Catholicism and Circular Reasoning: Take Two

[Sarpedon]

Just a note- I am objecting to the premise of your argument, and thus the truth of your conclusion. I’m not directly addressing the formal validity of your argument, it may be valid as written.

For those without a background in logic, validity does not equal truth. I’m properly addressing the truth of the premise of the argument, not the formal structure of the argument (i.e. whether, if the premises were true, whether the conclusion would be true).

 

[Perplexity]

Sarpedon: Thanks for the well thought out reply.

I saw three potential, but distinct ways of justifying (1’) and therefore three ways of interpreting it. This is before considering any objections to (1’). Each of these are a response to the question, “why must a Catholic appeal to God’s revelation in showing the papacy is a truth revealed by God, again?”

1. “Because there happens to be no other way of showing the papacy is a truth revealed by God. Perhaps there will come such an argument, but there isn’t any now.”
2. “Because ‘God revealing the papacy as a truth’ means the papacy is a member of the Deposit of Faith [from now on DOF]. Therefore, if a Catholic wants to show that the papacy is a member of the DOF, s/he’s gonna have to appeal to the DOF at some point in order to do so.”
3. “Because ‘God revealing the papacy as a truth’ means that the papacy is at least probably stamped with Divine approval; but, a Catholic couldn’t show this without appealing to the DOF.”

Your objection seems to be most directed toward #3, and perhaps #1. 3 is vulnerable to all kinds of attacks, including the argument you’ve proposed and also any argument which tries to show that the RCC or the papacy possess certain virtuous characteristics indicative of Divine approval. I’ve heard some Catholics argue from the beauty of the RCC, or its unity etc. that God has stamped it with approval. Now, while I think these arguments fail, to avoid all the controversy I’ll not understand premise (1’) in either of these senses. The principle of minimal ordinance enjoins us to employ the weakest premises capable of supporting the conclusion so our arguments are less vulnerable to challenge.

Therefore, I interpret (1’) in the sense of #2 above. To make this understanding even more explicit in the originally proposed arguments, I’ll reformulate them accordingly into one argument:

(1) If a Catholic appeals to the DOF, then s/he presupposes the authority of the RCC. [Premise]

(2) If s/he presupposes the authority of the RCC, s/he presupposes that the papacy is a member of the DOF. [Premise]

(3) If a Catholic appeals to the DOF, s/he presupposes that the papacy is a member of the DOF. (1), (2), by Hypothetical Syllogism]

(4) Only if a Catholic appeals to the DOF can s/he show that the papacy is a member of the DOF. [Premise]

(5) Therefore, only if a Catholic presupposes that the papacy is a member of the DOF can s/he show that the papacy is a member of the DOF. (4), (3), by Hypothetical Syllogism]

(4) is the translated equivalent to the premise (1’) which you were objecting to. It seems you can accept this argument en toto and still say Catholics can demonstrate that the papacy is a truth revealed by God without appealing to the DOF. What then would this argument serve to accomplish? It would mean a Catholic could only show that the papacy is a truth revealed by God by arguments not appealing to the DOF. That’s rather significant. I’m down with this because I don’t think your argument (or any others) succeed. If you don’t have any objections to the above, perhaps we could discuss Aquinas’ argument which you’ve proposed. I’ve already prepared a response to point 1 [arguments for God’s existence] if you’re ready. Since this isn’t theism v. atheism per se, but only in so far as it play a part in an argument for the papacy I don’t think we’re violating any rules?

Thanks again for the reply.

 

[Perplexity]

What I meant was whether a similar argument could be made that, e.g., Protestantism and Judaism, entail epistemic circularity. In each of these belief systems, the vehicle of divine revelation is itself “part” of divine revelation.

On this basis, it would seem that an “epistemically circular” argument could be constructed vis-a-vis any religion based on an historical “vehicle” of divine revelation, whether it be the papacy or scripture or some other historical/institutional “filter”.

P.S. Although your argument with respect to Catholicism is different in many respects, it reminds me of the reflexivity in a number of logical paradoxes, e.g., Russell’s argument regarding sets that are members of themselves.

That’s a very interesting proposal levinas. Intuitively, I want to say yes. I hadn’t even thought of extending it like that. Good work! I’ll definitely give this some more thought. Have you thought any more about it?

