In principle, what could those who adhere to the protestant belief of the right to the private interpretation of Scripture have against a person coming to understand Scripture in the way the Catholic Church understands it? In other words, why would the Catholic interpretation be excluded from the valid exercise of this principle any more than another protestant view?
For that matter, why would any interpretation be excluded from the exercise of this principle? If this belief is true, how would it be determined (and who would do the determining) that any given interpretation (Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, even JW, etc.) was in error? Wouldn't it just be every man's interpretation for himself?
The Catholic interpretation is not excluded, just as the Watchtower interpretation is not excluded. Both can are contrary to the Scriptures, and should then be rejected, but every man will give an account of himself to God. Eternity is a long time....you'd better get it right.
ReplyDeleteHi Mike,
ReplyDeleteYour use of 'exclude' is unclear. Kyle's question is not whether competing interpretations are somehow rendered impossible with respect to an individual's power to construe the text. His question has to do with whether or not any given individual (or group) has the (moral, God-given) "right" to interpret the text to his liking. For example, I have the 'power' to steal or murder, and thus my stealing or murdering is not excluded. However, I do not have the 'right' to commit such acts. By analogy, one may have the 'power' to interpret the text of Scripture, but from this it does not follow that one has the 'right' to do so.
Kyle's question, thus, has to do with a) the moral position of any given individual vis-a-vis the text of Scripture and b) the logical implications of affirming that each individual,indeed, has the 'right' to judge the meaning of the text. From your last sentence, it seems that you (as least implicitly) understand that morality and logic are at issue, not merely power or ability.
The rhetorical force this question is intended to carry is that private interpretation begins in doctrinal anarchy and ends in doctrinal agnosticism, or worse, indifferentism.
Best,
Jared
Hi:
ReplyDeleteI'm posting this as a comment rather than posing a new question because it is somewhat related to the topic.
The big problem I have with officially exalting sacred tradition along with the episcopacy to the authoritative level of scripture is that organizations and people make lousy standards of perfection.
Unofficially, almost every church looks to both tradition and church leadership to help balance the occasional excesses of those who have an inadequate understanding of the Bible. But, there is a huge difference between that and officially making tradition and church leadership equal partners with the Bible.
For instance, we all know of the Borgia family and the corruption that occurred when they controlled the papacy. If you want sordid details then look up 'banquet of chestnuts' on Wikipedia.
If church tradition is an official source of Christian doctrine, then how does one disqualify the traditions that were formed during this period?
Likewise, we also know of the period of the Great Schism, when there were two (and for a time three) popes. If church leadership is an official source of Christian doctrine, then does this mean that God occasionally speaks out of two opposing mouths?
I am not trying to suggest that the Catholic Church is worse than other organizations, or that Catholic leaders are more evil than other people. I am simply pointing out that organizations, especially big ones, have a natural tendency to become corrupt, and people, especially powerful people, have a natural tendency to become corrupt.
Therefore, to officially base one's Christian doctrine upon a physical organization filled with real people seems to me to be a very risky proposition.
In simple terms, how can one ensure that the 'cure' of Church authority does not end up being worse than the 'disease' of private interpretation.
Cheers,
Lorin.
Hi Lorin,
ReplyDeleteI think your concerns are exactly right, they are the same conclusions that I came to. All churches seem to hold some of their own traditions which are not clearly derived from Scripture. The difference with the Catholic Church is that they have the Holy Spirit's guidance to keep the traditions true.
In the case of the Borgias and others, their personal behavior, miraculously, did not change any of the teachings of the Church. Catholics would say that the Holy Spirit prevented their sin from interfering with official Church teaching. This is based in the Scriptures. Without the Holy Spirit's guidance, it seems certain that the "gates of Hell" certainly would prevail but Christ promises that this will not happen. Paul also in II Thessalonians says to hold to the traditions which were learned by word or by epistle. This is also the practice of the early Church.
There always was only one pope, in spite of the fact that people, at times, didn't know who it was. This probably was confusing to people, but if they held fast to the traditions of the Church (including Scripture), it did not make them lose the Faith. The Pope is only the head of the Church on earth. Christ is the Head of the Church as a whole, which includes those Christians who have died and also the Pope.
As kind of a reverse proof, these errors and sins of popes and Church authorities are what finally convinced me to become Catholic, especially on a moral basis since I had a strong sense of morals from my parents. As far as I know, most Protestant churches have started out by teaching against divorce, contraception, homosexuality etc. And within anywhere from 30 - 300 years have gradually capitulated to the world. I was shocked to find that the Catholic Church, from the beginning, taught against these things, and officially, still does. In spite of people like the Borgias. To me, that was a miracle.
Without this preservation of doctrine I did not see how the description of the N.T. Church could be emulated. At least in the Catholic Church the potential for something like church discipline is still there and in actuality can be seen and carried out, even though, like you say, in all instances it is not carried out because of sin.
God Bless,
Kellene
Hi Kellene:
ReplyDeleteYou are saying that in the case of the Borgias, there was an invisible Holy Spirit who preserved the purity of God's word.
Similarly, during the Great Schism, even though the physical leadership was divided, there was still an invisible unity.
Is that not the essence of the Protestant viewpoint? God may work through visible and external structure and leadership. But, ultimately, this physical organization cannot be trusted. However, there is an invisible and spiritual organization which does not experience corruption.
In contrast, the Catholic position states that the physical and visible church structure is a co-equal source of Christian truth.
Kellene. You can't have it both ways. If the physical and visible church is an official source of eternal truth, then the physical and visible church must remain free of corruption. However, if it is the invisible and spiritual church which remains free of corruption, then the physical and visible church cannot be regarded as an official source of eternal truth.
If we examine history for something physical and visible which has remained free of corruption, then it is the Bible which qualifies, because the visible text which we have today is essentially identical to the visible text which existed millennia ago.
Cheers,
Lorin.
I'm sure Jared and Kyle will want to respond more extensively since this is really the crux of the issue. For me, it is enough to say that I do not think it a contradiction for an infallible institution (which no Protestant church claims to be) to have fallible leaders.
ReplyDeleteGod has the ability at any time to prevent sin from affecting the teaching, doctrine and governing of the Church. There are many instances of this. It was God's will to give us the infallible Scriptures though the human authors were not perfect. The miracle of redemption was perpetrated by the most wicked and vile of people and yet the sacrifice was perfect in its details. The ten commandments, given in their perfect state, were given to Moses who initially broke them in anger and yet we have them today. It is always a temptation to limit miracles to those we already believe in.
I believe that the Catholic Church was instituted by Christ for the express purpose of keeping the Church visible and united. Why would God do this? For the same ultimate reason that He created and redeemed us.
Kellene
Fortunately, we do have an actual case in which God makes an eternal covenant between physical descendants and a physical piece of land, which we can examine to see how God behaves in such a situation.
ReplyDelete1) God makes this eternal covenant with Abraham after Ishmael is born and before Isaac is born. Abraham asks God to use his visible, naturally born son. God rejects the natural solution and says that he will bless Abraham through an unborn son who will be supernaturally conceived.
2) God does not bless Abraham in his natural city of Ur. Instead, he calls him to leave the visible and go to a land which he has never seen, and once he is there he spends his time living in tents. His nephew Lot heads for the local physical institution and ends up judged.
3) Abraham’s descendents finally acquire physical prosperity in Egypt. God does not preserve this institution but allows them to become slaves in order to build physical institutions for others. When he calls them out of Egypt, they are expected to live in tents in the desert and those who whine for the physical prosperity of the past are judged.
4) When the Jews enter Israel, Moses takes several chapters to tell them that if they abandon following an invisible God in order to follow visible idols, then God will kick them out of their physical land.
5) Eventually the Jews tire of having an invisible God as their leader and choose to have a visible king like the kingdoms around them. God responds by saying that they have rejected him.
6) The prophet Jeremiah continually tells Zedekiah that he is supposed to submit his physical kingdom to Nebuchadnezzar. Because Zedekiah refuses, the physical leadership is killed, the land is lost and the physical temple is destroyed.
7) When Jesus is tried in court, he says that his kingdom is not a physical kingdom that is rooted in this world.
8) When the disciples talk about the wonders of the physical temple, Jesus predicts that it will be destroyed.
9) When the Jews physically rebel from Rome in AD 70 in order to achieve an independent physical kingdom, their temple is destroyed, their leadership is executed and much of Jerusalem is destroyed.
10) When the Jews reject the Messiah with his invisible kingdom, then they end up wandering for centuries without a physical kingdom.
I don't see how the message could be clearer.
You say that we are tempted to doubt that God’s hand can act. Exactly. Israel did that time and again, looking to external means for salvation instead of the invisible hand of God. Think, for example, of Elisha’s servant seeing the city surrounded by chariots and Elisha telling him that the invisible chariots of fire were greater in number.
Let us look now at Matt. 16:18, which is taken as a basis for ‘the church of Peter’ and the ‘keys of the kingdom’.
1) Jesus says that this revelation to Peter does not come via human means but instead from an invisible God in an invisible place.
2) Right after, Jesus says that he must die on the cross, and Peter responds by saying that Jesus should not experience physical defeat. Jesus calls Peter’s attitude satanic because Peter is focusing upon physical means instead of the invisible God.
3) The two phrases about binding and loosing have a weird verb tense indicating that this begins in invisible heaven and not on visible earth: “what you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven”.
How can a passage which is preceded by Jesus praising Peter for focusing on the invisible and which is followed by Jesus condemning Peter for focusing on the visible be used as a basis for setting up a church which lifts up the visible as the official voice of God? That is a complete violation of the context.
In conclusion, we are both conducting experiments. You are trying to integrate your faith with the external structure of an institution. I am trying to integrate my faith with the internal structure of a paradigm.
Cheers,
Lorin.
Much could, and I'm sure will be said, but to be clear, I did not say that people doubt God's ability to act (though that is true) but that people limit God's actions to what they already believe in.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure this will continue. I may jump in as I have time which isn't very much. :)
Kellene
P.S. Abraham was physical. His son was physical. Focusing on the physical was condemned, certainly, the focus needs to be higher. Seeing the physical as a tool for the invisible hand of God is different.
