Certainty

[CatholicSoxFan]

I was listening to the show on CAL called Answering Relatvism with Fr. Sebastian Walshe and he said something which I have a hard time believing. He defined a form of what he calls subjectivism and that he says gies against Church teaching, which is that we know our own thoughts better than we know things external to our thoughts.

Now, this form of subjectivism seems obvious- it seems obvious that I know that I remember something, for instance, more than I know that that thing actually happened. It seems obvious that I perceive a computer screen with my sense of sight more directly than I know that the computer screen is actually in front of me. I can’t possibly be wrong about the internal, but I’m not certain about things outside my own mind in the same way.

I’d like to check if this actually goes against Church teaching? I was a bit shocked when he said that because it seemed like he was denying basic epistemology.

I think this also ties into what Church documents are talking about when they say “certain”. When for instance, when CCC 50 says that man can know God with certainty by reason, is it saying that by reason we can be as sure that God exists as, for instance, that you exist, or that 2+2=4? Or is it talking about “beyond reasonable doubt”- type certainty?

I’ve looked into presuppositional apologetics some, and presuppositionalists often use the term “certainty” more closely to the kind of certainty that the rest of us would say we have that you exist (although from what I have heard many presups actually deny the cogito), and often when they talk to Christians who say they could be wrong about things like God’s existence (youtube.com/watch?v=C9qDNWFqHbY), they insist that they are not in fact Christians, basically because they declare by fiat that a real Christian knows that Christianity is true with 100% absolute certainty (Sye Ten Bruggencate has gone on record as saying that doubt is a sin). Is CCC 50 saying that we can know God with 100% absolute certainty in the way that preuppositionalists use the word? Because if so I just don’t see how we could know anything about something external to our own mind in that way- I’m also somewhat sympathetic to the view that someone other than God having that kind of certainty that something is true is an incoherent concept. Can a creature really know something with the same certainty that God does?

Also, one of the big pitfalls of presuppositionalism is that in the way that they define “ultimate authority” (I believe I once heard one of them say that if you use anything external to the Bible to critisize or interpret the Bible, that that external thing is your “ultimate authority”, and not the Bible, and thus the person who does that is not a Christian), the Bible cannot be anybody’s “ultimate authority”, because you always use your senses to perceive the text of the Bible, your memory to remember what the Bible says, and your reasoning to interpret the Bible. It seems like this same critique could be made about the Church. So I guess a tangential question is, as a Catholic what is our “ultimate authority” in the way presups like to use the term? Would it be against Catholic teaching to say that my “ultimate authority” in the way presups like to use it is something internal to me, like my reasoning?

This also seems to tie into a critique of common Catholic attacks on the epistemology of sola scriptura that the critiques when applied to the Church turn into an infinite regress- Catholics often say that sola scriptura can’t be true because you can’t infallibly interpret the Bible, and thus you need an infallible interpreter to interpret it for you. But, can you infallibly interpret whatt the infallible interpreter says? Or do you need an infallible interpreter of the Church to interpret what the Church says for you? Et cetera, et cetera. I guess another question I have is how would you respond to that critique?

Well these are a lot of related issues, but I thought I’d ask a lot of questions about certainty because they’ve been weighing a lot on my mind lately.

 

[grannymh]

I was listening to the show on CAL called Answering Relatvism with Fr. Sebastian Walshe and he said something which I have a hard time believing. He defined a form of what he calls subjectivism and that he says gies against Church teaching, which is that we know our own thoughts better than we know things external to our thoughts.

Now, this form of subjectivism seems obvious- it seems obvious that I know that I remember something, for instance, more than I know that that thing actually happened. It seems obvious that I perceive a computer screen with my sense of sight more directly than I know that the computer screen is actually in front of me. I can’t possibly be wrong about the internal, but I’m not certain about things outside my own mind in the same way.

I’d like to check if this actually goes against Church teaching? I was a bit shocked when he said that because it seemed like he was denying basic epistemology.

