How certain are you about Catholicism?

[Malachi4U]

If there is a God then He founded the Catholic Church and ALL others are false - regardless to how close they are to the Catholic Church and its teachings. Only one Church can be right, by default, all others are wrong and false.

If the Catholic Church is false then there is no God. Since only the Catholic Church can be true, if it is false then all other religions are false too and there can be no God.

Conclusion: God is real and the Catholic Church is His body here on earth.

 

[Ghosty]

Well, the problem is that the Church isn’t in the business of sticking out its neck on issues that aren’t dealing with faith and morals. The only way that the Church could be proven wrong on those is for God to come out and say that it was. When the end of the world comes, we’ll know how far the Church has stuck out its neck. Until then, we really can’t be certain in the sense you are hoping.

 

[tuopaolo]

MichaelLewis:

Good enough. That is in line with what I had thought; that it was a matter of FAITH that the Pope or the Magisterium WOULD NOT contradict themselves, not that it was logically impossible for it to do so.

It’s not logically impossible in itself in that, for example, God could have chosen to create a world in which there was no Incarnation and thus a world in which the Catholic faith would not be true. However it is logically impossible given what we know to be true.

 

[MichaelLewis]

Ghosty:

Well, the problem is that the Church isn’t in the business of sticking out its neck on issues that aren’t dealing with faith and morals. The only way that the Church could be proven wrong on those is for God to come out and say that it was. When the end of the world comes, we’ll know how far the Church has stuck out its neck. Until then, we really can’t be certain in the sense you are hoping.

Respecting morals, the Church could be caught in an internal contradiction. Respecting faith, well, there are all sorts of doctrines concerning empirical facts that *might *be falsifiable (Peter having ever been in Rome, for instance–one would think that that was crucial to Catholicism). There might even be philosophical positions upheld by the Church which are in fact incoherent. (For example, if the Church’s doctrines concerning free will are supposed to be infallible and I understand them correctly, that is enough to disprove Catholicism, as far as I’m concerned). I’ve learned a lot of Catholic doctrine at Catholic Answers and on EWTN, but it is almost never clear to me just when the Church’s credibility rests upon a particular doctrine being correct.
Michael

 

[MichaelLewis]

tuopaolo:

It’s not logically impossible in itself in that, for example, God could have chosen to create a world in which there was no Incarnation and thus a world in which the Catholic faith would not be true. However it is logically impossible given what we know to be true.

Of course the question from a non-Catholic’s point of view is whether you know it is true or just think that you know.

I’m talking about it simply being conceivable that the Church could take particular actions that would demonstrate that it does not have the status it claims for itself. By itself, that would not reflect poorly on Catholicism; indeed, if the Church could take such actions but has not, Catholicism would be at least somewhat more credible.
Michael

 

[tuopaolo]

MichaelLewis:

Of course the question from a non-Catholic’s point of view is whether you know it is true or just think that you know.

I’m talking about it simply being conceivable that the Church could take particular actions that would demonstrate that it does not have the status it claims for itself. By itself, that would not reflect poorly on Catholicism; indeed, if the Church could take such actions but has not, Catholicism would be at least somewhat more credible.
Michael

The same answer would apply to the notion of conceivability. It is conceivable in itself in that, for example, God could have instantiated any number of possible worlds in which the Catholic faith were not true (to give an example different from my previous example, a possible world in which God simply does not create anything at all and thus a possible world in which the Catholic faith is not true). However, again, it is not conceivable given what we know to be true. IOW, there are no possible worlds in which what we know to be true obtain and in which the Catholic faith is not true.

 

[tuopaolo]

MichaelLewis:

There might even be philosophical positions upheld by the Church which are in fact incoherent. (For example, if the Church’s doctrines concerning free will are supposed to be infallible and I understand them correctly, that is enough to disprove Catholicism, as far as I’m concerned).

There are very few philosophical positions upheld infallibly by the Church. With regard to free will, there is no complete or detailed philosophical account upheld infallibly by the Church, only certain parameters within which a philosophical account must lie. Thus historically there have been a variety of philosophical accounts for example of the realtionship between freedom and grace:

newadvent.org/cathen/06710a.htm

 

[MichaelLewis]

tuopaolo:

The same answer would apply to the notion of conceivability. It is conceivable in itself in that, for example, God could have instantiated any number of possible worlds in which the Catholic faith were not true (to give an example different from my previous example, a possible world in which God simply does not create anything at all and thus a possible world in which the Catholic faith is not true). However, again, it is not conceivable given what we know to be true. IOW, there are no possible worlds in which what we know to be true obtain and in which the Catholic faith is not true.

