Philosophy & Non-Catholics

[AlbertBall]

You’re missing the fact that there is general agreement amongst members of the group that Christians can receive divine guidance from the Holy Spirit, but the OP has noticed that the magisterial Church has a constructive role to play in guiding her children by mediating the voice of the Spirit, which role has been eliminated in the evangelical model of church, and which elimination has consequences.

If there was such a spirit then one must presume it is telling a lot of different people a lot of different things.

 

[Nelson81]

Hi everyone,

This thread is very interesting… I have been thinking about this recently and I find no matter where I go with this topic I always come back to the same thing… It is all about which Authority do you begin with as the Truth!

Or Philosophically speaking, What is your Axiom?? For Catholic believers the Final Authority is not The Word of God but the Church.This is because no-one but “the church” can interpret the The word of God. What part of the Church though interprets correctly? Is that the magisterium? Or is it the Pope? or is it the Congregation of Believers?

CCC states- 100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

So for Catholic Believers its a shut book on our Axiom or Beginning or Authority of Truth. It is the church. No-one can interpret “The Word of God” correctly but the Magisterium of the “Church”. The Word of God is the Truth and authoritive, but without the Church, meaning, the Mag. of the Church, it is useless. Only the church can only interpret it True or as perfect Truth, so logically The Church is the axiom of Truth. 1 Tim 3:15 is used to support this claim and also Matt 16:16-19.

For any Catholic it is the only axiom/beginning/authority of truth that you can logically and with sound reasoning conclude without being inconsistant or contradictory to the teaching of the Church. If you can find a contradiction with any Truth claim, it CANT be Truth.

The Word of God cant be a Catholic’s axiom, for they would need to be able interpret it correctly by themselves to ever have true Faith. And it contradicts the Truth claim of the Church! As The Church teaches no one can interpret Gods word but the church. Thats why Faith comes through the church.

CCC- 169 Salvation comes from God alone; but because** we receive the life of faith **through the Church, she is our mother: "We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation."55 Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith.

However. I questioned myself on the word “interpretation” as a catholic. I searched for the definition. And as I was searching for that I came across the teaching of Catholic Philosophy. Philosophy is “knowing” how we can “know” Truth, Truthfully. I began to understand the laws of logic and reasoning and how a contradiction destroys any Truth claim no matter the claim. And I also came to understand that words have meaning themsleves, and need to be interpreted according to their meaning and also within thier context.

But i relized that I already had all of rational in me from the day i was born, that God had created me, and all men, as rational beings knowing how to think. But now I understand how to think correctly for myself.

So when i challenged myself about this I began to think…

How do I know that I am interpreting the CCC correctly if I cant interpret Gods word?
Who do i go to in the Church for the true meaning of the CCC?
Is it found at a Latin Mass? Novus Ordo Mass? Pius X society? Opus Dei society?
Why are there so many different sections?? So many different Beliefs even though we are meant to be “One Church”??

Do I get faith through the Church?? I know its a gift from God! But is it through the church?

Then as I read the Word of God, i saw truth.

Douay Rheims Bible-- Rom10:11 For the scripture saith: Whosoever believeth in him, shall not be confounded. 12 For there is no distinction of the Jew and the Greek: for the same is Lord over all, rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things! 16 But all do not obey the gospel. For Isaias saith: Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ.

We, the believers of Christ, are the Church (the ekklesia - meaning assembly of believers, as used in 1 Tim 3:16), and we are to go and preach the gospel. The word. The Truth. As we, the Ekklesia are the Pillar and foundation of the Truth. And in hearing the word sinners will be granted Faith by God for it is a gift.

And we, if we layed down all our pride and begin to learn how to think properly and understand the laws of knowlegde, we can help one another into truth through the Word of God, which is the power to save. We are bound by a Claim that we, the People of God, cant interpret the Word correctly, yet somehow we are able to interpret the Catholic Catechism which pertains all things regarding Faith and Morals of God, which is sourced directly from the word of God.

This is truly illogical.

The Word is the authority, it is the beginning, it is our Axiom and I challenge everyone to read about philosophy. You dont need to know much about it and dont let anyone tell you its hard, you use it everyday in talking with people, reading books, listening to lyrics in songs!!! God made you with a rational mind, now go and train it and use it to Honour God.

Please test my words, reply with any thoughts or challenges in love and in search for truth and I will think and respond,

God Bless,

Former Catholic, Not a Protestant, just a believer in Gods word alone.