 

[Sarpedon]

1. “Because there happens to be no other way of showing the papacy is a truth revealed by God. Perhaps there will come such an argument, but there isn’t any now.”
2. “Because ‘God revealing the papacy as a truth’ means the papacy is a member of the Deposit of Faith [from now on DOF]. Therefore, if a Catholic wants to show that the papacy is a member of the DOF, s/he’s gonna have to appeal to the DOF at some point in order to do so.”
3. “Because ‘God revealing the papacy as a truth’ means that the papacy is at least probably stamped with Divine approval; but, a Catholic couldn’t show this without appealing to the DOF.”

Your objection seems to be most directed toward #3, and perhaps #1. 3 is vulnerable to all kinds of attacks, including the argument you’ve proposed and also any argument which tries to show that the RCC or the papacy possess certain virtuous characteristics indicative of Divine approval. I’ve heard some Catholics argue from the beauty of the RCC, or its unity etc. that God has stamped it with approval. Now, while I think these arguments fail, to avoid all the controversy I’ll not understand premise (1’) in either of these senses. The principle of minimal ordinance enjoins us to employ the weakest premises capable of supporting the conclusion so our arguments are less vulnerable to challenge. Therefore, I interpret (1’) in the sense of #2 above.

The problem is that sense #2 doesn’t jive with Catholicism. If you use sense #2, you can create a formally valid argument. This doesn’t go very far, however, because we are trying to determine the truth of the conclusion. Both of us can devise formally valid arguments that make no sense in real life, because the premises are not true. You admit that sense #3 is weak and is vulnerable to attacks. You can’t just dismiss sense #3 because you find those attacks “fail.” Why do you think those arguments fail? What is it about my argument that you find incorrect? That’s where the debate lies. Your syllogism has no value unless the premises are true, and you can’t pick the easier premise to defend when such a premise is not in fact congruent with Catholicism. I think you acknowledge this in the subsequent paragraph to some degree.

It would mean a Catholic could only show that the papacy is a truth revealed by God by arguments not appealing to the DOF. That’s rather significant. I’m down with this because I don’t think your argument (or any others) succeed.

OK

If you don’t have any objections to the above, perhaps we could discuss Aquinas’ argument which you’ve proposed. I’ve already prepared a response to point 1 [arguments for God’s existence] if you’re ready. Since this isn’t theism v. atheism per se, but only in so far as it play a part in an argument for the papacy I don’t think we’re violating any rules?

Sounds good to me! I’m not aware of any restrictions on atheism vs theism, but this would be a discussion of a specific argument, not the two positions as a whole. However, I think it would be better to work backwards. What do you think about my comparisons with the other religions? By knocking the easy parts out first, things might proceed a bit clearer.

 

[Perplexity]

The problem is that sense #2 doesn’t jive with Catholicism. If you use sense #2, you can create a formally valid argument. This doesn’t go very far, however, because we are trying to determine the truth of the conclusion. Both of us can devise formally valid arguments that make no sense in real life, because the premises are not true.

What part of #2 is in-congruent with Catholicism? I find that claim surprising.

You admit that sense #3 is weak and is vulnerable to attacks. You can’t just dismiss sense #3 because you find those attacks “fail.”

I don’t dismiss 3 because I think your objection (and arguments like it) fail. I dismiss it because it’s unnecessarily controversial and isn’t as close to my intention as #2 is.

Why do you think those arguments fail? What is it about my argument that you find incorrect? That’s where the debate lies.

I have multiple objections to each of your points. Since all of your points depend on whether God exists and I have no good reasons to think God exists and I have good reason to think God doesn’t exist, I reject your argument.

Your syllogism has no value unless the premises are true, and you can’t pick the easier premise to defend when such a premise is not in fact congruent with Catholicism. I think you acknowledge this in the subsequent paragraph to some degree.

I’m not sure how premise (4) [and #2 for that matter] is inconsistent with Catholicism. But, I assumed since you only objected to one premise you didn’t find the others remarkably objectionable. If you do though, we can go through each premise and discern whether they’re true, as we’re doing with this one.

Sounds good to me! I’m not aware of any restrictions on atheism vs theism, but this would be a discussion of a specific argument, not the two positions as a whole. However, I think it would be better to work backwards. What do you think about my comparisons with the other religions? By knocking the easy parts out first, things might proceed a bit clearer.

