Philosophy & Non-Catholics

[FrancesDS]

I am not a philosopher by any means, but I am in a discussion group with several non-Catholics currently. They are primarily people who go to a nondenominational church. We are meeting weekly for the Truth Project.

We are discussing Philosophy & Ethics this next week.
In preparing for this, I have been reading about different worldviews including Relativism, Rationalism, Subjectivism, and PostModernism to name a few.
In my reading, it seems to me that for non-Catholics, without having the Church as your foundation for truth, it is much easier to fall into a trap of being skewed by some of these worldviews. Correct me if I am wrong with this line of thinking…

Even though they are against all of these worldviews, they still seem to creep in to their way of thinking…Those in my group seem to be relative with their beliefs, even if they do not realize it. They are somewhat rational and subjective with their beliefs, again even if they do not realize it. And they even have some postmodernism tendencies (that there are no absolute truths) at times it seems.
They believe what they do because of the influence of those around them. They all say the Holy Spirit guides them in their interpretations of Scripture, yet all believe something different while all believing what they believe is right. They jump around to churches based on finding a pastor whose beliefs agree with their own, stating that the Holy Spirit guides them. They do not feel that the disunity among Christians is something that will be worked out in this life, but, even though it is not ideal, it is okay because we all believe in God and Jesus which is the most important. They tell me that there is no religion or church in existence now that has the fullness of truth. No one knows all of the truth that Jesus came and revealed to us they tell me. They believe as long as in their heart they feel what they believe is truth, then that is what counts.
And in our discussion about the Bible alone, when it came to discussing how is one to know what is the truth when they interpret Scripture using Scripture alone – I asked how is one to know, just based on the Bible alone, if the Eucharist, for example, is symbolic or, as I believe, as a Catholic, that it is the Real Presence. Who was right because both of us say that the Holy Spirit has guided this interpretation? Their response was, well that is not all that important anyway. They resonded that as long as they believed and accepted Jesus, they were saved. They received all graces and all gifts possible when they were baptized with the spirit. They do not need anything more. So for them, it was not important to really discuss interpretation differences such as the Eucharist.

It seems that with all of these worldviews out there, without the Church, these ways of thinking could easily creep in. With the Church, I have a foundation for the truth. I know what is truth because the Church has been guided by the Spirit with the promise that hell would not prevail against it. But without it, I would be susceptible to lies.
To use abortion and contraception as an example, I know these are wrong because of what the Church teaches. Without the Church as a foundation, it would be easy, I think, to rationalize an opinion otherwise or to bring relativism and subjectivism into my decisions (which is what I think many Christians do). Without the Church, the world would have the potential to corrupt my way of thinking without myself even realizing it…

Just a thought.
Any comments?

Frances DS

 

[James_S_Saint]

Sounds like you are assessing it right to me.

Protestants are actually guided by Secular methods of persuasion without them realizing it (using such groups is one of those methods). Very often they are the vehicle and the arm of influence for Secular agenda.

But that alone doesn’t mean that the Catholic is necessarily right. I just means that you have to choose within whom to place your faith and stick with it.

 

[Magnanimity]

Frances,

Good for you for engaging these individuals. I was in their shoes just six short years ago myself, and had it not been for a thoughtful Catholic who befriended me and subsequently challenged my “opposition” to the Catholic Church, I might still be wandering around in the misguided world of Evangelicalism today.

Yeah, I agree that there is a strong postmodern flair to much contemporary Evangelicalism today. The other elements can be there too, at times, since there is nothing really to guide them theologically, besides the loose understandings of their faith that come down to them from whatever Protestant tradition their church originally sprang from.

I think you’re on the right track when you bring up certain things like the Eucharist. Your friends there gave the same basic response I would have given, talking about the “essentials” of Christianity being belief in the triune God, inspiration of the Bible, etc.

Don’t hesitate to really call them on this one. I know I tried to be dismissive of things like the Eucharist as being “non-essential.” A simple reply is to challenge right back: “How do you know what are the essential doctrines as a Christian? Is there a list somewhere? Supposing that the universal Church considered (which it did) for 1500 years that participation in the Eucharist was an essential aspect of Christian life? What changed 500 years ago to make it non-essential today?” and so on. There are so many ways to press an individual like these folks you’re describing, from the canon of the Scriptures to the “Catholicity” of the Church fathers, etc.