 

[Betterave]

Or Philosophically speaking, What is your Axiom?? For Catholic believers the Final Authority is not The Word of God but the Church.This is because no-one but “the church” can interpret the The word of God. What part of the Church though interprets correctly? Is that the magisterium? Or is it the Pope? or is it the Congregation of Believers?

CCC states- 100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

So for Catholic Believers its a shut book on our Axiom or Beginning or Authority of Truth. It is the church. No-one can interpret “The Word of God” correctly but the Magisterium of the “Church”. The Word of God is the Truth and authoritive, but without the Church, meaning, the Mag. of the Church, it is useless. Only the church can only interpret it True or as perfect Truth, so logically The Church is the axiom of Truth. 1 Tim 3:15 is used to support this claim and also Matt 16:16-19.

The Church does not teach this and you are misunderstanding what the Catechism is saying here. (You are proving that you are not a good interpreter!)

How do I know that I am interpreting the CCC correctly if I cant interpret Gods word? Indeed!]

…

We, the believers of Christ, are the Church (the ekklesia - meaning assembly of believers, as used in 1 Tim 3:16), and we are to go and preach the gospel. The word. The Truth. As we, the Ekklesia are the Pillar and foundation of the Truth. And in hearing the word sinners will be granted Faith by God for it is a gift.

**And we, if we layed down all our pride and begin to learn how to think properly and understand the laws of knowlegde, we can help one another into truth through the Word of God, which is the power to save. We are bound by a Claim that we, the People of God, cant interpret the Word correctly, yet somehow we are able to interpret the Catholic Catechism which pertains all things regarding Faith and Morals of God, which is sourced directly from the word of God.

This is truly illogical.**

The Word is the authority, it is the beginning, it is our Axiom and I challenge everyone to read about philosophy. You dont need to know much about it and dont let anyone tell you its hard, you use it everyday in talking with people, reading books, listening to lyrics in songs!!! God made you with a rational mind, now go and train it and use it to Honour God.

Please test my words, reply with any thoughts or challenges in love and in search for truth and I will think and respond,

God Bless,

Former Catholic, Not a Protestant, just a believer in Gods word alone.

When you say: “philosophy isn’t hard, you use it everyday in talking with people, reading books, listening to lyrics in songs”… what are you talking about?? What do you think philosophy is? (That’s actually a fairly difficult philosophical question: what is philosophy?) I have a little experience watching people try to learn philosophy and they actually tend to have a great deal of difficulty with it - most of them are very bad at it! (Personally I think even a lot of philosophy professors are bad at philosophy - a belief that is shared by a good number of philosophy professors, btw!)

To address the difference between interpreting the CCC and the Word of God (a.k.a. the Bible), think of it this way: you might try to read Being and Time and be completely baffled by it, but have no difficulty understanding Hubert Dreyfus’ commentary on it. The commentary is specifically designed to make the original work comprehensible to the layperson. There is nothing illogical about this. Peter (you know, the first pope) specifically warns that there are difficult to understand passages in Paul’s epistles that are liable to get distorted. You find this kind of warning in ‘the Word of God’ (a.k.a. the Bible) but not in the CCC and that ought to tell you something. Of course it’s true that one can misinterpret the CCC too - but that’s just a matter of some people not being very good at understanding what they read. For such a person, there is no reason to think he will be able to understand the Bible better than the CCC - much the opposite. His inability to comprehend the CCC is an excellent indicator that he will have even greater difficulty with the Bible.

 

[Leela]

You first question is too vague for me to want to try to answer it (I could recommend Newman’s Essay of the Development of Christian Doctrine). To your second question: no, but pointing this out isn’t very helpful to my mind; ‘warrant’ in this context is a far too vague concept (e.g., does ‘burning in one’s bosom’ count as warrant?). To your third: I think that’s logically possible, but I don’t think that the reality of the evidence warrants fence-sitting - to do so, in full knowledge of the evidence, would be a case of the “fake doubt” you mention below.

I don’t know what you mean, neither Protestants nor Catholics are fence-sitters with regard to the disagreements between Protestants and Catholics.

