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

[BigTurkey]

I think maybe this is missing the point of the first several posts. No one is saying that we can prove or explain everything logically—especially not everything about God. What folks seem to be saying is that the teachings of the Church do not VIOLATE logic directly. If they did they would be false. (By the way, the original post regarding modus tollens is accurate, as others have pointed out.)

However, here’s my two cents’ worth to the original poster: Even though the modus tollens argument is right, I would begin with a massive presumption in favor of the infallibility of the Church. Let’s suppose we had the modus tollens others have listed:

1. If the Church is infallible, the Church’s teachings are true.
2. Here’s a teaching that is not true.
   Concl.: Therefore, the Church is not infallible.

Even though this is correct, I would examine anything very, very carefully that purports to fulfill # 2. I would begin with the presumption that if a teaching appears untrue to me, the problem very likely is with my understanding of it. In fact, my assumption of the Church’s infallibility is strong enough that I would conclude that the problem HAS TO BE with MY understanding of the teaching.

Otherwise, I’d just place my understanding of the teaching over the understanding of the past two thousand years, go buy a building somewhere, and start my own independent church. (Oh wait—I guess that really does happen all the time. . . . )

I think you make a good point, one that is made by the philosopher G. E. Moore in his paper “Four Forms of Skepticism”. Moore points out that a valid argument pits the evidence for all the premises being true again the evidence that the conclusion is false.

For example:

Imagine the following argument is valid:

P
Q

---

Therefore, R

For this argument to cause me to accept its conclusions, the objective evidence in favor of both P & Q being true would have to outweigh (or at least equal…I’m not too sure what to say about that scenario) the objective evidence for R being false. If I have better evidence that the conclusion of an argument is false than I do that the premises of the argument are true, than reason dictates that I don’t find the argument rationally persuasive.

So, your point is that, if there is more objective evidence that the Catholic Church is infallible than there is that a specific doctrine is false, then reason dictates you don’t find the argument against Catholic Infallibility persuasive.

So, if you have great evidence that the Catholic Church is infallible, then you are correct to have a strong presumption in favor of its doctrines being true, that is, until someone shows you even greater evidence that a certain doctrine if false.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Do you find anything wrong with “God exists” and “God doesn’t exist” both being said to be wrong?

yes I do. And if you don’t, you are in deep need of prayer. This is a clear either or. One has to be true. The other has to be false. Anything else is sophistic erudition run amok. I presume you know what that means.
Prayers and blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[BigTurkey]

yes I do. And if you don’t, you are in deep need of prayer. This is a clear either or. One has to be true. The other has to be false. Anything else is sophistic erudition run amok. I presume you know what that means.
Prayers and blessings
Deacon Ed B

Okay…good. I apologize then. I thought that, in your post about logic and the Trinity, you were denying logic’s usefulness in general. Sorry for misunderstanding you.

 

[mapleoak]

So you say that even in heaven you will need faith about God’s existence?

Whether one in heaven has faith to a perfected level (and therefore doubt not being possible) or not is a different question. So you now agree that just because you saw someone who claimed to be God and performed your magic tricks for you, that you may be deceived? That to believe even though you see takes faith? Remember “Doubting Thomas” believed after he saw, but certainly was not forced to believe.

 

[ateista]

Whether one in heaven has faith to a perfected level (and therefore doubt not being possible) or not is a different question.

It is not a different question at all.

You said that if someone claimed to be god, and I could ask for proof for his claim, and he could perform the tests to my satisfaction, then I would still need faith to accept his claim.

How is that different from my question to you?

So you now agree that just because you saw someone who claimed to be God and performed your magic tricks for you, that you may be deceived? That to believe even though you see takes faith? Remember “Doubting Thomas” believed after he saw, but certainly was not forced to believe.

Let me clarify. There is no way that anyone, even God could foresee the future, unless he cheated. If there is any meaning to freedom of action, then my future thoughts do not exist until I actually think them. To assert that someone (anyone) could foresee my thoughts is equivalent to claim that this being can “know” the nonexistent, and that is pure nonsense.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Okay…good. I apologize then. I thought that, in your post about logic and the Trinity, you were denying logic’s usefulness in general. Sorry for misunderstanding you.