Hi Mike,
ReplyDeleteOne of the problems is that everyone who claims to adhere to this principle (right to private interpretation) believes that interpretations other than their own are contrary to the Scriptures and should be, on that basis, rejected. On one level, this is natural and makes sense. However, I still don't see how this amounts to anything other than someone holding up their own interpretation of Scripture against everyone else's, claiming theirs is the authentic teaching of Scripture, and therefore rejecting everyone else's as unscriptural. Unless this person (which in the Protestant/Bible-only world, essentially means each person) has divinely commissioned authority to do so, it seems like an untenable claim which conflates one's own interpretation with the authority of the written Word of God itself. Is this really what God wants?
It is indeed true, as you said and as we all know, every one of us will give an account to God. This is a fearful prospect. In light of this, may we all beseech Him for mercy and guidance to Know Him and to do His will. For it is those who do the will of the Father who have eternal life (enter the Kingdom of heaven, as Jesus says).
Hi Lorin,
ReplyDeleteBelow I offer you some basic questions and comments interpolated into the text of your comment from a few days ago. For distinction, I will set your words off with “You wrote:” and will place them in quotes. For some reason (perhaps size), the comment section is not allowing me to post the entire comment, so I will try breaking it down into multiple comments.
You wrote:
“The big problem I have with officially exalting sacred tradition along with the episcopacy to the authoritative level of scripture is that organizations and people make lousy standards of perfection.”
But does scripture exalt itself above the level of sacred tradition or the teaching authority of Christ in His Church? Some people and organizations of people certainly do make lousy standards of perfection. This, however, does not stop Christ from appointing, commissioning and using them even to do such things as He Himself did; such as, teaching His doctrine with His authority in His name, healing the sick, raising the dead to life, forgiving sins, etc...
You wrote:
“Unofficially, almost every church looks to both tradition and church leadership to help balance the occasional excesses of those who have an inadequate understanding of the Bible.”
This is likely true of every church, oftentimes without even knowing it. Not only is this true, but even before this, tradition and church leadership, as you put it, are looked to for the definition and establishment of what is considered an adequate understanding of the Bible. But how do they determine with confidence what an adequate understanding of the Bible is or who within their circles do they (should they) look to for this 'adequate understanding'? Furthermore, how do these churches determine when an individual has an inadequate understanding of the Bible? Is this only in reference to their own previously established 'adequate understanding of the Bible' based upon their tradition and church leadership?
You wrote:
ReplyDelete“But, there is a huge difference between that and officially making tradition and church leadership equal partners with the Bible.”
Yes, there is a difference between these. Sometimes there is not as large of a practical difference as one might think. But there is also a difference between the idea of the Church "making tradition and church leadership equal partners with the Bible" and simply acknowledging and believing that this is the case as a matter of divine revelation. It's similar to the charge that the Catholic Church thinks she can ‘determine’ which books belong to the canon of Scripture in the sense of ‘creating’. The Catholic Church never makes this claim. She did, however, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, recognize and then pronounce definitively what the parameters of the canon were/are.
You wrote:
“For instance, we all know of the Borgia family and the corruption that occurred when they controlled the papacy. If you want sordid details then look up 'banquet of chestnuts' on Wikipedia.
If church tradition is an official source of Christian doctrine, then how does one disqualify the traditions that were formed during this period?”
Did you have specific traditions in mind which went contrary to the preceding teaching tradition of the Church? Were there points of official Catholic teaching which were formulated during this time which you think ought to be disqualified on the basis of internal contradiction?
You wrote:
“Likewise, we also know of the period of the Great Schism, when there were two (and for a time three) popes. If church leadership is an official source of Christian doctrine, then does this mean that God occasionally speaks out of two opposing mouths?”
There was only one pope and therefore only one valid authority, even though there were multiple claimants. In time, this became clear. In the meantime, the Catholic faithful had the unerring and constant teaching of the Church up to and through this time to believe and practice. No, God does not speak out of two opposing mouths : )
You wrote:
ReplyDelete“I am not trying to suggest that the Catholic Church is worse than other organizations, or that Catholic leaders are more evil than other people. I am simply pointing out that organizations, especially big ones, have a natural tendency to become corrupt, and people, especially powerful people, have a natural tendency to become corrupt.
Therefore, to officially base one's Christian doctrine upon a physical organization filled with real people seems to me to be a very risky proposition.”
This is true if it is just any or a mere physical organization of no divine origin. But this is not all the Catholic Church claims to be (more on this later). If on the other hand, what you say is true in ANY case, then Christ was risky when He gave the keys to Peter, the authority to bind and loose, to teach his brethren, etc. (really, I think, even if you don't interpret the key subject passages in according to the Catholic understanding)... Also, how does the principle of private interpretation by real people avoid this problem? Aren't we all real people? Aren't you basing your understanding of Christian doctrine on a 'physical organization' filled with a real person?
You wrote:
“In simple terms, how can one ensure that the 'cure' of Church authority does not end up being worse than the 'disease' of private interpretation.”
The simple answer: Christ established the Church with her teaching authority (Magisterium) and promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. He did not establish or promote private interpretation.
Blessings,
Kyle
You wrote:
ReplyDelete“You are saying that in the case of the Borgias, there was an invisible Holy Spirit who preserved the purity of God's word.”
It is the belief of the Church that the Holy Spirit, Who is invisible by His nature, protected her from teaching error by those who have been morally corrupt in the seat of leadership. Along with this, the Holy Spirit also acted to preserve the constant teaching of the Church which had already been established and believed before the Borgias were in power. All this was believed, practiced, and carried on by the visible Church, no doubt, through the action of the invisible Holy Spirit.
You wrote:
“Similarly, during the Great Schism, even though the physical leadership was divided, there was still an invisible unity.
Is that not the essence of the Protestant viewpoint? God may work through visible and external structure and leadership. But, ultimately, this physical organization cannot be trusted. However, there is an invisible and spiritual organization which does not experience corruption.”
If what you say about the “visible, external, physical, organization or structure” is true in every case, then Christ would not have left His Church in the hands of visible men, commissioning them with authority to teach in His name, promising to be with them to the end of the world, giving authenticity to their message and mission...
Should the people of the first century not have trusted the apostles and their teaching? What and where is this invisible organization of which you speak? How would you define it?
You wrote:
“In contrast, the Catholic position states that the physical and visible church structure is a co-equal source of Christian truth.”
What do you mean by structure?
You wrote:
“You can't have it both ways. If the physical and visible church is an official source of eternal truth, then the physical and visible church must remain free of corruption.
However, if it is the invisible and spiritual church which remains free of corruption then the physical and visible church cannot be regarded as an official source of eternal truth.”
You seem to be conflating moral corruption and teaching corruption or error. This is an important distinction to make. It is the Catholic claim that the visible Church HAS remained free of corruption/error in official teaching, albeit not necessarily in the personal morality of her leaders. Again, could you define what you mean by invisible and spiritual church?
Thanks,
Kyle
Hi Lorin,
ReplyDeleteI wrote the following comments before Kyle posted his. I hope that what follows isn't too redundant. Thanks for being willing to discuss this:
From my earlier reply:
You raise several issues in your post.
First, I am unsure how you are using the terms "physical" and "visible". Are physical and visible things, however you define those terms, bad? I suspect that different conceptions of these terms may be creating difficulties in our mutual understanding.
When it comes to the question of the Church's infallibility/corruption you, by insinuation, present an argument that looks something like the following:
1) All (non-divine) institutions are inherently and, thus, inevitably corruptible
2) The Catholic Church is an institution
3) Therefore, etc.
I concede the minor, but distinguish the major.
Your assertion is true at least with respect to the inherent corruptibility of a non-divine institution. However, even in this case the actual corruption is not strictly (logically) necessary, and our knowledge of this eventuality must be limited to an historical analysis of the facts. Moreover, we must have an adequate instrument (criteria set) to evaluate the actual state of a given institution. More must be said about this in my next point. However, for the sake of argument, I will grant that institutions are inevitably corrupted. Thus, we agree that institutions are able to be and often are corrupted. But, however, and this is the point, the Catholic Church doesn't claim to be a merely non-divine institution. This is equivalent to saying the Church claims to be a divine institution. To be more specific, the Catholic Church claims to be an institution that mirrors the Incarnation: a divine-human reality. The Catholic Church claims that the divine quality is the leading aspect in her constitution and continued activity throughout history. As the human nature of Christ, considered in the abstract, strictly speaking, was both able to “see corruption” and able to sin, but by the Grace of the Holy Spirit was intrinsically perfect, in its very visible and physical existence, and thus, on the grounds of Grace rendered impeccable and incorruptible, so the Catholic Church, without the Grace of the Holy Spirit, is corruptible. However, with the added element of Grace (the yet to be specified divine element), there is no necessity that the Church will be corrupted.
to be cont.
cont.
ReplyDeleteIn the tradition of Locke, Hobbes and, especially, Rousseau, you seem to presuppose that institutions are somehow bad, or a "necessary evil". I don't grant this assumption. I think that the concept of ‘institution’ (i.e., that by which societies are ordered) and its manifold instantiations is, rather, a good thing in itself, fully co-natural with social beings--Aristotle called man a social animal. Institutions, however, have been unnecessarily rendered evil either in part or entirely by sin. But, on the mere basis of sin I do not concede that institutions are bad in themselves, nor do I concede that any given institution must be bad, even after the Fall of Adam. And if Christ established such an institution and called it His Church, then a fortiori, such an institution would not by necessity be bad. Moreover, depending upon the function he gave the Church, it might, in certain applicable areas be infallible. (At some point, it would helpful to stipulate our definitions of “institution”. If we both did this, it would elucidate more fully both the object under debate and if, in fact, we are debating the same point.)
So, it seems (although I’m not entirely certain of this given the potential ambiguity of “institution”) that we disagree on the nature and extent of the Church's infallibility: as it is presented in official teaching. It seems we also disagree about the inherent goodness or badness of "institutions" (see parenthetical above). Granted, neither of us has taken the care to define this tricky term.
Thus, I deny your conclusion. The a priori grounds for denying the possibility of Christ so establishing an institution to be a continuing witness to His will are rendered ineffective. As a point of pre-emptive clarification: I am not saying that the Church is like Christ in all things. I am merely pointing out that the Catholic Church's self-understanding is that she is a divine-human institution that will mirror her Maker to the extent that her Maker, Founder and Head desires. This has to do with the mission given to the Church, a mission, in the Catholic understanding, that allows for sinful men to occupy offices and carry out functions without essentially undermining the Church.