I think this also ties into what Church documents are talking about when they say “certain”. When for instance, when CCC 50 says that man can know God with certainty by reason, is it saying that by reason we can be as sure that God exists as, for instance, that you exist, or that 2+2=4? Or is it talking about “beyond reasonable doubt”- type certainty?

I’ve looked into presuppositional apologetics some, and presuppositionalists often use the term “certainty” more closely to the kind of certainty that the rest of us would say we have that you exist (although from what I have heard many presups actually deny the cogito), and often when they talk to Christians who say they could be wrong about things like God’s existence (youtube.com/watch?v=C9qDNWFqHbY), they insist that they are not in fact Christians, basically because they declare by fiat that a real Christian knows that Christianity is true with 100% absolute certainty (Sye Ten Bruggencate has gone on record as saying that doubt is a sin). Is CCC 50 saying that we can know God with 100% absolute certainty in the way that preuppositionalists use the word? Because if so I just don’t see how we could know anything about something external to our own mind in that way- I’m also somewhat sympathetic to the view that someone other than God having that kind of certainty that something is true is an incoherent concept. Can a creature really know something with the same certainty that God does?

Also, one of the big pitfalls of presuppositionalism is that in the way that they define “ultimate authority” (I believe I once heard one of them say that if you use anything external to the Bible to critisize or interpret the Bible, that that external thing is your “ultimate authority”, and not the Bible, and thus the person who does that is not a Christian), the Bible cannot be anybody’s “ultimate authority”, because you always use your senses to perceive the text of the Bible, your memory to remember what the Bible says, and your reasoning to interpret the Bible. It seems like this same critique could be made about the Church. So I guess a tangential question is, as a Catholic what is our “ultimate authority” in the way presups like to use the term? Would it be against Catholic teaching to say that my “ultimate authority” in the way presups like to use it is something internal to me, like my reasoning?

This also seems to tie into a critique of common Catholic attacks on the epistemology of sola scriptura that the critiques when applied to the Church turn into an infinite regress- Catholics often say that sola scriptura can’t be true because you can’t infallibly interpret the Bible, and thus you need an infallible interpreter to interpret it for you. But, can you infallibly interpret whatt the infallible interpreter says? Or do you need an infallible interpreter of the Church to interpret what the Church says for you? Et cetera, et cetera. I guess another question I have is how would you respond to that critique?

Well these are a lot of related issues, but I thought I’d ask a lot of questions about certainty because they’ve been weighing a lot on my mind lately.

My apology. Most of what you posted is somewhat beyond me. However, I am familiar with the difference between subjective reasoning and objective reasoning.

For example, this sentence from post 1. “Because if so I just don’t see how we could know anything about something external to our own mind in that way-” Practically speaking, most everything is external to us. The point is not necessarily knowing something with 100% absolute certainty. Although knowing something with 100% certainty certainly happens regularly. The point is which tools are we using? Subjective or objective or a combination of both?

In my humble opinion, the first sentence of CCC 50 is based on objective reasoning.

This is just my :twocents:

 

[Nihilist]

Certainty is a relative term. We may say we are certain that “2 + 2= 4”, but at an ultimate level, we are not (because, for all we know, we may be mad or imbeciles, without being aware of it). At a fundamental level, of course, everything is subjective- since we never perceive or think anything without fdoing so from our subjective perspective. But there is a perspective which is ‘less influence by this subjective situatedness’, which is called ‘objective’.

The problem with the use of the word “certain” is that implies an absolute character, which is really only quasi-absolute. We can be ‘certain’ of somethings, insofar as we can be certain of anything (e.g. the cog**ito).

It’s like if a person said, “It’s totally cold today. There’s no warmth in the air.” They do not mean that the temperature is absolute zero. Or when a person say, “I am absolutely certain”. They are not really absolutely certain- in the sense that it is possible that they might be hallicanting, or dreaming, or mad, etc. Even the language of ‘absolutes’ is relative.