Maybe, maybe not. That depends on what you mean by all Catholics (all 2000 years worth of them?!). There is some degree of similarity of your claim with the claim that if all dentists agree about a belief, they are no more likely to be right - that depends on the belief, right? As an abstract claim your statement might be acceptable, but as a claim about a specific group its truth will depend on the factical (historical) situation of that group and its particular competencies, specifically, what warrant it has for claiming to speak the truth about a particular matter. You seem to want to start with the view from nowhere, but you can’t - you need to start with reality.

I should have said that while justified beliefs are more likely to be true than unjustified ones, the fact that a belief is justified does not esure that it is true. I also don’t think you want to admit the number of people who believe an assertion as a mode of justification. Your example about dentists presupposes that we have a group of competant judges. If you want to claim that Catholics are such a group you are begging the question.

Can they? Not in my experience - they can appeal, but not well.

Not in your experience…that explains why you are Catholic. Based on the experiences of others Protestantism may be more justified.

Also, Catholics don’t have the right to argue “the pope says so” unless in a limited way when they are talking to someone who is already persuaded of the legitimacy of what the pope says. That wouldn’t even be an argument, would it? But of course not all statements Catholics (or anyone else for that matter) make are arguments, even if they are sometimes mistakenly construed that way.

I agree that appeals to faith or “the pope says so” are an indication that one has exhausted her conversational resources. It is a failure rather than a triumph.

Maybe, but what would that prove? What conclusion would you draw from such an impasse?

It means that you will be arguing from different premises and your justifications may be just as valid based on your premises. In other words, you may both be justified in believing different things.

I don’t think that anyone here has made a convincing case that Catholic beliefs are better justified than Protestant beliefs in any universal way if we are to admit revellation as a valid warrant for beliefs since anyone’s claim to have received special revellation must be respected. And if we disallow such tales of revellation, then neither belief seems justified.

Best,
Leela

 

[Major_Tom]

Everything is relative (except, of course, your claim validating relativistic pragmatism). Relativisim is illogical. If you throw out logic then you are forced into total silence because you have impaled yourself on the denial of the principle of identity and this is mental suicide.

Speaking as a ‘moral relativist’, I disagree. I think it can be quite logical. Perhaps the phrase is one of those that conjures up different ideas for different people (like ‘family values’).

I believe in God, but have left the Catholic Church because its teachings and my beliefs were not terribly similar. I don’t think either one of us was winning in that situation! I think that there is a degree (a degree, now) of relativism in all things. Language (look how many discussion threads include topics on 'what the original Greek verb was in that particular translation). Morality (do I steal bread to feed my hungry family?). Sin/killing (I’m in the AIr Force and have been ordered to drop bombs that may kill civilians. Do I comply?).

You will not find answers to these specific questions in the Bible. Nor in the Cathechism. It’s up to you to take all those teachings, etc. and divine your own answer. Since we all might come up with different solutions, I’d call that relativism.

 

[Leela]

Speaking as a ‘moral relativist’, I disagree. I think it can be quite logical. Perhaps the phrase is one of those that conjures up different ideas for different people (like ‘family values’).

I believe in God, but have left the Catholic Church because its teachings and my beliefs were not terribly similar. I don’t think either one of us was winning in that situation! I think that there is a degree (a degree, now) of relativism in all things. Language (look how many discussion threads include topics on 'what the original Greek verb was in that particular translation). Morality (do I steal bread to feed my hungry family?). Sin/killing (I’m in the AIr Force and have been ordered to drop bombs that may kill civilians. Do I comply?).

You will not find answers to these specific questions in the Bible. Nor in the Cathechism. It’s up to you to take all those teachings, etc. and divine your own answer. Since we all might come up with different solutions, I’d call that relativism.

Hi Major Tom,

I offer the following deifinitions to help clarify your position:

You are a moral nihilist if you doubt that there is any such thing as a truth to the matter with regard to any such questions as you posed.

You are a moral skeptic if you accept that at least some moral propositions (e.g. slavery is evil) do have truth value, but doubt it is possible to know which propositions are true.

You are a moral relativist if you think that the truth of a moral proposition can only be meaningfully talked about with respect to a specific culture and a moral proposition that is true for one culture may be false for another.

You are a moral realist if you belief that moral propositions such as “slavery is evil” can have truth value–that moral propositions do not suffer in epistemological standing when compared to scientific statements.

Where do you stand with regard to these definitions? Would you recommend different ones?

