Objective Truth

[BettyBoop416]

In another thread, the following exchange took place regarding a particular Church teaching:

I can understand your point of view.

It is not a view. It is. It is the objective truth.

*It “is” because you believe it is. *

*Well, no.

It is objectively true whether I believe it or not.*

As a cradle Catholic with 12 years of Catholic school education (many years) in my past, this has always been my default position - that the Church teaches “The Truth.” Unfortunately, I have always had the uncomfortable feeling that when we say this, most of us really haven’t given it much thought. We just parrot what we’ve always been taught. In the exchange above, the person (a respected member of CAF) arguing that Church teachings are objectively true fails to make a rational case for her position.The argument seems to be:

**Church teachings are objectively true.

How do we know this? Because the Church says so.

Well, how do we know that what the Church says is true?

Because Church teachings are objectively true.
**
To me, even as a Catholic, this is a very unsatisfying argument. I try to avoid getting into conversations with non-Catholics where I might find myself defending controversial Church teachings because, in some cases, I just cannot make a logical argument in favor of the Church’s position.

Can anyone give me a sensible argument supporting the objectivity of Church teaching that avoids circular logic?

 

[DavidFilmer]

**Well, how do we know that what the Church says is true?

Because Church teachings are objectively true.
**

A better reply would be that the Church has been promised by Jesus that She would teach with the authority of (and under the negative protection of) the Holy Spirit, which (being God) cannot err.

That avoids circular logic, but it invites a whole 'nuther discussion, which would have probably been off-topic for the thread you refer to.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

From what you posted I didn’t see the person falling back on “it’s true because the Church teaches it” and then being unable to explain why they trust Church teaching. What they are doing is denying the relativism that says that one thing is true to one person and false to another. If it is a question of some objective reality then the position being expressed is either true or false, and equally so to the person who believes it and to the person who disbelieves it.

 

[Nita]

In another thread, the following exchange took place regarding a particular Church teaching:

As a cradle Catholic with 12 years of Catholic school education (many years) in my past, this has always been my default position - that the Church teaches “The Truth.” Unfortunately, I have always had the uncomfortable feeling that when we say this, most of us really haven’t given it much thought. We just parrot what we’ve always been taught. In the exchange above, the person (a respected member of CAF) arguing that Church teachings are objectively true fails to make a rational case for her position.The argument seems to be:

**Church teachings are objectively true.

How do we know this? Because the Church says so.

Well, how do we know that what the Church says is true?

Because Church teachings are objectively true.
**
To me, even as a Catholic, this is a very unsatisfying argument. I try to avoid getting into conversations with non-Catholics where I might find myself defending controversial Church teachings because, in some cases, I just cannot make a logical argument in favor of the Church’s position.

Can anyone give me a sensible argument supporting the objectivity of Church teaching that avoids circular logic?

For me it’s never been the Church just** on it’s own**. It’s God’s revelation in Scripture, God’s revelation in the Incarnation, and the Church ----- because Scripture makes it clear that Jesus established a Church to proclaim His truth. The Church teaches what God has revealed in Scripture and through the apostles. When differing views arise about something, the Holy Spirit guides the Church in proclaiming the correct understanding (John 16:13) .

I love Scripture and have been in Bible studies – half of them Protestant!!! (And I noticed when they sort of slid past difficult passages or changed from being very literal to symbolic if they didn’t agree with a literal meaning.) I’ve always wondered how someone who believes Jesus is God can read all of Scripture and accept everything it says, and not become Catholic. To me it is so obvious. But I also know that it is only thru God’s grace that I now have that gift of faith in His Son and His Church.

In interpreting the meaning of Scripture it is the Catholic teaching that incorporates ALL of the teachings - that puts forth a teaching that encompasses difficult Scripture passages that can seem at first to conflict with each other. The most obvious example is Catholic teaching on justification and salvation. Our teaching includes those passages that speak about being saved by grace, being saved by baptism, being saved by faith, being saved by good deed/works, … Catholic teaching truly does incorporate the fullness of the truths God has revealed in Scripture.

 

[KrazyKat]

This reminds me of Catechism Class. When I would pose a question to the Nun asking for source she would always retort: Mother Church says so. My Dad was informed that I was not welcome back the next school year. So, my brothers and sister attended Catholic school and from seventh grade on I attended public school. Because Mother Church said so.

 

[JerryZ]

Many times when we hear that the Church teaches this or that or this Doctrine is Dogma it does not mean that we laity cannot ask and find out how did the Church come to that particular understanding.
We tend to be scared by the words “De Fide” oh OK that means that I need to shut down my brain. NO De Fide means that it is required by me to assent to this teaching IF I want to be in full communion with the Church.

