Feigned Ignorance vs. Unintentional Ignorance

[underacloud]

Your premise (b) is false. It is quiet possible that there are zero people in hell right now but it is difficult to reach heaven without the grace received as a Catholic. It was simply the case that everyone till now managed to get to heaven.

Anyway, since your premise (b) is false/doubtful, your conclusion does not follow.

All of the above only support premise (a) which I do not deny anyway.

Did you or did you not say “Chances of being saved outside the Catholic Church are slim”?

If all are saved (which you agree is posible) than your position is dead wrong.

I’m glad you agree with premise a) because it clearly supports my position.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Did you or did you not say “Chances of being saved outside the Catholic Church are slim”?

If all are saved (which you agree is posible) than your position is dead wrong.

I’m glad you agree with premise a) because it clearly supports my position.

I think you are misunderstanding the existence of the possibility that all are saved with chances of all being saved being slim. This is a logical error.

Think about it this way. What the chances of getting 4 aces in a hand of 4 cards from a deck of well shuffled cards? The possibility is slim. Does it mean its impossible? NO.

So your error here is that you equate slim chances with impossibility.

 

[underacloud]

Ah, you’re back.

I think you are misunderstanding the existence of the possibility that all are saved with chances of all being saved being slim. This is a logical error.

Not at all. I have never denied that the chance of this is slim. Very slim indeed. I hope that all are saved, but don’t hold any real expectation of it.

But that’s not the point at all. I simply point out that if all are saved (which you accept is possible, even if highly unlikely), then chances of salvation are equal for all, and thus it is illogical to say that chances are *definitely *greater in the Church, even if they probably, almost certainly, are greater.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Ah, you’re back.

Yes, sorry for the delay I was a bit busy with some other work.

Not at all. I have never denied that the chance of this is slim. Very slim indeed. I hope that all are saved, but don’t hold any real expectation of it.

But that’s not the point at all. I simply point out that if all are saved (which you accept is possible, even if highly unlikely), then chances of salvation are equal for all, and thus it is illogical to say that chances are *definitely *greater in the Church, even if they probably, almost certainly, are greater.

I am not sure you understand probability here. The fact that something is possible does not mean that the chances are equal.

The chances of getting 4 aces in a hand are slim. The chances of getting 4 Diamond faced cards is more likely. Both are possible. But both do not have equal chances.

So do non-Church members have a possibility of being saved? Sure. But the chances are slim. There is nothing illogical about the statement unless you are referring to some other aspect that I am missing.

 

[underacloud]

But if it turns out that everyone is dealt a hand of aces, then we understand that the odds were never as we thought. That’s what happens if all are saved…it’s aces all round and we understand that the odds were always in everyone’s favour.

Perhaps it’s just that we are discussing this from different perspectives…looking forward or looking back.

Looking forward we don’t know what the odds are. What are the chances of each person being saved? So we work with the best information we have, which is that Christ established His Church as the ordinary means of salvation, and those who understand this know that it’s the means through which they are saved. That’s quite straightforward I think.

Looking back - well, it’s purely a hypothetical perspective at this point. But if all are saved, we would look back and say that the odds were equal, 100% in both cases.

So do non-Church members have a possibility of being saved? Sure. But the chances are slim. There is nothing illogical about the statement unless you are referring to some other aspect that I am missing.

There’s nothing illogical in you holding that position.

The only logical problem is when you want to impose that position on me. If you try to do this, you’re actually begging the question, since your conclusion that the chances are slim also seems be to a premise.

 

[Eufrosnia]

But if it turns out that everyone is dealt a hand of aces, then we understand that the odds were never as we thought. That’s what happens if all are saved…it’s aces all round and we understand that the odds were always in everyone’s favour.

Actually no. This is incorrect logic. If I receive a hand of 4 aces, it does not mean that the probability of getting the hand was equal to getting 4 diamond faced cards.

So there is no proof by what actually will/might happen that says one has equal chances. That is determined apriori.

Perhaps it’s just that we are discussing this from different perspectives…looking forward or looking back.

That is actually the problem. The probabilities are independent regardless of whether you are looking back or looking forward. Something happening does not change the probability of what that event had associated with it.

Looking forward we don’t know what the odds are. What are the chances of each person being saved? So we work with the best information we have, which is that Christ established His Church as the ordinary means of salvation, and those who understand this know that it’s the means through which they are saved. That’s quite straightforward I think.

