Epistemic Circularity

[Perplexity]

Argument:

(1) Someone begs the question if one or more of the premises of their argument presuppose the conclusion intended to be demonstrated. [Definition]

(2) The Catholic cannot demonstrate that the papacy is a truth revealed by God without appealing to the source(s) of God’s revelation. [Premise]

(3) The Catholic cannot appeal to the source(s) of God’s revelation without presupposing the authority and or infallibility of the Magisterium. [Premise]

(4) But, the Magisterium is neither authoritative nor infallible unless the papacy is a truth revealed by God. [Premise]

(5) Therefore, the Catholic cannot appeal to the source(s) of God’s revelation without presupposing that the papacy is a truth revealed by God. [From (3), (4)]

(6) Therefore, the Catholic cannot demonstrate that the papacy is a truth revealed by God without begging the question. [From (1), (2), (5)]

An argument is epistemically circular [begs the question] when the truth of the conclusion of the argument is required in order for the proponent of the argument to have warranted (or justified) belief in the suspect premise.

Anticipating objection:

So far, (3) has recieved the most objections. So, I’ll take a minute to defend it.

(3) simply means that because the Catholic believes we wouldn’t be able to refer to the deposit of Faith if there was no Church to which that deposit was entrusted to, and because there is no Church to which that deposit was entrusted to if the Magisterium doesn’t exist, then the Catholic’s belief that (x) is God’s revelation, doxasticaly, or epistemically [see above] presupposes the nature of the Magisterium [authoritative and infallible]. Hence, the Catholic cannot appeal to (x) without that presupposition.

 

[Luke_K]

I think the answer to this is that we take as historically true that Jesus rose from the dead, thus vindicating his teachings and his claims as divine. Jesus said that he would found a church on Peter, giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and allowing him to bind truths on earth as in heaven. In heaven there can be no untruth, so therefore whoever holds the keys must necessarily infallibly bind things.

In summary, because we have good evidence historically that Jesus rose from the dead, we accept his claims as divinely true, including his claim to found an infallible church.

 

[Perplexity]

I think the answer to this is that we take as historically true that Jesus rose from the dead, thus vindicating his teachings and his claims as divine. Jesus said that he would found a church on Peter, giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and allowing him to bind truths on earth and in heaven. In heaven there can be no untruth, so therefore whoever holds the keys must necessarily infallibly bind things.

In summary, because we have good evidence historically that Jesus rose from the dead, we accept his claims as divinely true, including his claim to found an infallible church.

My argument isn’t that the Catholic begs the question because s/he believes the Bible’s existence depends on the Church’s authority, and then s/he proves the Church’s authority by means of the Bible. This is an argument utilized by James White in his The Roman Catholic Controversy p. 47. and despite the fact that he says Karl Keating’s ‘spiral argument’ doesn’t work [Catholicism and Fundamentalism pp. 123-127] I think White is in error.

So, I’ll grant that in principle using Jesus’ resurrection as the starting point, you can infer in a chain-like manner all the way down to whatever you were trying to get to.

However, this doesn’t effect my argument; because, granting all of it, it would still be the case that the papacy would need to be a truth revealed by God in order for the Catholic to have warranted (or justified) belief that the papacy is a truth revealed by God.

 

[ctkrcia]

Interesting argument. Let me take a run at it.

You have acknowledged that Jesus rose from the dead and indicated to use that as a starting point. Let’s use historical facts and let’s further use the Bible as a historical book ONLY.

After Jesus rose from the dead, he appeared to his Apostles. Immediately before His ascension into heaven, Jesus told his closest circle of friends (the Apostles), “…receive the Holy Spirit. As the Father has sent me so I send you.” How did Jesus claim the Father sent him? With all authority in heaven and on earth. This is where the apostles get their authority. Not from a church. Not from a magisterium. Not from a book. From Jesus who received His authority from the Father.