I think this degree of looseness has to be admitted, and language used in a way that is appropriate to the kind of discourse we are undertaking. In everyday language, “absolute certainty” is a permissible expression, if not literally true- and I think popular apologists of the type you mention are trying to use everyday language, and must be read with this kind of hermeneutic.

 

[Abu]

CatholicSoxFan #1
can you infallibly interpret whatt the infallible interpreter says? Or do you need an infallible interpreter of the Church to interpret what the Church says for you? Et cetera, et cetera. I guess another question I have is how would you respond to that critique?

This is obviously based on the question of doubt which is considered by Fr Thomas Dubay in* Faith And Certitude*, Ignatius Press, 1995:
“They attain truth who love it. One of the chief immoralities is an indifference to truth. It is worse than sexual perversion, said Jesus Himself. Those who reject His representatives are more guilty than perverted Sodom and Gomorrah (Mt 10:14-15). Indifference to truth is nothing less than and indifference to reality and to the Author of reality…One of the too little noticed traits of the saints is their utter commitment to truth.” (p 189-190).

Objective certitude “has three traits. First it is an enlightened assent. One not only knows something, but he also knows why he knows it, and he sees the objective reasons why it is so….[Second] certitude excludes a reasonable fear of being wrong…[Third] certitude is unchangeable. Because it is based on objective reality it is permanent.

Doubt and Difficulty
“A negative doubt is a close relation to ignorance. An opinion is an assent of the mind but with a well-founded fear that the opposite may be true.” With an unhealthy doubt, “a person suspends judgment even when the evidence is conclusive and completely adequate. This is skepticism, intellectual cowardice……A difficulty is a problem, a not-seeing how two realities fit together….a situation we do not yet understand and perhaps will never understand. It is a limitation on our knowledge, a passing or permanent limitation.”

John Henry Cardinal Newman said “ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, as I understand the subject; difficulty and doubt are incommensurate.” (Apologia pro vita Sua). [Fr Dubay, op. cit. p 82-4].

Since the Catholic Church has the clear mandate from the Son of God to teach, sanctify and rule, She not only teaches infallibly but develops doctrine infallibly. Questions can, and are, put to the Magisterium through its dicasteries (the official congregations of the Holy See), to help with any difficulties and the Magisterium clarifies those difficulties.

Catholics often say that sola scriptura can’t be true because you can’t infallibly interpret the Bible, and thus you need an infallible interpreter to interpret it for you. But, can you infallibly interpret whatt the infallible interpreter says?

On Sacred Scripture, as clearly explained by Karl Keating in Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Ignatius, 1988, p 125-127,
“On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible as history. From that we conclude an infallible Church was founded. Then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. It reduces to the proposition that, without the existence of the Church, we could not tell if the Bible were inspired. As Augustine said, ‘I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.’ ”

So, “We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible.” [p 126].

“As Arnold Lunn put it in a 1932 letter to C.E.M. Joad:
‘The Catholic claims to prove by pure reason that Christ was God, that Christ founded an infallible Church, and that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church in question. Having traveled thus far by reason unaided by authority it is not irrational to trust the authority, whose credentials have been proved by reason, to interpret difficult passages in the Bible.’ ”[p 126].

 

[oldcelt]

Certainty is, by the nature of our existence, a subjective term. An individual may believe anything with absolute certainty, and it proves nothing. I may be completely off on my belief in a creator god…and so on.

 

[Abu]

oldcelt #5
Certainty is, by the nature of our existence, a subjective term.

Only for the muddled.

Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
CERTITUDE. Firm assent of the mind to a proposition without fear of error. It implies clear knowledge that the evidence for the assent excludes even the possibility of error.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

Our certainty within the Church derives from objective historical facts; the testimony of the apostolic Church witnesses to the Christ-redemption from which came the New Testament. Thus the Son of God, Christ, established His Church to enable us to know His truth with certainty, and to be able to choose freely to follow that truth.

The Catholic Church then gradually built western civilization based on faith and reason – which is why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.

