Catholicism and Circular Reasoning: Take Two

[Perplexity]

A few months ago, I began a thread entitled ‘Epistemic Circularity’ in which I tried to offer an argument that Catholicism entails epistemic circularity. Trouble was, I couldn’t get the bloody thing to be logically valid and still say what I wanted it to. I was almost content to leave it logically invalid and propose it as an ampliative argument [a logically invalid argument whose premises still afford strong evidence of the conclusion].

However, I believe I’ve finally discovered a way to explicate my intuitions about this alleged circularity in a logically valid way. Thus far, I’ve presented the argument to numerous Catholics. They’ve all granted the premises and accepted it as logically valid, yet none of them have accepted the conclusion(s). We’ll see how it runs here on the forums. I think it’s important to note one more thing before getting into it. Some of the terms in the premises are vague, and many, if not all of the Catholics I’ve gone over this with so far have sought to introduce all kinds of distinctions. I welcome these suggestions, and thus far the argument works fine with these numerous distinctions.

It comes in two parts:

Argument 1:

(1) If the Catholic appeals to God’s revelation, then s/he presupposes the authority of the Catholic Church. [Premise]

(2) If the Catholic presupposes the authority of the Catholic Church, then s/he presupposes that the papacy is a truth revealed by God. [Premise]

(3) Therefore, if the Catholic appeals to God’s revelation, then s/he presupposes that the papacy is a truth revealed by God. [From (2), (3) Modus Ponens]

Argument 2:

(1’) Only if the Catholic appeals to God’s revelation can s/he show that the papacy is a truth revealed by God.

(2’) If the Catholic appeals to God’s revelation, then s/he presupposes that the papacy is a truth revealed by God.

(3’) Therefore, only if the Catholic presupposes that the papacy is a truth revealed by God can s/he show that the papacy is a truth revealed by God. [From (1), (2) by Modus Ponens]

 

[Perplexity]

Here are some replies to the most popular question I’ve encountered so far:

Q1. In these arguments, what do ‘appeal’ and ‘presuppose’ mean?

A1a: When I say a Catholic appeals to God’s revelation, I mean they identify (x) as a member of the Deposit of Faith.

A1b: When I say a Catholic presupposes the authority of the Catholic Church in appealing to God’s revelation, I mean:

(i) the Catholic believes the RCC is responsible for producing [albeit instrumentally], protecting and proliferating the Deposit of Faith, and

(ii) the RCC had(s) the authority to do so.

A1c: When I say a Catholic presupposes that the papacy is a truth revealed by God in presupposing the authority of the Catholic Church, I mean the Catholic believes that the papacy is an essential aspect of the ‘blue-print’ of the Church, without which, there wouldn’t be a Catholic Church to have any authority to presuppose.

A fortiori, the authority of the Catholic Church which the Catholic is presupposing here is the one exercised by the RC magisterium [ordinary, extraordinary, etc.] throughout the ages. The Church teaches [1] that the bishops of the Church receive their ordinary jurisdiction from the pope, and that they’re infallible only if and when they’re conjoined to the head of the College: the Pontiff. Therefore, in presupposing the authority of this magisterium, the Catholic must presuppose that the papacy stands in this relation to the magisterium [something which would be false if the papacy weren’t established by God].

[1] That the bishops are only infallible under special conditions one of which is union with the Pontiff seems too obvious to need motivation. Cf. Mystici Corporis, n. 42 and Lumen Gentium n. 21 for reason to believe that bishops receive ordinary jurisdiction from the pope.

 

[tskrobacz]

The only absolute is God - existence itself.

Everything contrived of or orchestrated by man or creation falls short of the absolute. Since the church and all things written are by definition disjunctive they by definition separate reality into discernible “chunks” to aid in our growth and understanding however in so doing also expose the real limits of language and reason. The path to “faith” or surrender to a divine reality is one of walking into unknowing…coming face to face with the nature of nature and humbly surrendering to knowing all that is is forever beyond our knowing. In that place we can level our gaze and see what the mind does not see between and beyond the prongs of reason and logic.

