What is exactly and precisely "invincible ignorance"?

[Crusader13]

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”.

Exactly. I was just giving one possible solution to the analogy you used.

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.

True again. However, the issue is now determining what one considers absurd. Does simply claiming the truths of the gospel as absurd, make them so. And does that person have a valid claim in saying “well I’m not at fault for not believing in something so preposterous as (fill in the blank)”.

 

[Nahar]

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

Sorry, we ran out of ground which could be used as a basis for a conversation.

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)”.

What you describe as “highly unlikely” is actually “impossible”.

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.

But of course. Your conviction about the matter is not applicable to others.

Let me point it out again. If one investigates ALL the available evidence, and finds all of them “wanting”, that is sufficient to declare one’s “ignorance” is sufficiently established, or “invincible”.

True again. However, the issue is now determining what one considers absurd. Does simply claiming the truths of the gospel as absurd, make them so.

The claims in the bible are not different from any other claims. And NOT all the claims are supposed to be historically correct. Some are allegorical. The problem is that there is no “Catholic annotated Bible”, which would separate the “historically correct claims” from the other ones… verse by verse, chapter by chapter, book by book.

 

[whatistrue]

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”?

I don’t believe so. Ignorance is a lack of knowing. Invincible ignorance is a lack of knowing that cannot be overcome. What you are talking about is a rejection of belief. You are perfectly entitled as a rational free willed human to believe as you wish, but you are not entitled to the benefits, if any, of the Church if you reject her teachings for any reason, including putting your own understanding and belief above hers. But then again we are constantly reminded that it is God, not us, who makes the final determination. But you can’t really use that as a “Get out of Hell Free” card on your own say so.

 

[Maximus1]

That is a pretty jaded view to me and always has been.
A diminished capacity to discern, which can derive from many factors, represents an impediment to knowledge and appreciation.
You could have gone this way or that, without capacity to fully appreciate and reason ones course, seems like a basic tenant of idolatry of the law. Rather than the law to serve a behovely purpose.

 

[Nahar]

I don’t believe so. Ignorance is a lack of knowing. Invincible ignorance is a lack of knowing that cannot be overcome. What you are talking about is a rejection of belief. You are perfectly entitled as a rational free willed human to believe as you wish, but you are not entitled to the benefits, if any , of the Church if you reject her teachings for any reason, including putting your own understanding and belief above hers.

Maybe you forgot that the church is NOT an authority for non-Christians. And yes, I reject a belief for what there is no rational underpinning. Don’t you?

But then again we are constantly reminded that it is God, not us, who makes the final determination. But you can’t really use that as a “Get out of Hell Free” card on your own say so.

Indeed. And you are exactly as ignorant as I am about God’s “thought process”. But I assert that God (if exists) is a reasonable person, who accepts a reasonable argument. No one can be held accountable for something that is not known and cannot be known.

 

[Crusader13]

Sorry, we ran out of ground which could be used as a basis for a conversation.

Of course, I wasn’t speaking in terms of no longer entertaining the discussion. And I’m not saying that a believer’s convictions are true simply because they are a believer.

I was referring to the fact that any individual who chooses not believe is making a conscious and deliberate act to do so. So even if they know nothing of Scripture or the necessity of salvation they can choose to learn or not.

So if person A says: “I’m not going to waste my time on learning anything from a corrupt religion like Christianity “. Well they’ve made a deliberate choice to refuse to hear the truth.

If person B agrees to learn more of the faith and in the end still chooses not to believe and rejects the message. They too could be in the exact same boat as person A. However, we don’t know what the fate of either will be.

This means that we don’t speculate on which one has invincible ignorance, because in truth only God knows who falls under this category. Our mission is to preach the good news to everyone and those who have ears to hear let them hear.

Unfortunately, too many get caught in this gray area where they feel everyone might still attain Heaven, even if they reject Jesus and His Church.

 

[steve-b]

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.

in extension to what (name removed by moderator) wrote

Invincible ignorance presumes much effort has been made to know and understand a subject, but after much effort expended by the individual, they still can’t know or understand the subject

Invincible ignorance is not voluntary. It is involuntary.

For example,

A person with sub IQ. No matter how hard they try, they won’t understand even the most simple concepts. Consequently ignorance of such things in this state, is called invincible, because it cannot be overcome by great personal effort. For this reason such ignorance, not being voluntary for THEM, since it is not in their power to be rid of it, is not a sin: Said another way, It is not imputed as sin if one fails to know what one is unable to know in the first place.