You’re doing a good job here. Keep it up and bring up any ??'s that might arise with your partners here.

Best to you,

 

[wanstronian]

To the OP, I do have one comment.

I think that you’re saying, in effect, that you know you’re right and your ‘opponents’ are wrong because you subscribe to the Catholic Church and they don’t.

Has it occurred to you that they may think exactly the same about their own faith?

By what rationale have you decided that the Catholic Church is right and true, and how is your rationale superior to the rationale held by people who subscribe to a different faith?

For example, your statement: “I know these are wrong because of what the Church teaches.” What process did you undertake to arrive at the conclusion that the Church is right about everything? What did you believe before you undertook this presumably robust and logical process? For these two cases (abortion and contraception), have you thought through the consequences of such edicts? Or have you just blindly accepted them because “the Church is your foundation for truth?”

It seems to me that you’re saying, “I’m right because I know I’m right, therefore everyone else must be wrong.” This is a sign of a closed mind and illogical thought processes.

 

[Abeille]

To the OP, I do have one comment.

I think that you’re saying, in effect, that you know you’re right and your ‘opponents’ are wrong because you subscribe to the Catholic Church and they don’t.

Has it occurred to you that they may think exactly the same about their own faith?

By what rationale have you decided that the Catholic Church is right and true, and how is your rationale superior to the rationale held by people who subscribe to a different faith?

For example, your statement: “I know these are wrong because of what the Church teaches.” What process did you undertake to arrive at the conclusion that the Church is right about everything? What did you believe before you undertook this presumably robust and logical process? For these two cases (abortion and contraception), have you thought through the consequences of such edicts? Or have you just blindly accepted them because “the Church is your foundation for truth?”

It seems to me that you’re saying, “I’m right because I know I’m right, therefore everyone else must be wrong.” This is a sign of a closed mind and illogical thought processes.

I think its pretty safe to say that it ‘occurred to [the OP]’ He does answer some of your questions:
He says the non-Catholics in the group feel that they’re being lead by the holy spirit to the “Truth.”
He feels that the Truth can only be taught by the Catholic church, who is in turn guided by the Holy Spirit.
He feels that using means other than the Truth taught by the Church, people tend to become corrupted and start to rationalize behaviors, instead of acting morally, such as abortion and contraception.
He writes, “Without the Church, the world would have the potential to corrupt my way of thinking without myself even realizing it…”

Your question, “What process did you undertake to arrive at the conclusion that the Church is right…?,” is a very good question.
This is what the non-Catholics in his group will want answered.

 

[wanstronian]

I think its pretty safe to say that it ‘occurred to [the OP]’

Yet he shows no sign of recognising the fallacy, he just seems to assume that he’s right and that the others are misguided. “Them loopy non-Catholics, huh!?” without any apparent awareness of the irony.

He does answer some of your questions:
He says the non-Catholics in the group feel that they’re being lead by the holy spirit to the “Truth.”
He feels that the Truth can only be taught by the Catholic church, who is in turn guided by the Holy Spirit.
He feels that using means other than the Truth taught by the Church, people tend to become corrupted and start to rationalize behaviors, instead of acting morally, such as abortion and contraception.
He writes, “Without the Church, the world would have the potential to corrupt my way of thinking without myself even realizing it…”

I don’t think he answers any of my questions - which is fair enough because I asked them after he posted!

Your question, “What process did you undertake to arrive at the conclusion that the Church is right…?,” is a very good question.
This is what the non-Catholics in his group will want answered.

Me too! After all, I’m most definitely a non-Catholic!

 

[Biggie]

Briefly, I just finished reading the biography of St. Thomas More and it bears directly on the issue raised here. More engaged in a spirited exchange with Martin Luther over the course of years defending the position of the Catholic Church and opposing those he called the “new men”. The biography, which was a secular history, emphasized the shocking change the reformation or then “new ideas” represented, specifically in the area of subjectivity. More opposed Luther precisely on the grounds that the new way made every man an authority unto himself and therefore invited chaos (literally, he viewed the reformation as the harbinger of the apocalypse and Luther as the predecessor to the anti-Christ.)

The interesting result, according to the author, was the shift in power to monarchs, as opposed to individuals.