 

[chrysostim83]

The arguments make be think of an exchange like the following:
A: God has revealed X.
B: How do you know that?
A: Because the Church tells me so.
B: How do you know the Church is right?
A: Because the pope is infallible.
B: Is that really true, though?
A: Yes of course. God has revealed it.

Perhaps the solution to this apparent circularity is not to invest too much authority in the Church at first. The Faith is spread through the testimony of others, and belief comes about through believing (ordinary, that-person-knows-what-s/he-is-talking-about believing) that testimony as it is presented. From that first movement toward faith, the rest follows if you place your trust in the Church on the justification of that initial, human authority.

What I’m trying to say (bear with me, since it’s early in the morning where I am) is that the conversation should go like this:
A: God has revealed X.
B: How do you know that?
A: Someone whose judgment I respect once told me it is so, and I believed him or her.
B: But is that really good enough?
A: It works for most things…

 

[Perplexity]

The arguments make be think of an exchange like the following:
A: God has revealed X.
B: How do you know that?
A: Because the Church tells me so.
B: How do you know the Church is right?
A: Because the pope is infallible.
B: Is that really true, though?
A: Yes of course. God has revealed it.

Perhaps the solution to this apparent circularity is not to invest too much authority in the Church at first. The Faith is spread through the testimony of others, and belief comes about through believing (ordinary, that-person-knows-what-s/he-is-talking-about believing) that testimony as it is presented. From that first movement toward faith, the rest follows if you place your trust in the Church on the justification of that initial, human authority.

What I’m trying to say (bear with me, since it’s early in the morning where I am) is that the conversation should go like this:
A: God has revealed X.
B: How do you know that?
A: Someone whose judgment I respect once told me it is so, and I believed him or her.
B: But is that really good enough?
A: It works for most things…

Interesting response chrysostim. I think this brings out an important ambiguity in my arguments. The persons of my premises are Catholics. Presumably, the Church’s authoritative witness isn’t the only reason a Catholic might believe (x) is God’s revelation. As you mentioned, someone’s reliable judgement may be an example.

However, granting your objection, it would still be the case that when appealing to God’s revelation the Catholic presupposes the authority of the Church and the argument would ensue; because, in order to be Catholic, this person must believe [presuppose] A1b (i) and (ii).

 

[fermat]

(1) If the Catholic appeals to God’s revelation, then s/he presupposes the authority of the Catholic Church. [Premise]

Not necessarily. God’s revelation is not dependent on the Catholic church, per se. Likewise, appealing to God’s revelation is not dependent on the Catholic church, it is just the easiest way to do. Catholicism is bound to God, God it not bound to Catholicism (in the ordinary sense). There are other beliefs systems that contain elements of the truth as taught by God and sometimes those elements are very anti-Catholic. A drop of truth in an ocean of error does not invalidate the drop.

For clarification, I refer to the Catholic church here as the physical representation of the Body of Christ (which seems to be the view you are taking). If I were to expand this argument to the mystical Body of Christ, it is a different argument. Given that you are an atheist, I would assume that the basic ideas of a mystical Body would be as untenable as God Himself; however, it is an important distinction that you should make when dialoging with Catholics.

I would caution you when bringing this kind of logic to the forums. You have done a lot of work to ensure that your reasoning is logically valid according to your own education and system of beliefs (as we all do). Arguments like the ones you’ve laid out here are like a key to fit a particular lock, designed to work with in a tightly controlled set of circumstances. The more detailed your argument, the more difficult it will be to find someone who you feel can refute it, and when they do, you will feel it simple to reject the the logic. This goes for any argument in any subject. To truly understand the depth of your though and comprehend the subtleties, we would need to spend a great deal of time working through each of the numerous distinctions. This is not criticism of you specifically, just one of problems encountered trying to appeal a complex idea to an diverse forum.

