Copernius, Galileo wrong. Church right. Any apologies?

[Oreoracle]

Who is Rob Hanson? I may be his twin!

Rob Hanson is a friend with which I used to correspond through email. He was a member of these forums for a brief time; his username is “One” on my friend list if you want to see his posts.

First, from a heavy-handed editor’s point of view, the article is questioning the Catholic Church’s acumen or caution by offering the point that the Church’s interpretation is accountable to no one. When the result of an action (acumen) can be a free for all since it is not held accountable by any one, the consequence is that the institution per se loses its credibility.

Maybe I should have been clearer on this point. What I meant is that I’m sure the Church puts forth great effort in interpreting ancient writings. Their interpretations may even be correct. But I still do not see how they are held accountable. As far as I can tell, if a teaching is deemed infallible, and you, as a Catholic with full knowledge of your obligations, hear about that teaching, you are obligated to believe it. To dispute the teaching (if that teaching is deemed infallible) would be a moral failing on your part, correct? It would be a moral failing in the same way that someone raised Catholic would be found morally wanting if they questioned that Jesus was the son of God.

But perhaps I should clarify what I mean about accountability. Science, as you know, has a built-in self-correcting mechanism: peer review. If any particular scientist goes astray and reaches invalid conclusions, peer review saves the entire discipline from collapsing by allowing his peers to criticize his work as equals. There is no requirement to be reverent to anyone’s conclusions–there is no shelter from scrutiny in science. This ensures that every scientist is accountable for their conclusions. Does the Church have a similar self-correcting mechanism in place in the event that it reaches erroneous interpretations of “sacred writings”, interpretations which are deemed infallible?

 

[oldcelt]

Rob Hanson is a friend with which I used to correspond through email. He was a member of these forums for a brief time; his username is “One” on my friend list if you want to see his posts.

Maybe I should have been clearer on this point. What I meant is that I’m sure the Church puts forth great effort in interpreting ancient writings. Their interpretations may even be correct. But I still do not see how they are held accountable. As far as I can tell, if a teaching is deemed infallible, and you, as a Catholic with full knowledge of your obligations, hear about that teaching, you are obligated to believe it. To dispute the teaching (if that teaching is deemed infallible) would be a moral failing on your part, correct? It would be a moral failing in the same way that someone raised Catholic would be found morally wanting if they questioned that Jesus was the son of God.

But perhaps I should clarify what I mean about accountability. Science, as you know, has a built-in self-correcting mechanism: peer review. If any particular scientist goes astray and reaches invalid conclusions, peer review saves the entire discipline from collapsing by allowing his peers to criticize his work as equals. There is no requirement to be reverent to anyone’s conclusions–there is no shelter from scrutiny in science. This ensures that every scientist is accountable for their conclusions. Does the Church have a similar self-correcting mechanism in place in the event that it reaches erroneous interpretations of “sacred writings”, interpretations which are deemed infallible?

Excellent analogy. Even in my youth I would ask a local priest the how do you know question. Father was, or seemed to be, a highly honest man and his only answer was…“Because I believe it is true.” Rather disappointing to a young man who was searching.

 

[PRmerger]

Excellent analogy. Even in my youth I would ask a local priest the how do you know question. Father was, or seemed to be, a highly honest man and his only answer was…“Because I believe it is true.” Rather disappointing to a young man who was searching.

How is that any different from your own paradigm for what you believe, oldcelt?

You have stated in the past that you believe that a good God wouldn’t allow suffering.

I asked you: how do you know?

And your only answer is, “Because I believe it’s true.”

You have NO EVIDENCE, whatsoever, that a good God wouldn’t allow suffering.

In fact, you have credible evidence that good people do allow suffering–as demonstrated by good fathers permitting their children to suffer with painful IV insertions–sometimes even holding their children down so the suffering can continue.

And yet you continue to profess, “I just believe that it’s true,”

Why do you permit yourself a paradigm without allowing others the same right?

 

[PRmerger]

It’s ridiculous because the dress someone wears doesn’t affect you. If someone tried to demand that you wear a dress of a particular color, you’d be pretty miffed. You would protest it even though it is just a matter of taste. People actually take matters of taste quite seriously at times.