I’m interested in the possible worlds where Catholicism is false, but where you are just as certain that the things you “know to be true” are true as you are in this world.

 

[MichaelLewis]

tuopaolo:

There are very few philosophical positions upheld infallibly by the Church. With regard to free will, there is no complete or detailed philosophical account upheld infallibly by the Church, only certain parameters within which a philosophical account must lie. Thus historically there have been a variety of philosophical accounts for example of the realtionship between freedom and grace:

newadvent.org/cathen/06710a.htm

I don’t want to get into this here, as there was already an extensive discussion at forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=44720 I’ll just say that my primary concerns have to do with the very concept of free will as it relates to determinism; not with reconciling it with the actions or knowledge of God.
Michael

 

[tuopaolo]

MichaelLewis:

I’m interested in the possible worlds where Catholicism is false, but where you are just as certain that the things you “know to be true” are true as you are in this world.

It’s a little ambiguous whether the phrase “know to be true” is relative to this world or the possible worlds under consideration. Do you mean:

FORMER CASE
“possible worlds where Catholicism is false, but where you are just as subjectively certain that you know that Catholicism is true as you are so certain in this world.”

or do you mean:

LATTER CASE
“possible worlds where Catholicism is false but where you are just as subjectively certain that Catholicism is true as you are so certain in this world.”

In the latter case, I would point out that knowing that X is distinct from being subjectively certain that X. One can be subjectively certain that X without knowing that X and one can know that X without being subjectively certain that X. Incidentally, one can know that X without knowing that one knows that X. My claim was not that it is logically impossible given what I am subjectively certain is true, but rather that it is logically impossible given what I know to be true.

In the former case, I would point out in addition that it’s not the fact that I am subjectively certain that I know that Catholicism is true which allows me to assert my claim, but rather the fact that I know that I know that Catholicism is true which allows me to assert my claim – the claim that given what I know to be true it is not possible for Catholicism to be false. Again one can be subjectively certain that one knows that X without knowing that X and one can also know that one knows that X without being subjectively certain that one knows that X.

In both the former and latter cases, there are such possible worlds. But the fact that they exist does not detract from my knowledge that Catholicism is true as explained above since subjective certainity does not entail knowledge (and it also so happens that knowledge does not entail subjective certainity)

 

[MichaelLewis]

tuopaolo:

It’s a little ambiguous whether the phrase “know to be true” is relative to this world or the possible worlds under consideration. Do you mean:

FORMER CASE
“possible worlds where Catholicism is false, but where you are just as subjectively certain that you know that Catholicism is true as you are so certain in this world.”

or do you mean:

LATTER CASE
“possible worlds where Catholicism is false but where you are just as subjectively certain that Catholicism is true as you are so certain in this world.”

In the latter case, I would point out that knowing that X is distinct from being subjectively certain that X. One can be subjectively certain that X without knowing that X and one can know that X without being subjectively certain that X. Incidentally, one can know that X without knowing that one knows that X. My claim was not that it is logically impossible given what I am subjectively certain is true, but rather that it is logically impossible given what I know to be true.

In the former case, I would point out in addition that it’s not the fact that I am subjectively certain that I know that Catholicism is true which allows me to assert my claim, but rather the fact that I know that I know that Catholicism is true which allows me to assert my claim – the claim that given what I know to be true it is not possible for Catholicism to be false. Again one can be subjectively certain that one knows that X without knowing that X and one can also know that one knows that X without being subjectively certain that one knows that X.

In both the former and latter cases, there are such possible worlds. But the fact that they exist does not detract from my knowledge that Catholicism is true as explained above since subjective certainity does not entail knowledge (and it also so happens that knowledge does not entail subjective certainity)

I mean a world where your belief set, along with the degree of certainty at which you hold each of your beliefs, is just the same as it is in this world. Whatever you believe you know now, you would still believe that you know it in this possible world, but you may not really know it (because if the truth of a proposition necessarily entails that Catholicism is true, then that proposition is not true in the world in question).

In my experience of the common use of the word, (both outside and inside epistemology class) knowledge entails subjective certainty at least within a relevant context (for example when I say, while not in sight of my car, that “I know where my car is parked” I’m assuming that nothing my addressee or I would consider extraordinary has happened, for instance I assume that it has not been stolen), as well as, traditionally, the justification and truth of a belief (setting aside Gettier counterexamples). It seems contradictory for someone to say, “I know that my car is parked out front, though I’m not certain that my care is parked out front.”

