G
gracepoole
Guest
For me the bigger red flag with Marshall is that he converted in 2006 yet after less than a decade later he was qualified to become a highly paid face of Catholicism.
- Status
E
edward_george1
Guest
That doesn’t mean that everyone who has a PhD is dumb though. It’s not really a good universal maxim.
G
gracepoole
Guest
Nope. A certificate that’s accredited? Yes. But you can offer a certificate via a web site anytime you like.
S
StudentMI
Guest
True. Just saying, really. His book infiltration nearly drove me to atheism to be honest so I’m perhaps a bit biased.
M
Minuteman
Guest
I don’t dismiss it out of hand, Edward. But he received his Ph.D. in philosophy less than ten (10) years ago. Most philosophy Ph.D. programs churn out a dozen or more students a year. That ends up being quite a few, not to mention all the theology Ph.D. students being churned out. So again, what gives Dr. Marshall the authority and gravitas that he would seem to command?
G
gracepoole
Guest
Chutzpah? A somewhat sychophantic following that believes everything he says?
(Note that I’m not saying everyone who likes his work is a sychophant – but judging by his Twitter followers, there definitely are some out there.)
B
Bithynian
Guest
As someone who has a PhD, I can testify the accuracy of this statement and I sometimes even feel it’s applicable to me.
I should note that a PhD does not necessarily make one an expert in anything other than the (typically) very specific topic that is investigated by their thesis.
As an example, take an ichthyologist (which I’m not) whose PhD investigated the proton pump proteins responsible for hydrogen ion secretion in fish gills. I would not expect this ichthyologist to know about, say, the physiological processes that allow coldwater fish to survive in Antarctic waters.
P
phil19034
Guest
Here is his CV from 2012: Taylor Marshall's Curriculum Vitae - Taylor Marshall
2nd, Dr. Taylor Marshall taught college Philosophy courses at the University of Dallas and was a Dean at a small Catholic college in TX before it closed.
He was also a Fellow at the St Paul Center for Biblical Theology until he Infiltration book came out.
In the past, he was a guest on EWTN, Catholic Answers Live, and a number of other programs.
He has MA in Systematic Theology from Westminster Theological Seminary (a Protestant seminary outside of Philadelphia), MA in Philosophy from University of Dallas (which is a faithful Catholic college on the Newman Society list) and a Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Dallas.
He typically refers to himself as a Catholic Philosopher, but he does have a master’s degree in Systematic Theology from a respected Episcopalian seminary.
Finally, I’m a member of the New Saint Thomas Institute, and Dr. Marshall’s courses in there are nothing but orthodox and sound. His theology certificate (which is not a college credit certificate) is the kind of basic theology that one would learn in a 100 or 200 level college elective course or a program from the local diocese. He’s not teaching advanced theology there.
If you disagree with him, fine. Argue his points. But please stop with ad hominem attacks.
God Bless
Last edited:
G
gracepoole
Guest
Asking what qualifies someone to speak publicly on specific subjects isn’t an ad hominem attack.
S
StudentMI
Guest
What did you think of his argument that atheism was rational as a response to what he wrote in Infiltration?
P
phil19034
Guest
It is not an accredited certificate. The New Saint Thomas Institute marketing material says as much. They also explain why they have no desire to pursue it. Dr. Marshall knows what the college accreditation process is like from his previous employment and wants to keep the NSTI cheap. So they don’t offer “academic certificates” like you would get from Catholic Distance University. It’s a non-college credit certificate, like one may dioceses offer for about $50 a course. The NSTI offers a similar certificates to dioceses for less money.
Last edited:
G
gracepoole
Guest
Well, it’s probably necessary honesty to note, too, that he doesn’t have to contend with meeting any pesky accreditation criteria or having an unbiased third party evaluating his materials or assessing actual learning taking place in his courses.
P
phil19034
Guest
Honestly… it’s no different than the argument from C. S. Lewis used by Bishop Barron all the time that Jesus Christ is either who he says he is (the Son of God), a liar, or a crazy person.
You cannot call Jesus simply a good teacher and/or a good man. He is either the Son of God, a liar, or a crazy person.
Lewis's trilemma - Wikipedia
S
StudentMI
Guest
Actually it is different. He reiterates that the Magisterium is infallible and then tears it apart. At the end he says atheism is a logical outcome of what he’s written but he throws in some references to personal experiences he’s had of Jesus and Mary as his reason for believing.
P
phil19034
Guest
I’m going to re-read the paragraph /section
M
MarkRome
Guest
Always said by someone who doesn’t have one.
S
StudentMI
Guest
I can only speak for myself but I’m not triggered. I read his book after all. I find him kind of meh.
E
edward_george1
Guest
That has nothing to do with his academic credentials. I’ve found his podcasts very helpful to me at certain points in my life. When I was in seminary, I would download a few episodes and listen on long trips in the car. He has a lot of good things to say about practical matters of spirituality and faith in the day to day.
The question is what are his credentials and how do they qualify him to speak authoritatively on matters Catholic. I would say that his academic credentials are impressive and enough to get him a position as a professor in a Catholic university, even a seminary. I would say that he’s certainly educated enough, just from an objective standpoint, to speak on matters of Theology and philosophy.
The question of whether he’s worth listening to on current events in the Church and what effect his writing and speaking on such have on any particular member of the faithful is a distinct question. You are free to agree or disagree, like or dislike his statements about the state of the Church. But his academic credentials are a separate matter, and even more so is how long he’s been Catholic. I know lifelong Catholics who don’t know the first thing about their faith, and people who have been Catholic for a third of my lifetime who are experts in Theology.
Basically this thread seems aimed at trying to conflate all the issues and come away with the conclusion that Taylor Marshall is no good. I think we need to keep the issues separate and evaluate them appropriately and charitably. Since we’ve been set up for that not really being the case, this is my last post in the thread.
The question is what are his credentials and how do they qualify him to speak authoritatively on matters Catholic. I would say that his academic credentials are impressive and enough to get him a position as a professor in a Catholic university, even a seminary. I would say that he’s certainly educated enough, just from an objective standpoint, to speak on matters of Theology and philosophy.
The question of whether he’s worth listening to on current events in the Church and what effect his writing and speaking on such have on any particular member of the faithful is a distinct question. You are free to agree or disagree, like or dislike his statements about the state of the Church. But his academic credentials are a separate matter, and even more so is how long he’s been Catholic. I know lifelong Catholics who don’t know the first thing about their faith, and people who have been Catholic for a third of my lifetime who are experts in Theology.
Basically this thread seems aimed at trying to conflate all the issues and come away with the conclusion that Taylor Marshall is no good. I think we need to keep the issues separate and evaluate them appropriately and charitably. Since we’ve been set up for that not really being the case, this is my last post in the thread.
P
phil19034
Guest
OK… I re-read it.
You are taking what he wrote out of context. He is listing several different possibilities someone who is scandalized by the Church can take.
From Modernism, Atheistism, Protestantism, Orthodoxy, Sedevacantism, etc. But he shoots down each of them. He’s kind of using similar method to Aquinas by making the argument for the wrong position, and then refuting it.
But the problem with atheism, if a person doesn’t have an experience of God, a scandal can easily lead them away from the believe in God.
If we are honestly with ourselves for a moment… one of the reasons why atheism is on the rise is because of the number of religious scandals throughout history. It’s not the only reason, but it is one.
Last edited:
S
StudentMI
Guest
Perhaps. I just remember coming away with the feeling that atheism was logical. After all if all he has to go on is personal experience then what’s the point?
- Status