Yes, one is saved through the church and the sacraments, devotions to the saints and our blessed mother, increase the chances.

Looking back - well, it’s purely a hypothetical perspective at this point. But if all are saved, we would look back and say that the odds were equal, 100% in both cases.

Nope. This does not logically follow.

The only logical problem is when you want to impose that position on me. If you try to do this, you’re actually begging the question, since your conclusion that the chances are slim also seems be to a premise.

What do you mean? The chances are slim because they have no sacraments and other Catholic devotions which give them access to grace. So in terms of measure, Catholics have more chances at obtaining graces compared to someone outside the church. Therefore, the chances are less, quantitatively speaking.

 

[underacloud]

Actually no. This is incorrect logic. If I receive a hand of 4 aces, it does not mean that the probability of getting the hand was equal to getting 4 diamond faced cards.

You missed my point. If the deck is stacked with aces, then the chances of each person getting aces is the same.

That is actually the problem. The probabilities are independent regardless of whether you are looking back or looking forward. Something happening does not change the probability of what that event had associated with it.

But we do not know the chances. That’s the whole problem and what you fail to show otherwise. Your card analogy isn’t appropriate because in a game of poker we know all the odds involved. In the question of salvation, we don’t.

 

[underacloud]

underacloud;10024484:

Looking back - well, it’s purely a hypothetical perspective at this point. But if all are saved, we would look back and say that the odds were equal, 100% in both cases.

Nope. This does not logically follow.

Actually, since you can’t see the clear logic in this, I think it’s time to bring a close to this discussion. We’re going around in circles now and unless you want to quote some Church teaching that shows your position (which I’ve asked for all along) I don’t see the need to keep repeating myself.

 

[Pug]

Why are we talking about getting into heaven as a “chance”, like a roll of a die? Surely people are not randomly getting into heaven.

If we are talking about chance and randomness, then I disagree with the following logic:

I simply point out that if all are saved (which you accept is possible, even if highly unlikely), then chances of salvation are equal for all,

Say you give three people a randomizing device. X has a die with 6 numbers, Y has a die with 5 numbers, and Z has a die with 4 numbers. So X has a 1 out of 6 chance to roll and 1, Y has a 1 out of 5 chance, Z a 1 out of 4. We put them in a room and have them use their randomizing devices. Say it turns out that all three of them roll a 1. It does not logically follow that therefore they all had the same likelihood of rolling a 1.

If a “1” represents salvation, and any other number represents hell, and there were only those three people in the world, then all three got saved and they did not have equal chances of it.

 

[underacloud]

Why are we talking about getting into heaven as a “chance”, like a roll of a die? Surely people are not randomly getting into heaven.

If we are talking about chance and randomness, then I disagree with the following logic:

But that’s the point…we’re not talking about randomness.

Say you give three people a randomizing device. X has a die with 6 numbers, Y has a die with 5 numbers, and Z has a die with 4 numbers. So X has a 1 out of 6 chance to roll and 1, Y has a 1 out of 5 chance, Z a 1 out of 4. We put them in a room and have them use their randomizing devices. Say it turns out that all three of them roll a 1. It does not logically follow that therefore they all had the same likelihood of rolling a 1.

If a “1” represents salvation, and any other number represents hell, and there were only those three people in the world, then all three got saved and they did not have equal chances of it.

Well, that works for 3 people (based on an unlikely 1 in 120 chance). Repeat the experiment a few times…the odds of the second occasion of repeating the event is 1/14400…the third time 1/1728000…etc. Now extend the analogy to all the billions of people who may or may not be saved? If they are all saved, we would exclude the very notion of “chance”.

 

[Pug]

But that’s the point…we’re not talking about randomness.

Well, that works for 3 people (based on an unlikely 1 in 120 chance).

That answer seems affirmative, so it seems that you would accept that if there were only 3 people who ever lived in the world and all three got to heaven, with the chances for each as specified in my post, it is acceptable to say that not all people had the same chance of getting to heaven. Remember, I commented on the chances for a person being the same or different.

But you would likely maintain that if there are 100,000,000,000 people that have ever lived in the world and they all get to heaven, then it is not acceptable to say that not all people had the same chance of getting to heaven. I base that on having looked up a likely number for how many people have ever been born. Replace it with a more suitable number if that is too far off.