Next point:
ReplyDeleteYou seem to grant, most likely for the sake of argument, that while the Church (those persons involved) believes and asserts that She is infallible, the Church's infallibility has been falsified by inner contradictions. This, it seems to me, stems from a understanding of infallibility that no Catholic theologian (or apologist) would grant. (To be clear, however: if I understand you rightly and if your definition did correspond to the Catholic definition, the Catholic claim would be falsified.)
I offer some comments on this topic:
I don't know if you are aware that the Catholic Church does not claim that its leaders are infallible or sinless when acting in their own persons. The Church and by implication those in the Church with the commission to teach, according to Catholic theory, are infallible only insofar as they are speaking in a manner that is equivalent to: "Thus saith the Lord."
A current analogous example might be a Supreme Court justice opining on the construal of a piece of legislation to his wife over dinner, after a long day at the bench. Surely, the opinions expressed to his wife under such circumstances bear no judicial weight and should not be understood by his wife, other members of his dinner party, or even himself as a binding interpretation of a given law. Only those determinations made within the context of the courts would have binding authority. As the judge, so the leaders in the Church. No private individual in the Catholic Church judges what is of Faith, or not. Only the Pope or Pope and Bishops together, acting within their teaching office, determine what is of Faith or not. So, the examples from the Borgias and the Great Western Schism do not directly impugn the Catholic position. One may not concede that the Catholic understanding of the teaching function of the Magisterium (fancy word for the Pope and Bishops insofar as they are teachers of all Christians) is correct morally, historically, theologically, or otherwise, but in order to find fault within a system (theory or paradigm) one must first understand how that paradigm actually functions. In neither the pontificate of Alexander VI, nor during the 1300s was the Church's official teaching or form of worship compromised. There are many, many more examples of sordid "goings on" in the history of the Church (Catholic or, with little “c”, Protestant) that one might list: although the-never-sufficiently-maligned Borgia and the Western Schism are some favorites of 'Reformation' and 'radical-Reformation' proponents. Incidentally, Fr. Reuben Parsons wrote a plausible defense of Alexander VI, that mitigates and clarifies, even if not removes or exonerates, the Bad Borgia of much of the accusations leveled against him. As an instance of proof that not all Borgias were (are? there must be some still living--one could look it up on Wikepedia, I suppose), I offer the example of St. Francis Borgia, the putative great grandson of Rodrigo, aka., Pope Alexander VI.
In any case no essential point of the Catholic faith was compromised by either the above mentioned person or situation. Thus the rule remained the same. Thus, your not explicitly stated suggestion that somehow the Church's self-understanding is compromised, doesn't strike home. It merely affirms the quite obvious fact that sinful men (and women) seek positions of power and influence. The exceptions prove the rule.
Third point:
ReplyDeleteYour second comment, after you have refuted (or at least sufficiently, to your mind, called into question) the Church's, and by implication, Papal infallibility, and have cast doubt on institutions, makes an incredible leap: Because the Bible has remained essentially constant, it is the only true, uncorrupted, and therefore safe? inspired? authoritative? guide for people to know God's will and how to be saved. I offer the question-marked adjectives because you don't draw an inference, and I don't see one. Notwithstanding the fact, as I suggested above, you haven't sufficiently yet even rebutted the Catholic position with respect to its corruption, you then take on the burden of establishing that the Bible is--you didn't specify what kind or how it might function or how to even identify its contents--really the better (or even only?) fully trustworthy representation of God's revealed plan of Salvation. My question isn’t over the inerrancy, etc., of the Bible, but rather a) why we should believe it is such a work, and b) even if it is (which I believe), why should it be the only authority? The evidence you mention may serve as a confirmation of inspiration (and all that follows from this), but it isn't apparent how this is an initial proof.
Two points: 1) one may cite many documents that have remained constant throughout history that no one thinks are inspired; 2) the 'Bible' qua book didn't exist before the determination of the canon, yet Christians did.
You haven't given sufficient reason to justify belief in the inspiration of the Bible.
Finally:
This is really a matter of disagreement over facts: 1) Did Christ found a Church to be the primary witness of His plan for salvation? or 2) Did He commission the writing of a text with the intention that it is to be the sole and/or final witness?
Catholics hold that historically and in the present day the Church is the first witness to the Gospel, endowed with the power and authority to discern truth from falsehood: a divine-human institution that will successfully accomplish God's will. This is the primary induction from which all other inferences follow. This fact is what needs to be demonstrated by Catholics and refuted by the Catholic Church's opponents.
Protestant and Bible Christians, on the other hand, believe that only the Bible, so far as God's plan of Salvation goes, has this function. This is what needs to be demonstrated by Bible Christians, and refuted by their opponents.
I hope to take up these two issues in future posts.
Any theory or paradigm needs to be open to new facts. We can't beat each other up with our theories, but we can argue about the primordial facts (I include history, upbringing, traditions, etc.) and presuppositions (hopefully soundly derived from these facts) upon which our paradigms are founded.
To hearken to the last point of your third reply: theories are merely theories; facts are facts: often the two don't converse. But, a theory that can deal with the most information (facts), in the most elegant manner, provides antecedent force to its correspondence with the eternal art of God.
Best,
Jared
Thanks for your comments. I have attempted to answer them as carefully as possible.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible has been preserved far better than any other classical text. This proves that it is an unusual book. But, as you say, it does not prove that it is the word of God. However, by a similar token, repeated statements that the Catholic Church functions as the mouthpiece of God also prove nothing. However, the corruption that has occurred in the Catholic Church can disqualify it from acting as its self-proclaimed role as the source of God’s truth.
I agree that the safeguard of only accepting truth that is proclaimed ex cathedra does minimize the possibility of corruption, but it does not eliminate it. Thus, I suggest that my argument still holds. In keeping with this, I suggest that some doctrinal corruption has occurred. The problem is that there is no ultimate safeguard when an organization acts as its own source of truth. Instead, one ends up with a form of circular reasoning: The status of the church proves that it speaks for God, and the fact that it is accepted as the mouthpiece of God gives it status.
That is why a democracy makes a separation between legislative and executive in politics. In order to avoid a dictatorship, there must be a separation between making the law and applying the law.
Consistent with this, I notice that circular reasoning is creeping into your arguments. You say several times that the Catholic Church is free of doctrinal error, and use this to prove that the Catholic Church speaks for God. But, what are you accepting as your standard for doctrine? The official doctrines for the Catholic Church.
As I said, how can one tell if doctrinal error is creeping in when there is no independent standard with which to compare doctrine. A similar problem arises whenever an industry attempts to police itself.
You ask me to define the invisible church. The fact that you are asking this question disturbs me. That is because mental structure only develops when external structure is not there to take its place. For instance, Augustine only begin to ‘see’ the invisible City of God after he experienced the destruction of the visible 'Eternal City' of Rome.
The concept of the ‘invisible church’ is one that I have heard from many sources ever since I was a child. Even though churches were divided into different denominations, one sensed that there was an invisible unity of true believers, which one recognized by a combination of the doctrinal beliefs that a person held, combined with the internal life that one noticed in the other person.
I suggest that we can use Matthew 16 to help us understand the concept of the invisible church.
ReplyDelete1) There is a realization that ‘you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink’. In other words, one can preach until one is blue in the face, but ultimately the ‘light has to go on’ in the mind of the listener himself. He has to grasp the truth; he has to understand; he has to be shown by the Holy Spirit. Thus, when Peter makes his great pronouncement, Jesus says that it was not the result of ‘flesh and blood’. Some person did not stand up and pronounce ‘thus saith the Lord.’ Instead, the light went on inside.
2) The invisible church embodies death and resurrection. Thomas Kuhn talks about this principle. ‘Normal science’, with its technical structure and evolutionary growth, does not last forever. Instead, there are periods of ‘revolutionary science’ during which the existing structure comes apart and is reborn in higher form. As Kuhn suggests, during times of rebirth, the greatest enemies of change are those who attempt to cling to the existing structure.
Thus, in Matthew 16, Jesus says that he has to suffer, die, and be resurrected, and that the existing church leaders will be his enemies. Then Jesus goes further by contrasting those who attempt to preserve existing life with those who die to existing life in order to experience rebirth.
Thus, those who follow the invisible church get suspicious whenever a church building becomes too big or fancy, or a church organization grows too large or successful. They realize that material and organizational success must be handled cautiously, because clinging to this structure can actually cause one to oppose the voice of God. Somehow, if a church group is to remain successful, then it must find a way of occasionally letting go of its physical property and becoming free of its official chain of command in order to experience rebirth.
Applying these principles to our present discussion, when a church has an official policy in which a flesh and blood leader claims to ‘speak for God’, then according to Matt. 16, this is not the rock upon which the church is built. Backing up this claim by quotes from dozens of church fathers simply reinforces the mindset of ‘revelation by flesh and blood’.
Similarly, if a church appeals to an ‘unbroken chain of authority’ and a ‘continual holy tradition’ for its validity, then, like Peter, it is setting its eyes on man’s interests—because it is preserving human traditions and human institutions. And it is precisely the leaders of such a church who will end up opposing the invisible church and becoming a stumbling block for the work of God.
This is a general principle. For instance, in 1984, Apple Computer played a famous TV ad in which they portrayed IBM as the evil empire. But, Apple Computer is now turning into the evil empire itself by using patent claims to squelch the competition (read about Apple vs. Samsung) and forcing users to purchase programs only through official Apple channels (read about jailbreaking).
I agree that there are individuals and movements within the Catholic Church who have been illustrations of the invisible church and that the Catholic Church does play a role as an aspect of the invisible church. But, when the Catholic Church as an institution, with its ex cathedra and its unbroken religious tradition, claims to base itself upon Matt. 16, then a simple reading of the text tells one that this is literally a case of calling black white and white black.
One may complain about ‘private interpretation’, but mentally speaking, nothing exists except private interpretation. Ultimately, every person has to decide for himself what is true; every person has to come up with his own private interpretation.
Hi Lorin,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your thoughtful comments. Again, I sincerely appreciate your efforts to understand and be understood.