It was from this point that the teaching authority of the apostles was established. Now, depending on when one defines the beginning of the church, it could have been established before or after this point. Some hold that the church began with Peter’s profession of faith in Matt 16. Others hold the church began at Pentecost. If either case was true, then the church would be established at a separate point in time from the magisterium. Equally true would be that one did not depend on the other - they were established independently by Jesus and His authority.

It could also be that both the church and the magisterium were under development while Jesus was on earth. It was not until Pentecost when the both matured and were employed simultaneously. At the beginning, there was no formal recognition of two separate entities. The church and the magisterium have co-existed since Pentecost. One did not cause or create the other. They go hand in hand like time and motion. Without time, there is no motion because there is nothing to measure against. Without motion, there is no time because everything would be in a static state and unchanged. Likewise, without the church there is no magisterium because there is no need for a teaching office. Without the magisterium, there is no universal church because there is no central controlling interpretive office.

Your serve.

 

[Perplexity]

Interesting argument. Let me take a run at it.

You have acknowledged that Jesus rose from the dead and indicated to use that as a starting point. Let’s use historical facts and let’s further use the Bible as a historical book ONLY.

After Jesus rose from the dead, he appeared to his Apostles. Immediately before His ascension into heaven, Jesus told his closest circle of friends (the Apostles), “…receive the Holy Spirit. As the Father has sent me so I send you.” How did Jesus claim the Father sent him? With all authority in heaven and on earth. This is where the apostles get their authority. Not from a church. Not from a magisterium. Not from a book. From Jesus who received His authority from the Father.

It was from this point that the teaching authority of the apostles was established. Now, depending on when one defines the beginning of the church, it could have been established before or after this point. Some hold that the church began with Peter’s profession of faith in Matt 16. Others hold the church began at Pentecost. If either case was true, then the church would be established at a separate point in time from the magisterium. Equally true would be that one did not depend on the other - they were established independently by Jesus and His authority.

It could also be that both the church and the magisterium were under development while Jesus was on earth. It was not until Pentecost when the both matured and were employed simultaneously. At the beginning, there was no formal recognition of two separate entities. The church and the magisterium have co-existed since Pentecost. One did not cause or create the other. They go hand in hand like time and motion. Without time, there is no motion because there is nothing to measure against. Without motion, there is no time because everything would be in a static state and unchanged. Likewise, without the church there is no magisterium because there is no need for a teaching office. Without the magisterium, there is no universal church because there is no central controlling interpretive office.

Your serve.

I suppose the first thing to note is that critical historians wouldn’t grant half of the alleged historical facts above any significant degree of historical certainty. So, granting that Jesus resurrected, it doesn’t logically follow that these other things are historically accurate unless you posit some kind of inspiration. However, this needn’t delay us. I’ll just grant these for the sake of argument.

Second, magisterially, Catholics cannot make the resurrection argument. There is a decree saying the resurrection is a meta-historical issue and therefore from the historical “facts” like the empty tomb, apostle’s conviction etc. we cannot infer that God raised Jesus. According the RCC. But, we’ve already granted that he did.

I’m a little uncertain as to how to respond directly though, I’m not sure which premise you’re objecting to. It seems like a combination of (2) and (3). Would you mind stating which premise(s) you’re objecting to?

 

[Betterave]

Argument:

(1) Someone begs the question (BQ) if one or more of the premises of their argument presuppose the conclusion intended to be demonstrated (PC). [Definition]

(2) The Catholic cannot demonstrate that the papacy is a truth revealed by God (DP) without appealing to the source(s) of God’s revelation (AR). [Premise]

(3) The Catholic cannot appeal to the source(s) of God’s revelation (AR) without presupposing the authority and or infallibility of the Magisterium (MA). [Premise]

(4) But, the Magisterium is neither authoritative nor infallible (MA) unless the papacy is a truth revealed by God (MR). [Premise]

(5) Therefore, the Catholic cannot appeal to the source(s) of God’s revelation without presupposing that the papacy is a truth revealed by God. [From (3), (4)]

(6) Therefore, the Catholic cannot demonstrate that the papacy is a truth revealed by God without begging the question. [From (1), (2), (5)]

An argument is epistemically circular [begs the question] when the truth of the conclusion of the argument is required in order for the proponent of the argument to have warranted (or justified) belief in the suspect premise.