Compare that to the slaughter of innocents. If you don’t like what a bride is wearing, you can just avert your eyes or attend different weddings. It needn’t affect anyone else. Murder, by definition, must affect someone else, and thus it will clash with another person’s tastes; namely, their preference to live.

The reason your examples seem so innocuous is because you’re only using scenarios involving a single person (what will I eat for my meal, what will I wear to my wedding, etc.). Morality comes into play when preferences clash, which is usually when multiple people cannot be accommodated at once.

A better analogy for a moral issue would be a disagreement between a husband and bride as to how their wedding will be organized. Debates about the color of dresses may actually crop up in that situation.

I’m not sure if we mean the same thing by the term. I’ve learned to be cautious when people capitalize nouns that aren’t proper, because they usually mean something highly unpredictable.

I would agree that there is a world of objects that exists independently of us, the subjects. As you already know, I don’t treat morals as objects.

So it seems that a correct synopsis of your paradigm is: morality is a matter of personal taste, except when if affects me? Then, if I view your tastes to be distasteful to me (because it hurts me), then I can try to convince you to try to change your tastes?

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not sure if we mean the same thing by the term. I’ve learned to be cautious when people capitalize nouns that aren’t proper, because they usually mean something highly unpredictable.

Sure. Caution is always warranted in discussions.

But what is so unpredictable about Absolute Truth?

All that means is that there is a Truth to which all individuals can accede, if they are rational and seeking. It is merely saying, “We can know what is Truth because it conforms to external reality.”

As you already know, I don’t treat morals as objects.

What does that mean? I am cautious when you say something that’s this nebulous.

 

[grannymh]

Maybe I should have been clearer on this point. What I meant is that I’m sure the Church puts forth great effort in interpreting ancient writings.

It looks like someone needs to step in and explain the “great effort” which the Catholic Church puts forth in interpreting ancient writings.

Their interpretations may even be correct.

It is my assumption that the “their” in “Their interpretations may even be correct.” refers to the hundreds of people examining ancient writings over many years.

But I still do not see how they are held accountable.

The hundreds of people examining ancient writings over many years are all held accountable to the standards of good workmanship. They are accountable to the Ecumenical Council participants for how well they examine ancient writings. This period of on-going examination is only the first step of many in preparation for a major Ecumenical Church Council such as the Council Nicaea I. Not only are ancient writings, such as the Hebrew Scriptures, examined when the Catholic Church needs to define a doctrine, but also writings from the Church Fathers and other theologian types. Even liturgies and poetry are examined since they contain traditional beliefs. Because of the newness of the Catholic Church, Church Councils were held often.

Personally, I would not put the New Testament and writings of the Early Church Fathers into the ancient category. I won’t quibble about the word ancient since the Council of Nicaea I took place in the year 325 and the Council of Nicaea II took place in the year 787. The preparation for Nicaea II included redoing the research on ancient writings, reviewing the Early Church Fathers and serious study of the subsequent writings of people living in the years between the two Nicaea Councils, plus, and this is very important, there was in depth study of the declarations of the Church Councils held in the years between the two Nicaea Councils.

All the above work falls under the general category of interpretations which are presented at the Ecumenical Councils as evidence. Next comes discussion. The Council’s discussion period is similar to the “peer review” process for publishing in major science journals.

The answer to the question “Does the Church have a similar self-correcting mechanism in place in the event that it reaches erroneous interpretations of “sacred writings”, interpretations which are deemed infallible?” is yes in two forms.

The first form consists of the participants at the Council who come from all parts of the world. They are the peers which review not only interpretations but also written proposals for an infallible doctrine.

A brief clarification of written proposals for an infallible doctrine. These proposals are not about infallible interpretations about “sacred writings.” Sacred writings, as well as all the writings mentioned above, serve as evidence, as in scientific research. While assumptions are permitted in research going millions of years backwards, there are no assumptions about infallible interpretations. In fact, defining infallible interpretations is not the goal of an Ecumenical Church Council. The goal of a Church Council is to define a doctrine based on Divine Revelation which is based on the evidence provided from all the sources mentioned above.