For the sake of clarity: The blogger commenting system doesn't allow (so far as I know) for one to respond directly to specific comments, and the comments follow the order in which they were posted. Sometimes addressees become unclear. In general, it will be helpful to specify the target person/s of your comments. We'll try to remember to do the same. Were your comments directed at either Kyle or me or both?
All the best,
Jared
Jared: I agree that this blog system leaves something to be desired.
ReplyDeleteI am trying to avoid arguing over details of the historical record because I don't think that it is profitable. The broad sweep of church history is clear enough.
I also do not want to get into 'he said' 'she said' so I am not directly addressing each point.
Instead, my goal is to deal with core concepts and approach them in an integrated fashion.
Cheers,
Lorin.
Hi Lorin,
ReplyDeleteI think this discussion turns around the disagreement between Catholics and non-Catholics concerning (i) the nature and function of the Church as a society or institution and (ii) the nature and function of the Bible.
1.a) I understand that you do not agree with the Catholic understanding of the nature of the Church, as is made evident by your attempts to show the invalidity of the Catholic position by pointing out supposed internal inconsistencies in the Catholic system.
A problem immediately arises: I still do not understand (i) your notion of "institution" and (ii), following from this, your insistence that the 'institutional' Church is corrupt. Reasoning seems to be based on shifting evidence. You seem to presuppose a kind of logical necessity of corruption. This seems difficult to establish, and, it seems to me, would require more technical definitions for "institution"and "corruption". Such an argument would also need to logically (not merely by means of suggestion or allusion) spell this out. Such a case would then be able to be analyzed.
It seems that you are reasoning under a presupposition that Catholics do not grant. The necessary and/or inevitable corruption of visible (still not sure how you're opposing this to 'invisible') institutions. You haven't even really argued for this. Until you give reasons for this major premiss, your arguments will neither demonstrate your case, nor convince your Catholic interlocutors. Again, I've shown how this assumption is not necessary according to both deductive and inductive reasoning.
The evidence, however, as you present it, does not make up a theoretical refutation. This is because your argument doesn't attempt to show the inherent repugnance between the notions of 'institution' and 'non-corruption'. You instead appealed to historical examples and a certain outline of Old Testament history and Matthew 16. These evidences to your mind sufficiently prove your case. You go so far as to imply that this is so obvious that they approach the tautological, and that any conclusion other than yours, generally speaking, would instance either total blindness to the facts ("white is white", etc.) or a resistance to the Holy Spirit or, I suppose, both. The moral implications are striking: if I don't concede your point, I must be quenching the Spirit, and, by loose implication, you are not. I hope I'm not in this category. The alternative is that I'm a dolt, or better, dunce: just too thick to get it. This may true, but, you'll have to help me. I see no good reasons to accept your spiritualization of the Church, and I've responded to your arguments.
Are physical, human, historical, institutional, traditional all terms that, for you, signify visible? If so, is the invisible aspect of the Church inclusive of humans? If invisible includes a human factor, why is it not also corruptible? Does it actually exist right now, or is its existence only in virtue of some as yet unrealized eternal state? Your language with respect to the visible/invisible//human/divine dichotomies seems inconsistent. But, given what you've said, monophysitism and/or gnosticism seem to describe the concept of Christianity you're (at least implicitly) espousing. This is little different, in essence, from Bultmann and his followers, and logically implies a denial of the Incarnation. If I'm not understanding you, please correct me.
cont....
ReplyDeleteb) Your position on Scripture is also unclear. You state (and I agree) that the Bible is an ''unusual' book, but, as you admit, this does not logically conclude in a doctrine of inspiration, nor does it specify the parts of the Bible which together make up the whole, nor, finally, does the Bible's preservation and unusual status imply its function in the life of Christians. Until you clarify these matters, I feel as though I'm trying to hit a moving target. Any reply on my part can, in such a context, be met with easy disclaimers and non-avowals. In other words, to paraphrase G.K. Chesterton: we can't controvert because we can't compare. We can't compare because we have no standard of comparison.
I suggest that logic (reason) and concrete facts be the standard and the matter to facilitate this discussion, and that the nature of the Church (as institution) and sola scriptura be our subjects. I limit it to these two subjects because (i) I cannot, because of other very immediate and pressing responsibilities hope to master the mental system you bring to this discussion and, more importantly, (ii) these are the subjects upon which our disagreements are based and will ultimately be decided. I don't expect you to from the outset 'take-on' the entire Catholic system, and I do not think it reasonable for you to expect me to accept your theory, either. We can achieve intellectual common ground on the nature of the Church and sola scriptura, and they are the two most manageable, pertinent and accessible points of entry in this debate.
c) That being said, if you desire to challenge the Catholic position, it must be by way of a priori or a posteriori means: i.e., you must show how the Catholic understanding is impossible because logically incoherent, or falsified by concrete examples. This touches upon your comments about your intent to refrain from concrete historical facts, "he said... she said", circular reasoning and the division of law-making and law-applying. Thus reason is the criterion. The game isn't rigged so that the Catholic side always wins.
2) I haven't yet (though I'm intending to soon) presented any arguments in favor of the truth of the Catholic position concerning the infallibility of the Church. My intent was to respond to your understanding and claims regarding the Church's infallibility. Your argument cited inconsistency between the Catholic positions and the historical record. I showed how your arguments were the wrong 'kind' of evidence. The Catholic Church and Her knowledgeable members are quite aware of the 'kind' of examples you provided. In fact, your examples are typical of the fundamentalist, anti-Catholic position. Again, I (and I believe I can speak for Kyle, as well) haven't in any way argued for the positive truth of the Catholic position with respect to its correspondence with the extra-mental state-of-affairs. I've only shown how your criticisms aren't to the point.
ReplyDeleteYou suggest that your argument against the infallibility of the Church still holds. This is not possible. I showed that your initial argument, based on a misconception, was not to the point. I also presented you with the distinctions necessary to understand why your critique was incorrect. Instead of responding to my distinctions, in your latest reply you state you want to prescind from details of history and 'he said... she said', limiting your appeal to the "general course of Church history". This is somewhat of a departure from the quite concrete examples you earlier cited. You presented no new evidence, and you did not show how my distinctions are mistaken. If I've shown how your conclusion doesn't follow, and if you have not altered your argument, how can your argument, nevertheless, be valid?
The point about circular reasoning does not hold, either. First, as I stated above, I've not made a positive argument. If I've presented no positive arguments in favor of the 'truth' of Catholicism, I cannot be engaging in the circular reasoning you suggest. Second, when Kyle or I get to this point, the manner in which the truth of Catholicism we be argued will not be based upon strictly theological premisses. My reasoning does not run: Because the Church is infallible, I believe that It is the only True Church; And because the Catholic Church is true, the Church is infallible: Thus, Church is true and infallible.
In sum, you've got a lot to establish, if you want to challenge the Catholic position and offer your own understanding in its place. In any case the original point of Kyle's post is brought again to the fore: private interpretation. To paraphrase T.S. Eliot, our end is our beginning.
All the best,
Jared
P.S. Off the top of my head, Lorin, I can think of several different ways in which the expression "private judgment" can be understood.
ReplyDeleteI. As an epistemic-moral judgment made with reference only to one’s own ego and/or self-realization;
II. As an epistemic-moral judgment made with respect to a community, society or number of societies;
III. As a mechanistic non-epistemic and non-moral action
IV. An instance of coercion in which external conformity is exacted but inner assent is lacking (and likely opposed)
Catholics, as would any sane person, exclude, in principle III. and IV. With respect to I. and II. the Catholic must distinguish. Judgments of kind II. have a certain (moral) priority, on the basis that common good is to be sought over any merely private good. However with respect to those judgments that have a direct bearing only upon physical well-being and/or legitimate pleasure, judgments of kind I. are perfectly acceptable, so long as the judgment does not cause a violation of kind II. When Catholics object to 'private judgment', therefore, they are not attacking 'personal' judgment and moral responsibility: i.e., those acts in which a person evaluates evidence and takes a morally responsible posture in relation to that evidence. They object to the fact that private judgment, as in the sphere civil life, tends towards the breakdown of societal unity--arguably a good to be preserved. That is, "private judgment" is not, for the Catholic, reformational, but revolutionary--a revolt against God-ordained authority and the unity it is meant to serve--and thus a sin against Charity. In the sense I think you take the term, however, I agree: every judgment (of a finite person) is private in that it is made by a persons and (finite) persons are individual with respect to both nature and hypostasis. I would argue, however, that "personal" need not mean egotistical or autonomous. When this distinction is understood, then one is getting into the realm Catholic discussion on private judgment/interpretation.
So far, all we seem to be doing is proving that Thomas Kuhn is right. He says that people who have different paradigms tend to talk past each other, because even when they use the same words, they still apply subtly different definitions to these words.
ReplyDeleteKuhn also says that it is impossible to use formal logic when attempting to compare one paradigm with another. That is because formal logic assumes a paradigm. It works within the structure of a paradigm, but the formal logic of one paradigm cannot be applied to another paradigm. Thus, when you demand that we apply formal logic to a set of restricted concepts, I suggest that you are demanding a mental impossibility.
As Gödel pointed out, every paradigm is based upon unproveable axioms. However, if one uses these axioms to prove the axioms, then this is circular reasoning. You say that you are not using circular reasoning. However, I noted ten instances in this blog where Kellene, Kyle, or Jared took it as axiomatic that the Catholic Church is correct. Obviously, if one assumes that the Catholic Church is correct, then it is easy to prove that the Catholic Church is correct. I reproduce these quotes below:
Kellene: All churches seem to hold some of their own traditions which are not clearly derived from Scripture. The difference with the Catholic Church is that they have the Holy Spirit's guidance to keep the traditions true.
Kellene: God has the ability at any time to prevent sin from affecting the teaching, doctrine and governing of the Church. There are many instances of this
Kyle: But does scripture exalt itself above the level of sacred tradition or the teaching authority of Christ in His Church?
Kyle: In the meantime, the Catholic faithful had the unerring and constant teaching of the Church up to and through this time to believe and practice.
Kyle: Christ established the Church with her teaching authority (Magisterium) and promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. He did not establish or promote private interpretation.
Kyle: It is the belief of the Church that the Holy Spirit, Who is invisible by His nature, protected her from teaching error by those who have been morally corrupt in the seat of leadership.