As St John Paul II in *Veritatis Splendor *#64 teaches: “The Church puts herself always and only at the service of conscience, helping it to avoid being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine proposed by human deceit (cf. Eph 4:14), and helping it not to swerve from the truth about the good of man, but rather, especially in more difficult questions, to attain the truth with certainty and to abide in it.”

The only way we know “Christ’s teachings” with certainty is through His own Church which He established and which gave us the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God, as Christ wrote nothing. Further dogma “proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.” [Doctrine] (CCC #88).

 

[Nihilist]

This is obviously based on the question of doubt which is considered by Fr Thomas Dubay in* Faith And Certitude*, Ignatius Press, 1995:
“They attain truth who love it. One of the chief immoralities is an indifference to truth. It is worse than sexual perversion, said Jesus Himself. Those who reject His representatives are more guilty than perverted Sodom and Gomorrah (Mt 10:14-15). Indifference to truth is nothing less than and indifference to reality and to the Author of reality…One of the too little noticed traits of the saints is their utter commitment to truth.” (p 189-190).

Objective certitude “has three traits. First it is an enlightened assent. One not only knows something, but he also knows why he knows it, and he sees the objective reasons why it is so….[Second] certitude excludes a reasonable fear of being wrong…[Third] certitude is unchangeable. Because it is based on objective reality it is permanent.

Doubt and Difficulty
“A negative doubt is a close relation to ignorance. An opinion is an assent of the mind but with a well-founded fear that the opposite may be true.” With an unhealthy doubt, “a person suspends judgment even when the evidence is conclusive and completely adequate. This is skepticism, intellectual cowardice……A difficulty is a problem, a not-seeing how two realities fit together….a situation we do not yet understand and perhaps will never understand. It is a limitation on our knowledge, a passing or permanent limitation.”

John Henry Cardinal Newman said “ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, as I understand the subject; difficulty and doubt are incommensurate.” (Apologia pro vita Sua). [Fr Dubay, op. cit. p 82-4].

Since the Catholic Church has the clear mandate from the Son of God to teach, sanctify and rule, She not only teaches infallibly but develops doctrine infallibly. Questions can, and are, put to the Magisterium through its dicasteries (the official congregations of the Holy See), to help with any difficulties and the Magisterium clarifies those difficulties.
On Sacred Scripture, as clearly explained by Karl Keating in Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Ignatius, 1988, p 125-127,
“On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible as history. From that we conclude an infallible Church was founded. Then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. It reduces to the proposition that, without the existence of the Church, we could not tell if the Bible were inspired. As Augustine said, ‘I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.’ ”

So, “We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible.” [p 126].

“As Arnold Lunn put it in a 1932 letter to C.E.M. Joad:
‘The Catholic claims to prove by pure reason that Christ was God, that Christ founded an infallible Church, and that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church in question. Having traveled thus far by reason unaided by authority it is not irrational to trust the authority, whose credentials have been proved by reason, to interpret difficult passages in the Bible.’ ”[p 126].

All that MAY be true. But what grounds do you have for asserting it with certainty?

The fact that some fundamentalist asserted something in 1932, or whenever, is nothing even like a proof. Quoting ‘authorities’ proves nothing.

Humility demands that we acknowledge that all our ‘certainties’ can only ever be as certain as we are of ourselves. Self-doubt, and hence doubt of EVERYTHING we believe, is a sign of humility. The best truth is to admit that we can’t be certain of anything.

But maybe I am wrong about this…

 

[grannymh]

All that MAY be true. But what grounds do you have for asserting it with certainty?

The fact that some fundamentalist asserted something in 1932, or whenever, is nothing even like a proof. Quoting ‘authorities’ proves nothing.

Humility demands that we acknowledge that all our ‘certainties’ can only ever be as certain as we are of ourselves. Self-doubt, and hence doubt of EVERYTHING we believe, is a sign of humility. The best truth is to admit that we can’t be certain of anything.