Early Church Councils were usually established to officially settle a disturbing dispute on a major truth, for example, the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Arianism needed to be discussed by representatives of the entire Church with all the available evidence, such as mentioned above, presented for an in depth review. Yes, it would be possible to have some individual erroneous interpretations of “sacred writings” which would be caught by the peer review of Council participants. Since interpretations are not the same as doctrines, the interpretations can be corrected which is what happens when scientific peer review finds fault with the methods or materials sections in a paper. I have seen a journal announcement that a particular research paper was being reviewed a second time due to sloppy record keeping in the original paper.

The second form of Catholic peer review involves intense study of previously declared infallible doctrines. This would be similar to footnotes in a science paper. A good peer review would include verification of sources used in the paper.

The protocol of the visible Catholic Church allows for previous infallible doctrines to be made more explicit as needed. In this case, the peer review by council members makes sure that the additional doctrine comports with the original doctrine. This time, it is the original doctrine which is the evidence for the additional one. Obviously, there is a review of the declaration process for the original in order to ascertain the relationship between the two doctrines.

The obvious example of misunderstanding Ecumenical Councils goes back to the time of Galileo. Councils do not declare infallible doctrines in strictly science issues. Knowing the position of the earth is not a requirement for entering heaven. Understanding that God is the Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible is necessary. (Refer to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed professed at Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass)

Since I am close to the allotted number of characters for a post, this is a good time to stop for questions.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

And we may even believe in Multiverses, though I don’t recommend it .

Linus2nd

 

[grannymh]

It looks like someone needs to step in and explain the “great effort” which the Catholic Church puts forth in interpreting ancient writings.

snip

A brief clarification of written proposals for an infallible doctrine. These proposals are not about infallible interpretations about “sacred writings.” Sacred writings, as well as all the writings mentioned above, serve as evidence, as in scientific research. While assumptions are permitted in research going millions of years backwards, there are no assumptions about infallible interpretations. In fact, defining infallible interpretations is not the goal of an Ecumenical Church Council. The goal of a Church Council is to define a doctrine based on Divine Revelation which is based on the evidence provided from all the sources mentioned above.

Also, a brief clarification about “infallible quotations”. We do look at certain Scripture verses as containing infallible truths. The above does not state that infallible interpretations of certain Scripture verses are impossible. What it does imply is that a major Ecumenical Church Council is established to define infallible truths as doctrines belonging to the Deposit of Faith. When a doctrine and an interpretation are the same, then the interpretation may be considered as infallible. This is similar to teachings based on an infallible doctrine.

 

[grannymh]

. My point has only been that the Church’s interpretation is accountable to no one (except maybe God, who never shows up to rebuke incorrect interpretations), so in principle nothing could stop them from making absurd claims.

Now that post 279 on accountability has been written, it is time to return to post 269.

Regardless of worldviews, I ask for understanding, not necessarily acceptance, of those views, which are different from one’s own. I do recognize that many people do not include the Bible in their worldview. That is understandable. Nonetheless, it is proper for me to write about the worldview of Catholicism.

The worldview of Catholicism insists that God is present within the institution of the Catholic Church. Obviously, this flows from the initial beliefs that God as Creator exists and does interact with His human creatures. It is a misunderstanding of Catholicism to infer that God never shows up to rebuke incorrect interpretations.

Catholics recognize that these words of Jesus Christ “I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you” (John 14: 18) have been fulfilled in two ways. The first is the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. The second is the promise of the Holy Spirit as Advocate Who “will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14: 26) This promise was fulfilled on Pentecost, the “birthday” of the Catholic Church.

Catholics believe that the wisdom of the Holy Spirit directly guides the participants in Ecumenical Councils when a doctrine on Divine Revelation is being formulated into human language. God as Creator is always present in this world as He continues to invite all His human creatures to share in His divine life here on earth and eternally with Him in heaven.