I wish you grace in your journey.

 

[Perplexity]

fermat: These are words of wisdom I can appreciate.

I’ll try and respond to your objections to my first premise of Argument 1.

The premise asserts nothing more than that a Catholic believes the Deposit of Faith was entrusted to the Church, and therefore, without the Church there would be nothing to receive, protect and proliferate that Deposit. So, the Catholic presupposes the authority of the Church in appealing to God’s revelation in the sense that the Catholic thinks without the Church who had the authority to carry out its mission, we’d have no Deposit.

As far as the body of Christ, the ‘Church’ in my premises is an entity who possesses authority, the authority which the Catholic presupposes in appealing to God’s word. So, the Church must then mean the magisterium.

Thanks for your response, fermat.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Congratulations on such a well-formatted presentation of the inherent flaw in the catholic argument for authority. It forms the core of the reason I cannot find catholicism a viable faith option.

Many threads have been created over the years to discuss this point including this one of mine, but they tend to get bogged down with special pleading and red herrings on the part of some catholics.

One argument that you will likely get that is interesting but incomplete is the sprial argument that appeared in This Rock several years ago. In brief:

1. The Bible can be shown to be historically accurate.
2. The Bible states that Jesus established one visible Church that the gates of hell would not prevail against and that the Holy Spirit would lead it into all truth.
3. The Church, based off the historically reliable Scriptures which promises the protection from the Holy Spirit from teaching errors of faith, can then pronounce the Bible to be not just historically accurate but inerrant and authoritative (not the final authority but authoritative).
4. The Church then is the, “pillar and bulwark of the truth.” 1 Tim 3:15

What I’ve never seen is a good response from a catholic when asked how the historical accuracy of the bible translates into current catholic interpretations of Matt 16:18 concerning the church. There is a difference between obkective statements (i.e. Pontius Pilate existed) and interpretation (i.e. the rock refers to the office of the papacy) Without this linking step, the argument falls flat in my opinion.

You may want to begin preparation of a response to this argument since your posts leave little room for dispute otherwise.

Good luck!

 

[Perplexity]

Thank you Non-Serviam.

Yes, the dreaded Spiral Argument Keating offered it in his Catholicism and Fundamentalism. The interesting thing about my argument is that you can grant the spiral argument and mine still works. It doesn’t necessarily matter how someone becomes convinced of Catholicism (e.g., spiral argument), just whether they’re a Catholic. I think that’s a huge advantage over previous formulations. Not that the spiral argument can’t be refuted, just that on this scenario, you don’t even have take that road. Thanks again Non-Serviam

 

[Blacksword]

Congratulations on such a well-formatted presentation of the inherent flaw in the catholic argument for authority. It forms the core of the reason I cannot find catholicism a viable faith option.

Many threads have been created over the years to discuss this point including this one of mine, but they tend to get bogged down with special pleading and red herrings on the part of some catholics.

One argument that you will likely get that is interesting but incomplete is the sprial argument that appeared in This Rock several years ago. In brief:

1. The Bible can be shown to be historically accurate.
2. The Bible states that Jesus established one visible Church that the gates of hell would not prevail against and that the Holy Spirit would lead it into all truth.
3. The Church, based off the historically reliable Scriptures which promises the protection from the Holy Spirit from teaching errors of faith, can then pronounce the Bible to be not just historically accurate but inerrant and authoritative (not the final authority but authoritative).
4. The Church then is the, “pillar and bulwark of the truth.” 1 Tim 3:15

What I’ve never seen is a good response from a catholic when asked how the historical accuracy of the bible translates into current catholic interpretations of Matt 16:18 concerning the church. There is a difference between obkective statements (i.e. Pontius Pilate existed) and interpretation (i.e. the rock refers to the office of the papacy) Without this linking step, the argument falls flat in my opinion.