But maybe I am wrong about this…

The difficulty is the misunderstanding regarding objective evidence and subjective evidence. Post 6 refers to objective historical facts. Objective facts stand alone, that is, they are independent of what we think. Self-doubt arises from our subjective feelings within our own nature; thus, self-doubt can be subject to our control.

Note: Our subjective feelings can be based on memories, individual desires, and one’s own experiences, etc. A bit of confusion can be caused by the fact that memories and experiences can be founded on objective facts and/or objective occurrences outside of our own nature.

In the old days, humility involved the truth about ourselves. Today, we might say that humility is a realistic look at ourselves in comparison to what may seem perfection.

Quoting authorities depends on what and how “something” is being examined. Think about weather forecasters.

To me personally, certainty is in the eye of the beholder. When it is joy eternal that I behold, then I look to the Catholic Church as the place where eternal truths are taught.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Descartes famously said: “Cogito: ergo sum.” “I think; therefore I am.”

Thereby he established the possibility of absolute certainty.

One cannot doubt that one is thinking, because you must think in order to doubt.

And if you are thinking, then you must also exist, because you must exist in order to think.

So there are two propositions that are certain, and they are the foundation of all our thinking, whether objective or subjective.

If there are two propositions that are certain, why can there not be more propositions that are certain?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If there are two propositions that are certain, why can there not be more propositions that are certain?

For examples:

A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time.

The value of love has more survival value than the value of death.

Death and taxes are certain.

There are just too many things of which we can be certain that we should ever say there is no such things as certainty.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Descartes famously said: “Cogito: ergo sum.” “I think; therefore I am.”

Thereby he established the possibility of absolute certainty.

One cannot doubt that one is thinking, because you must think in order to doubt.

And if you are thinking, then you must also exist, because you must exist in order to think.

So there are two propositions that are certain, and they are the foundation of all our thinking, whether objective or subjective.

If there are two propositions that are certain, why can there not be more propositions that are certain?

Well I don’t completely hold to the idea that a creature having certainty is incoherent. The problem though here, is how could you be certain in that way of something outside your mind? Like for instance my example in the OP of memory. I am certain that I remember making this thread, but can I be certain that I made the thread in the same way? i am certain that I am looking at my computer screen, but can I be certain in the same way that there is a computer screen in front of me?

EDIT: Well I suppose that you may have a point with the laws of logic. Although one could ask how you know with certainty that the laws of logic universally apply, how could you then say that things like God existing are on that level of certainty? Is saying that God doesn’t exist, or that God doesn’t have certain attributes, akin to saying that there is a square circle, or that A=/=A? Can we honestly say that for all we know we couldn’t possibly be wrong about God’s existence?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

EDIT: Well I suppose that you may have a point with the laws of logic. Although one could ask how you know with certainty that the laws of logic universally apply, how could you then say that things like God existing are on that level of certainty? Is saying that God doesn’t exist, or that God doesn’t have certain attributes, akin to saying that there is a square circle, or that A=/=A? Can we honestly say that for all we know we couldn’t possibly be wrong about God’s existence?

Since we can’t get inside the mind of God and do the Cogito; ergo sum thing, We can’t have the same kind of certainty that we have about our own experiences. I really can’t be absolutely certain that you even exist. You might be a figment of my imagination. I might be dreaming I am typing out this message to you. And so forth! But I don’t think so. I am certain that you exist. If you don’t exist, I am probably a lunatic.

And my experience with God makes me certain that God exists. But I can see why people are doubtful of God’s existence if they have not given themselves to friendship with Him. In any case, I do not think I am suffering from delusions about God and more than I am suffering from delusions about you. It is possible that God does not exist; but I take the view that if God does not exist, I must be not only delusional, but downright insane. I am very certain that I am not insane. Now you don’t have to be just as certain that I am or am not insane.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Since we can’t get inside the mind of God and do the Cogito; ergo sum thing, We can’t have the same kind of certainty that we have about our own experiences. I really can’t be absolutely certain that you even exist. You might be a figment of my imagination. I might be dreaming I am typing out this message to you. And so forth! But I don’t think so. I am certain that you exist. If you don’t exist, I am probably a lunatic.