Anticipating objection:

So far, (3) has recieved the most objections. So, I’ll take a minute to defend it.

(3) simply means that because the Catholic believes we wouldn’t be able to refer to the deposit of Faith if there was no Church to which that deposit was entrusted to, and because there is no Church to which that deposit was entrusted to if the Magisterium doesn’t exist, then the Catholic’s belief that (x) is God’s revelation, doxasticaly, or epistemically [see above] presupposes the nature of the Magisterium [authoritative and infallible]. Hence, the Catholic cannot appeal to (x) without that presupposition.

So to formalize:
PC - premise(s) presuppose conclusion
BQ - beg the question
AR - appeal to revelation is possible
DP - demonstrate papacy
MA - magisterium is authoritative
MR - magisterium is a revealed truth

1. If PC, then BQ. (premise)
2. If not-AR, then not-DP (premise)
3. If not-MA, then not-AR (premise)
4. If not-MR, then not-MA (premise
5. If not-MR, then not-AR (3,4 hypothetical syllogism)
   5.1) If not-MR, then not-DP (2,5 hypothetical syllogism)
   5.2) If not-BQ, then not-PC (1 implication)
   5.3) If not-PC, then not-MR (question-begging premise which you forgot to mention?)
6. If not-BQ, then not-DP (1, 2, 5 non sequitur or 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 hypothetical syllogism)

To spell out 5.3, which you seem to require:
5.3) If one’s premises do not presuppose their conclusion, then it is not the case that the magisterium or papacy pertain to the truth that has been revealed by God.

 

[ctkrcia]

I suppose the first thing to note is that critical historians wouldn’t grant half of the alleged historical facts above any significant degree of historical certainty. So, granting that Jesus resurrected, it doesn’t logically follow that these other things are historically accurate unless you posit some kind of inspiration. However, this needn’t delay us. I’ll just grant these for the sake of argument.

Second, magisterially, Catholics cannot make the resurrection argument. There is a decree saying the resurrection is a meta-historical issue and therefore from the historical “facts” like the empty tomb, apostle’s conviction etc. we cannot infer that God raised Jesus. According the RCC. But, we’ve already granted that he did.

I’m a little uncertain as to how to respond directly though, I’m not sure which premise you’re objecting to. It seems like a combination of (2) and (3). Would you mind stating which premise(s) you’re objecting to?

I object mostly to premise 3 with strong seconds being to premise 2 and 4. Your position seems to be that the magisterium cannot exist without the church and the church cannot exist without the magisterium. This is the central position of the circularity. I feel that if these are solved, the others will, by default, become solvable.

 

[Perplexity]

Thank you much Betterave, that was a silly mistake on my part. Here is a reformulation in light of your objection:

(1) If one or more of the premises of a Catholic’s argument presuppose the conclusion intended to be demonstrated, then that Catholic begs the question.

(2) If the Catholic doesn’t appeal to the source(s) of God’s revelation as a premise intended to conclude that the papacy is a truth revealed by God, then the Catholic cannot argumentatively conclude that the papacy is a truth revealed by God.

(3) If the Catholic doesn’t presuppose the authority and or infallibility of the Magisterium, then the Catholic cannot appeal to the source(s) of God’s revelation as a premise intended to conclude that the papacy is a truth revealed by God.

(4) If the Catholic doesn’t presuppose the authority and or infallibility of the Magisterium, then the Catholic cannot argumentatively conclude that the papacy is a truth revealed by God.