Sweet, sounds good. I do think your argument is structured like a building with God’s existence as its foundation so it seems odd to me to start at the top rather than discern whether its foundation is of rock or sand in the first place. I’ll read your post a few more times and then reply to it.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[Perplexity]

Your argument seems to be something like the following (note this isn’t in a logical form, this is just for organizational purposes):

(1) Because God created us selflessly good, he would desire to make his will known to us, and wouldn’t deceive or abandon us.

(2) Therefore, God would desire to communicate with us.

(3) The only reasonable candidates for this communication are religion and/or philosophy because nothing else claims to be the word of God.

(4) The true religion must have some method of definitively proclaiming God’s word with certainty.

(5) Thus, the true religion must have some sort of structure of authority to proclaim truth.

(6) None of the following can reasonably be thought to be candidates for this communication: Hinduism, Greco-Roman paganism, Islam, Protestantism, Buddhism or Mormonism.

(7) Catholicism seems to be the only religion which meets the criteria of the religion we’d expect God to communicate through.

(8) Therefore, it’s reasonable to infer that Catholicism is God’s religion.

Point (1):

I’m down with this point. I think it disproves many of the major religions mentioned, including Catholicism though. For if God does not desire to deceive us, then the Christian God cannot be this good God; because, the Christian God does desire to deceive and has in fact deceived.

2nd Thess. 2:11-12, “For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.”

First, I’ve not interpreted this passage, I’ve simply quoted it. Second, you’ll look in vain to the context of these verses or the Greek to mitigate their implications. Third, it explicitly says that “God will send” a deluding influence so that some will believe falsity to be judged accordingly. The most important thing is that God himself will send the delusion.

Point (2):

This seems reasonable to me. Let’s keep in mind that we have no idea what we would expect God to communicate, or how he would do so though.

Point (3):

Perhaps religious experiences are how and what God wishes to communicate. These aren’t limited to any religion or philosophy. Who knows?

Point (4):

This point is non-sequitur. You haven’t considered any philosophies or religious experiences etc. You’ve simply assumed that God would establish a religion. Further, you assume that this religion would be the entity communicating God’s word, and therefore it would have to be able to guarantee it with certainty. So, first you’ve provided no reason to think God would establish a religion, yet. Second, you’ve provided no reason to think that if he did start one, it would be the religion itself that would be proclaiming his word and therefore would have to be able to guarantee its message’s certainty. Perhaps God wouldn’t start a religion. Perhaps, if he did start one he would be communicating through it guaranteeing its certitude himself. Who knows?

Point (5):

There’s no reason to think God would start a religion, much less one which would have to be able to proclaim God’s word with certainty, and therefore no reason to think this hypothetical religion would need the authority to do so.

Point (6):

Given the criteria you’ve offered I’d say no religion meets them I disagree with your evaluation with these religions and note that you didn’t consider Eastern Orthodoxy, or Judaism. But, this isn’t essential to the argument.

Point (7):

I find Catholic theology to be quite complicated, more so than the average Catholic could ever imagine. More importantly, I think Catholic theology is inconsistent with itself. I’ve got some interesting arguments here…

Point (8):

I don’t think this is reasonable for a host of reasons, however, perhaps most pertinent is that you’ve offered no reason to think God would establish a religion, much less one that would need to proclaim his word with certainty and therefore authority etc.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No. I’m just not sure where to go from here. I feel very uncomfortable saying we’ve come to an impasse. It’s logic, it’d be like saying whether 2 + 2 =4 is anyone’s guess.

Hi. I see you picked the torch back up, have you found a way to rescue your argument from the circularity problem yet?

 

[Perplexity]

Hi. I see you picked the torch back up, have you found a way to rescue your argument from the circularity problem yet?

Yes. I apologize if this sounds like what I’ve already said.

The fallacy of circular reasoning only occurs in arguments. The Law of Identity cannot commit the fallacy of circular reasoning since it isn’t an argument. It may commit circularity (I’m not sure what that means in this context) by self-reflexivity etc. but it cannot commit the fallacy of circular reasoning, by definition.

Even if it did commit the fallacy of circular reasoning, my argument would not commit the same fallacy, because by definition circular reasoning occurs when the conclusion is implicitly or explicitly assumed in a premise, but, my conclusion is not implicitly or explicitly assumed in any of my premises.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yes. I apologize if this sounds like what I’ve already said.

The fallacy of circular reasoning only occurs in arguments…

Circular reasoning is always valid, if the premises’ are true. It is never irrational or fallacious to assert a true argument. Ergo, we are not committing a fallacy.

No fallacy means that the argument is false.