To be subjectively certain that some proposition is true and that you are justified in believing it is to believe that you know that it is true. Of course you could be wrong; it could be false or you could lack justification, but so long as you are subjectively certain both that it is true and that you were justified in believing it, you could never coherently fail to believe that you did know that it was true (though you may not have said to yourself: “I believe that I know that this is true.”) To assert that you “know that you know” something is to assert that you are certain that you are justified in believing that you are epistemicly infallible with respect to the proposition in question, and that you are epistemicly infallible with respect to the proposition in question. But in principle you could never have justification for your own epistemic infallibility, so this claim must be false. (It would be fine, on the other hand, to claim simply that it is true that you know something.)

Michael

 

[Ghosty]

The problem seems to be that you are assuming a world in which the Church is not a necessary element of the faith. Our faith has three pillars: Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium. Remove one and the others collapse. You’re trying to imagine a world in which a triangle has two sides.

Honestly I’m a bit perplexed at your fascination with “alternate realities”. What exactly would such hypotheticals demonstrate? They seem to be an unnecessary exercise in futility. It’s one thing to propose a hypothetical that follows the same rules as our reality (three-sided triangle), but with something changed (one side removed, destroying the triangle), and another entirely to propose a hypothetical with completely different rules (two-sided triangle) and use the conception of the hypothetical to prove a point (triangles must have two sides). The former is constructive and can be utilized, the latter is vacuous navel-gazing, and precisely the reason philosophy has been in such a rut since the Enlightenment.

 

[MichaelLewis]

Ghosty wrote:

The problem seems to be that you are assuming a world in which the Church is not a necessary element of the faith. Our faith has three pillars: Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium. Remove one and the others collapse. You’re trying to imagine a world in which a triangle has two sides.

I recognize that the Catholic Church rests upon all three ‘sides’; I’m looking to see if I can disprove Catholicism. (No offence–I wouldn’t bother to try if I didn’t find it somewhat plausible to begin with.) I appreciate the apparent fact that I would only need to find a contradiction in one pillar or between different pillars to do so. Most forms of Protestantism are much more slippery; just about any single doctrine can be discarded or dramatically re-interpreted, the belief set changes, but isn’t destroyed (This isn’t true of some sects, such as the Mormon Church or the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who also rest their entire belief systems on purportedly infallible institutions—though they sometimes latter deny past ‘infallible’ proclamations—and thus can easily be show to be incoherent). But Catholicism claims to be protected by God from teaching error, so if any supposedly infallible doctrines contradict one another or reality, the religion cannot be true.

Honestly I’m a bit perplexed at your fascination with “alternate realities”. What exactly would such hypotheticals demonstrate? They seem to be an unnecessary exercise in futility. It’s one thing to propose a hypothetical that follows the same rules as our reality (three-sided triangle), but with something changed (one side removed, destroying the triangle), and another entirely to propose a hypothetical with completely different rules (two-sided triangle) and use the conception of the hypothetical to prove a point (triangles must have two sides). The former is constructive and can be utilized, the latter is vacuous navel-gazing, and precisely the reason philosophy has been in such a rut since the Enlightenment.

I’m not sure I understand what you think I am fascinated with. I’m not trying to imagine a world where a different Catholicism is true, but a world where Catholicism simply isn’t true. As a non-Catholic, I’m wondering just what events or states of reality official, proportedly infallible Catholic doctrine would consider to be impossible given that Catholicism is true. Whatever such events or states of reality might be, their truth would constitute a disproof of Catholicism. Once I know what would be a disproof of a religion I can seek to disprove it (to myself anyway). On the upside for Catholicism, if there have been ample opportunities for the Church to have contradicted itself or reality over a long period of time, yet it has not done so, that would constitute some evidence for its credibility (though not conclusive evidence that Catholicism is true).

Furthermore, if it is the case that “if Christianity is true, then Catholicism is true” a disproof of Catholicism would constitute a disproof of Christianity itself. That seems at least plausible to me, and if I determine that it is so, just one ‘infallible’ doctrine that contradicts another or reality itself would put an end to any serious speculation on my part that Christianity might be true.
Michael

 

[Ghosty]

But Catholicism claims to be protected by God from teaching error, so if any supposedly infallible doctrines contradict one another or reality, the religion cannot be true.