So, what number between 3 and 100,000,000,000 is the dividing line and why? Or, what am I not understanding?

 

[underacloud]

So, what number between 3 and 100,000,000,000 is the dividing line and why? Or, what am I not understanding?

There is no dividing line. It comes down to a matter of inductive reasoning, which is a logically grey area.

So, based on your three people and a 1 in 120 chance, we could say that’s in the realms of believability.

If you repeat that for 100,000,000,000, I suggest any reasonable person would say your dice are loaded. At some point you conclude that the odds are not as you assumed them to be.

To extend this a little further, let’s say we have 10 non-Catholics. We may assume that their chances of salvation are slim. What is slim? I don’t know, but for arguments sake let’s be generous and say a little under half…so 49%.

Now, all 10 die. The chances of all 10 going to heaven, based on an assumed chance of 49%, is 1 in 1253. If we find that all 10 are in heaven, we would find that remarkable given the chances. But perhaps still believable? I think most people would begin to question their a priori assumption about the chances.

What about 100? Chances are 1 in 9.55855E+30. By this point, only a most unreasonable person will hold to their a priori assumptions if they found all 100 in heaven.

So, as we keep extending this, the asymptote of chance approaches 0. Inductive reasoning doesn’t allow us to conclusively disprove that there is some non-zero chance remaining, but it is the most reasonable conclusion.

Anyway, this is all terribly hypothetical and abstract. I’ll come back to the point that no one knows what the chances are. I’ve said all along that I’m happy to assume the chances are better in the Church than outside it. But I will not agree with the unfounded position that chances of salvation are neccessarily slim for those outside the Church. I’ve asked for some doctrine to support this position, but none has been proffered.

 

[Pug]

You are right, underacloud, that people are going to question if the dice are loaded. Perhaps this is all that you mean, and if so, I agree.

I agree that no one knows the chances. I’d prefer to determine the “chances” by looking at the populations of heaven and hell at the end of time and working backwards. I don’t really think they are “chances”. I think people are making choices, and looking back, we can see the percent who made each choice. But that still doesn’t say to me how difficult the choice was for each person, nor how much personal sacrifice was involved in the choice, etc. Even if they all end up getting there, it still wouldn’t say they all had the same ease getting there.

I still can’t concede that if everyone gets to heaven then their chances of getting there were the same, though. Look at it this way, if everyone has a 100% chance to get to heaven except Bob over there who has a 50% chance, and it turns out that Bob does get to heaven, that doesn’t mean Bob had an equal chance as the others. It just means Bob got lucky.

I might guess that people who hold to the slim position for those outside the Church are drawing that from the necessity of the sacraments or perhaps their own experience with what the sacraments have done for them, or perhaps based on how unlikely perfect contrition seems, or perhaps another consideration. I know perfect contrition seems unlikely in my experience, so I appreciate the sacrament of confession.

 

[Eufrosnia]

You missed my point. If the deck is stacked with aces, then the chances of each person getting aces is the same.

But we know its not. It is a core Catholic belief that all religions do not lead to salvation and neither do all religions have equal amount of things that are valuable from the point of view of salvation.

But we do not know the chances. That’s the whole problem and what you fail to show otherwise. Your card analogy isn’t appropriate because in a game of poker we know all the odds involved. In the question of salvation, we don’t.

Well we do. In terms of Grace, a Catholic has more chances to access Grace if he/she so wishes through free-will. A non-Catholic does not have these chances. The Eucharist, which no one will deny as a fountain of Graces, for an example is not available for a non-Catholic.

So I just see your position as discounting the value of Grace that is formally available through the Church. You seem to think of the sacraments as not necessary.

IF they are in some sense or to some degree of any value, then it does follow that a Catholic has better chances of salvation.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Actually, since you can’t see the clear logic in this, I think it’s time to bring a close to this discussion. We’re going around in circles now and unless you want to quote some Church teaching that shows your position (which I’ve asked for all along) I don’t see the need to keep repeating myself.

Well the only thing I will have to quote first is a probability text.

The probabilities of a certain event taking place does not change after the event. The probability would have still been the same.

The probability of horse X winning the race does not change if horse X wins the race.