And my experience with God makes me certain that God exists. But I can see why people are doubtful of God’s existence if they have not given themselves to friendship with Him. In any case, I do not think I am suffering from delusions about God and more than I am suffering from delusions about you. It is possible that God does not exist; but I take the view that if God does not exist, I must be not only delusional, but downright insane. I am very certain that I am not insane. Now you don’t have to be just as certain that I am or am not insane.

Well the problem is, the CCC says man can know God with certainty by reason. Experiencing God does not count as it involves God revealing Himself specially to you. Also like I said again, you can’t make the jump from “I am certain that I am experiencing God” to “I am certain that God exists”. I could grant that you are certain that you are having the experience but that doesn’t mean you are certain that the experience is veridical. It’s a subtle difference but it is an important one to make.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Well the problem is, the CCC says man can know God with certainty by reason. Experiencing God does not count as it involves God revealing Himself specially to you. Also like I said again, you can’t make the jump from “I am certain that I am experiencing God” to “I am certain that God exists”. I could grant that you are certain that you are having the experience but that doesn’t mean you are certain that the experience is veridical. It’s a subtle difference but it is an important one to make.

As Martin Luther said, reason is a whore and will sell herself to the highest bidder.

Yes, we can know God with certainty, but we can also refuse to know God with certainty, and many have done just that. Reason has sold to many the arguments by which to doubt the existence of God. Kant made this abundantly clear, as did Pascal before him.

So the experience of God is a far more certain way to know God, because you know him both in your intellect and in your heart. Once God is truly known, God cannot be unknown. “The fool in his heart says there is no God.” Psalms 14:1 He has only fooled himself.

 

[ynotzap]

Well I don’t completely hold to the idea that a creature having certainty is incoherent. The problem though here, is how could you be certain in that way of something outside your mind? Like for instance my example in the OP of memory. I am certain that I remember making this thread, but can I be certain that I made the thread in the same way? i am certain that I am looking at my computer screen, but can I be certain in the same way that there is a computer screen in front of me?

EDIT: Well I suppose that you may have a point with the laws of logic. Although one could ask how you know with certainty that the laws of logic universally apply, how could you then say that things like God existing are on that level of certainty? Is saying that God doesn’t exist, or that God doesn’t have certain attributes, akin to saying that there is a square circle, or that A=/=A? Can we honestly say that for all we know we couldn’t possibly be wrong about God’s existence?

Certainty starts with the senses, if we doubt that our senses do not sense objects as they are then we resolve our selves into a pure skeptical dilemma, that is we can’t be sure of anything. We naturally accept the sensing of our five senses, the senses do not lie, but we can mis-interpret what we sense. This is objective reality. and certainty of our contact with the outside world. Rational certainty come in when we use a self-evident truth that needs no reason, it shines by its own light. This universal truth always applies, a thing can not be, and be at the same time. If the object in the real world did not exist, we could not know it, and if it does, we can know it.

When you look at the computer screen you know it because you acknowledged what your senses sense. Logical certainty states that if it wasn’t there you could not sense it, or know it. So you have the testimony of your senses, and proper logic to give you certainty that the computer screen exists without doubt, and you are thinking objectively, not subjectively.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Well the problem is, the CCC says man can know God with certainty by reason. Experiencing God does not count as it involves God revealing Himself specially to you. Also like I said again, you can’t make the jump from “I am certain that I am experiencing God” to “I am certain that God exists”. I could grant that you are certain that you are having the experience but that doesn’t mean you are certain that the experience is veridical. It’s a subtle difference but it is an important one to make.

As I Catholic, you surely didn’t mean to imply that experiencing God does not count toward rational certainty of God’s existence. Being certain of the experience of God has to include veridical certainty.