 

[Oreoracle]

So it seems that a correct synopsis of your paradigm is: morality is a matter of personal taste, except when if affects me?

Show me where I have suggested that my own morals aren’t subjective; that is, that they are more than personal taste.

Then, if I view your tastes to be distasteful to me (because it hurts me), then I can try to convince you to try to change your tastes?

Yes, or you can try to find a way to accommodate both of our tastes. That is how moral issues are solved in the real world, wouldn’t you agree?

Sure. Caution is always warranted in discussions.

But what is so unpredictable about Absolute Truth?

My concern is how Truth differs from truth. Capitalizing something is like putting scare quotes around it. I’m not sure what extra philosophical baggage comes with capitalizing “truth”.

All that means is that there is a Truth to which all individuals can accede, if they are rational and seeking. It is merely saying, “We can know what is Truth because it conforms to external reality.”

I’ll have to nitpick here and disagree. There is no way to know a priori that just because something is true, we will someday come to know it.

A concrete example: This guarantee doesn’t even exist in mathematics; it’s possible for a statement to be true but beyond proof as a theorem. (This property is called incompleteness.) So if the laws of physics are mathematical, as everyone suspects they are, then this incompleteness would transfer to physics.

What does that mean? I am cautious when you say something that’s this nebulous.

Sorry that it wasn’t clearer. I mean that I don’t treat morality as objective. Stating a moral is a bit like describing a painting as beautiful. Our grammar suggests that we are describing an intrinsic property of the painting, but we know that such a statement is really only meaningful if we take the speaker’s relation to the painting into account. In other words, “This painting is beautiful” doesn’t describe a painting, but rather describes how someone feels about a painting. That makes the statement’s meaning dependent on the subject, i.e., it makes the statement subjective.

 

[PRmerger]

Show me where I have suggested that my own morals aren’t subjective; that is, that they are more than personal taste.

Fair enough.

If they are a matter of personal taste, do you sometimes think that your personal taste is better than someone else’s personal taste?

I know I never do. That seems kind of arrogant. But that’s just me.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, or you can try to find a way to accommodate both of our tastes. That is how moral issues are solved in the real world, wouldn’t you agree?

I haven’t seen that in my world, Oreoracle. And I’m surprised that you would find this to be true in your real world.

Do you know any accommodations that have been made in our society for the personal tastes of pedophilia?

What about rape?

 

[PRmerger]

My concern is how Truth differs from truth. Capitalizing something is like putting scare quotes around it. I’m not sure what extra philosophical baggage comes with capitalizing “truth”.

I can certainly desist from using capitals for particular words.

I’ll have to nitpick here and disagree. There is no way to know a priori that just because something is true, we will someday come to know it.

Oh–I haven’t posited that, ever. I don’t believe that we will ever “come to know” all truths. For example, I know that it is true that there is a finite number of hairs on my head. However, I will never “come to know” what that number is.

A concrete example: This guarantee doesn’t even exist in mathematics; it’s possible for a statement to be true but beyond proof as a theorem. (This property is called incompleteness.) So if the laws of physics are mathematical, as everyone suspects they are, then this incompleteness would transfer to physics.

But we are both agreed that there are indeed mathematical truths that we can indeed prove (for example: 4-2 = 2). And there are some things that we do know a priori (for example: a square is a four sided shape with 4 right angles and equal sides).

So this would also transfer to physics, yes?

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry that it wasn’t clearer. I mean that I don’t treat morality as objective. Stating a moral is a bit like describing a painting as beautiful. Our grammar suggests that we are describing an intrinsic property of the painting, but we know that such a statement is really only meaningful if we take the speaker’s relation to the painting into account. In other words, “This painting is beautiful” doesn’t describe a painting, but rather describes how someone feels about a painting. That makes the statement’s meaning dependent on the subject, i.e., it makes the statement subjective.

So there is nothing that is immoral for all people in all situations?

What would be an example of child rape being a good thing?

 

[Oreoracle]

It is my assumption that the “their” in “Their interpretations may even be correct.” refers to the hundreds of people examining ancient writings over many years.