As opposed to

One who is fully capable of knowing, but rejecting knowledge, or won’t take the time to know what they can and should know, THAT is voluntary action. One cannot claim Invincible Ignorance in that case.

Example

From the CCC

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.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

IOW

vincible ignorance can be overcome, invincible ignorance can’t

AND

Invincible ignorance can’t automatically be presumed for anyone except those with sub IQ.

Thomas Aquinas in his day covers a broad Q/A discussion about this particularly when he uses the terms madman, imbecile From Aquinas Question 88, Summa,

 

[whatistrue]

Maybe you forgot that the church is NOT an authority for non-Christians.

What in my post would have led you to believe that? You are, as I stated, perfectly entitled to your own beliefs, which do not have to include any of this. But I have to ask, why do you care about invincible ignorance if you reject the truth of all or part of the belief system in the first place? You have apparently made your wager; accept the consequences, if any, for that action.

And yes, I reject a belief for what there is no rational underpinning. Don’t you?

Our understanding of what is rational can differ, and quite likely does. Is that an issue for you?

But I assert that God (if exists) is a reasonable person, who accepts a reasonable argument.

On what basis do you make that assertion? As you stated above, we are both ignorant of God’s thought process, so what is perfectly right and reasonable to you or I might be totally repugnant to God, or vice versa.

 

[TheLittleLady]

There is a big difference between knowing something then dismissing it or ignoring it and truly being ignorant of the thing.

For instance, until the past couple of decades, most Americans knew the basic tenets of Christianity and sin. Back in the 80’s people did cohabit, but, they often tried to pass themselves as married or in other ways “hide it” from parents, landlords, etc.

Now, the change is so swift that a not insignificant portion of American adults do not even have a clue that fornication is considered a sin. They are invincibly ignorant of basic Christianity.

 

[Nahar]

I was referring to the fact that any individual who chooses not believe is making a conscious and deliberate act to do so.

This is a fundamental problem. Of course to choose to investigate something or not, is a volitional and deliberate action. But the result of that investigation is NOT volitional. You can choose to learn, but cannot choose to believe.

Again, my basic question is about someone, who examined the available evidence, finds it insufficient and as such ignorant of the VERACITY of the claim. Is not ignorant about the existence of the claim!

 

[Nahar]

Invincible ignorance presumes much effort has been made to know and understand a subject, but after much effort expended by the individual, they still can’t know or understand the subject

You forgot the third option. They heard, studied and found it unsubstantiated, and as such - reject it.

 

[Nahar]

There is a big difference between knowing something then dismissing it or ignoring it and truly being ignorant of the thing.

The correct wording is: There is a big difference between knowing ABOUT something then dismissing it or ignoring it and truly being ignorant of the thing.

 

[Vico]

…

Q1. 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?
A1. Conscience is in the heart of man and is available to those that have not learned of the Gospel, for example. Also, culpability for sin will vary depending upon the development. Catechism:

1777 Moral conscience,48 present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil.49 It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.

Q2. “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.
A1. Yes, as you said, gravity is not measured on a scale, it is grave because it is serious (not trivial) sin, lacking charity: “A word, deed or desire in opposition to the eternal law” (St. Augustine).

Q3. What is “reasonable diligence”?
A3. A person who is unsure about a Catholic teaching, yet refrains from seeking clarification of those teachings has not exercised reasonable diligence. Catechism

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. 1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

Q4. What is available evidence?
A4. Is has been defined as valid and reliable evidence. For moral matters is it the teaching of faith and morals from the Catholic Church. Revealed truth and magisterial teachings.

Q5. 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?
A5. No, for the truth has been heard. It is not necessary to have a rational understanding. Some truths are mysteries, and a given reasoning is only a approximation. Catechism

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

 

[Nahar]

A1. Conscience is in the heart of man and is available to those that have not learned of the Gospel, for example.

The heart is the organ to pump blood.

Yes, as you said, gravity is not measured on a scale, it is grave because it is serious (not trivial) sin, lacking charity: “A word, deed or desire in opposition to the eternal law”

Where is that eternal “law” written? Not on our hearts, that is for sure.

A person who is unsure about a Catholic teaching, yet refrains from seeking clarification of those teachings has not exercised reasonable diligence.