Apology graciously accepted with prayers and blessings in return.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Kronotaur]

What I seem to be failing in understanding is how and why the church can possible be infallible in regard to teaching and doctorine when it is willing to accept grossly world views that were previously rejected for their unbiblical ideas.

I deplore you to deeply consider and pray for understanding regarding the issue of the Book of Genesis. If evolutionary theory is correct - then Adam and Eve simply must be false. There can’t be 2 original parents when humans evolved from primate ancestors.

Church teaching can’t be infallible if it accepts evolutionary science. Complete human evolution and Adam and Eve cannot both be correct. If the church is infallible in teaching, then anything taught by the institution must be absolutely correct. Even that which denies complete truth in scripture. How can these concepts possibly both exist in the same reality?

Am I completely missing what is intended by holding our Church to be infallible?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

What you are missing is that the difference between humans and the rest of creation is that it is the human soul, made in the image of God that makes us different. It was the infusion of the soul that made man, Adam and Eve, not he evolution of the body.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Kronotaur]

I’m still not tracking with your understanding. I already knew that man was infused with a soul from the Lord. - Made in the whole image (which makes it unlike the rest of creation. I already hold man as being superior to the rest of his creation on earth.

What’s bothering me is that our church is making claims and holding ideas to be truth that have classically been polarically opposite to basic christian teaching. There cannot be both complete evolution and Adam and Eve. One is wronge. You cannot hold both methods in total truth.

If you tried to fuse these concepts then what you get is something like this:
Several trillion years after God created the universe with the Big Bang, after the earth was formed and cooled, and water came to exist, we indeed came from the primordial mud and dirt evolving up out of micro-organisms that mutated and adapted to form increasingly complex organisims. Thus, all life on the planet actually began in this manner - being ‘brought out of the dirt’. Now, some 250000, 400000 years later, one of those early creatures, an intelligent hominid, (Homo Sapien - the most successful of a long line) continued to survive and evolve. This was the most likely common evolutionary parent to humanity. (Although some speculate that the neanderthal and erectus line wasn’t actually pushed to extinction and that some of us still are decended of them.) Now, at some point in the recent history of that evolutionary process, God infused us with a soul to make us man.

This is an example of what happens when you bend scripture to fit science. To me, this seems alarmingly close to what the infallible church is teaching.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

If you tried to fuse these concepts then what you get is something like this: .

K - I think you are missing the big picture in what we are saying about creation of man and creation in general. I pointed out in another thread that when I had scripture in the Seminary back in the 1960’s, my professor was a Hebrew scholar. One thing he pointed out that the Hebrew word for day, i.e., YOM, also meant decades and a large undetermined period of time. The first translators used the word day. That does not mean it was correct.

Second If we take the bible literally in creation, we are faced with several problems. The bible only speaks of Adam and Eve having sons. Cain killed Able. He ran off and married a woman from another place. Where did she come from? She had to have parents, and there was an entire other group of people. The bible says nothing of their creation.

Third, Protestant fundamentalist have taken the bible literally, (though not all, especially John’s gospel, Chapter 6)and calculated the age of the world at 6000 and some odd years. Clearly this is incorrect. We can date cities, civilizations at older than this. So the prospect of literalism just does not hold true when scrutinized. This takes nothing away from the truths revealed in the bible. God is the creator of all that is. This is what we get from Genesis. I could go on and on about other elements of our faith, but we have neither the time nor space here in this forum to do so.

The main thing we learned from Genesis is that God is the Creator. If you want to take it literally, Satan is the serpent. Yet you hear nothing in this part of Genesis about the creation of nor the fall of angels. Yet we all believe this.

Trying to take everything on an absolute literal interpretation puts one in the position of not seeing the forest for the trees.

I hope this helps you see where we are coming from
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[1holycatholic]

What’s bothering me is that our church is making claims and holding ideas to be truth that have classically been polarically opposite to basic christian teaching. There cannot be both complete evolution and Adam and Eve. One is wronge. You cannot hold both methods in total truth.

Please list the Church teaching(s) that, in your opinion, is/are opposed to “basic christian teaching.”