 

[Perplexity]

Circular reasoning is always valid, if the premises’ are true. It is never irrational or fallacious to assert a true argument. Ergo, we are not committing a fallacy.

No fallacy means that the argument is false.

Granting this, do you think your original objection (that my argument commits circular reasoning because it depends on the Law of Identity which is circular) has been defeated?

Circular reasoning is a formal logical fallacy. Formal fallacies are argument invalidating fallacies. By definition circular reasoning cannot occur in a valid argument.

Begging the question is different from circular reasoning and is an informal fallacy. Informal fallacies have to do with the content of the propositions and not necessarily the logical form of the argument itself.

 

[Nate13]

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]

My problem is with the second point in part B
“(2’) If the Catholic appeals to God’s revelation, then s/he presupposes that the papacy is a truth revealed by God.”

The problem here is that much of God’s revelation came before the papacy was established. God’s revelation existed before the papacy, and the papacy was introduced in order to protect what God has already revealed. The papacy does not reveal or introduce anything new. It simply protects what has already been revealed. This is why your argument is flawed because you don’t understand the relationship between God’s revelation and the Church.

 

[Perplexity]

My problem is with the second point in part B
“(2’) If the Catholic appeals to God’s revelation, then s/he presupposes that the papacy is a truth revealed by God.”

The problem here is that much of God’s revelation came before the papacy was established. God’s revelation existed before the papacy, and the papacy was introduced in order to protect what God has already revealed. The papacy does not reveal or introduce anything new. It simply protects what has already been revealed. This is why your argument is flawed.

(2’) is just (3), the conclusion of argument 1 which follows deductively from (1) and (2).

(2’) and (3) don’t say the papacy precedes God’s revelation, they say a Catholic cannot appeal to Scripture and/or Tradition without believing that the papacy is a truth contained in Scripture and/or Tradition.

 

[Nate13]

My bad yeah it tracks back to premise (1)

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

This premise doesn’t make sense because of the relationship you imply between God’s revelation and the authority of the Church. Your trying to imply that God’s revelation comes from the Catholic Church which as I said before it doesn’t. The Catholic Church is merely the protector of what has already been revealed. Can you go into more detail behind what you were thinking when you formed premise 1?

You basically are trying to say that the authority of the Catholic Church is reliant on God’s revelation, but God’s revelation is reliant on the Catholic Church. The latter is incorrect.

 

[Sarpedon]

What part of #2 is in-congruent with Catholicism? I find that claim surprising.

"Therefore, if a Catholic wants to show that the papacy is a member of the DOF, s/he’s gonna have to appeal to the DOF at some point in order to do so.”

There’s no basis in Catholicism for claiming that the DOF is the only foundation for an argument. Aquinas draws a distinction between a theological synthesis proper and the revelabilia, which are the philosophical elements that support, yet are distinct, from theology. Your premise #2 would only work if theology were the only tool at our disposal. However, we clearly have both philosophy (reasoning from bottom up) and theology (reasoning from top down), and Aquinas integrates this into a synthesis. No intelligent Catholic makes circular appeals to the DOF. While we can use theology to study the DOF, we can also use philosophy to study the world itself. In many cases we can study the same thing from both directions- analyzing it in light of the DOF, while also discovering its justification through the use of natural human reason. Therefore, there is no basis for claiming that support for the papacy has to be based in the DOF- while you can do that, nothing prevents you from using philosophy as well.

I don’t dismiss 3 because I think your objection (and arguments like it) fail. I dismiss it because it’s unnecessarily controversial and isn’t as close to my intention as #2 is.

Your intention is irrelevant, because you aren’t making a syllogism about yourself. You’re making a syllogism about the coherence of Catholicism, and thus must use Catholic claims in your premises. If you use premise #2, you can show that what you call “Catholicism” is incoherent. However, Catholicism does not claim premise #2 as true, and therefore your syllogism would be false, while still being formally valid.

I’m not sure how premise (4) [and #2 for that matter] is inconsistent with Catholicism. But, I assumed since you only objected to one premise you didn’t find the others remarkably objectionable. If you do though, we can go through each premise and discern whether they’re true, as we’re doing with this one.

I don’t see the point in that- demonstrating premise 4 to be false is sufficient for showing the conclusion to be false, regardless of the other premises.

This is a great discussion!

 

[Sarpedon]

I’m down with this point. I think it disproves many of the major religions mentioned, including Catholicism though. For if God does not desire to deceive us, then the Christian God cannot be this good God; because, the Christian God does desire to deceive and has in fact deceived.