Best,
Leela

 

[itinerant1]

Catholic Thomist, Ralph McInerny rightly stated, “It is not just a well-turned phrase that modern philosophy is the Reformation carried on by other means. Most of the major figures are Protestant or apostate or both. Luther’s attack on reason and his Manichean split between nature and grace poisoned the well of thinking.”

 

[Betterave]

I don’t know what you mean, neither Protestants nor Catholics are fence-sitters with regard to the disagreements between Protestants and Catholics.

I don’t think that’s true. As I think the OP describes, Protestants believe many things in a fence-sitting way and they often find unity only by sitting on the fence together. (You might say “well at least they’re not sitting on the fence about sitting on the fence” - but that’s probably not true either.) But the point is about an assessment of the actual evidence itself, not about the differences between various more-and-less well-informed propositional attitudes of various individuals towards the particular parts of the evidence that each individual happens to be familiar with and claims to understand.

I should have said that while justified beliefs are more likely to be true than unjustified ones, the fact that a belief is justified does not esure that it is true. I also don’t think you want to admit the number of people who believe an assertion as a mode of justification. Your example about dentists presupposes that we have a group of competant judges. If you want to claim that Catholics are such a group you are begging the question.

Begging the question? That is what I want to claim, but why is it begging the question? It is an evident truth about the historical situation of the Catholic Church vis-a-vis Christianity. Protestants taken as a whole have a similar claim regarding the meaning of Protestant Christianity - which obviously has a different historical situation from the Catholic Church vis-a-vis Christianity in general, and obviously enjoys correspondingly different prerogatives in making ‘expert’ claims about the real nature of Christianity. I didn’t think this had been put in question before now - if you want to put it in question, please explain how (other than generalized a priori doubt).

Not in your experience…that explains why you are Catholic. Based on the experiences of others Protestantism may be more justified.

Again, the point is about what I take to be the actually strong evidential value of what is contained in my experience, not about the generalized (a priori) possibility of contingent evidential and/or rational deficiencies in various points of view (including my own) that might make them seem justified when they are not.

I agree that appeals to faith or “the pope says so” are an indication that one has exhausted her conversational resources. It is a failure rather than a triumph.

I wouldn’t say that it’s necessarily a failure, not if you are willing to recognize that there is no reason to absolutize the role of “conversation” in apprehending the truth. (Both Catholics and Protestants generally agree on this point - indeed, as the OP suggests, Protestants tend to foreclose conversation (resort to fideism) before Catholics do.)

It means that you will be arguing from different premises and your justifications may be just as valid based on your premises. In other words, you may both be justified in believing different things.

So end of conversation? We’re both ‘justified’? And we are supposed to just be satisfied that our starting points are equally valid? …

I don’t think that anyone here has made a convincing case that Catholic beliefs are better justified than Protestant beliefs in any universal way if we are to admit revellation as a valid warrant for beliefs since anyone’s claim to have received special revellation must be respected. And if we disallow such tales of revellation, then neither belief seems justified.

I’m not sure what this is about: special revelation? Protestants don’t generally believe in this. Do you mean to say that all claims to speak for the Holy Spirit must be viewed as equally respectable/credible? I doubt you believe that, but I can’t see what else you could mean.

 

[Major_Tom]

You are a moral nihilist if you doubt that there is any such thing as a truth to the matter with regard to any such questions as you posed.

I am not a nihilist.

You are a moral skeptic if you accept that at least some moral propositions (e.g. slavery is evil) do have truth value, but doubt it is possible to know which propositions are true.

I am a healthy skeptic. I offered the examples above as a devil’s advocate to make my point, which is, there is not a *universal *good and bad for all people at all times. These examples are extreme, and occur only a fraction of the time. I don’t encounter them on a daily basis, and doubt many people do. I fully realize that some people take them to an extreme, and try and rationalize bad behavior. I disagree with that.

You are a moral relativist if you think that the truth of a moral proposition can only be meaningfully talked about with respect to a specific culture and a moral proposition that is true for one culture may be false for another.

You are a moral realist if you belief that moral propositions such as “slavery is evil” can have truth value–that moral propositions do not suffer in epistemological standing when compared to scientific statements.

Ummm, not sure what you mean by the second thought.

In your first: I think the Aztecs were wrong to kill living human beings as human sacrifice. If I was living at the time, I would try and stop them. I wouldn’t try and rationalize 'Welllll, it’s important to their culture. We should let them do it". Is that clear enough?