You may want to begin preparation of a response to this argument since your posts leave little room for dispute otherwise.

Good luck!

The question of the proper interpretation of Matthew 16:18 would come down to, in large part, looking at and understanding the context in which those statements of Jesus were made. Where they were at the time, what they were observing, etc. Thus, when viewing these things, the statement does not make sense any other way than being understood as indicating Jesus’ Church was founded with Peter at its head, as its leader on Earth. I’ve heard plenty of Protestant interpreting of this verse that attempts to explain it away, and none of it made much sense. The question is: in the whole context, what is the most clear, likely, and reasonable message to be taken from this? Answer: the one the Catholic Church teaches. Anytime you find mental gymnastics required to NOT interpret something in the fairly obvious way to which it lends itself, you should be asking yourself some hard questions.

 

[Blacksword]

Thank you Non-Serviam.

Yes, the dreaded Spiral Argument Keating offered it in his Catholicism and Fundamentalism. The interesting thing about my argument is that you can grant the spiral argument and mine still works. It doesn’t necessarily matter how someone becomes convinced of Catholicism (e.g., spiral argument), just whether they’re a Catholic. I think that’s a huge advantage over previous formulations. Not that the spiral argument can’t be refuted, just that on this scenario, you don’t even have take that road. Thanks again Non-Serviam

You do have a very good argument on paper, yes. But, it seems to me it basically boils down to this: You cannot deductively prove or establish beyond question that the Church actually has revelation from God. Is this a correct synopsis? If so, I suppose the answer would be: acknowledged that you cannot deductively establish this. You cannot deductively establish God’s existence either, else all would be Catholic, all would accept His reality, and NONE would have any faith, since it would be a matter of known irrefutable fact. The question remains: since we cannot KNOW beyond doubt these things, what is the most plausible explanation to accept, based on reflection and review of all that is? Of the cosmos itself and, in this context, of the history that is known of the teachings of Jesus, and the things his immediate followers went on to teach?

 

[Blacksword]

To finish my thoughts, basically accepting the Catholic church as having revelation from God cannot be all-enclosed and sufficient as a set. It requires some importing of other beliefs outside the set and other data. If you accept the existence of a creator God first, and view all the historic evidence surrounding the early church, it becomes the most plausible, likely conclusion. But without these things, particularly a founational belief in God, of course proof of his divine revelation will be out of the question. Trying to establish revelation in the Church before God himself puts the cart before the horse.

 

[Perplexity]

Well, we can grant the spiral argument and my objection will still ensue.

But, one thing I don’t believe many Catholics realize when advocating the spiral argument (or something relevantly similar), is the difficulty of establishing the reliability of the NT texts. You’ll often hear them speak of how we can do so, but you’ll rarely see them actually do it. Once you enter in the arena of critical NT scholarship, you probably won’t exist so triumphantly

Again though, the only thing that matters for my arguments to succeed is that a person is Catholic, not why they’re a Catholic.

 

[dmelosi]

Well, we can grant the spiral argument and my objection will still ensue.

But, one thing I don’t believe many Catholics realize when advocating the spiral argument (or something relevantly similar), is the difficulty of establishing the reliability of the NT texts. You’ll often hear them speak of how we can do so, but you’ll rarely see them actually do it. Once you enter in the arena of critical NT scholarship, you probably won’t exist so triumphantly

Again though, the only thing that matters for my arguments to succeed is that a person is Catholic, not why they’re a Catholic.

You state you are athiest, not agnostic. Just curious what interest you have in trying to sway people from belief in God?

 

[Blacksword]

Well, we can grant the spiral argument and my objection will still ensue.

But, one thing I don’t believe many Catholics realize when advocating the spiral argument (or something relevantly similar), is the difficulty of establishing the reliability of the NT texts. You’ll often hear them speak of how we can do so, but you’ll rarely see them actually do it. Once you enter in the arena of critical NT scholarship, you probably won’t exist so triumphantly

Again though, the only thing that matters for my arguments to succeed is that a person is Catholic, not why they’re a Catholic.