So anyway, I think you have without doubt correctly identified subjectivity as a core difference between Catholic and Protestant structures.

 

[Betterave]

To the OP, I do have one comment.

I think that you’re saying, in effect, that you know you’re right and your ‘opponents’ are wrong because you subscribe to the Catholic Church and they don’t.

Has it occurred to you that they may think exactly the same about their own faith?

By what rationale have you decided that the Catholic Church is right and true, and how is your rationale superior to the rationale held by people who subscribe to a different faith?

For example, your statement: “I know these are wrong because of what the Church teaches.” What process did you undertake to arrive at the conclusion that the Church is right about everything? What did you believe before you undertook this presumably robust and logical process? For these two cases (abortion and contraception), have you thought through the consequences of such edicts? Or have you just blindly accepted them because “the Church is your foundation for truth?”

It seems to me that you’re saying, “I’m right because I know I’m right, therefore everyone else must be wrong.” This is a sign of a closed mind and illogical thought processes.

Wan, I think you’re misunderstanding the context of the debate. 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.

 

[wanstronian]

Wan, I think you’re misunderstanding the context of the debate. 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 that is what was meant, then it should have been stated much more clearly, because it’s not how it reads!

 

[FrancesDS]

Sorry have not responded sooner; I have been out of town with limited time to post before now.

I definitely did not want this to be a post and debate about ‘is there a true church’ or ‘what is the true church’. There are some other threads that discuss this at length.

With my discussions with the non-Catholics I mentioned above, it just made me realize the importance of having the Church and Magisterium, as Beeterave put it ‘for guidance’.
I thought Biggie’s comment was interesting. It does seem that with many of the non-Catholics I had the discussions with, each relied on their own sense that they were guided by the Holy Spirit with their Scriptural interpretations and these determined their beliefs. Without any guidance or boundaries in a sense, this seems like it makes one susceptible to secular worldviews such as relativism, subjectivism, and rationalism, etc. Without some type of foundation providing boundaries, as Biggie wrote, “the new way made every man an authority unto himself and therefore invited chaos”.

I heard a quote once from Marcus Grodi on EWTN and I just remembered that I had written this down. I think it is appropriate for this forum:
He said, “…There is a misunderstanding of what Paul meant when he said ‘walking in the Spirit’ in Galatians because he did not mean to throw out all of the laws and rules. Paul…taught against… living freely in all you do. ‘Walking in the Spirit’ means following the Spirit as a guide, and we recognize that Christ gave his Spirit to the Apostles in founding the Church. If you want to know what the Spirit says, listen to the Church. So ‘walking in the Spirit’ means obedience to the Church. When is a train most free? When it is on the tracks or off? When is a fish most free? When it is in the water or when it is outside of the water? You see, a train is constrained by the tracks but that is when it is most free to be what it is meant to be. The doctrines of the Church, the rule of faith we are given by Christ through the Spirit, are the tracks upon which we are to live. It isn’t a constriction of our freedom. It is a guard to make sure that our hearts, souls, and minds are guarded; so that our actions are based on a conscience that is formed. That is why Christ gave us the Church. It isn’t a slavery, it is a freedom because we can live in trust. Because we can, in fact, ‘trust in the Lord with all our heart and lean not on our own understanding’ because we have been given the Church that can teach us how to acknowledge Him and to know then how God guides us. These are the blessings of the Church…”

I have just seen more and more the truth to this in action when discussing topics with my non-Catholic friends. They all primarily now consider themselves “non-denominational” but their backgrounds include Baptist, Methodist, Assemblied of God, Episcopal and others. They all belive various things based on their own private interpretations of Scripture more or less. They all believe they are guided by the Holy Spirit yet all of their opinions are different in some ways. To make their diversity more valid, they just tell me that they agree in the most important thing which is that they believe in Jesus and accept Him as their personal Lord and Savior.
It does seem to be ‘chaotic’ as mentioned in the Luther/Thomas More discussion mentioned.
My initial comment was more along the lines of that I had seen an additional blessing with having the Church and Magisterium.
Sorry for the confusion. (And I do not want to make this forum into why I believe the Catholic Church is the true Church because there is at least one forum answering this question that I know of and it goes over this at length.)

