What is exactly and precisely "invincible ignorance"?

[Nahar]

The title says it all. But a little enlightenment cannot hurt. If someone had heard the catechism, understands it, but does not accept its premises because she does not find them logical and rational… is that person still “invincibly ignorant”?

In other words, merely hearing the teachings is sufficient to lose one’s “ignorance”?

 

[Nahar]

Thanks, but I still don’t understand. What does it mean to “have the potential to overcome that ignorance”? I cannot accept any argument which logically incorrect, or maybe logically impeccable, but irrational.

Don’t forget the difference between the “logically correct” and the “logically sound” arguments.

 

[Nahar]

It is more complicated than that. I already accepted / stipulated that one can hear the message, one is able to comprehend the message, but finds it illogical and or irrational. This is the problem I am asking about.

 

[Nahar]

That is what I am asking about. Why not? Just hearing something, what one finds illogical and irrational does not mean that the person “knows” the claim. You can say that the person knows ABOUT the claim, but that is completely different.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

Ignorance—Invincible and Vincible | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[Vico]

The title says it all. But a little enlightenment cannot hurt. If someone had heard the catechism, understands it, but does not accept its premises because she does not find them logical and rational… is that person still “invincibly ignorant”?

In other words, merely hearing the teachings is sufficient to lose one’s “ignorance”?

It will, therefore, be taken to mean the absence of information which one is required to have. The mere want of knowledge without connoting any requirement on the part of a person to possess it may be called nescience.

Catholic Encylopedia, Ignorance

It will, therefore, be taken to mean the absence of information which one is required to have. The mere want of knowledge without connoting any requirement on the part of a person to possess it may be called nescience.

So far as fixing human responsibility, the most important division of ignorance is that designated by the terms invincible and vincible. Ignorance is said to be invincible when a person is unable to rid himself of it notwithstanding the employment of moral diligence, that is, such as under the circumstances is, morally speaking, possible and obligatory. This manifestly includes the states of inadvertence, forgetfulness, etc. Such ignorance is obviously involuntary and therefore not imputable.

Delany, J. (1910). Ignorance. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. : http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm

 

[Nahar]

It will, therefore, be taken to mean the absence of information which one is required to have.

Sorry, this is getting more and more confusing. Is one “required” to have? What does that mean? The word “nescience” is just a synonym to “ignorance”.

Is there a member of the clergy around here who can explain this concept? Maybe @edward_george1 would be so kind to lend a helping hand?

 

[Vico]

Vico:

It will, therefore, be taken to mean the absence of information which one is required to have.

Sorry, this is getting more and more confusing. Is one “required” to have? What does that mean? The word “nescience” is just a synonym to “ignorance”.

Is there a member of the clergy around here who can explain this concept? Maybe @edward_george1 would be so kind to lend a helping hand?

The article explains that the narrow definition is used for the ethical view.

 

[Nahar]

The article explains that the narrow definition is used for the ethical view.

Not for me. Maybe it is a shortcoming of mine, but it is insufficient.

Let me make a simplified argument. Suppose someone comes to me and argues that some Little Green Men landed in his back yard on a flying saucer. I can accept that “I am aware of this claim”. But I am NOT aware of the veracity of this claim. In other words, I am IGNORANT of the veracity of this claim. So I consider myself to be “invincibly ignorant” in this case. The fact that someone asserted it makes no difference.

And one more time: “what is required to have”?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

If someone had heard the catechism, understands it, but does not accept its premises because she does not find them logical and rational… is that person still “invincibly ignorant”?

As you’ve stated it here, yes.

But in general, it depends. It would depend on things like maturity, ability to understand, previous formation etc. A key term that’s associated with invincible ignorance is “due diligence”. Has due diligence been done? And what exactly constitutes “due diligence” will depend on the individual. It would mean something different for a teenage drop out than it would mean for an adult seminarian.

Here is a good article explaining it.

