What is exactly and precisely "invincible ignorance"?

[Nahar]

However, you’re creating a scenario where, based upon the teachings of the Church, a person can rightly refuse and reject this truth simply because the person finds them to be illogical. In a sense it’s akin to saying that a person isn’t culpable for their unbelief because the evidence that God “supposedly” left, is lacking.

That is exactly and precisely the case. As the anecdote goes about Bertrand Russell. If after death he would find himself in the presence of God, he is prepared to say to God: “So you do exist after all. But why didn’t you give more evidence for your existence?”

I am with Russell all the way.

 

[Nahar]

Faith is the Gift God has given to us. It is how we “see” what is not visible by carnal sight.

Not for me. First, I did not receive this gift. Second this gift is inferior to reason.

 

[Crusader13]

That is exactly and precisely the case. As the anecdote goes about Bertrand Russell. If after death he would find himself in the presence of God, he is prepared to say to God: “So you do exist after all. But why didn’t you give more evidence for your existence?”

I am with Russell all the way.

Well unfortunately any exchange in that scenario is known only to God and that individual. It’s easy for anyone to reply with “well what if God says that the evidence was there in plenty, but you refused to see it for what it was.”

The answer is that we are given the choice to believe based upon what has been shown to us, we aren’t always going to understand and we can’t always use philosophical arguments and theories to explain that which is beyond our understanding.

The issue is that you want the option to refuse to believe and yet, in the case that you’re wrong, you want a safety net so that way you’re not culpable for refusing to believe.

Unfortunately that’s not how this works and invincible ignorance can’t be squared to fit in that hole.

 

[whatistrue]

But I am asking if they can present a rational answer

You asked whether a specific situation fit a particular definition. The rational answer, provided at least once, is “no”. Not because of the existence or non-existence of God, but simply because of the definition of the term. Is there some reason why you don’t want to accept it? If someone wants to bring in irrelevant (to you) information you are not obliged to respond when your query is answered, nor are you obliged to respond to this.

 

[Ammi]

I agree. I think Invincible Ignorance (which can be a complicated theological assertion) is less applicable to belief in the existence of God and then the Gospel, as opposed to belief in various dogmas of the faith or distinguishing specific Teachings and their interpretation and necessity of assent.

 

[Nahar]

It’s easy for anyone to reply with “well what if God says that the evidence was there in plenty, but you refused to see it for what it was.”

Whether the evidence is sufficient or not can only be decided by the one who receives that evidence. It is possible that the recipient is not sufficiently educated to understand the evidence, and in this case it is incumbent upon the other party to educate him.

Of course I already said several times, that the basic scenario is to listen to the arguments, understanding them, and finding them insufficient.

The issue is that you want the option to refuse to believe and yet, in the case that you’re wrong, you want a safety net so that way you’re not culpable for refusing to believe.

To believe or not is not a volitional process.

 

[Ammi]

If you are seeking God, then you are not rejecting Him, and you have some level of faith. If you do not believe He exists, you wouldnt be seeking Him.

Do you truly believe that the existence, life, and metamorphosis of a butterfly is more rationally attributed to a Creator or to a chance happening of matter colliding together to form and evolve incidentally?

Something tells me there is a part of you seeking him. Does the Gospel strike any cord in you? Do Jesus’ words and deeds strike you as beyond only human capacity?

 

[Nahar]

If you are seeking God, then you are not rejecting Him, and you have some level of faith. If you do not believe He exists, you wouldnt be seeking Him.

I used to be a believer. But as I grew up, and started to think for myself, that belief faded, and went away.

Do you truly believe that the existence, life, and metamorphosis of a butterfly is more rationally attributed to a Creator or to a chance happening of matter colliding together to form and evolve incidentally?

There is nothing that would point to a loving creator.

Something tells me there is a part of you seeking him. Does the Gospel strike any cord in you? Do Jesus’ words and deeds strike you as beyond only human capacity?

There are lots of things that I wholeheartedly agree with. But I see nothing that would be beyond human capacity. On the other hand I see many things that flatly contradict an omnimax deity. Especially the idea that this God “loves” us.

 

[Ammi]

I used to be a believer. But as I grew up, and started to think for myself, that belief faded, and went away.

This would probably fall under the second example of the parable of the Sower.

There is nothing that would point to a loving creator.

That was not a fair answer to the question.

There are lots of things that I wholeheartedly agree with. But I see nothing that would be beyond human capacity. On the other hand I see many things that flatly contradict an omnimax deity. Especially the idea that this God “loves” us.

Well, if you separate Jesus from God, then the greatest revelation of God’s love for us is missed. Jesus spoke very rationally and with great perception. Yet He, Himself, did not attribute His Teaching and power to His own human nature. We would have to conclude He was quite mentally unstable to say the things He said, if they were not true. But even His enemies marveled at his understanding.

 

[Crusader13]

To believe or not is not a volitional process.

Why not? Through ones own volition they are choosing to believe in that which takes an act of faith.

I used to be a believer. But as I grew up, and started to think for myself, that belief faded, and went away.

Without knowing your own life experiences, it sounds like you have a jaded view of Christianity or perhaps religion in general.

I think that trying to find the truth of Jesus and God’s Love for us, apart from the Church, is going to be difficult.

If all one does is look at the material world and the bleakness of that which shapes their reality, then I can see why they wouldn’t want to entertain the possibility of there being a loving creator.