(5) If the papacy isn’t a truth revealed by God, then the Magisterium isn’t authoritative or infallible.

(6) If the Catholic presupposes the authority or infallibility of the Magisterium, then the Catholic presupposes the papacy is a truth revealed by God.

(7) Therefore, if appeal to the source(s) of God’s revelation is a premise of a Catholic’s argument that is intended to conclude that the papacy is a truth revealed by God, then the Catholic begs the question.

(8) Therefore, the Catholic cannot argumentatively conclude that the papacy is a truth revealed by God without begging the question.

 

[Betterave]

Thank you much Betterave, that was a silly mistake on my part. Here is a reformulation in light of your objection:

(1) If one or more of the premises of a Catholic’s argument presuppose the conclusion intended to be demonstrated, then that Catholic begs the question.

(2) If the Catholic doesn’t appeal to the source(s) of God’s revelation as a premise intended to conclude that the papacy is a truth revealed by God, then the Catholic cannot argumentatively conclude that the papacy is a truth revealed by God.

(3) If the Catholic doesn’t presuppose the authority and or infallibility of the Magisterium, then the Catholic cannot appeal to the source(s) of God’s revelation as a premise intended to conclude that the papacy is a truth revealed by God.

(4) If the Catholic doesn’t presuppose the authority and or infallibility of the Magisterium, then the Catholic cannot argumentatively conclude that the papacy is a truth revealed by God.

(5) If the papacy isn’t a truth revealed by God, then the Magisterium isn’t authoritative or infallible.

(6) If the Catholic presupposes the authority or infallibility of the Magisterium, then the Catholic presupposes the papacy is a truth revealed by God.

(7) Therefore, if appeal to the source(s) of God’s revelation is a premise of a Catholic’s argument that is intended to conclude that the papacy is a truth revealed by God, then the Catholic begs the question.

(8) Therefore, the Catholic cannot argumentatively conclude that the papacy is a truth revealed by God without begging the question.

You’re welcome. So to attempt to formalize again:
PC - premise(s) presuppose conclusion
BQ - beg the question
AR - appeal to revelation is possible
DP - demonstrate papacy
PMA - presuppose magisterium is authoritative
PPR - presuppose papacy is a revealed truth

1. If PC, then BQ. (premise)
2. If not-AR, then not-DP (premise)
3. If not-PMA, then not-AR (premise)
4. If not-PMA, then not-DP (2, 3 hypothetical syllogism)
5. If not-PPR, then not-PMA (premise)

5.1) If not-PPR, then not-AR (5, 3 HS)
5.11) IF AR, then PPR (5.1 implication)
5.2) If not-PPR, then not-DP (5.1, 2 HS)
5.21) If DP, then PPR (5.2 implication)
5.3) If PPR, then AR (premise)
5.4) If DP, then AR (5.21, 5.3 HS)
(I don’t know if any of this is useful, I was just trying to figure out how you might have derived your conclusions.)

1. If PMA, then PPR (5 implication)
2. If (if DP, then AR), then BQ (non sequitur?)
3. If not-BQ, then not-DP (non sequitur?)

Anyway, I’m confused (as I suspect your argument is)!

 

[Joel_PF]

(2) The Catholic cannot demonstrate that the papacy is a truth revealed by God without appealing to the source(s) of God’s revelation. [Premise]

(3) The Catholic cannot appeal to the source(s) of God’s revelation without presupposing the authority and or infallibility of the Magisterium. [Premise]

False. There are miracles, and more importantly, the living witness of many good men and women, first and foremost the canonized saints, whose wonderful lives are the strongest argument in favor of the claims of Christianity. It also makes appeals to the common experience of men: their falibility, their tendency towards certain vices, their fear of death, their deep-seated desire for something more fulfilling than anything that can be had in life.