So your argument that if all are found to be saved, then your probabilities at the beginning were equal is false. The probabilities are estimated and they are fixed. If all are saved, it just happens that the slim possibility still materialized.

In short, you can’t look BACKWARDS to calculate probability. If I got 4 aces, it does not mean that I had equal chances of getting that compared to a different hand like 4 Hearts.

 

[underacloud]

Well the only thing I will have to quote first is a probability text.

The probabilities of a certain event taking place does not change after the event. The probability would have still been the same.

The probability of horse X winning the race does not change if horse X wins the race.

So your argument that if all are found to be saved, then your probabilities at the beginning were equal is false. The probabilities are estimated and they are fixed. If all are saved, it just happens that the slim possibility still materialized.

In short, you can’t look BACKWARDS to calculate probability. If I got 4 aces, it does not mean that I had equal chances of getting that compared to a different hand like 4 Hearts.

I know very well about probabilities. In my professional life, I conduct statistical analysis routinely. .

There are essentially two bases for estimating probabilities:

In one case, you know the inherent odds. In poker, we know the odds of any given hand based on the mathematics of random selections from a 52 card deck. With dice, we know (assuming a properly random dice) that there are equal odds of each of the 6 (or however many) numbers coming up.

The other way is to base our estimates of probability on past observations. In horse racing, the odds of a given horse are calculated based on their past performances. If a horse/football team/etc keeps winning, the odds shorten. In this case, the whole thing works BACKWARDS.

I will point out of course that it makes perfect sense to discuss probabilities after an event. In fact, probabilities before an event are but estimates of such event, whereas afterwards they describe the event. So we can say that the probability of a given horse winning a race is X%, or we can say the probability of a given airman in WWII surviving 5 bombing raids was y%. Probabilities are certainly discussed and calculated backwards.

With regards to salvation, we have access to neither of these for estimating probability. We have no knowledge to say we know the inherent odds…no revelation acknowledged in Church doctrine. And we have no *observational data *to work with either.

So, the ONLY way to conclude that the chances of salvation for those outside the Church are slim is to shoot forward to the end of time, count up the non-Catholics in heaven and in hell, and see which group is bigger. Let’s wait till then and review.

 

[underacloud]

You are right, underacloud, that people are going to question if the dice are loaded. Perhaps this is all that you mean, and if so, I agree.

I agree that no one knows the chances. I’d prefer to determine the “chances” by looking at the populations of heaven and hell at the end of time and working backwards. I don’t really think they are “chances”. I think people are making choices, and looking back, we can see the percent who made each choice. But that still doesn’t say to me how difficult the choice was for each person, nor how much personal sacrifice was involved in the choice, etc. Even if they all end up getting there, it still wouldn’t say they all had the same ease getting there.

Yes, I think looking back is the only way to calculate such “chances” (and yes, chances is a crude word to use in this context).

And I certainly agree that the path some took may be much harder or easier. We do know that God provides adequete grace for each person, so they have a concrete opportunity for salvation, but we do not know that this means the opportunity is not greater or lesser for some.

I still can’t concede that if everyone gets to heaven then their chances of getting there were the same, though. Look at it this way, if everyone has a 100% chance to get to heaven except Bob over there who has a 50% chance, and it turns out that Bob does get to heaven, that doesn’t mean Bob had an equal chance as the others. It just means Bob got lucky.

Yes, this is irrefutable logic. I would only say that my understanding of God would not leave room for this scenario…that all people had 100% chance except for Bob…but I could be wrong.

But if we get to heaven and everyone is there, we would still calculate, in a descriptive statistical sense, that the odds were 100% and 100%. It would take God revealing something about Bob, or whoever else, to conclude that odds were different from what we observe. In an observational sense, we still say the odds were the same.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I know very well about probabilities. In my professional life, I conduct statistical analysis routinely.

Good.

I
There are essentially two bases for estimating probabilities:

In one case, you know the inherent odds. In poker, we know the odds of any given hand based on the mathematics of random selections from a 52 card deck. With dice, we know (assuming a properly random dice) that there are equal odds of each of the 6 (or however many) numbers coming up.

The other way is to base our estimates of probability on past observations. In horse racing, the odds of a given horse are calculated based on their past performances. If a horse/football team/etc keeps winning, the odds shorten. In this case, the whole thing works BACKWARDS.