 

[Kronotaur]

1holycatholic, what I was refering to is thus: basic denial of the 7 day creation presented in Genesis is what I’m mostly refering to. Attached to that is the credibility of Adam and Eve. Also is the idea that evolution means that humans evolved from ancient primates and were not deliberately created in a ‘as is’ type starting point. Growing up, I was almost always taught that evolution was wronge and the big bang theory was hardly scientifically credible nonsense. To see such changes happen has thrown my trust in the church sparply wayward and caused me to find it impossible to hold the institution completely infallible.

Thank you for clarifying Decon Ed B! Your definately right regarding the complete accuracy of creation science. The 6000 year concept does make a few assumptions that I don’t intend to go into until I can study it in further detail. However, things don’t completely add up for the old earth idea either. In reality, both theories are probably wronge. For instance - carbon 14 dating isn’t without it issues. In one instance, carbon tests on a masterdon found that different parts of the animal varied in age by more that 10,000 years - an absurd notion.

The old earth idea is dependant primarily upon carbon dating. The trouble with carbon dating is that it often times produces unbelievable results. Typically, discovered ages are adjusted to fit an anticipated age bracket. So, if a cabon test showed that a T-Rex were only say, 7,000years old, the test would be adjusted until it showed the 65,000,000 year old results expected. We know that the accuracy of carbon 14 dating can be thrown off by outside contaminating factors. For example - if a great flood happened, then all the animals that were either wiped out by the water or gone after the flood occured would show an exponentually larger age. Subsequently, everything after that would also show an exponentual increase in age. So, an earth that is infact only for example 14,000yrs, would appear to be 4 billion yrs.

In order to exist, carbon 14 is dependant upon bombardment by cosmic radiation. Otherwise, it would remain carbon 12. If something were to happen to prevent the assumed amount of radiation from changing cabon 12 in the isotope carbon 14, then the age reading would be completely off. (This is one of the reasons why unexpected found ages are adjusted to an assumed range.) Generally speaking, for short term readings, the meathod is accurate. But for long term, that’s another story.

I appologize for the long winded tangent but it was neccessary to explain why I can’t scientifically accept the old earth idea.

Back on topic - From a bare minimum, I do understand where you are comming from now Decon Ed B. Still though - even if it is not complete literal - isn’t the title of serpent a type of defaming descriptor intended to give the reader a clue about his intentions and character before he even speaks. It’s like calling Jesus the lamb. It doesn’t mean that he is literally a lamb. He is likened to one to make his character more readily recognizable.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Back on topic - From a bare minimum, I do understand where you are comming from now Decon Ed B. Still though - even if it is not complete literal - isn’t the title of serpent a type of defaming descriptor intended to give the reader a clue about his intentions and character before he even speaks. It’s like calling Jesus the lamb. It doesn’t mean that he is literally a lamb. He is likened to one to make his character more readily recognizable.

Both the terms serpent and lamb are used in a metaphorical sense. Serpent meaning deadly. Here meaning spiritual death, i.e., sin. Lamb is used in the metaphorical sense of sacrifice. As that is what was usually offered in sacrifice in the Old Testament. We all know of Jesus being the sacrifice for our salvation. One little rhyme which I learned as a child that is so true still holds true today. That is “The bible teaches us how to go to heaven. Not how the heavens go.”
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Contarini]

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?

I think that the blog author is absolutely correct. However, I suspect that he underestimates the difficulty of proving *with certainty *that any theological doctrine is false. Given that this is nearly impossible, the question is whether he can provide stronger reasons for Catholics to doubt a particular doctrine than Catholics have for believing in the general principle of infallibility. Given how strongly Catholics believe in infallibility, he will almost certainly have to weaken their grounds for believing in infallibility before he can expect them to accept his probable reasons for disbelieving a particular doctrine.

Edwin

 

[cpayne]

Church teaching can’t be infallible if it accepts evolutionary science. Complete human evolution and Adam and Eve cannot both be correct. . How can these concepts possibly both exist in the same reality?

Look at it this way: No matter how they arrived—logically at some point there had to be the first two Homo sapiens. The CC requires that we believe that God created these first two Homo sapiens by infusing them with rational souls.