The only way it would not count as veridical certainty would be if in the experiencing of God you actually claimed to be Jesus Christ. That would be an experience of certainty, but not a veridical experience.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

***Fire. “God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob,”
Not of philosophers and scholars,
Certainty, Joy, Certainty, Feeling, Light, Joy,
God of Jesus Christ, …
Forgetting of the world and of all save God,
He is only to be found in the ways taught in the Gospel.
Blaise Pascal******, Pensees***

 

[CrossofChrist]

I was listening to the show on CAL called Answering Relatvism with Fr. Sebastian Walshe and he said something which I have a hard time believing. He defined a form of what he calls subjectivism and that he says gies against Church teaching, which is that we know our own thoughts better than we know things external to our thoughts.

Sounds similar to how we can’t know the state of our soul–we have to trust God–yet we can know with certainty the truths of faith.

Because if so I just don’t see how we could know anything about something external to our own mind in that way- I’m also somewhat sympathetic to the view that someone other than God having that kind of certainty that something is true is an incoherent concept. Can a creature really know something with the same certainty that God does?

We know with certainty that if I run in front of a car going 100 mph I will either die or become seriously injured.

But anyway, I think I know what you’re saying and ultimately what it comes down to is that some things are self-evident. There’s no real way to prove reason is at the core of our existence, but to use my above example if it wasn’t then maybe I wouldn’t get hurt getting hit by that car. We take for granted that reason is true, and because of that we can be certain about other things in the world external to ourselves. After all, it’s from the world that we gather all information our senses pick up. As Catholics, our “presuppositions” are that the world is rational and that love is rational.

Would it be against Catholic teaching to say that my “ultimate authority” in the way presups like to use it is something internal to me, like my reasoning?

Our ultimate authority is our conscience, which compels us to do and believe what is right.

Here’s what Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger had to say. It’s a long read for the internet (I honestly don’t think I’ve read it all myself) but it’s informative: ewtn.com/library/curia/ratzcons.htm

Something else that might be informative is Karl Rahner’s starting point for his transcendental philosophy and how he answered the question “how can we know non-physical realities?”.

A brief synopsis of his thought on this question is shown under the category “Themes”. people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/rahner.htm

Here’s Aquinas: newadvent.org/summa/1084.htm#article7

My take on it is that we know things because they correspond to our experience with the world around us, or in reality as such (being). So our experience in everyday life is an experience with being. The only reason we “know” though is because in that knowledge we indirectly experience Being itself, commonly referred to as God. Of course, if you reject reason at the core of our existence and presuppose that we aren’t a thought of Reason, there is nothing to ground our existence on. You are left with pantheism (we are God) or denying existence. And if you assume, contrary to what is self-evident, that our world is irrational, then you can accept those options. But if you believe the world is rational, then those alternatives wind up being contradictory.

It is similar to what both Garrigou-Lagrange’s Reality and Ratzinger’s Introduction to Christianity have said, albeit in totally different ways. Garrigou-Lagrange uses the Thomistic proofs to clearly demonstrate the rationality behind God, and does so using axioms that are agreed upon in everyday life. Ratzinger OTOH goes to the heart of the matter and says that we need faith (albeit a natural not supernatural faith) to believe in God and to trust in reason (since nihilism denies what is self-evident), and that while doubt keeps us from being complacent Christ keeps us sure in the truthfulness of our Faith. (If I misinterpreted either of the two great thinkers mentioned please let me know.)

This also seems to tie into a critique of common Catholic attacks on the epistemology of sola scriptura that the critiques when applied to the Church turn into an infinite regress- Catholics often say that sola scriptura can’t be true because you can’t infallibly interpret the Bible, and thus you need an infallible interpreter to interpret it for you. But, can you infallibly interpret whatt the infallible interpreter says? Or do you need an infallible interpreter of the Church to interpret what the Church says for you? Et cetera, et cetera. I guess another question I have is how would you respond to that critique?

The Bible is self-interpreting. As such, we can see that it points beyond itself to the entirety of Tradition and what’s lacking in the Scriptures so, what’s left after the Bible we refer to as “Holy Tradition”. That said, some (not all) of Tradition is a reference Scripture to help illuminate its own self-interpretation.