Yes, it works if this is the reasoning being used, but again, I don’t accept the Church’s authority on solely its assertion that it has divine revelation. Other factors lead me to accept this assertion as being the best, most likely explanation, and therefore true.

 

[Perplexity]

You state you are athiest, not agnostic. Just curious what interest you have in trying to sway people from belief in God?

demelosi: This thread is more about challenging Catholicism than swaying folks from God-belief. My interests largely lie in truth: what is this world really like? I feel like humanity is a group of children with flashlights wondering through a cave, and each person brings what they’ve found, what they know and belief to the table and everyone tries to put a coherent picture of their surroundings. Inevitably, some people are going to pose some descriptions which doesn’t match with what makes sense and that’s alright. The important thing is to keep the dialogue going until we get somewhere satisfying

 

[dmelosi]

demelosi: This thread is more about challenging Catholicism than swaying folks from God-belief. My interests largely lie in truth: what is this world really like? I feel like humanity is a group of children with flashlights wondering through a cave, and each person brings what they’ve found, what they know and belief to the table and everyone tries to put a coherent picture of their surroundings. Inevitably, some people are going to pose some descriptions which doesn’t match with what makes sense and that’s alright. The important thing is to keep the dialogue going until we get somewhere satisfying

So do you define atheism to mean that there is certainly no God? Or are you searching to see if perhaps there is something you have overlooked that there in fact may be a God?

 

[Perplexity]

So do you define atheism to mean that there is certainly no God? Or are you searching to see if perhaps there is something you have overlooked that there in fact may be a God?

I’m a subjective Bayesianist, so I think we can represent our degrees of confidence numerically. Just like we can represent our degree of pain on a scale of 1-10 at the doctors, so too, we can put our confidence that p [any proposition whatsoever] on a scale from 0 to 1. 1 = the highest degree of certitude, 0 = the least, .5 = uncertain.

I think atheism says that the proposition ‘God exists’ is less than .5. theism says it is greater than .5, and agnostics think it is .5.

Now, there are potentially an infinite amount of formulations of theism. e.g., ‘There exists a pink God’, ‘There exists two Gods’ etc.

For each of these, I’m either agnostic or atheist. I’m agnostic towards those which I don’t know of and most which I do. I’m theist to none, and atheist to many.

I describe myself as ‘atheist’ for convenience. I think the existence of the God’s of the major religions of the world is < .5.

But, I’m worried. If I’m understanding correctly, atheism is a banned topic? Just in case, I’ll end here.

 

[dmelosi]

I’m a subjective Bayesianist, so I think we can represent our degrees of confidence numerically. Just like we can represent our degree of pain on a scale of 1-10 at the doctors, so too, we can put our confidence that p [any proposition whatsoever] on a scale from 0 to 1. 1 = the highest degree of certitude, 0 = the least, .5 = uncertain.

I think atheism says that the proposition ‘God exists’ is less than .5. theism says it is greater than .5, and agnostics think it is .5.

Now, there are potentially an infinite amount of formulations of theism. e.g., ‘There exists a pink God’, ‘There exists two Gods’ etc.

For each of these, I’m either agnostic or theist. I’m agnostic towards those which I don’t know of and most which I do. I’m theist to none, and atheist to many.

I describe myself as ‘atheist’ for convenience. I think the existence of the God’s of the major religions of the world is < .5.

But, I’m worried. If I’m understanding correctly, atheism is a banned topic? Just in case, I’ll end here.

I wish you well on your search.

 

[tonyrey]

The truth of Catholicism and the truth of Revelation are** interdependent** and they both reflect the teaching, life, death and Resurrection of Jesus. Any refutation of Catholicism is flawed unless it provides a cogent, alternative explanation of how the Church originated…