I will point out of course that it makes perfect sense to discuss probabilities after an event. In fact, probabilities before an event are but estimates of such event, whereas afterwards they describe the event. So we can say that the probability of a given horse winning a race is X%, or we can say the probability of a given airman in WWII surviving 5 bombing raids was y%. Probabilities are certainly discussed and calculated backwards.

What you refer to here are rough estimations.

To say that a WWII soldier had 2% chance of dying in a bombing run cannot be estimated later on the number of survivors. It is logically possible that the chances were quiet slim but all WWII soldiers made it through.

So the value you actually estimate using the survived numbers would be somewhat meaningless/inaccurate for figuring out the actual survival rates of a WWII soldier which is more dependent on many other factors.

I
With regards to salvation, we have access to neither of these for estimating probability. We have no knowledge to say we know the inherent odds…no revelation acknowledged in Church doctrine. And we have no *observational data *to work with either.

None of the data you insist on is required. The fact that the entire earth made it to heaven does not tell us whether someone had higher or lower probability of making it to heaven.

So I am not arguing that you can estimate some values from the ratios of who made it. But these values would be logically meaningless since it does not tell us the original chances that each individual had which would be dependent on other factors.

If I throw up a coin 10 times and receive 8 heads, it does not help me determine that the chances of getting a head on a coin throw was 0.8. It could indeed be a fair coin but I just got 8 heads in that 10.

So my whole contention here is that access to GRACE is different depending on which faith you belong to. Hence, difference in chances of being saved.

 

[underacloud]

What you refer to here are rough estimations.

They are descriptive statistics. They describe the likelihood of a WWII soldier making it through. You seem not to understand descriptive statistics, which describe probabilities observed in populations. They are not rough estimates, they describe things.

So I am not arguing that you can estimate some values from the ratios of who made it. But these values would be logically meaningless since it does not tell us the original chances that **each individual **had which would be dependent on other factors.

This is where you divert from what you are trying to argue. Of course descriptive statistic do not define the odds of a given individual, but they do describe the likelihood based on limited known variables and sets that an individual belongs to.

Your point was about the set of non-Catholics, not any individual non-Catholics. As a set, we can certainly describe the likelihhod based on observed data. And of course, we have no obeserved/observable data to work with.

If I throw up a coin 10 times and receive 8 heads, it does not help me determine that the chances of getting a head on a coin throw was 0.8. It could indeed be a fair coin but I just got 8 heads in that 10.

Of course…10 times in not a sufficient number to draw any conclusions. Billions is, and that’s the sort of numbers we’re dealing with. Based on large data sets, we can certainly make sensible conclusions about relative odds of sets.

Nonetheless, it is clear that I will not convince based on this line of reasoning, so let’s drop it.

So my whole contention here is that access to GRACE is different depending on which faith you belong to. Hence, difference in chances of being saved.

But we also know that everyone has access to sufficient graces for salvation. We also know that “to whom much is given much is expected”, so access to increased grace may actually increase the demands on such a person. Which brings us back to the question of ignorance and such (which this thread was originally about). Those who receive more knowledge and grace may face a harder standard in judgement than those who had less access. The story of the talents draws this out too.

Anyway, we’re really going round in cirlces now, so remind me what it is you want me to agree with…

That chances (perhaps opportunity is a better word) of salvation are better in the Catholic Church. I’ve already said, many times, that this is almost certainly the case. So can we drop this?

If, however, it’s you argument that I must accept that chances are “slim” for non-Catholics, I’m sorry but I cannot agree to that and again ask for some sort of doctrinal substantiation of this position.

 

[Pug]

Yes, this is irrefutable logic. I would only say that my understanding of God would not leave room for this scenario…that all people had 100% chance except for Bob…but I could be wrong.

My thought process doesn’t really accommodate the expectation of everyone going to heaven, so proposing the Bob thing was very hypothetical for me. So, no I don’t think the Bob scenario very probable for God to have set up.

So what is the deal with all those graces we receive through the sacraments? Are they helpful or not? If they make it harder to get to heaven, harder to live in Christ, that seems contrary to the express nature of the Church as a sign and instrument of the communion of God and men.

Or, somehow is it making it more likely, but somehow harder at the same time, you know, that gold tested in fire sort of thing, so merit increases?