The papacy, specifically, is defended first on historical grounds: it was like that the early Church was established, and it was like that because it followed the example of Christ and the apostles, of whom St. Peter was the first. It also is very reasonable considered rationally: any large institution needs a visible authority, an arbiter of last resort to settle some important questions.

 

[danserr]

My argument isn’t that the Catholic begs the question because s/he believes the Bible’s existence depends on the Church’s authority, and then s/he proves the Church’s authority by means of the Bible. This is an argument utilized by James White in his The Roman Catholic Controversy p. 47. and despite the fact that he says Karl Keating’s ‘spiral argument’ doesn’t work [Catholicism and Fundamentalism pp. 123-127] I think White is in error.

So, I’ll grant that in principle using Jesus’ resurrection as the starting point, you can infer in a chain-like manner all the way down to whatever you were trying to get to.

However, this doesn’t effect my argument; because, granting all of it, it would still be the case that the papacy would need to be a truth revealed by God in order for the Catholic to have warranted (or justified) belief that the papacy is a truth revealed by God.

I agree with Luke:

1. It is a historical fact that Jesus rose from the dead.
2. If Jesus rose, this is divine vindication of his teaching.
3. part of Jesus teaching was his claim to found an church based on Peter.
4. The Roman Church is the church founded by Christ, based on Peter
5. Therefore, the Catholic Church is divinely founded.

This argument is valid, the conclusion follows from the premises, and it is non-circular.
My purpose here is not to argue any of these points, (I have done some in previous threads), but to show that a catholic may believe that the Catholic Church is divinely founded, on the basis of evidence, without being circular.

 

[Perplexity]

The essential points are these:

(i) a dogma is a truth revealed by God and proposed by the Magisterium for belief as such

(ii) The Magisterium proposes the papacy as a truth revealed by God for belief as such

(iii) So, the papacy is a dogma.

(iv) The Catholic believes the papacy is a truth revealed by God because s/he regards the Magisterium, which proposed it as such for his/her belief, as authoritative and infallible.

(v) But, the Catholic believes that the Magisterium is neither authoritative nor infallible unless the papacy is infact a truth revealed by God.

Does no one else detect some kind of circular reasoning here? I’ve tried {I won’t say how many times} to unsuccesfully explicate this intuition. Driving me insane lol.

 

[Windfish]

I think you are building up straw men. The Catholic argument to the authority and truth of the papacy is entirely linear. Jesus historically did and said things, and his authority as the Son of God, he founded the Catholic Church and deputized St. Peter (and the other apostles). The Magisterium gets it authority from the Holy Spirit promised to it by Christ. It all goes back to Christ and is perfectly linear.

 

[Betterave]

The essential points are these:

(i) a dogma is a truth revealed by God and proposed by the Magisterium for belief as such

(ii) The Magisterium proposes the papacy as a truth revealed by God for belief as such

(iii) So, the papacy is a dogma.

(iv) The Catholic believes the papacy is a truth revealed by God because s/he regards the Magisterium, which proposed it as such for his/her belief, as authoritative and infallible.

(v) But, the Catholic believes that the Magisterium is neither authoritative nor infallible unless the papacy is infact a truth revealed by God.

Does no one else detect some kind of circular reasoning here? I’ve tried {I won’t say how many times} to unsuccesfully explicate this intuition. Driving me insane lol.

The beauty of logic is that it allows us to rigorously examine our intuitions.

MA - Magisterium is authoritative
PRG - papacy is revealed by God
i, ii, iii) definitions
v) For the Catholic: If not-PRG, then not-MA
iv) For the Catholic: MA, therefore PRG

I suspect your whole argument simply boils down to: the Catholic argues MA, therefore PRG; and intuitively you are thinking that MA is justified by: PRG, therefore MA. The problem is, I don’t think that is the Catholic argument. At the same time, MA and PRG are clearly mutually reinforcing, so that can’t help but drive your intuition that there is something circular going on, and I think you’re right, there is, but I don’t think it’s a vicious circularity.