Then what you need to do is search for contradictions in history rather than making up hypotheticals. As an atheist I tried for years to find them, and I couldn’t. Maybe you’ll have more luck than I did.

As a non-Catholic, I’m wondering just what events or states of reality official, proportedly infallible Catholic doctrine would consider to be impossible given that Catholicism is true.

You would have to dig though our dogmas and doctrines for this, as any summary given here would likely be inadequate. Among some of the things that the Church has infallibly declared are the facts that Jesus was real, was God incarnate, and died for the expiation of the sins of humanity; that Adam and Eve were real individuals from whom all people can claim descent (though the biological development of Adam and Eve is open to some degree of interpretation and debate); that the Church is protected from officially teaching error in matters of faith and morals; that Mary was born without the mark of Original Sin and was assumed into Heaven rather than her soul and body being seperated for a time. There are obviously others, and there are much deeper details to the ones I just listed, but that should give you a start in your digging.

Furthermore, if it is the case that “if Christianity is true, then Catholicism is true” a disproof of Catholicism would constitute a disproof of Christianity itself. That seems at least plausible to me, and if I determine that it is so, just one ‘infallible’ doctrine that contradicts another or reality itself would put an end to any serious speculation on my part that Christianity might be true.

Fair enough. Get cracking! People have been trying to do it for 2,000 years, and they haven’t managed yet, so you’ve got your work cut out for you. On the upside, you can at least save time by not starting down lines of argument that have been thoroughly demolished in the past.

It was a similar search that led me to conclude that traditional, Orthodox Judaism was indeed a “true” religion, and that realization led me to the Catholic Church. I was a die-hard atheist too, who rejected God on principle, not just because there was no proof. It’s a potentially “dangerous” road you’re journeying down

God bless!

 

[MichaelLewis]

Ghosty wrote:

Then what you need to do is search for contradictions in history rather than making up hypotheticals. As an atheist I tried for years to find them, and I couldn’t. Maybe you’ll have more luck than I did.

Hypotheticals are helpful in establishing what to look for. If the Catholic Church had tried somehow to rule out the possibility of its ever contradicting itself (just as, as I understand it, the Koran can’t contradict itself since the latter verses take precedence over the earlier ones) there would be no point in looking for contradictions. I would consider it to have already been discredited as a God-endorsed guide to truth if it couldn’t stand firmly by any doctrines at all.

You would have to dig though our dogmas and doctrines for this, as any summary given here would likely be inadequate. Among some of the things that the Church has infallibly declared are the facts that Jesus was real, was God incarnate, and died for the expiation of the sins of humanity; that Adam and Eve were real individuals from whom all people can claim descent (though the biological development of Adam and Eve is open to some degree of interpretation and debate); that the Church is protected from officially teaching error in matters of faith and morals; that Mary was born without the mark of Original Sin and was assumed into Heaven rather than her soul and body being seperated for a time. There are obviously others, and there are much deeper details to the ones I just listed, but that should give you a start in your digging.

Thanks, but surely there must be a well-defined and exhaustive list somewhere!

Fair enough. Get cracking! People have been trying to do it for 2,000 years, and they haven’t managed yet, so you’ve got your work cut out for you. On the upside, you can at least save time by not starting down lines of argument that have been thoroughly demolished in the past.

I’m slowly ‘popping’, rather than cracking. I hope to read some early church history (from an impartial source) this summer.

It was a similar search that led me to conclude that traditional, Orthodox Judaism was indeed a “true” religion, and that realization led me to the Catholic Church. I was a die-hard atheist too, who rejected God on principle, not just because there was no proof. It’s a potentially “dangerous” road you’re journeying down

Perhaps, but I’m pretty well inoculated from anything actually convincing me of a religion’s truth aside from witnessing a miracle clearly associated with a particular religion or receiving a dramatic revelation from God (or whatever). I’m psychologically disposed to be religious, for better or worse; in particular I’m disposed toward Christianity (I was once a devout Christian). I have no good reason to consider it as serious possibility, as it stands; yet I do. In many ways I still think like a Christian. I hope to either discover that it is true (very unlikely I think) or to be wholly convinced that it is as ludicrous as Greek mythology seems to be. Then hopefully I can be free to consider other possibilities (religious and non-religious) without prejudice, and can at least tentatively get off the fence of agnosticism.

In any case, Catholicism is at least interesting, and understanding it is beneficial whether it is true or not. Your culture is fascinating, and your television programming is generally far superior to that of the Protestants. (Though C. S. Lewis was not Catholic; I’m afraid that’s a major strike against you folks. )
God bless you too, if he’s there.
Michael

 

[Ghosty]

Though C. S. Lewis was not Catholic; I’m afraid that’s a major strike against you folks.