Frances DS

 

[Oreoracle]

We are discussing Philosophy & Ethics this next week.
In preparing for this, I have been reading about different worldviews including Relativism, Rationalism, Subjectivism, and PostModernism to name a few.

Firstly, (moral?) relativism is a branch of (moral?) subjectivism. They are not two separate worldviews. Moral relativism is basically a combination of moral subjectivism (the belief that all moral declarations are expressions of sentiments and are not descriptive in nature) with a rejection of utilizing rigid rules and instead preferring broad principles.

As for rationalism: Plato-era rationalism or modern-era rationalism? These two are nearly opposites. The former brand of rationalism holds that truth can be derived by logic and reasoning alone, whereas the latter prefers evidence. Modern rationalism is closer to empiricism in that it considers evidence more reliable than other means of establishing belief.

In my reading, it seems to me that for non-Catholics, without having the Church as your foundation for truth, it is much easier to fall into a trap of being skewed by some of these worldviews. Correct me if I am wrong with this line of thinking…

I see. So you’ve just began to read about these worldviews, and you’re already dismissing them as pitfalls? Interesting. I suggest you get back to reading about these worldviews carefully.

They are somewhat rational and subjective with their beliefs, again even if they do not realize it.

I’m not sure what you mean here. You speak of being “rational” with one’s beliefs as though it were a bad thing. And in philosophy, a “subject” is a conscious agent (person). Beliefs occur in the consciousnesses of persons, so of course they’re subjective.

They believe what they do because of the influence of those around them.

But not you, right?

 

[Leela]

Wan, I think you’re misunderstanding the context of the debate. 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.

I thought it was clear that the OP presupposed that the Church had it right, but if so it goes without saying that any views that differ from the Church’s are then wrong. Whether you want to call their errors the product of this or that worldview seems irrelevent when you’ve already begged-the question to such extremes. Any errors they have made are much more easily categorized simply as disagreements with the truth.

Those of us who aren’t Catholics want to ask “did you pick this Church because you think it has the one true interpretation?” If you did, then you are no different from your Protestant conversational partners who picked their churches for the same reason. You are better off only if the church you picked happens to be the true one. Are you in any better position to know that you are right than they are?

 

[Betterave]

I thought it was clear that the OP presupposed that the Church had it right, but if so it goes without saying that any views that -]differ from/-] contradict the Church’s [on some matter on which the Church has spoken in her legitimate magisterial capacity] are then wrong [a fact which the believer can grasp on the level of truth, not necessarily justification]. Whether you want to call their errors the product of this or that worldview seems irrelevent when you’ve already begged-the-question to such extremes.

What constitutes ‘begging-the-question’ depends on what question is being asked and the legitimacy of asking particular questions is always(?) context-dependent.

Any errors they have made are much more easily categorized simply as disagreements with the truth.

Easily, but not exhaustively, since the question of justification (understanding) remains, even if we know the truth (by faith) - fides quaerens intellectum.

Faith is not just the presupposition that articles of faith are right. That claim begs the question. At the same time it’s not entirely wrong, but it misses something essential about what faith is supposed to be, i.e., much more than an abstract presupposition. Christian faith is supposed to arise from an historical encounter with a faithful and loving God who makes himself known to the elect, i.e., to those who want to know Him and are inclined to love Him.

Those of us who aren’t Catholics want to ask “did you pick this Church because you think it has the one true interpretation?” If you did, then you are no different from your Protestant conversational partners who picked their churches for the same reason. You are better off only if the church you picked happens to be the true one. Are you in any better position to know that you are right than they are?

If we want to say that self-contradiction is incompatible with truth, then the Catholic is in a better position to not contradict herself when it comes to making claims about knowing the truth by faith. Protestants do not have any historical or coherent doctrinal warrant for claiming that their individual interpretations about the essentials of the Christian faith are authentic. The idea here is something that William James noticed in his reflections on the conditions governing our questions about the truth - agreement is not the same as but is in practice a sufficient indicator of truth. If literally everyone agrees on the truth of a particular matter, there is no one to really wonder (and no point(?) in wondering) if everyone is wrong (e.g., maybe it’s all from an evil demon!). But if there is very widespread disagreement about something, we need some means of addressing that disagreement (e.g., magisterial authority) if we wish to coherently make truth claims about the disputed matter. Since protestants dispense with this element, their debates have no mechanism for transcending the factical reality of disagreement (other than an appeal to an ever-sinking ‘highest common denominator,’ which, the Catholic will argue, is really not consistent with the basic Christian concept of revelation).