Kyle: It is the Catholic claim that the visible Church HAS remained free of corruption/error in official teaching
Jared: However, with the added element of Grace (the yet to be specified divine element), there is no necessity that the Church will be corrupted.
Jared: And if Christ established such an institution and called it His Church, then a fortiori, such an institution would not by necessity be bad.
Jared: Catholics hold that historically and in the present day the Church is the first witness to the Gospel, endowed with the power and authority to discern truth from falsehood.
Kuhn also says that while the typical scientist is very good at working within a paradigm, he is much less skilled when it comes to comparing one paradigm with another. Thus, when it comes to applying logic to the writings of the Catholic theologians and philosophers, Jared is far more skilled than I. However, because I have been forced to work as an outsider for decades, I have had to develop the skill of comparing, translating and evaluating paradigms.
I am also troubled by the fact that Jared responded to my comments about Matthew 16 by perceiving it as an attack on his intellectual abilities while at the same time ignoring what I said. Kuhn says (and I agree) that most new theories are developed by people who are either young or new to the field and that it is very difficult for a professor to change his paradigm because of the time and energy that he has invested in his existing work. In my experience, grad students are the most willing and able to evaluate new theories. Professors, in contrast, are almost incapable of either learning or acknowledging a different paradigm. I hope that Jared is not turning into a professor.
ReplyDeleteLet me try to go through the concepts of Matthew 16 more clearly. The context of Matthew 16 has two concepts.
First, Jesus says to Peter that ‘flesh and blood did not reveal this to you’. This seems to directly contradict the doctrine of ex cathedra, which states that flesh and blood can reveal infallible doctrine.
Second, Jesus that he must ‘suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes and be killed and be raised on the third day.’ Peter rebukes Jesus and Jesus condemns Peter’s rebuke as Satanic. Jesus then says that any follower of his must go through death and resurrection.
Compare this with the doctrine of apostolic succession, which says that the Catholic Church has an unbroken line of physical leadership tracing back to Peter, and that a Protestant church is not a church because it cannot trace back an unbroken line of physical leadership.
Continuity is not discontinuity. Death and Resurrection is a physical discontinuity. Apostolic succession is a physical continuity. If a church is rejected because of a lack of physical continuity, then this takes the viewpoint of Peter and not the viewpoint of Jesus. And, Jesus predicted that the Jewish ‘apostolic succession’ of chief priests tracing their way back to Aaron would be the very ones who would persecute him.
Moving on, my comments about the history of Israel were also ignored. Israel is the ONLY physical institution which has scriptural backing for being chosen by God. The main theme of the Old Testament is the history of the Jewish people. What is more important? Apostolic succession, based upon a few verses in Matthew 16 (with a questionable interpretation), or ‘Jewish succession’, based upon an explicit eternal covenant made in scripture? And, when we examine this Jewish succession, we do NOT find a chain of unbroken institutional or ecclesiastical progression. The Jews were kicked out of their land and lost their temple many times, and the Sanhedrin came to an end after Roman times. As Romans 11 says, “do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either” and that applies directly to Israel and its successor the church.
Now let us move on to the concept of the invisible church. Jared raises some valid epistemological questions, which I have tried to think through.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that the most basic religious question is how a limited human can learn about the nature of an infinite God. In other words, how can finite learn about universal. First, it appears that a human being needs help getting starting. Finite and universal are so different that a human will not be able to work out the correct answers by himself, and universality is so pure that a human will not be able to handle the correct answers. Hence the need for divine revelation together with a method for dealing with sin and guilt.
Second, we have the problem of the blind men and the elephant (which I describe in my book). It is not possible for a finite individual to grasp the nature of universality through the use physical senses and physical evidence. Instead, a person has to take the various finite fragments of his physical world and stitch them together INTERNALLY in order to get a concept of universality. Gnosticism says that physical matter is evil. I am saying that human physical experience is FINITE, that one can only grasp the concept of universality by going beyond the physical to the invisible, and that ANY attempt to equate a physical institution with the voice of a universal God will end up with an inadequate concept of universality.
Now let us apply this to Christian revelation. Learning must start with some form of divine revelation, and that revelation will occur in physical form—whether as a book, a magisterium, or an apostolic succession. That is the STARTING point. But, in order to grasp universality, the mind must then be weaned from this external, physical, finite starting point to internal, invisible, universal thought. And, that will only happen if one ultimately lets go of the starting point and adopts a ‘private interpretation’.
By private, I don’t mean ‘I am right and everyone else is wrong’. Instead, I mean struggling internally over the matter and coming to a conclusion because it is internally consistent, it fits the facts, and it really does tie things together in a universal way. But, there is also a sense in which private means ‘this appears to be right even if I do not get support from others’. That is because external support is by nature FINITE. Therefore, to the extent that my internal faith is still based upon external books, institutions, or leaders, my concept of the universal will be limited, and I will have an inadequate concept of the Universal God.
For instance, Thomas Aquinas said that natural revelation can support divine revelation, which provided a philosophical basis for church scholarship. But, he then boxed in the universal by insisting that revelation is more true than normal truth. Thus, whenever the believer runs into intellectual difficulties, then he can always pull out the ‘trump card’ of special revelation, ignore the facts mentioned by the other person and say that ‘the Catholic tradition is right’—which is how you appear to have responded to my comments about Matthew 16 and Jewish history. But, this ‘trump card’ also prevents a person from seeing the common thread tying together how God treats ALL institutions, be they religious or secular.
This is where the situation becomes tricky. In order to learn how to think, one must START with the ‘trump card’ of divine revelation. But, as long as one holds on to this ‘trump card’, then the finite nature of this external crutch will limit one’s concept of universality.
If the goal is to ‘know God’ by developing an internal concept of a universal being, then sola scriptura has mental advantages over the Catholic model. Words, by their very nature, are more universal than physical objects and physical buildings. Thus, connecting a holy book with God is more universal than connecting God with a collection of finite holy objects. The concept of holy tradition leads to the feeling that Catholic experiences, places, objects, and rituals are more connected to God than normal experiences, thus limiting the universal God to a finite realm.
ReplyDeleteThis is backed up by the reverent attitude that I see you giving to Catholic paraphernalia. Compare this with the New Jerusalem at the end of Revelation, which contains NO temple and conducts NORMAL LIFE in the presence of God and Jesus.
A holy book also has the mental advantage of encouraging critical thinking, because it separates the words and concepts of the author from the emotional significance of the author himself. Compare this with the Catholic model in which the source of infallible truth is still among us, capable of making a pronouncement from God Himself. How can a person think for himself when he is surrounded by such a crowd of ecclesiastical authorities. However, the ONLY way that a finite being can grasp the concept of universality is by thinking FOR HIMSELF.
In addition, the very fact that a book is also limited and does not deal with every subject forces a person to fill in the blanks and learn to fill in this blanks himself. Compare that with holy tradition, which uses the human institution of the Catholic Church to ‘fill in the blanks’, thus crippling a person’s mental abilities to truly learn about universality. Finally, a book is ‘set down in stone’ and does not change, helping to develop the concept of eternal, unchanging truth.
However, a holy book has its own problems. It also imposes finite thinking upon the mind. One of the big problems is that the believer in a holy books confuses a verbal description of universality with universality itself. Thus, even if the Bible is the Very Word of God, it still puts God in a limited box, because it limits God to words. As a result, I do not defend sola scriptura as the ultimate solution. If God is a universal being, then the goal must be to acquire an internal concept of universality that goes beyond words to all of life itself. That is why I have been searching for a paradigm that lies behind scripture and why I consider it so significant when I do manage to come up with a paradigm that does explain fundamental Christian doctrines. And, when others ignore my research and cling to finite books, finite institutions, and finite experts, then I have to conclude that they do not truly believe that God is a Universal Being.
Of course, one can always ignore the fundamental problem of finite versus universal and pull out the trump card of ‘the Catholic Church is right’. But, that will not escape the mental consequence of ending up with a limited concept of God.
Another problem with clinging blindly to the attitude of sola scriptura is that it leads to an attitude of religious self-denial. In order to believe that a certain book is the ‘word of God’, I must feel that my personal status is nothing compared to the author of that book and that my thoughts are worthless compared to the thoughts contained within this book.
ReplyDeleteThis leads to a cycle between the ‘traditional’ Protestant church and the ‘praise team’ Protestant church. On the one hand, if I accept Biblical truth, then I will feel that I must deny myself and I will feel that I am too insignificant to be able to think for myself. On the other hand, if I accept that God wants me to be someone, then I will lose respect for the content of Biblical truth and Biblical truth will lose the ability to guide my behavior.
Thus, the Bible-believing church tends to be associated with a low level of scholarship, while the ‘seeker friendly’ church service is lacking in dignity and respect.
I know for a fact that Jared appreciates the scholarship of the Catholic Church and that Kellene appreciates the dignity of the Catholic service and the respect of the Catholic lifestyle. I understand these sentiments, because the church which I am currently attending has an unusually high level of scholarship and dignity. If that church did not exist, I would feel very frustrated. Thus, when I refer to the Catholic Church being an aspect of the invisible church, I mean what I am saying.
One final point, which has to do with the concept of certainty. Divine revelation has the advantage of being certain, because the believer KNOWS that he is right. However, just because a person believes that he is right does not prove that he is right, and just because his group believes that it is right does not prove that it is right. In contrast, real knowledge always has some element of doubt associated with it. One can examine all the facts and know with 90% or even 99% uncertainty, but that last glimmer of doubt will always remain. However, as far as I can tell, it is that little bit of uncertainty which makes LIFE possible.
Unfortunately, when I see you clinging with such certainty to your finite Catholic world, I don’t see this leading to more life. Instead, I see more rigidity and less life, and that makes me sad.
Like Jared, I also have other writing to do. Therefore, I do not know if I will be able to repeat a reply of this length again. However, the topic is significant, and the people involved are close relatives, therefore it is worth addressing the subject.
Hi Lorin,
ReplyDeleteAt the risk of circular reasoning :-) I venture to clarify. First my clarifications were directed towards your understanding of the Catholic position, as such. This is a matter of public record. I was not, again, venturing to argue for the truth of my position. I was merely attempting to prevent you from creating a straw man.
With regard to axioms: you misunderstand the Catholic argument for the nature of the Church. Please see my latest post on the Great Commission for an example of both the method and bases of a form of Catholic apologetics.
