponens and modus tollens. Because the statement “If the Church if infallible (p), then her proclaimed dogmas are true (q)” is thus structured, modus ponens and modus tollens apply.

He concludes that by modus tollens, by proving a Catholic dogma to be false, he proves the falsity of the Church’s infallibility or simply…

If p, then q.
Not q.
Then not p.

Seems like a valid observation to me. The blog author isn’t attempting to show that the Church is fallible or that her dogmas are false but that it is not logically valid to assert that Church infallibility must be addressed before her dogmas are. If so, Catholics shouldn’t be so ready to switch over to the issue of the Church’s infallibility whenever a dogma is challenged.

What are your thoughts?

As an avid student of History, I’ve never believed in human infallibility, period. Needless to say, I trust the Catholic Church completely. To me infallibility is irrelevant. I follow the Church. End of story for this dude.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

For those who have no faith, no proof is sufficient. for those with faith, no proof is necessary. Faith is the one element that seems so lacking in all those wise in the ways of the world, yet so foolish in the ways of God.
Prayers and blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[KingAlfred]

For those who have no faith, no proof is sufficient. for those with faith, no proof is necessary. Faith is the one element that seems so lacking in all those wise in the ways of the world, yet so foolish in the ways of God.
Prayers and blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Al_Masetti]

Can’t prove much by logic.

We can persuade, but prove … highly questionable.

What we are dealing with are classic mysteries. Things we cannot possibly know or understand.

When debating or “explicating” with folks it is useful to explain to them what a mystery is.

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Mystery

There are several neat books by Joan Carroll Cruz that can be helpful in the overall discussion.

Eucharistic Miracles

amazon.com/Eucharistic-Miracles-Joan-Carroll-Cruz/dp/0895553031

Relics

amazon.com/Relics-Shroud-Januarius-History-Mysticism-Catholic/dp/0879737018/ref=pd_sim_b_1

The Incorruptibles

amazon.com/Incorruptibles-Incorruption-Bodies-Various-Catholic/dp/0895550660/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b

Mysteries

amazon.com/Mysteries-Marvels-Miracles-Lives-Saints/dp/0895555417/ref=pd_sim_b_3