2nd Thess. 2:11-12, “For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.”

First, I’ve not interpreted this passage, I’ve simply quoted it. Second, you’ll look in vain to the context of these verses or the Greek to mitigate their implications. Third, it explicitly says that “God will send” a deluding influence so that some will believe falsity to be judged accordingly. The most important thing is that God himself will send the delusion.

I’ve bolded the parts where you engage in questionable analysis.

First, you have to look at the “reason” given for sending the delusion. The broader quote (NIV) is:

“[The antichrist] will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.”

God doesn’t send the delusion to punish innocent people- the delusion is given to those who have already sinned and who are already “perishing.” Therefore, there is no indication here that God engages in random acts of deception. Remember that God’s goodness comes from His nature, and this is why we claim that God is rational and consistent. Deceiving innocent people is not consistent with a fair and rational God, but deceiving those who have already sinned is a bit more complicated.

This passage describes a specific period of time at the end of the world. It’s not a blanket statement, so you can’t say that God “desires to deceive.” What we can say is that a specific point in the future, God will send a delusion to a specific group of people who are already perishing in sin. There are a number of ways this could play out in an end-times scenario. I’m thinking this may have something to do with Aristotle’s analysis of virtue and vice affecting your ability to have correct knowledge of virtue and vice, but that’s my own conjecture.

Furthermore, all scriptural interpretation in Catholicism is subservient to the Magisterium. Therefore, scripture on its own is not an authoritative source for Christian life. It’s entirely possible that the passage in allegorical, or has some complex meaning. That’s the prerogative of the Magisterium to determine.

You can replace “God does not deceive us” with “God desires to communicate with us” and the argument works the same way. We’re looking at rational courses of action in general, not highly specific actions in specific situations.

 

[Sarpedon]

Point (4):

This point is non-sequitur. You haven’t considered any philosophies or religious experiences etc. You’ve simply assumed that God would establish a religion. Further, you assume that this religion would be the entity communicating God’s word, and therefore it would have to be able to guarantee it with certainty. So, first you’ve provided no reason to think God would establish a religion, yet. Second, you’ve provided no reason to think that if he did start one, it would be the religion itself that would be proclaiming his word and therefore would have to be able to guarantee its message’s certainty. Perhaps God wouldn’t start a religion. Perhaps, if he did start one he would be communicating through it guaranteeing its certitude himself. Who knows?

Religious experiences are personal and vary from person to person, and thus are not good candidates for this kind of communication. Philosophies are a possibility. Aside from the tradition of Plato-Aristotle-Aquinas, philosophies though tend to have a hard time proving God, which makes them unlikely candidates for God’s chosen instrument.

Your rebuttal is basically saying “who knows what God would do?” We can have a good idea of what God would do based on our knowledge of His nature and the situation in the world. If anything is God’s instrument, it has to play a coherent and recognizable melody. This is the obvious conclusion when you examine the facts on the the ground. Would a rational God play an irrational melody?

Given the criteria you’ve offered I’d say no religion meets them I disagree with your evaluation with these religions and note that you didn’t consider Eastern Orthodoxy, or Judaism. But, this isn’t essential to the argument.

Eastern Orthodoxy is properly in schism with Catholicism, not heresy. Judaism is an ethnic religion, which doesn’t make a lot of sense.

I find Catholic theology to be quite complicated, more so than the average Catholic could ever imagine. More importantly, I think Catholic theology is inconsistent with itself. I’ve got some interesting arguments here…

Let’s hear them. Also, what do you find objectionable in the first cause argument?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Granting this, do you think your original objection (that my argument commits circular reasoning because it depends on the Law of Identity which is circular) has been defeated?

No, but it’s funny you asked. You changed your conclusion. Previously, I understood, and you stated, that we were "begging the question’. I did not mention the change because I thought it indicated your acquiescence to the argument. I took your last comment the other day about an impasse as a tacit agreement that you had no further defense against the charge, until such a time as you could formulate one.

Circular reasoning is a formal logical fallacy. Formal fallacies are argument invalidating fallacies. By definition circular reasoning cannot occur in a valid argument.