My understanding of circular reasoning is that one uses a premiss to justify a conclusion and then reasons from the conclusion back to the premiss as a justification, in turn, of the initial premiss. Reasoning from unproven axioms does not entail circular reasoning, even if it does show forth the fact that not all evident truths are able to be argued for in a logical manner. Axioms justify conclusions, but not, necessarily vice versa.
On another note: I perceived no attack on my intelligence in your comments. I was rather attempting to make clear the seeming implications of your comments. Moreover, I was not trying to ignore your ideas on Matthew 16 and the Old Testament. First, I saw difficulties arising because Scripture doesn’t , in many places, clearly set forth its 'plain' meaning. I foresaw a fruitless venture into a discussion of exegesis of a text that is precisely at issue. On the larger scale, your interpretation versus mine. On a smaller scale, I didn't want to use what is in dispute to prove my case about what is under dispute. Matthew 16 is such a contended text, and I saw little hope of resolving or even moving forward the discussion on this basis. Kyle or I will at some point, with your concerns in mind, deal with this text.
Thank you for bringing up the dangers of the ‘professor’ attitude. I sincerely do not want to fall into this kind of thinking. Please keep in mind that both Kyle and I are converts who have had to compare the Christianity of their youth with other paradigms. As a result of our decisions with respect to this question we’ve become, in many ways, outsiders, as well.
Finally: Given your interpretation, espousal and application of Kuhn and Goedel, aren’t you hopelessly committed to circular reasoning and scepticism? The Goedel (not that I’ve worn one :- ) ) is starting to feel like a noose. Couldn’t resist.
Hopefully more from Kyle and/or I to come.
All the best,
Jared
Hi Lorin,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments. A few preliminary thoughts of my own about Kuhn and Godel: Is it your understanding that both thinkers were intending to provide models that applied equally to all kinds of knowledge? When I read Kuhn I understood him to be discussing models of thought that pertain to the domain of empirical sciences. To extend his theory--really more a description of the history of the development of science--to all knowledge is a move that I don't think is justified by the theory or was intended by Kuhn.
An immediate problem arises when one considers that Kuhn’s own theory presupposes truths that are self-evident and immutable--these truths cannot be reduced to a mere paradigm. Another problem: comparison of paradigms requires both truths and intellectual skills that transcend any paradigm. There must be an apparatus of comparison.
As Pierre Duhem and Stanley Jaki have noted, before Newton and his successors, the physical sciences were much less pretentious. Scientific explanations were to “save the appearances”. Modern science became naively realistic. Moderns thought that their explanations really were carving reality at the joints. Moderns forgot that in order to be certain that a theory is true in the event that it actually does explain the data, all other theories must be ruled out. Thus, they thought a theory was a point of arrival. I think that we will agree on this much.
This realization of the limits of empirical science is close to what I see Kuhn (re-) asserting. An unjust and ill conceived hegemony of the sciences that was deadly to thought and conducive to tyranny is what Kuhn exposed.
Beginning with Kuhn’s discovery it is just as probable that one should look to the foundations of thought, as it interfaces with reality, and reconsider the foundations of knowledge in a truly philosophical light. Science is no longer seen as the exemplar of human thought, but is reduced to the subalternate discipline that it really is. On this interpretation of the data, a universal application of Kuhn’s theory seems unjustified, and must be argued on philosophical grounds.
Godel is speaking of the incompleteness of any system of knowledge of logic and mathematics. I don’t grant that logical-mathematical knowledge is exhaustive of human knowledge. Math itself seems to be based on metaphysical truths, without which math would impossible. This raises a question of the legitimacy of universalizing Godel’s discovery in a manner which suggests a kind of scepticism about the foundations and certainty of knowledge.
There are several philosophical ways to interpret Godel. The first and most obvious way is to see G. as simply reasserting what Aristotle said: It is not possible to demonstrate every truth and/or proposition. This would lead to an infinite regress. Certain truths are truly self-evident, needing no further explanation to justify their veracity. This seems true and obvious. Another way to understand G. is to see in his system a denial of self-evident truths. This understanding leads to a self-refuting scepticism. A third way to understand G. (apparently the way in which Einstein and Born took him) is the view that mathematics at its foundations is subject to a lack of clarity with respect to truthfulness and demonstration. This a rather modest observation that seems quite correct.
All the best,
Jared
Hi Lorin,
ReplyDeleteI have a question. I realize that you're quite busy and you've already spent a great deal of effort and time on this discussion. I also realize that this conversation will likely end in disagreement. However, I do not want the disagreement to be ascribed merely to grounds external the discussion. By this I mean that I do not want to end the conversation with the impression on either of our parts' that our disagreements are solely due to the paradigms in which we find ourselves. This to my mind implies a radical discontinuity of reality and truth. At some level we are talking about what is real and comparing our assessments of this reality on this basis. To assume this is impossible is to assume that no real disagreement and discussion is possible because we are not talking, in any sense, about the same reality. I don't think this is the case, and by your noting that you've compared paradigms, you must admit that paradigms admit of a real comparison on some basis.
To my questions: If your interpretation of Matthew 16 and the Old Testament is rebutted or viewed under an aspect that grants your assumptions, yet does not end your conclusions, will you view the discussion as at least undecided on evidential grounds and as meriting further interaction?
Secondly, you assert that the Old Testament is the only scripturally supported instance of a physical covenant. On the one hand, I could simply deny what was asserted. This, however, would likely be a conversation stopper. You very clearly showed that the Old Covenant was in some way physical. On this we agree. But, from this fact and what you've said, it doesn't follow that this is the only physical covenant. It is a covenant that had a physical aspect, but, one could argue, this wasn't its essential characteristic. I would argue that divine sonship was the primary issue. This is what's at issue in the Abrahamic covenant, the essential and permanent basis of the Mosaic.
Thus, it could be argued that the Old Testament had a spiritual aspect that was primary. The matter isn't simply old versus new, physical versus spiritual. What if the Old and New Covenants aren't viewed dialectically, but as an order of progressive revelation that always had the Incarnation and the Church as its end? This would not necessarily oppose physical to spiritual, but might see the Old in harmony with the New, as nature is to grace, physical to spiritual.
It seems that, even if we don't and likely can't come to perfect understanding of one another's paradigms, the issues of visibilty versus invisibility, etc., could be used as points of comparison that do not have to be reduced to differences of paradigms. It is evident that this matter is pertinent to both our systems of thought. I submit we are starting from roughly the same body of data and might functions as test cases for our respective paradigms. Do you think we can reach clarity at least over what we're disagreeing? I feel like this is not yet clear.
Sorry, the last sentences of my last post are unclear. I re-post them with missing words supplied:
ReplyDelete"I submit we are starting from roughly the same body of data and [on this common ground, these issues] might function as test cases for our respective paradigms [and/or understandings of Christianity]. Do you think we can reach clarity at least over what we're disagreeing? I feel like this is not yet clear."
All the best,
Jared
Dear Lorin,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your responses on this blog. I was/am wary of the venture, to be honest, because it is such a big time commitment for everyone and because we all have other pressing and immediate responsibilities. On the other hand, I see the value in discussing and learning where others stand for clarity and Truth's sake.
To add to what Jared said concerning our "proofs" for the church. My intention was analagous to this: Lorin says: Kellene believes there are 6 people in this room. Kellene says: No, I believe there are only 4. In my correction of your statement I would not be intending to give any proof for why I believe there are only 4, only that I do. I was only trying to say what I actually believe about the Church not to give a proof for it. This is a small thing, but I wanted to be clear.
It seems as though you see many problems with religion and life that most people are willing to ignore, I think mostly from fear, and I admire that. For what it's worth, and I know this is no proof, only testimony, I am more free in the Catholic Church then I have ever been. In spite of how it may look to you, there are actually very few things that one must hold dogmatically. These are basically contained in the Creed. From there, the disagreements and ability to speculate are virtually limitless. In Protestantism, because there is no clear Creed, I was anxious for I didn't know what was expected of me. Now I feel at times, I suppose at my humblest times, the limitless of God and the freedom of his love in a way I never did before. Though I had a good foundation, it was not solid and unmovable. It seems a proper foundation or "starting point" as you call it is essential and I think you would agree.
A quick thought on this. When one builds from a starting point, is there any time, in nature, that one "throws it away?" I think of a house. Can you cut off the foundation and will it stand? Can you dig out the roots of a tree without it falling? Is our birth into this world not essential for our growth? I see death and resurrection not as throwing away our starting place but as placing it in God's hands and letting him do with it as he will. He never throws away what he has created, he perfects it. As Jared said, with grace upon nature.
Two questions on this phrase:
"And, when others ignore my research and cling to finite books, finite institutions, and finite experts, then I have to conclude that they do not truly believe that God is a Universal Being." Is your research finite? And could not this statement easily be reversed from our point of view?
I admire the fact that you see the importance of spending time for your family. It is easy in this individualistic society to spend all of our time on ourselves. Again, thank you for your time and energy.
God Bless You,
Kellene
Hi Lorin,
ReplyDeleteI don't know if this will work the best, but in order to try to keep distinct my responses from yours, I am going to include the address here to view them in Google Documents format. As you will see, my words are in red. Please copy and paste the following into your browser: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BwDkFUYuiazXMWI1NDRjMjQtYzU0ZS00YWEyLWI5Y2MtYTIzYjU1NmZmZjk2&hl=en_US.
Blessings to you,
Kyle
I've been struggling with some muscle overuse (I think I'm managing) and I just noticed your latest comments.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding of Gödel is that every rational system is based upon axioms which cannot be proven. If one attempts to prove these axioms from within the system, the result is circular reasoning. In order to prove the axioms one must use something from outside of the system.
Thus, ‘the Catholic Church is right’ is an axiom, which I am disputing. If one responds by saying ‘I believe that the Catholic Church is right’, then one is simply restating the axiom. Circular reasoning would be saying, ‘The Holy Spirit has protected the church from doctrinal error. That proves the Catholic Church is right.’ But, how does one know that the church has been protected from doctrinal error? Because, ‘the Catholic Church is right’. An example of using information from outside the system might be: ‘the Catholic Church is free of scandal. Therefore, the Catholic Church is right’. Looking through your latest comments, I think we are basically agreed on these concepts.