I am talking about those who learned and discarded those teachings - on rational grounds.

Is has been defined as valid and reliable evidence. For moral matters is it the teaching of faith and morals from the Catholic Church. Revealed truth and magisterial teachings.

Inapplicable for non-Catholics. (And for many Catholics, too.)

No, for the truth has been heard. It is not necessary to have a rational understanding. Some truths are mysteries, and a given reasoning is only a approximation. Catechism

Sorry, that truth is only an opinion. And the word “mystery” is also inapplicable. What some people call a “mystery”, is only a contradiction.

 

[Ammi]

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.

I hope you arent comparing this fictional story with the Gospel?

First of all, the Gospel has a direct correlation with the nature and condition of man. It speaks to the heart. It is the revelation of the Creator to those He created “in His own image”.

Church Teachings dont even equate to the Gospel message.

 

[blackforest]

In asking if I’m invincibly ignorant, I get both yes and no answers. Personally, I don’t think I am.

The “ignorance” portion of the phrase presumes that the Catholic Church is right, and everyone else is “ignorant.” If it sounds cocky, it is. But what’s more important is whether or not it’s true. Unfortunately, this thread still hasn’t clarified for me the “invincibility” portion.

One who is fully capable of knowing, but rejecting knowledge, or won’t take the time to know what they can and should know, THAT is voluntary action. One cannot claim Invincible Ignorance in that case.

So if someone takes the time to read up on Catholicism, (and/or attend Mass, classes, meeting with clergy, etc.), and doesn’t accept its teachings on the grounds that they don’t sound logical, reasonable, or compelling - and they never come around to believing otherwise in this lifetime - is their ignorance invincible?

Because if Church teaching is spiritually coercive, i.e. preaching that that everybody must believe and practice 100% of our teachings or else go to hell, Catholicism would hardly be a unique religion on that front.

I like to believe that given our vast scholarly tradition, we’re as much a Church of reason and intellect as we are one of faith.

I’m hoping that one or more clergy members can weigh in here . . .

 

[Ammi]

Catholic Teaching should be distinguished from the Gospel.

The Gospel is “the good news” concerning the Incarnation of Jesus, what He said, that He was crucified, and rose from death.

Church Teaching includes the Gospel message, but also includes alot more.

Btw, I’m not saying you have said anything in contradiction to this. I have just found that in many of these discussions, the two are not often distinguished.

 

[Vico]

…

1. You wrote: “I am talking about those who learned and discarded those teachings - on rational grounds.”

• Invalid grounds for rejection of teachings on faith and morals.

2. You wrote: “Inapplicable for non-Catholics. (And for many Catholics, too.)”

• No, the Catholic Church has the fullness of the revealed truth.

3. Your wrote: “And the word “mystery” is also inapplicable. What some people call a “mystery”, is only a contradiction.”

• Catechism 774 The Greek word mysterion was translated into Latin by two terms: mystenum and sacramentum. In later usage the term sacramentum emphasizes the visible sign of the hidden reality of salvation which was indicated by the term mysterium.

There is more than one definition for heart.

Catechism

368 The spiritual tradition of the Church also emphasizes the heart , in the biblical sense of the depths of one’s being, where the person decides for or against God.

2573 The heart is the dwelling-place where I am, where I live; according to the Semitic or Biblical expression, the heart is the place “to which I withdraw.” The heart is our hidden center, beyond the grasp of our reason and of others; only the Spirit of God can fathom the human heart and know it fully. The heart is the place of decision, deeper than our psychic drives. It is the place of truth, where we choose life or death. It is the place of encounter, because as image of God we live in relation: it is the place of covenant.

 

[AlbMagno]

Then the hypothetical case you mentioned is not comparable to Christianity. You can look at proof by researching about natural theology (logical proof of the existence and attributes of God) and at least research about some of the miracles and try to practice the Faith in things like praying.

You are implicitly assuming that Christianity is irrational but it’s not. I don’t understand why would you worry about invincible ignorance if you don’t believe in a christian afterlife, though.

 

[Ammi]

The “little green men” analogy is not a proper analogy at all.

The Virgin birth, Teachings of Jesus, His message, His death and resurrection all have profound meaning. That meaning has to do with our origin, nature, and condition, and relationship to the Creator.

Getting into “Church Teaching” should be secondary to the Gospel message. Though matters surely overlap and are connected.