It is a bit unclear what is meant by “their”. Thus far, I have been treating the Church as I would treat a corporation. A corporation has a CEO (compare with the Pope) and a Board of some sort consisting of the biggest investors in the company, whose opinions naturally must be taken into account. It’s hard to find a replacement for this Board. Many Catholics support the Church, just as many people invest in a corporation, and it’s impractical to invite all of those people to a meeting to discuss business. For now, I’m assuming the best replacement for the Board would be the cardinals of the Church.

I feel it is necessary to make at least some comparison of this sort because, unlike the scientific community, the Church has a hierarchy, and that makes questions of accountability very difficult. It’s like asking who we’ll blame if a project goes wrong in a corporation. It’s all well and good to say it’s just the corporation’s fault, but we still need to cope with the problem, and eventually some individual(s) will need to be held accountable.

The hundreds of people examining ancient writings over many years are all held accountable to the standards of good workmanship. They are accountable to the Ecumenical Council participants for how well they examine ancient writings.

How does one gauge how well a particular interpretation was conceived, though? In the scientific community, if one scientist reports results and other scientists are unable to replicate those results under the same conditions, that scientist’s work is discredited. How does one discredit another’s interpretation of a writing?

All the above work falls under the general category of interpretations which are presented at the Ecumenical Councils as evidence. Next comes discussion. The Council’s discussion period is similar to the “peer review” process for publishing in major science journals.

I’m still not sure they are similar. Peer review is a process that is never finished. I will again use an example everyone is tired of hearing by now: the overthrow of Newtonian physics by Relativity. There were many scientists who, before that overthrow, believed the matter was settled. Peer review of Newton’s work had already been going for two centuries, so how much more caution should we need, they must have thought. But no, there is no statute of limitations on peer review in science, which is why a result is never deemed infallible.

Contrast this to the discussion in Councils. I am not an expert on this, but I am assuming that the Councils do finish up their work and eventually declare an interpretation infallible, correct? That is quite unlike peer review, since the opinion of that Council is now beyond criticism from future generations.

In fact, defining infallible interpretations is not the goal of an Ecumenical Church Council. The goal of a Church Council is to define a doctrine based on Divine Revelation which is based on the evidence provided from all the sources mentioned above.

I would argue that forming an interpretation and defining a doctrine amount to the same thing. As I attempted to illustrate with my foreign book analogy, being the sole interpreter essentially grants someone the same power they would hold as the author. It reminds me of a quote by Stalin (I think it was him, anyway): “The person who votes isn’t nearly as important as the person who counts the votes.” Granted, now you have a council of people deciding how they’ll translate the foreign book rather than an individual, but the principle is the same: their work is now beyond criticism since the council has made its decision.

 

[PRmerger]

How does one gauge how well a particular interpretation was conceived, though? In the scientific community, if one scientist reports results and other scientists are unable to replicate those results under the same conditions, that scientist’s work is discredited. How does one discredit another’s interpretation of a writing?

I think your error lies in your presupposition. It appears that you believe that the Catholic Church bases its teachings on the Bible?

The Catholic Faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ, Oreoracle.

We had the kerygma, which came to us from the mouth of the Word Incarnate, and spread through the Apostles.

THEN the kerygma (parts of it) was written down.

Perhaps if you take your presupposition back one step and understand that the Catholic Faith was already established PRIOR TO the NT, a more pertinent question could be asked?

 

[Oreoracle]

If they are a matter of personal taste, do you sometimes think that your personal taste is better than someone else’s personal taste?

I know I never do. That seems kind of arrogant. But that’s just me.

Let’s put that to the test then. Pick your favorite artwork. It could even be merely a mental image of the best sunset you’ve ever seen. Alright, do you have one in mind? I now assert that this stick figure I just drew at my desk is more beautiful than what you’re imagining. We could do the same thing with music. Think of your favorite song, and I assert that sirens sound better than whatever you had in mind.

You can pretend that you feel my taste is just as good as yours for the sake of politeness, but I doubt that you really feel that way. Again, just because something is subjective doesn’t mean people don’t cling to their own opinions as a matter of pride, if nothing else.