 

[steve-b]

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.

blackforest:

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?

Not the way you describe it.

blackforest:

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.

We are required to believe doctrines and dogmas of the Church.

When Jesus taught the following,

Jn 6:
53…“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him."

Is Jesus being spiritually coercive ?

and

is it wrong to conclude from what Jesus said here, that "everybody must believe and practice 100% of those teachings or else go to hell"

blackforest:

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.

Faith, reason, and intellect are complementary and shouldn’t collide.

 

[blackforest]

Not the way you describe it.

I see. Is there Church teaching to back this? Not inviting you to any boxing ring here - just genuinely curious.

We are required to believe doctrines and dogmas of the Church.

How valid and authentic is a belief if you’re only believing it to follow a rule?

is it wrong to conclude from what Jesus said here, that "everybody must believe and practice 100% of those teachings or else go to hell"

Well, seeing as the bulk of the Catechism doesn’t stem from this Gospel alone, it may not be an accurate conclusion.

Faith, reason, and intellect are complementary and shouldn’t collide.

Agreed. So that should leave us room to question what we’re told, right?

I mean, everyone from Baptists to JWs to Muslims make the same argument, namely, that we must believe and live by their teachings alone in order to go to Heaven.
Anyone can say that. Without using circular reasoning, ("because Jesus/Scripture/Church teaching says so), why would Catholicism be the most compelling religion?

 

[steve-b]

Overcome with great personal effort?
That seems an idea that could create a prejudice against some and advantage for others that is virtually a predetermination.
And in terms of free will, to what extent does rational human thought ( vs irrational) play in determining whether actual free will is at work?
We recognize organic mental condition for example as a factor in determining the exercise of free will vel non.
God wants everyone to be saved, God is good, and God loves us, are all factors that we assume in addressing judgement. So Hell is a place we select for ourselves through exercise of free will. Hence, what is a true excercize of free will?

Yet when asked

Jesus the one who judges EVERYONE, said, few are saved.

Since we are NOT the judge in this particular matter, then the best we can go on, is that statement from Jesus. And Jesus judges perfectly.

 

[Ammi]

Is there Church teaching to back this? Not inviting you to any boxing ring here - just genuinely curious.

It’s a good question. I have concluded that there is a significant difference, regarding how Invincible Ignorance could apply, between both belief in God or belief in the Gospel, and various Church Teachings.

The Church, for example, is careful not to connotate language in Mark 16:16 with the necessity of Catholic membership or assent to Catholic Doctrine in general.

Mark 16:16 has more to do with one in the state of Original sin, and so “Baptism of desire” would be more appropriately applied to those who may attain to salvation though they’ve unaware of the Gospel. While believing various Catholic Church Teachings is much… “dicier” because it brings so much that can contribute to a person who does in fact believe the Gospel, but knowledge and understanding of how those various Teachings are interpreted as, or where they come from, or whether they are infallible Teaching or current practices and customs, might be affected.

 

[Nahar]

Why not? Through ones own volition they are choosing to believe in that which takes an act of faith.

Let’s try an experiment. Right now try to make a conscious, volitional choice that from now on you will believe that water is bad for you, but drinking acid is healthy.

 

[steve-b]

I see. Is there Church teaching to back this? Not inviting you to any boxing ring here - just genuinely curious.

Example:
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.

That said,

could a person with low mental acuity, skate on that explanation? Sure.

We are required to believe doctrines and dogmas of the Church.

blackforest:

How valid and authentic is a belief if you’re only believing it to follow a rule?

Depends on who makes the rule…right?

Example:

The first time Paul mentions faith in his letter to the Church of Rome, AND the last time he mentions faith to them, how is faith described by Paul?

"obedience of faith" in Rom 1:5 & Rom 16:26

So, Technically speaking,

if one is NOT doing what faith teaches, then one has a said faith, which is a dead faith according to James. (Jas 2:26)

is it wrong to conclude from what Jesus said here, that "everybody must believe and practice 100% of those teachings or else go to hell"

blackforest:

Well, seeing as the bulk of the Catechism doesn’t stem from this Gospel alone,

Here’s what the CCC says about the Eucharist…

click on the links for the full explanation

1: 1324
The Eucharist is “the source and summit of the Christian life.” "The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the …

2: 2031
the grace of Christ to enlighten and nourish Christian activity. As does the whole of the Christian life, the moral life finds its source and summit in the Eucharistic sacrifice…

Faith, reason, and intellect are complementary and shouldn’t collide.

blackforest:

Agreed. So that should leave us room to question what we’re told, right?
[snip for space]

Re: your question,

Here’s some key definitions

From the CCC

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. " Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

 

[Ammi]

Wow! By comparimg this example, and the one about “little green men” appearing in a yard, to belief in the Gospel, it doesnt seem like you have much respect for the Gospel message.

 

[Nahar]

Wow! By comparimg this example, and the one about “little green men” appearing in a yard, to belief in the Gospel, it doesnt seem like you have much respect for the Gospel message.

As I said before, there are lots of things where I am in agreement.

 

[Ammi]

Ammi:

Wow! By comparimg this example, and the one about “little green men” appearing in a yard, to belief in the Gospel, it doesnt seem like you have much respect for the Gospel message.

As I said before, there are lots of things where I am in agreement.

Agreement with the Gospel?

 

[Nahar]

Agreement with the Gospel?

Why not? There are many things where the secular and the catholic view are in perfect agreement.