It is up to me then to go and find out how did the Church reach that particular conclusion.
The problem is that the Church has been around for 2000 years and many many heresies have been postulated and rejected by the Church.
Councils were called to settle those matters so it could be a daunting task to really know and fully understand all the teachings of the Church.
That is why I sooo love the Cathechism, it helps me in my constant quest to know more about my faith.
And yeah sometimes we just have to take some of the Dogmas on faith trusting that indeed She is protected by the Holy Spirit to never lead us astray.
Did not Jesus tell His Apostles that Spirit of Truth would remain with us till the end of times?

Peace

 

[petra22]

I love Scripture and have been in Bible studies – half of them Protestant!!! (And I noticed when they sort of slid past difficult passages or changed from being very literal to symbolic if they didn’t agree with a literal meaning.) I’ve always wondered how someone who believes Jesus is God can read all of Scripture and accept everything it says, and not become Catholic. To me it is so obvious. But I also know that it is only thru God’s grace that I now have that gift of faith in His Son and His Church.

I totally agree. Everything I have read seeking answers for, have found truth in the Catholic Church.

 

[BettyBoop416]

From what you posted I didn’t see the person falling back on “it’s true because the Church teaches it” and then being unable to explain why they trust Church teaching. What they are doing is denying the relativism that says that one thing is true to one person and false to another. If it is a question of some objective reality then the position being expressed is either true or false, and equally so to the person who believes it and to the person who disbelieves it.

I was trying to make this more of a broad, theoretical discussion rather than bring a particular teaching into it. In my clumsy attempt to do so I left out the details. Sorry for not being more clear.

The original discussion was about the morality of gay marriage. Poster #1 took the position that the Church is wrong in it’s teaching on this subject. The position of Poster #2 is that the Church’s teaching on gay marriage is objectively true. Poster #1 said that this was just a statement of belief, and poster #2 again argued that, regardless of what anyone believes, Church teaching is objectively true. That’s where these two posters left the argument. I guess it was me, in my mind, that took the argument to the next level which, in my experience, typically leads to a circular argument or, as KrazyKat and DavidFilmer pointed out above, an appeal to authority - both of which I find to be increasingly unsatisfying.

 

[BettyBoop416]

This reminds me of Catechism Class. When I would pose a question to the Nun asking for source she would always retort: Mother Church says so. My Dad was informed that I was not welcome back the next school year. So, my brothers and sister attended Catholic school and from seventh grade on I attended public school. Because Mother Church said so.

I learned early on not to ask the questions for which there was no logical, rational answer. Even so, I’ve stuck with the Church all these years. Why? I can’t seem to find a logical, rational answer.

 

[2015huntmj]

Keep things simple. The heart of the argument lies in whether the church has the authority to proclaim objective truth. Its either yes or no. Does the church have the authority from Christ or not? If it does then it professes objective truth. If not then its just another church and should be abolished from the world as a false religion. You need to show evidence that it does has the authority from Christ. [SIGN][/SIGN]

 

[Abu]

BettyBoop416 #9
I guess it was me, in my mind, that took the argument to the next level which, in my experience, typically leads to a circular argument or, as KrazyKat and DavidFilmer pointed out above, an appeal to authority - both of which I find to be increasingly unsatisfying.

1. The documents of Scripture are HISTORICAL – it is absurd to claim that Scripture is inspired without the authority of God to know that it is inspired.
2. However, HISTORICALLY, the documents of Scripture relate that the man Jesus claimed to be sent by God, claimed to be God, proved His claim by His miracles and His Resurrection, established His Church on St Peter to continue His teaching until the end of time.
3. HIS CHURCH, HISTORICALLY ESTABLISHED, then teaches what writings form God’s Word and that all of those writings, and no others, are inspired by the Holy Spirit. No one else can decide what books are inspired or has any authority to do so.

When the Twelve are sent on mission, they are told by Christ “And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words…shake off the dust from your feet. Assuredly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Day of Judgment than for that city.” (Mt 10: 14-15).

 

[KrazyKat]

I learned early on not to ask the questions for which there was no logical, rational answer. Even so, I’ve stuck with the Church all these years. Why? I can’t seem to find a logical, rational answer.

For me it is the Eucharist.

 

[TheHolyGhost]

In another thread, the following exchange took place regarding a particular Church teaching:

As a cradle Catholic with 12 years of Catholic school education (many years) in my past, this has always been my default position - that the Church teaches “The Truth.” Unfortunately, I have always had the uncomfortable feeling that when we say this, most of us really haven’t given it much thought. We just parrot what we’ve always been taught. In the exchange above, the person (a respected member of CAF) arguing that Church teachings are objectively true fails to make a rational case for her position.The argument seems to be:

**Church teachings are objectively true.

How do we know this? Because the Church says so.