 

[JER7177]

Although this is not an answer to your question I do recommend some books to you if you are looking to get into Catholic philosophy. All these books are from Sinag Tala Publishers (sinagtala.com/) in the Phillipines, but are the most solidly and orthodox Catholic sources for Thomistic (St. Thomas Aquinas) philosophy. They are not extremely “difficult” in their presentation of Catholic philosophy, they are not “easy” either. Studying catholic philosophy can be a mental workout in order to grasp it, but…wow…what a payback it is! The only drawback to these books is that they are expensive because of the shipping, but one can find the most important of them (Christian Philosophy by Joseph M. De Torre) through American dustibutors:

***1. Christian Philosophy by Joseph M. De Torre

1. Intro. to Philosophy by Mariano Artigas
2. Metaphysics by Tomas Alvira, et al ***
3. History of Ancient Philosophy by Ignatius Yarza
4. History of Medieval Philosophy by Joseph Saranyana
5. Logic by Juan Jose Sanguineti

Here is also are two volumes (much more cost effective) from tan Books (tanbooks.com):

1. Intro. to Philosophy: The Perennial Principles of the Classical Realist Tradition
   By: Daniel Sullivan
2. Right & Reason: Ethics Based on the Teachings of Aristotle & St. Thomas Aquinas
   By Rev. Austin Fagothey

I hope you will take a look at these resources.

 

[Leela]

If we want to say that self-contradiction is incompatible with truth, then the Catholic is in a better position to not contradict herself when it comes to making claims about knowing the truth by faith. Protestants do not have any historical or coherent doctrinal warrant for claiming that their individual interpretations about the essentials of the Christian faith are authentic.

What doctrinal and historical warrant for making their claims do you think Catholics have that Protestants do not? If Protestants did not also think that their claims were warranted, do you think they would make them? Isn’t it possible hat two different views are justifiable given the available evidence (though of course only one of them or perhaps neither is actually correct)?

The idea here is something that William James noticed in his reflections on the conditions governing our questions about the truth - agreement is not the same as but is in practice a sufficient indicator of truth. If literally everyone agrees on the truth of a particular matter, there is no one to really wonder (and no point(?) in wondering) if everyone is wrong (e.g., maybe it’s all from an evil demon!).

I think there is some conflation of truth and warrant above. The scenario you describe is similar to what Pierce called “fake doubt.” He said that we don’t need to be afraid of such philosophical boogiemen as the evil demon you refer to. He said that doubt requires justification as much as belief does. If someone can give us no good reason to doubt something, then we should not feel obliged to justify it. But all this has do do with the objigation to justify our beliefs. Though justification is our only route to truth (barring divine revellation), is not equivalent with truth. A belief can be well-justified, given the context, and still be false. The fact that all Catholics agree about a belief does not make you more likely to be right, it just means that you won’t need to justify that belief to one another.

But if there is very widespread disagreement about something, we need some means of addressing that disagreement (e.g., magisterial authority) if we wish to coherently make truth claims about the disputed matter.

I don’t see the problem. Protestants can appeal to history and scripture as well as Catholics. They just won’t argue “the pope says so.”

Since protestants dispense with this element, their debates have no mechanism for transcending the factical reality of disagreement (other than an appeal to an ever-sinking ‘highest common denominator,’ which, the Catholic will argue, is really not consistent with the basic Christian concept of revelation).

You will disagree about what is meant by the “Christian concept of revelation” just as you will disagree about what history and scripture can teach us on other matters.

Best,
Leela

 

[mjakemccoy]

I think that you’re saying, in effect, that you know you’re right and your ‘opponents’ are wrong because you subscribe to the Catholic Church and they don’t.