I haven’t seen that in my world, Oreoracle. And I’m surprised that you would find this to be true in your real world.

Do you know any accommodations that have been made in our society for the personal tastes of pedophilia?

Actually, people who are pedophiles (but who haven’t acted on it) can get therapy, if I’m not mistaken. So yeah, partially.

But what I had in mind was something like, say, unions. During Industrialization, it was common in the U.S. for jobs to be dangerous for workers. The working class was defined by traits such as missing fingers. In spite of this, our economy boomed. The workers wanted safer conditions, but the employers wanted handsome profits. So how did we accommodate both? Better design for machinery combined with safety regulations thanks to unions, that’s how.

I can think of a lot of things that allow for accommodation of multiple perspectives/groups, actually: freedom of religion, affirmative action, gun control paired with the right to bear arms, the existence of private schools and public schools, etc.

Oh–I haven’t posited that, ever. I don’t believe that we will ever “come to know” all truths. For example, I know that it is true that there is a finite number of hairs on my head. However, I will never “come to know” what that number is.

But we are both agreed that there are indeed mathematical truths that we can indeed prove (for example: 4-2 = 2). And there are some things that we do know a priori (for example: a square is a four sided shape with 4 right angles and equal sides).

So this would also transfer to physics, yes?

Yes, we can agree on this.

So there is nothing that is immoral for all people in all situations?

I’m not sure how to interpret the question. It’s like asking “Is there a painting that is beautiful for all people in all situations?” I suppose, hypothetically, it’s possible that we could have a painting everyone enjoys. I hope you agree that that wouldn’t make it objectively beautiful, however. Objectivity isn’t a matter of consensus.

 

[PRmerger]

Let’s put that to the test then. Pick your favorite artwork. It could even be merely a mental image of the best sunset you’ve ever seen. Alright, do you have one in mind? I now assert that this stick figure I just drew at my desk is more beautiful than what you’re imagining. We could do the same thing with music. Think of your favorite song, and I assert that sirens sound better than whatever you had in mind.

You can pretend that you feel my taste is just as good as yours for the sake of politeness, but I doubt that you really feel that way. Again, just because something is subjective doesn’t mean people don’t cling to their own opinions as a matter of pride, if nothing else.

I guarantee you, Oreoracle, that I would NEVER think that my preference (in food, art, music, dress) is better than yours. That is simply…arrogant.

You would find your preference better than someone else’s?

I find this peculiar, given the corollary to your paradigm which is: morality is simply a matter of tastes and therefore I can’t say that your morality is wrong.

In my paradigm, I absolutely DO THINK that someone’s morality is wrong. (See: the Reverend Fred Phelps).

I find that you have things absolutely backwards. Where someone has a particular preference ("I think a stick figure is astonishingly beautiful!) you judge that as being inferior. I don’t.

But where someone has a particular morality ("I think that sex with multiple folks is just fine!) you think, “Who am I to judge what she prefers?” I do judge that.

Seems kind of backwards to me.

I never judge someone’s particular tastes in music, art, food. That’s plain arrogant.
But I do judge when a particular morality is…well, immoral.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not sure how to interpret the question. It’s like asking “Is there a painting that is beautiful for all people in all situations?” I suppose, hypothetically, it’s possible that we could have a painting everyone enjoys. I hope you agree that that wouldn’t make it objectively beautiful, however. Objectivity isn’t a matter of consensus.

So can you give an example of when child rape would be moral?

 

[Oreoracle]

I see you’ve opted for pretending my taste is as good as yours for the sake of politeness. I know it may sound unreasonable for me to assume you’re lying about this, but it’s as unbelievable as saying you’ve never used a swear word. No one is that perfect. You have definitely regarded someone’s tastes as unrefined in your life, just like everyone else has.

So can you give an example of when child rape would be moral?

I don’t think you’re listening to me on this point. I don’t think child rape is acceptable. However, I don’t assume that someone who rapes a child is somehow less competent than me to observe the external world or make logical inferences. I simply take it that they lack the sense of empathy that prevents me and everyone else from doing the same.