I believe both of these statements. But notice that neither one of them has to do with whether or not evolution occurred or is occurring. So how do they contradict?

The application to the current topic is that this specific point (evolution) does not disqualify CC infallibility.

 

[Contarini]

Oh yes it did. Go back a few hundred years - to say, Galileo’s time and ask the same question.

In the sixteenth century (more than in the early Church) this would have been the general approach. But I’m dubious as to how dogmatically it was taught.

By accepting the notion that Adam and Eve are fictional stories, we can by direct association accept that the concept of original sin was purely a construct of man.

You’re making a number of logical leaps here. The claim of those of us who are non-literalists is not that the story is fiction invented by the human brain but that it is divinely inspired myth telling us about the origins of humanity. A forbidden fruit was partaken of. It just probably wasn’t a juicy object dangling from a tree. You’re arguing against a straw man here.

Consider the implications of the church being able to selectively modify what is printed in the Bible. It discredits the Word of God.

Quite the reverse. If the Church cannot interpret the Bible (not modify it–no one is trying to alter the text), then the Word of God is discredited. A literalistic approach discredits God’s Word and is the dearest friend of atheists.

Back on main topic - redefining our understanding of scripture to fit modern understanding is an incredibly dangerous, incredibly slippery slope.

Confidence in the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Church is supposed to make the silly “slippery slope” argument unnecessary for you Catholics. At least, that’s always been one of the things about Catholicism that I find appealing. I don’t understand why a sane person would prefer to shut themselves up in the literalistic prison of conservative Protestantism when they could have the freedom of Catholicism.

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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?

1. That a great deal too much is made of infallibility & of Papal authority generally - they seem to be used as dei ex machina; as devices to rescue the teaching of the Church from an awkward spot.​

1. That infallibility is employed in such a way that it is unfalsifiable. But if a doctrine cannot be falsified, that does not necessarily mean it is true - only that it has been expressed in such a way that to refute it as unmeaning or false is methodologically impossible. But in that case, it is hard to see that infallibility means anything worth discussing.
2. IMHO, a doctrine that cannot be falsified is too well-armed against being wrong for its own good - it has, in principle at least, to be vulnerable to falsifiability & refutation to be of any value.
3. Infallibility is no use for protecting the content of doctrines from change - but in that case, it is not clear what purpose it serves. There is not much point in having the dogma, if it it cannot be applied to beliefs so as to keep the letter of them being emptied out & another content poured in.
4. If it is not possibility to say of particular statements, “X is infallibly true”, & if people have different lists of such statements, then they are giving different contents to the same dogma of infallibility. That amounts to a difference in dogma.
5. I think it was a colossal error of judgement to define it at all
6. A doctrine of indeviability, OTOH, which was held during the 14th century, would allow the Church to be mistaken in doctrine without requiring it to insist it has not. The idea is that the Church is maintained in truth overall, despite the occasional blunder in doctrine. The idea that “the gates of Hell will not prevail” amounts to promising “the Church” (whatever those words mean) an unbroken run of victory over error, is an example of over-interpretation AFAICS. And I don’t see any basis in the NT for the importance that credal accuracy seems to have gained.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…requiring it to insist it has not. The… = …requiring it to insist it has not been. The…

 

[prettyflower]

When the Church proclaims a dogma, it is because extensive research has been done between theologians and the magisterium headed by the Pope. Also, there a tremendous amount of prayer so that the Holy Spirit guides the magisterium in making the right decisions, this is why they are infallible. For example, the Assumption of Mary was proclaimed a faith dogma in 1950 and the research went back until the year 300 AD aprox. if not farther back.

The final decision is what we call Papal infallibility, not Church infallibility. It is not that doctrines appear out of nothing and that they have to be true because the church says so.

Again, when the church, headed by the Pope, says something is true, it is because it was proven true through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. We are very far from having the religious knowledge master theologians have, and we are even farther from having the sacramental and spiritual level that the Pope has.

 

[cpayne]

Dear Got. of Ge: I want to read up more on undeviability. Can you give me a name or two of people who wrote on this?