For many, vincible is a wholly unfamiliar term and invincible can suggest that which can never be overcome, no matter how much diligence is shown. Because of these difficulties, it may be advisable in practice to speak of innocent (invincible) and culpable (vincible) ignorance when addressing such people.

Ignorance—Invincible and Vincible | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[Nahar]

As you’ve stated it here, yes.

That is a promising start. That is what I was curious about.

A key term that’s associated with invincible ignorance is “due diligence”.

Yes, what does it mean in this instance? The basic problem is the impossibility of checking out the claims presented in the catechism. One can listen to all the apologists, and none of them has any hard evidence for what they say.

I am familiar with the article. It was not helpful.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Yes, what does it mean in this instance?

At the risk of getting in over my head with one individual’s particular circumstances, I would say that there may be a ‘call of docility’ contained within the term “due diligence”. But ultimately, a person should follow their conscience. Then there should be that element in a good conscience which doesn’t immediately throw something out (that comes from a trusted source) just because it isn’t easily grasped, but tables it for more reflection. So those are things to consider.

I don’t necessarily think that any of those things I mentioned would immediately remove invincible ignorance. But you may eventually find reasoning for a difficult teaching. If you do, then you’ll have more freedom in your decision to accept it or disagree with it.

 

[Nahar]

At the risk of getting in over my head with one individual’s particular circumstances, I would say that there may be a ‘call of docility’ contained within the term “due diligence”.

Well, the expression “due diligence” is rather simple. Take all the available into consideration, find more evidence, when available, and then make the evaluation about the subject. I have no idea what “docility” is supposed to do with it.

But ultimately, a person should follow their conscience.

Absolutely!

Then there should be that element in a good conscience which doesn’t immediately throw something out (that comes from a trusted source) just because it isn’t easily grasped, but tables it for more reflection.

Very true, but what constitutes a “trusted source”? Again, in my world, a trusted source, or authority is someone who can substantiate their arguments without referring to some OTHER authority. The chain of authorities must stop somewhere. I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Pattylt]

I’ve asked a similar question in the past, too. A quick history…I came from Orthodox Judaism and began loosing my faith. At a certain point, I decided it must be due to following the wrong religion so my seeking phase began. I read and studied the Gospels and NT extensively. I understand what it said, what it was asking me to believe but I was unable to believe it. Most likely, this was due to the Jewish view that man can not also be God. I was unable to make the leap of faith required. Eventually, I became agnostic and I still am. I just don’t believe in God or Christ. I am unable to will myself to believe this…and I really tried. I didn’t want to not believe…I just plain don’t.

In asking if I’m invincibly ignorant, I get both yes and no answers. Personally, I don’t think I am. I understand exactly what I’m supposed to accept and believe but due to my inability to believe it, I assume I am destined for Hell unless something dramatically changes within me before I die. I accept that this is most Christians view…even though I think it’s a horrible punishment for being incapable of faith. Yet, some have told me that I may be considered invincibly ignorant. I guess God, if true, will know and understand my struggle and judge accordingly?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I have no idea what “docility” is supposed to do with it.

I suppose I meant to convey that it sounds like you’ve done some due diligence. So I thought I’d bring up docility, which is an element to learning, especially things that are faith based.

 

[Vico]

… So I consider myself to be “invincibly ignorant” in this case. The fact that someone asserted it makes no difference.

And one more time: “what is required to have”?

First, the Church is not merely someone with regard to the matters of faith and morals for which the Church has the teaching authority. However, some are not raised with faith, in which the default is the conscience, but the conscience can be poorly formed.

Invincible ignorance (in the narrow moral sense) is lack of knowledge that a person ought to have, because it is a moral matter and the matter is grave. The ignorance is not invincible if it could be removed by applying reasonable diligence of an ordinary, conscientious person.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. …
1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. …
1798 A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. Everyone must avail himself of the means to form his conscience.
1799 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” 59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits. …
1859 … Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

Vincible ignorance diminishes culpability.