Yup, you’re right, I made the true/valid/sound mistake. That’s embarrassing. Mistake admitted, nothing really changes. If our premises are true, the conclusion is true. If you are only drawing the new conclusion that the argument you propose we are making is not of a logical structure that guarantees the truth of the conclusion by logical necessity, I would have to ask, so what? An argument can be completely valid and false, validity doesn’t matter for the purposes that any of us are interested in. Surely you did not put all this work into formulating an argument whose conclusion amounts to, “Your beliefs are not logically guaranteed by the structure of the argument you are using”? There must be more to it than that.

 

[jenniferpet88]

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]

ok let me take a shot at this…personally when reading this the third step of argument 1 seemed like an illogical conclusion…but that is just an opinion i will now analyze it closer, and to be fair i will try not to make distinction but argue it on it’s own grounds and look at the “worst case scenario”-----here goes

let’s see what the revelation says about coming to know God…the bible says that the only way one can know God is through Jesus Christ and the only way one can know Jesus is through the Holy Spirit aaaaannnnnndddd the only way to have the Holy Spirit is to obey God’s law which was set forth in the bible…how’s that for a circular argument? the problem is though if we dismiss that logically we are not following the instructions for the experiment…if you follow God’s law (obey the 10 commandments including love god with your whole heart and soul) then God’s existence should be proven to you and after that happens it will no longer matter how circular the argument is because you will realize that you have left out two essential components…God’s grace and Free Will

Believing in God is not a matter of the intellect if it was the devil wouldve never rebelled…believing in God is a matter of the Will…it is only AFTER we believe in God that we come to know more about Him…

2nd problem…even if you go and do this and prove God to yourself how do you know Catholics are right when there are thousands of religions…well you would have to give up your ego and relinquish your will to God—this makes no sense unless you complete step 1— if you give your will over to God and the Catholic Church is true He will lead you to it

 

[jochoa]

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.

Based on your arguments, I can find validity in your epistemic circulatory. However, the circulatory effect is erred because it is derived from its origination of a Catholic perspective and misunderstandings of the foundations of the Catholic Faith. I temporarily turned away from the teachings of the Church because I failed to seek to understand the foundations of the Church. Therefore, the greater question is: What validates Catholicism, without initial consideration of God’s Existence, through validity of the stories of the Bible and Jesus?

Argument (part 1)

1. When a person uses patience and kindness to find/spread peace and happiness, he/she is partially practicing statements found in the Bible, “Love is patient and kind.” [Scientific Fact - Impatience and Meanness immediately yield a loss of peace and happiness, therefore Patience and Kindness must be superior.]
2. When a person uses a motivation of the self, others, authority, or material to energize free will, he/she is partially practicing commandments originally stated by Jesus as found in the Bible (to my knowledge), “Love God and Others.” [Scientific Facts - Free Will requires a motivation. Personal energy is largely dependent on motivation.]
3. When a person uses role models to better their practice of various skills, he/she is practicing a technique employed by the Bible - Jesus demonstrates complete patience, kindness, and motivation for something greater than and fully considerate of the self, others, authority, and material. [Scientific Fact - It is best to learn first by imitation, and if the role model/theory is flawed, then by scientific method.]

Argument (part 2)

1. The combination of the the greatest commandment and its definition and application, as found in the Bible, “To Always be Patient, Kind, and Motivated by something greater than and fully considerate of the self, others, authority, and material as the best role model did” is the best method to obtain and spread peace, happiness, and longevity. To my knowledge, the Bible and Jesus are the original presenters of the philosophy. [Validation of The Bible and Jesus and The Law of Love]
2. Since the writers of the Bible and the best role model, Jesus, all choose to credit God as the founder and creator of the Law, one should Love God by following Jesus and understanding the Bible. [Validation of God’s Existence]
3. When attempting to Love God by following Jesus and understanding the Bible, Universal Principles will be generated. The Catholic Doctrines are the Universal Principles. [Validation for the Catholic Church]

I greatly appreciate your presentation of epistemic circulatory. Through consideration of your method, I have found greater understanding and faith in God and the Catholic Church. Please share your harsh critiques of my arguments, I look forward to finding greater understanding.

 

[James224]

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.

Instead of answering this outright, I would ask you: How do you know anything? How do you know Aristotle existed? How do you know Russia exists? You’ve heard about these but not seen them first hand. You know through witnesses which means they existed historically. Using logic as you do cannot be reliable because it’s just a result of the neurons and your material brain telling you something that you think is true but may not be because, logically, there can’t be truth… In a naturalist world, you can’t know truth. After all, it’s just the evolution of your physical brain trying to convince other physical brains of your truth.