QUOTE]

This is a very important phylosophical point. If you know your history, then without a Catholic Church authority to canonize scripture as the infallible word of God, then there is no authority within the Protestant churches or the Bible. The books of the Bible were declared inspired and infallible by the Catholic Church 1700 years ago. Protestants are Roman Catholics in “protest”, they are not Greek Orthodox, they are not Arians, they are not Gnostics, they are not Pelagians, they are descendants of Rome. Luther, Calvin and Henry VIII were all Roman Catholics who broke and started their own church. Every Protestant/nondenominational church is rooted in these three, so therefore their roots come from Rome. Luther spoke firmly about Rome preserving the Gospel for the Reformers. He’s speaking of 1500 years of preservation, when there was but one church. This is the big philosophical question; if Rome maintained the Gospel for 1500 years, who has maintained it for the last 500? Is it Rome, the Lutherans, the Anglicans(Church of England), or 1 of the 40,000 other Protestant denominations? We have 1 God, he gave us 1 truth, but we have 40,000 denominations, 40,000 doctrines of truth. As baptized Christians we are all part of the Church, the body of Christ, but we are told again and again to be in unity; “a house divided cannot stand”. The reformation was set about to reform the Church, instead they started new churches, and the floodgates of division were opened. Until reformers return to Rome to reform the Church, the Reformation will remain a failure of division. At one time Europe was ruled by Christian government, today Europe is consumed by atheistic governments, as is America; divorce, abortion, and homosexuality run rampant. Germany and Russia had strong and deep Christian roots, what changed to allow Nazis and commies to take control? Was it rooted in the reformation? Read your history. So I challenge you to return to Rome, reform the things that need reforming, those in the Church and those in your heart, so that Christ’s kingdom may come. May the peace of Christ be with you.

Jake McCoy

 

[Leela]

This is a very important phylosophical point. If you know your history, then without a Catholic Church authority to canonize scripture as the infallible word of God, then there is no authority within the Protestant churches or the Bible. The books of the Bible were declared inspired and infallible by the Catholic Church 1700 years ago. Protestants are Roman Catholics in “protest”, they are not Greek Orthodox, they are not Arians, they are not Gnostics, they are not Pelagians, they are descendants of Rome. Luther, Calvin and Henry VIII were all Roman Catholics who broke and started their own church. Every Protestant/nondenominational church is rooted in these three, so therefore their roots come from Rome.

I think a big issue here is what is meant by “the Church.” A Protestant can believe that the Church is something other than the highest organs of doctrinal control of the Roman Catholic Church. It can mean “all disciples of Christ” for example. The Church for Protestants is catholic (universal) but is not equivalent to the Vatican.

Best,
Leela

 

[alforo]

It seems that your discussion group participants are heavily into relativisim. What works for me is correct/right/true and what works for you is correct/right/true. If you advocate relativism then there is no absolute truth. 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. Seek what is the truth, not what works.

Shortly after his election, the pope said that relativism is the greatest danger facing the church today. But nobody paid attention. People today argue that logic is passe and a product of the dark ages whose teachings are now irrelevant and anti modern and people no longer are willing to suject themselves to any discipline in their thinking or behavior - thus relativism reigns.

 

[Betterave]

What doctrinal and historical warrant for making their claims do you think Catholics have that Protestants do not? If Protestants did not also think that their claims were warranted, do you think they would make them? Isn’t it possible hat two different views are justifiable given the available evidence (though of course only one of them or perhaps neither is actually correct)?

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 think there is some conflation of truth and warrant above.?] The scenario you describe is similar to what Pierce called “fake doubt.” He said that we don’t need to be afraid of such philosophical boogiemen as the evil demon you refer to. He said that doubt requires justification as much as belief does. If someone can give us no good reason to doubt something, then we should not feel obliged to justify it. But all this has do do with the objigation to justify our beliefs. Though justification is our only route to truth (barring divine revellation), is not equivalent with truth. A belief can be well-justified, given the context, and still be false. The fact that all Catholics agree about a belief does not make you more likely to be right, it just means that you won’t need to justify that belief to one another.

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 don’t see the problem. Protestants can appeal to history and scripture as well as Catholics. They just won’t argue “the pope says so.”

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

You will disagree about what is meant by the “Christian concept of revelation” just as you will disagree about what history and scripture can teach us on other matters.

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

 

[Betterave]

I think a big issue here is what is meant by “the Church.” A Protestant can believe that the Church is something other than the highest organs of doctrinal control of the Roman Catholic Church. It can mean “all disciples of Christ” for example. The Church for Protestants is catholic (universal) but is not equivalent to the Vatican.

These same beliefs are also taught by the Roman Catholic Church actually! (Of course that’s not all she teaches…)