Ratzinger discusses it a little in his Dogma and Preaching. If you can access it on google books it’s on pages 27-29.

Well these are a lot of related issues, but I thought I’d ask a lot of questions about certainty because they’ve been weighing a lot on my mind lately.

Focus your mind on Jesus, and there will be less “weighing”. Maybe that sounds evasive but it’s the truth and it will make the answers and questions easier.

 

[SSPXman]

I was listening to the show on CAL called Answering Relatvism with Fr. Sebastian Walshe and he said something which I have a hard time believing. He defined a form of what he calls subjectivism and that he says gies against Church teaching, which is that we know our own thoughts better than we know things external to our thoughts.

Now, this form of subjectivism seems obvious- it seems obvious that I know that I remember something, for instance, more than I know that that thing actually happened. It seems obvious that I perceive a computer screen with my sense of sight more directly than I know that the computer screen is actually in front of me. I can’t possibly be wrong about the internal, but I’m not certain about things outside my own mind in the same way.

I’d like to check if this actually goes against Church teaching? I was a bit shocked when he said that because it seemed like he was denying basic epistemology.

I think this also ties into what Church documents are talking about when they say “certain”. When for instance, when CCC 50 says that man can know God with certainty by reason, is it saying that by reason we can be as sure that God exists as, for instance, that you exist, or that 2+2=4? Or is it talking about “beyond reasonable doubt”- type certainty?

I’ve looked into presuppositional apologetics some, and presuppositionalists often use the term “certainty” more closely to the kind of certainty that the rest of us would say we have that you exist (although from what I have heard many presups actually deny the cogito), and often when they talk to Christians who say they could be wrong about things like God’s existence (youtube.com/watch?v=C9qDNWFqHbY), they insist that they are not in fact Christians, basically because they declare by fiat that a real Christian knows that Christianity is true with 100% absolute certainty (Sye Ten Bruggencate has gone on record as saying that doubt is a sin). Is CCC 50 saying that we can know God with 100% absolute certainty in the way that preuppositionalists use the word? Because if so I just don’t see how we could know anything about something external to our own mind in that way- I’m also somewhat sympathetic to the view that someone other than God having that kind of certainty that something is true is an incoherent concept. Can a creature really know something with the same certainty that God does?

Also, one of the big pitfalls of presuppositionalism is that in the way that they define “ultimate authority” (I believe I once heard one of them say that if you use anything external to the Bible to critisize or interpret the Bible, that that external thing is your “ultimate authority”, and not the Bible, and thus the person who does that is not a Christian), the Bible cannot be anybody’s “ultimate authority”, because you always use your senses to perceive the text of the Bible, your memory to remember what the Bible says, and your reasoning to interpret the Bible. It seems like this same critique could be made about the Church. So I guess a tangential question is, as a Catholic what is our “ultimate authority” in the way presups like to use the term? Would it be against Catholic teaching to say that my “ultimate authority” in the way presups like to use it is something internal to me, like my reasoning?

This also seems to tie into a critique of common Catholic attacks on the epistemology of sola scriptura that the critiques when applied to the Church turn into an infinite regress- Catholics often say that sola scriptura can’t be true because you can’t infallibly interpret the Bible, and thus you need an infallible interpreter to interpret it for you. But, can you infallibly interpret whatt the infallible interpreter says? Or do you need an infallible interpreter of the Church to interpret what the Church says for you? Et cetera, et cetera. I guess another question I have is how would you respond to that critique?

Well these are a lot of related issues, but I thought I’d ask a lot of questions about certainty because they’ve been weighing a lot on my mind lately.

Certainty ???

There is no more Certitude anymore. This is the problem. Common sense is Infallible.

If we cannot believe what we see, than what can we believe. If we cannot use our senses to perceive truth,
than God has deceived us and the universe is a cruel joke.

A man cannot be deceived.

…