Well, how do we know that what the Church says is true?

Because Church teachings are objectively true.
**
To me, even as a Catholic, this is a very unsatisfying argument. I try to avoid getting into conversations with non-Catholics where I might find myself defending controversial Church teachings because, in some cases, I just cannot make a logical argument in favor of the Church’s position.

Can anyone give me a sensible argument supporting the objectivity of Church teaching that avoids circular logic?

Why no, its more like:

The Church says all humans require oxygen to live and is objectively true whether ypu believe it or not.

Well how do we know its objectively true?

Humans who lack oxygen die. Its common sense. Everytime a person suffocates and dies, it is because they lacked oxygen and we see the evidence in the claim all the time.



Things arent objectively true “just because the church says so.” Things are objectively true because they are objectively true, with or without the church. The Church is simply wise enough and guided enough to recognize these truths and not to deviate from them. The Church being guided does not become tricked by the ways of the world or popular current thinking.

 

[petra22]

For me it is the Eucharist.

Yea, verily…

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

In another thread, the following exchange took place regarding a particular Church teaching:

As a cradle Catholic with 12 years of Catholic school education (many years) in my past, this has always been my default position - that the Church teaches “The Truth.” Unfortunately, I have always had the uncomfortable feeling that when we say this, most of us really haven’t given it much thought. We just parrot what we’ve always been taught. In the exchange above, the person (a respected member of CAF) arguing that Church teachings are objectively true fails to make a rational case for her position.The argument seems to be:

**Church teachings are objectively true.

How do we know this? Because the Church says so.

Well, how do we know that what the Church says is true?

Because Church teachings are objectively true.
**
To me, even as a Catholic, this is a very unsatisfying argument. I try to avoid getting into conversations with non-Catholics where I might find myself defending controversial Church teachings because, in some cases, I just cannot make a logical argument in favor of the Church’s position.

Can anyone give me a sensible argument supporting the objectivity of Church teaching that avoids circular logic?

It would only be circular if one were engaged in a philosophical argument.

As it is for a believer the starting point is faith in response to divine revelation; and the church has the prophetical role of proclaiming it.

One comes to faith in the word of God by a variety of ways under the influence of grace. Newman’s description of it as the illative sense where from a convergence of probabilities on draws the conclusion that it is God whose has spoken and His word is true. Others may argue for a more intuitive step to faith rooted in the encounter with God and His word in their religious experience.

There are arguments that show why it is reasonable and meaningful to believe, but they do not prove the teachings in God’s word to the natural light of human reason.

This is not to say that every revealed truth is unknowable to the natural light of human reason. In cases where it is so knowable properly philosophical arguments for a claim can/must be made. And arguments from authority are the weakest kind.

 

[BettyBoop416]

It would only be circular if one were engaged in a philosophical argument.

As it is for a believer the starting point is faith in response to divine revelation; and the church has the prophetical role of proclaiming it.

Well, at least you are honest about the fact that you’ve thrown the rules of logic out the window. So many people I’ve had this discussion with try to convince me that it’s “logical” to believe that Church teaching is The Truth. And then they arrive at their conclusion by way of a logical fallacy. The problem with suspending logic like you did, however, is that you could argue that almost anything is true.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Well, at least you are honest about the fact that you’ve thrown the rules of logic out the window. So many people I’ve had this discussion with try to convince me that it’s “logical” to believe that Church teaching is The Truth. And then they arrive at their conclusion by way of a logical fallacy. The problem with suspending logic like you did, however, is that you could argue that almost anything is true.

Cute! Well, actually I preserved the rules of logic and did not in the least suspend it or them. I did not violate a single one. Someone could do all of theology and not violate a single one–no formal fallacies (invalid syllogisms), no fallacies in the language, and no material fallacies.

How do you define logic? The classic definition is the study of the forms of correct reasoning. It is not defined the act of reasoning that a priori rules out anything but the physical world or the scientific method held to be sufficient for all true and false propositions about reality outside the mind.

What you apparently dispute is the premises. But one can reason correctly or incorrectly just as much from atheist/physicalist premises as they can from theistic or Christian premises. Just because you dispute the premises (in the case of theology, those given by divine revelation) doesn’t mean a theologian has violated the rules of logic in drawing conclusions from them. And just because someone has encountered God in a kind of intuition or perception in their religious experience over time doesn’t mean they have violated a rule of logic either. And, last, no system deduces every premise: there is always a starting point either postulated or considered to be evident or self-evident.

 

[Abu]

As BettyBoop416 has been quite unable to refute the logical argument for the truth from the historicity of Scripture, Christ, His Church and Gospels as the Word of God (post #11), so no reasonable objection exists on that basis for not believing what the Church teaches.