 

[Crusader13]

Suppose someone comes to me and argues that some Little Green Men landed in his back yard on a flying saucer. I can accept that “I am aware of this claim”. But I am NOT aware of the veracity of this claim. In other words, I am IGNORANT of the veracity of this claim.

That wouldn’t really explain the circumstances of invincible ignorance. On the one hand you could choose to further explore the truthfulness of his claim by actually going to his home to see if what he said were true.

However, if you choose to dismiss his claim by saying to yourself, “that’s absurd, I’m not going to bother looking into such an illogical story because it’s a waste of time.” Now you have chosen to disbelieve in such a claim without having done anything to disprove it.

It’s not an apples to apples comparison, because in Scripture there is a similar situation in that many people were following Jesus up until He mentions the eating of His flesh. At this point many leave Him because they view it as a “hard saying”. However, they aren’t invincibly ignorant, they merely chose not to believe in such an illogical command by Jesus himself.

It sounds like based upon your arguments one could refuse to accept such a teaching because it’s totally irrational, much like those followers who left Jesus.

 

[Nahar]

I suppose I meant to convey that it sounds like you’ve done some due diligence. So I thought I’d bring up docility, which is an element to learning, especially things that are faith based.

OK. Thanks.

First, the Church is not merely someone with regard to the matters of faith and morals for which the Church has the teaching authority. However, some are not raised with faith, in which the default is the conscience, but the conscience can be poorly formed.

So, let me see. The conscience is “well formed”, if it agrees with the Church teaching. If there is a difference, then it is poorly formed. Why bother to even referring to conscience?

Invincible ignorance (in the narrow moral sense) is lack of knowledge that a person ought to have, because it is a moral matter and the matter is grave.

“Ought to have” or “should have” or “required to have” are close synonyms. And the “gravity” of the matter is not something that can be measured on a scale. What is considered a “grave” matter, may or may not be a “grave” matter for someone else.

The ignorance is not invincible if it could be removed by applying reasonable diligence of an ordinary, conscientious person.

What is “reasonable diligence”? Reading, considering and contemplating the available evidence? Is that sufficient? And what is “available” evidence?

Let’s just get to the basics. If someone heard the teachings, listened to them, contemplated them and disagrees with them, and has valid, logical and rational reasons to disagree, then is that “ignorance” invincible?

 

[Nahar]

That wouldn’t really explain the circumstances of invincible ignorance. On the one hand you could choose to further explore the truthfulness of his claim by actually going to his home to see if what he said were true.

But that is not the case. The claimant says that the LGM were there, but left without any mark, and there is no other evidence left for their presence.

However, if you choose to dismiss his claim by saying to yourself, “that’s absurd, I’m not going to bother looking into such an illogical story because it’s a waste of time.” Now you have chosen to disbelieve in such a claim without having done anything to disprove it.

You cannot disprove something for which there is no verifiable evidence. The absence of proof IS NOT a proof of absence, but the absence of evidence IS an evidence of absence. Observe the difference between “proof” and “evidence”.

Of course people dismiss absurd claims all the time without looking into them. To check claims is a time consuming process and it usually costs utilizing valuable resources, which could be used better for evaluating reasonable claims. After all the resources are scarce, and wasting them on absurd claims is irrational.

Don’t forget, the onus is on the one who makes a positive claim.

 

[Crusader13]

Let’s just get to the basics. If someone heard the teachings, listened to them, contemplated them and disagrees with them, and has valid, logical and rational reasons to disagree, then is that “ignorance” invincible?

No. Because now you’re entering the realm of disagreeing based upon beliefs or views that contradict the truth of Scripture.

It’s not sufficient to simply say “well I don’t believe what you’re saying is true, because it’s highly unlikely that (fill in the blank)”.

The problem is that many people want to interpret rejection as simply another form of invincible ignorance. Meaning that the truth of salvation and the gospels is only true and applicable if the person believes it is.