He was in spirit. He just needed a LITTLE more time

The Church hasn’t flat out said that any apparent contradiction can’t actually be a contradiction per se, but generally when people have perceived contradictions it’s been because they’ve been married to one particular interpretation of the doctrine in question and then been disappointed when the Church later officially clarified the matter against them.

Your best bet is to pick of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Not everything in there is dogma and doctrine, but a lot is. It’s also just a handy reference for what the Church teaches in general, both infallibly and fallibly. The problem with making an exhaustive list of any kind is that the way doctrines are laid out is not in a manner conducive to easy listings. They are generally put forth with pages of explainations, references, and theological foundation. To just read one off the list might mean you miss what’s actually being said. That being said, there might be SOMETHING along the lines of what you’re looking for, though it would obviously come with 2,000 years of footnotes attached.

God bless!

 

[katy]

Jaypeeto:

I am 100% certain. I did enough reading of the early fathers and the bible to convince me. The Catholic Faith IS the True Faith.
Love,
Jaypeeto

Same here, except I get forgetful, tired, caught between a rock and a hard place, confused…and go wandering off for a while until I get stuck and our kind Lord pulls me out again.

 

[tuopaolo]

MichaelLewis:

I mean a world where your belief set, along with the degree of certainty at which you hold each of your beliefs, is just the same as it is in this world. Whatever you believe you know now, you would still believe that you know it in this possible world, but you may not really know it (because if the truth of a proposition necessarily entails that Catholicism is true, then that proposition is not true in the world in question).

I don’t just believe that I know that Catholicism is true; I know that I know that Catholicism is true. So while there are such worlds where Catholicism is false, these would not be worlds in which I am epistemically situated the exact same way that I am in this world.

In my experience of the common use of the word, (both outside and inside epistemology class) knowledge entails subjective certainty at least within a relevant context (for example when I say, while not in sight of my car, that “I know where my car is parked” I’m assuming that nothing my addressee or I would consider extraordinary has happened, for instance I assume that it has not been stolen), as well as, traditionally, the justification and truth of a belief (setting aside Gettier counterexamples). It seems contradictory for someone to say, “I know that my car is parked out front, though I’m not certain that my care is parked out front.”

The reason why it seems contradictory is not because it is not possible to know that X while not being subjectively certain that X, but rather because it is improper to assert that X while not knowing that X. Even if X happens to be true, one is not to assert it without knowing it to be true. Thus in your statement, taking the proposition that your car is parked out front to be P. you are not only asserting that you know that P but also implicitly asserting that you know that you know that P. Knowing that one knows that P is indeed incompatible with not being subjectively certain that P and that is the reason for the incongruity. IOW where K(x) is knowing that x and S(x) is being subjectively certain that x:

K(T) does not entail S(T)

However:

K(K(T)) does entail S(T)

To be subjectively certain that some proposition is true and

that you are justified in believing it is to believe that you know that it is true.

No it’s not considering that justified true belief does not entail knowledge as has been proved and considering that one can believe that something is true without being subjectively certain that it is true.

To assert that you “know that you know” something is to assert that you are certain that you are justified in believing

that you are epistemicly infallible with respect to the proposition in question, and that you are epistemicly infallible with respect to the proposition in question.

Again that’s not what it means since justified true belief does not entail knowledge.

But in principle you could never have justification for your own epistemic infallibility, so this claim must be false. (It would be fine, on the other hand, to claim simply that it is true

that you know something.)

As I explained above, to assert that you know that X is to implicitly assert that you know that you know that X. For any proposition X it is only proper to assert it if one knows that X. So if one were to want to assert:

K(X)

it would only be proper to do so when one:

K(K(X))

So your claim that you could never:

K(K(X))

while at same time being able to assert:

K(X)

is a self-contradictory claim.

 

[MichaelLewis]

Tuopaolo:
As I indicated, I understand that there are some problems with that definition of knowledge. I am unaware, however, of any satisfactory substitute. Would you please give me your definition of knowledge?
Michael

 

[dumspirospero]

Certain enough I will stake my life and soul on it.

MichaelLewis:

A question for Catholics and soon-to-be Catholics only:

How certain are you that the central doctrines (defined as those which, if they were false, would demonstrate that the Church does not have the special, divinely granted authority it claims for itself) of the Catholic Church are true?