You say that ‘a theory is certain to be true only if all other theories are ruled out’. Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but that does not make sense. Theories can often be described in alternative ways, and while one formulation may be more elegant or more complete than another, they could both be correct. In fact, my ongoing premise has been that when I find another theory (like Kuhn’s for instance) which independently says the same thing that I am saying from a different perspective, then this increases the probability that both theories are correct.
Did Kuhn only apply his theory to science? Yes, although he did explicitly say that his concept of ‘normal thought’ interspersed by ‘revolutionary thought’ is a general one that occurs within many fields. However, I suggest that Kuhn’s concepts apply to any paradigm because he was describing MENTAL mechanisms, and whenever one is thinking, one is using the mind—regardless of the subject.
Science restricts itself to the objective because it does not know how to remain rational when faced with subjective emotions, and because it wants to avoid creating a mental concept of God. Science is material because it uses the natural order of the physical universe to error check its theories. Thus, even though Kuhn only described how the mind functions when dealing with rational scientific theories, he was still describing how the mind functions when dealing with rational theories.
I don’t have a problem with the general methodology of science, but I do have a major problem with its insistence upon avoiding the subjective and its clinging to the material world, because I see both of these as mental crutches which provide a mental starting point.
I could have said, ‘this is how the mind works’, but then you probably would not believe me. Therefore, I said, ‘this is how Kuhn describes that the mind works’ so that you would believe me. But, then you responded, ‘that is only how the mind works when dealing with scientific topics’, telling me that you seem to believe that the mind functions one way when dealing with secular topics and another way when handling religious topics.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, I have a problem with Thomas Aquinas. I suggested earlier that human thought needs some starting point, such as ‘the teacher is right’ or ‘the bible is right’ or ‘the Catholic Church is right’. Aquinas moved forward from this starting point, because he encouraged thinking, but he still held on to the starting point of ‘the Catholic Church is right’.
More specifically, Aquinas said that there are two incompatible methods of coming up with truth: One is ‘the Catholic Church is right’ and the other is basically the scientific method. (He said faith vs. reason, but he defined ‘faith’ in the Catholic manner, and he defined ‘reason’ as being based upon the physical senses.) Aquinas said that these two methods may come to the same conclusions, but if you use one method to reach some truth, then this stops you from using the other method. And, he said that truth that comes from ‘the Catholic Church is right’ is ‘higher’ than truth that comes from the scientific method.
The result is thinking (which is good) combined with a mental split (which is bad). My goal is to do the thinking without the mental split. Thus, when I read Thomas Kuhn, I see him as describing universal principles of human cognition which apply equally well to both scientific and religious thought. However, someone approaching Kuhn with the mindset of Aquinas will conclude that Thomas Kuhn is describing how scientific thought works, and that the conclusions of Kuhn have no bearing upon how the mind functions when dealing with divine revelation.
This seems to be a mental limitation that is an indirect result of believing that ‘the Catholic Church is right’. 1) This ends up dividing God into two parts, a religious part and a secular part. 2) It subscribes to the SAME mental split which is produced by the sinful nature. The sinful person is able to learn how to be rational when dealing with objective topics, but he finds it very difficult to be rational when dealing with the subjective. Similarly, the mindset of Aquinas is able to learn how to be rational when dealing with objective topics, and in addition it is able to learn how to be somewhat rational—in a different way—when dealing with subjective topics. But, like the sinful person, it appears that he also agrees that religion and science are separated by a mental chasm.
That is why I am looking for a rational paradigm that covers both the objective and the subjective, and both science and religion. When I find that Kuhn’s description of scientific thought is totally compatible with my cognitive analysis of religion and the subjective, then I conclude that I am making progress in unifying my concept of God and my definition of truth.
I am not suggesting that one reject the concept of divine revelation, because that is what secular science does. Instead, I am insisting that there is one truth which applies universally no matter how one arrives at this truth. One might arrive at this truth via revelation or one might arrive through reason. But, however one gets there, one still has to test this truth and apply this truth in order to internalize it. It is this process of testing and applying truth which mentally unifies truth.
ReplyDeleteHowever, once truth in a certain area has become mentally unified, then as a BYPRODUCT, this will end up weakening either the assertion of sola scriptura or the assertion that ‘the Catholic Church is right’, because it will build a mental link between religious truth and secular truth. The end result is not a mind which regards divine revelation as false, but rather one which regards it as a starting point.
The reason I prefer sola scriptura to ‘the Catholic Church is right’ is because it is a less pervasive split. Mentally uniting truth across the barrier of ‘this book is right’ seems to be easier than trying to cross the barrier of ‘this organization with all of its history, traditions, institutions, leadership, writings, rituals, and symbols is right’.
You talk about the need to find some common ground when talking across paradigms. I agree. That is why I am trying to avoid dealing with specific doctrines and focus instead upon underlying cognitive mechanisms.
But, if you believe that it is not possible to compare how the mind functions when dealing with religious subjects with how it functions when dealing with secular subjects, then that might be a conversation stopper, because now we are separated by an institutional gap, a divine revelation gap, a set of approved experts gap, and a cognitive gap.
I'm trying to find some way of crossing the 'the Catholic Church is right' gap, and I haven't found it yet.
Hi Lorin,
ReplyDeleteI’m sorry to hear that you’ve been having muscle problems. I hope they resolve soon. Also, the ALL CAPS aren’t meant to indicate emotion, their explanation is they’re the best means I can think of for indicating emphasis in blogger comments.
Thanks for your comments. I also now think we agree about the general concept of ‘axiom’ and Gödel's claims with regard to circular reasoning. He’s saying little more than what Aristotle noted 2,400 years ago.
About my statement that “didn’t make sense”: I made my comments in the context of explicating and applying Kuhn's work with respect to a common misunderstanding of modern scientists about the methods and ends of their disciplines. These comments, I realize, were not directly to your points. I see now that this could be confusing. I hoped by setting up a contrast between pre-modern and modern conceptions of science, to clarify the import and extent of Kuhn's philosophy of science. As I can see, I didn't clearly express my thoughts about the truth of theories. You're correct: at given moment there are simultaneously many (potentially an infinite number of) theories that can be spoken of as 'true', in virtue of their ability to explain the same data. This is because such theories "save the appearances." My statements about a theory being certain and true were intended to imply a reduction to absurdity of any empirical scientific theory claiming to be the EXCLUSIVE truth. By "ruled out" I meant made logically impossible. This I was implying is in itself logically impossible (at least absent a God's-eye view). Thus no single scientific theory can claim EXCLUSIVE rights to truth. I think we basically agree on these points.
The re-affirmation of the limits of science, I think, is Kuhn's main point. For other reasons, I am hesitant to extend, in an unqualified manner, Kuhn’s theory to all disciplines.
cont...
ReplyDeleteA full catalog of my reasons for this would need another discussion that I don’t want to take up on the blog, but I offer some: Many aspects of Kuhn’s theory do genuinely map on to reality and provide means to give a good description of the ways many disciplines develop. However, this is not how Kuhn is being used, and his own positions and understanding of his theory are unclear. He modified some of his positions after he had already published the book that made him famous.
My concerns with Kuhn are divided into two basic sets: (1) Metaphysical-Epistemological and (2) Moral--which flow, in my opinion, out of (1).
Kuhn’s language of ‘incommensurability’ between paradigms, for example, makes it difficult to see how one could know and explain the FACT of change at all. If Kuhn is speaking strictly, one just finds himself in a paradigm, not knowing from whence he came or where he’s going. Kuhn’s not so strict, it seems, as his language. All the better for Kuhn and sanity, but much the worse for the consistency of his system. I think Kuhn is simply inconsistent. Post-modern thinkers, ironically, are more logical about Kuhn’s theory than Kuhn. They see the ‘logic’ of Kuhn’s incommensurability, and justifiably infer that each paradigm is simply a story (‘meta-narrative’ is the term they coined) an individual or group tells (who knows its source or justification?) to ‘give meaning’. All stories are different and all are (now an ersatz) good. Their goodness derives from the fact that each story gives meaning and, in any case, on the principle of incommensurability, can’t be judged anyway. Meaning is good, thus each meaning is good. If this is true, then the stories that give meaning must be good. (Ironically, here universal concepts are being used all the time, but only in the manner that the Post-modern accepts. The Truth of goodness in itself is de facto appealed to, and yet denied in theory.) Thus, according to Kuhn’s logic, no one can judge if a given story is REALLY good or bad. There is no REAL good or bad, only ‘meaningful stories’.
Kuhn’s paradigm of paradigm change seems to presume both a metaphysics and an epistemological aperture that he actually denies in theory. From this there arises an epistemological ‘boxing-in’ echoing the worst of Kantianism. Instead of being ‘in the mind’, Kuhn shifts it to ‘in a paradigm’. The analogy between Kuhn and Kant is striking: Paradigm of paradigm shifts = Noumena; paradigms themselves = phenomena. As you noted, there is really no difference between the two, paradigms, after all, are mental structures. We are all stuck in some construct that is coextensive with mental reality, but extra-mental reality we can never be sure about.
Being ‘in the mind’ with apparently no way out, makes it difficult to explain what justifies 'common sense' beliefs and knowledge. The simple man who would say, “Pigs is pigs” and mean it becomes either a fool or a prophet. To really know and mean “Pigs is pigs” seems to require the direct movement of the Holy Spirit, for only the Holy Spirit is an 'outside source'. Now “Pigs is pigs” becomes a construct in a paradigm that only ever, we hope, approximates the noumenal reality. With Kuhn (and Kant) instead of being informed, from the ‘outside’, merely by taking a look and reflecting upon our experience, we arrive at the obvious fact that it is really the case that a “Pig is a pig” through a internal disposition (Kant) or a paradigm (Kuhn). But, even when we have a notion of 'pigness', according to our special K’s, it may all be merely a product a meaningful construct that makes a nice story. I hope you don't mind my hamming this up. Kuhn’s paradigm of paradigm shifts/revolution is nothing but the intellectual foundations of skepticism. This doesn’t seem to me to be a unifying measure, unless solipsism is a live option.
cont...
ReplyDeleteThe moral implications of all this become quite obvious. One is justified, if not encouraged, to ‘give over’ to a paradigm (or metanarrative), of an admitted purely human fabrication. Moreover, ‘blinders’ becomes the accessory of choice. This is not only excused, but it is now 'right'. Immorality is transmuted into morality, wine becomes water, because my paradigm says something is so. According to such a model one can justify virtually any kind of immoral act, social structure, and belief.
In sum, if Kuhn is followed logically, the results are unacceptable to both Christianity and sound thinking, which in the end are the same thing. Either Kuhn can’t really explain what would be to his system ‘visionaries’, ‘revolutionaries’, and ‘prophets’, or he must have a metaphysics that truly refers to reality. But if paradigms are literally incommensurable, this is impossible. Here Kuhn, like Kant, attempts to unpack the noumena, while his system claims (or at least implies) that such is an impossibility: Paradigms predetermine world-views.
From what I’ve just noted about Kuhn’s theory, it seems that without making some big adjustments, Kuhn’s theory is in the end fatalistic, mechanistic and skeptical. Any and all of these features evoke attitudes that imply a denial of the subject and moral truth and responsibility. With what Kuhn gives, as in Kant, self-assertion or pride, it seems, is the only attitude that finds safe haven in every paradigm.
cont...
ReplyDeleteShifting gears back to the general discussion of paradigms, the coherence of a paradigm alone is not the whole story. To mention other important matters (among many), scientists need to justify their criteria of inclusion and exclusion. They also need to distinguish between the inner coherence of their theory and the different question of their theory's correspondence with reality.
Moderns, as one can infer by listening to scientists and educators speak of, among any number of topics, evolution, forget that theories might explain (some of) the data, and yet not claim exclusive rights. What has actually occurred is that important qualifications aren’t observed, and people believe that science and truth are simply coextensive and identical. Scientists have become lobbyists or worse, and, on ideological grounds, have prevented valid research to save their dearly held beliefs (and endowments!). This is not so scientific, yet the whole enterprise retains its authority under the mantle of scientific objectivity.
I was encouraged,however, when I read your comments about the problem of modern scientists either failing to consider or denying subjectivity and/or relegating the subject to the sub-rational. The split that has ensued is characteristic of the philosophy and science that followed Descartes and Newton. I think that deep down we're in basic agreement about the problem.
cont...
ReplyDeleteYour comments on Thomas Aquinas are based on misunderstandings. Aquinas does not create a split between different kinds of knowing or between the subjective and the objective. The language he employs may lead to you think that this is the case, but this is a result of the split that characterizes the modern man which is read back into Aquinas. The medievals and their intellectual successors made no such splits and their thought does not imply a split. Thomas, however, does distinguish between kinds of OBJECTS of knowledge and the MANNER in which we acquire knowledge of them. This distinction is obvious: some knowledge depends essentially on testimony, other knowledge upon direct apprehension, yet other knowledge on inference from testimony and/or direct apprehension. A combination of all manners, modes and objects can and do work together to order and unify our experience and understanding of reality. But, all knowledge is united in being, truth and goodness. This is all too brief, but, in sum: there is no split: only our access is different and our grounds or evidences are different for various objects of knowledge. All is knowledge and all is based on evidence, and the tests of rationality can be universally applied--at least in a negative sense. But exegesis of Aquinas is not at issue.
The issue of axioms and circular reasoning, however, is a matter that has come to be a great sticking point. I will re-assert that the axiom “the Catholic Church is right” is NOT functioning as evidence for that claim. This claim or axiom is a conclusion arrived at and supported by 'outside' evidence, but this matter is not at issue in this post or in my responses to your comments. My post on the Great Commission supports deals in this area. In it I present an argument which does not use the notion that ‘the Catholic Church is right’ as a support for my conclusion. What I instead do is try to explicate the conditions of the teaching function of the Apostles as HISTORICALLY attested to in Scripture. I would appeal to the witness of the Church Fathers and early Church polity, but you’ve made clear that this evidence is not acceptable. I accepted your conditions—I presume you hold that the New Testament is historically reliable, apart from any question of inspiration.
In contrast, hoping to show the Church’s self-contradiction—the incompatibility of infallibility and sin in the Church—you presented evidence, implying that the Church had committed both and internal and external contradiction. The internal contradiction: The Church claims infallibility. But infallibility cannot exist in institutions that are visible, because visible institutions are necessarily corrupted. They are necessarily corrupted because they involve human beings who are visible. Human beings are sinners and thus necessarily corrupt any endeavor they undertake. Human beings undertake the instituting and institution of the Church. Therefore, the Church is fallible and therefore corrupted. Moreover, given sin, the infallibility of the Church is inherently contradictory. The external contradiction you located in the examples (amongst many other chestnuts of sufficiently roasted, but never fully blackened) of the Borgias and the ‘tri-cephalous’ papacy. The argument ran pretty much the same as the internal contradiction argument.
cont...
ReplyDeleteI was very careful to state the position of the Catholic Church with regard to infallibility in the form of conditional statements. The issue of infallibility was first raised by you, and your understanding was shown to not factually correspond to the public record. I never asserted that the Church was infallible, merely that your understanding of the Church’s infallibility did not correspond to the public teaching of Church on this matter.
While I did write what you quoted as examples of 'my axiom', you misunderstood their use. These statements were intended and stated as either CONDITIONALS or CLARIFICATIONS or both, whose context was my response to your claims. I nowhere assert that it is in reality the case that “the Church is right.” Nor did I appeal to this ‘axiom’ in my arguments. What I did do is show that your position is based upon a misconception of infallibility that differs from its definition by the Church. You may think the Church’s definition is false or impossible, and may, in fact, redefine infallibility along your own lines. Your understanding of the issues may, in fact, be correct, but any such denial and/or re-definition must be argued for on your part and any refutation of the Catholic position must be first based on an accurate understanding of the Church’s position. Otherwise straw men will pop up across the landscape and you and your Catholic interlocutors will be tilling different parcels.
A distinction at this point that may be helpful is between an axiom and a belief. An axiom functions within a thought system and may derive from evidence outside the system or be self-evident. On the basis of an axiom mental operations can take place within the axiom’s proper system. A belief, in propositional form, can be identical to an axiom. However, it does not function in the same way. It does not serve as evidence in discourse. It may, however, serve as a motivation to defend or as an indirect support a particular axiom. Thus I may believe that “the Church is right” and on this basis seek to defend, explain and argue for this belief. Moreover, I may use this belief as an axiom in a given thought system. This, however, does necessitate that the axiom functions as evidence in a disagreement, just as my “personal belief” doesn’t carry much weight in the same context.
Your constant talk of axioms is, thus, misguided. The evidence I presented in my rebuttal to your comments and in my post on the Great Commission, as well as the topics I suggested do not logically presuppose either as “my belief” or as an axiom, the proposition: “the Church is right”. Conclusions such as, “The Church is right” or “Sola scriptura is right” or neither, I understand to be points of arrival in debate, not as logical or evidential points of departure. My post on the Great Commission exemplifies a way ARGUING for my belief in the Church. It does not logically presume it.
At the risk of a tu quoque, you, Lorin, might be just as easily accused of circular reasoning. Who’s to stop someone from leveling this charge? However, your belief about a matter—for example, the confidence you place in your paradigm—I realize informs the fact that you want to argue against the Catholic position, but I do not confuse this psychological fact with the evidence you present and the arguments you make. This would be unfair. Just as you believe you’re right, and that sola scriptura is best, and the “Church is NOT right”, Catholics BELIEVE the Church is right, sola scriptura is false, and they’re right for believing this. However, these beliefs do not amount to arguments, nor are they unwitting instances of vicious circular reasoning. I will not be fitted into this epistemological straitjacket. You are simply incorrect on this point. I hope this explanation helps make this clear.
cont...
ReplyDeleteFrom your comments on the unity of truth, etc., I think, on this point, we fundamentally agree. Your objections to Catholicism, however, I find, thus far are based upon misconceptions, anticipated conclusions made before the evidence is clearly assessed (e.g., your remark about our “finite god”), and extreme dichotomies (finite/infinite; physical/spiritual, etc.)—which, interestingly, introduce serious splits. This may all have precise meaning to you, but your understanding is too heavily theory-laden for me to become oriented. Thus, I think the Nature of the Church and Sola Scriptura much more potentially fruitful avenues of discourse than trying to assess mental function, as you suggest. For my part, I realize that you are greatly invested in your theory and in this theory you see a tool for creating unity and order. This is likely true. It is my opinion, however, that we can’t have a meeting of the minds (excuse the pun) on the point. There is just too much background theory and intellectual noise. Who is to say that your theory really is contrary to the Catholic Church? Once misconceptions are cleared away, maybe the similarities will become apparent.
The Nature of the Church is a matter that has historical roots that can be assessed, and the doctrine a Sola Scriptura is a fairly simple concept that can be analyzed and tested with little trouble, as well. Moreover, both ideas can be assessed apart from an EXPLICIT and NECESSARY commitment to a paradigm. (I'm distinguishing here between de jure and de facto.) If we discuss mental function, we will inevitably suppress Catholic thought on this matter, and we will already be operating according to your paradigm. If we discuss the role a the Church’s infallibility within Catholic doctrine, we will be in ours. However, the Nature of the Church and Sola Scriptura do not require, in terms of evidence and premises, either of our paradigms. For Catholics, theology and apologetics are not equivalent, though they are closely related. The truth of my assertion about the common or neutral ‘discussability’ of Nature of the Church and Sola Scriptura is instanced in the fact that Protestants and Catholics have actually discussed these topics as equals for several hundred years.
One final question: in the context of your comments about Thomas Aquinas, you mention the Catholic notion of faith. Could you please state your understanding of the Catholic notion of faith? The consequences you draw are not apparent to me.
All the best,
Jared
P.S. I hope to soon post on the visibility of the Church. Hopefully my arguments will be clear enough to allow for understanding and debate.
This sentence: "This, however, does [...] necessitate that the axiom functions as evidence in a disagreement, just as my “personal belief” doesn’t carry much weight in the same context."
ReplyDeleteShould read: "This, however, does [NOT] necessitate that the axiom functions as evidence in a disagreement, just as my “personal belief” doesn’t carry much weight in the same context."
If you are going to digress, then so will I. This is in response only to your comments about Kuhn. I will read the rest later. I hear your comments about Kuhn and incommensurability and I see a typical philosophical extrapolation. Kuhn says that it is difficult to compare one paradigm with another. I agree that it is difficult and I can describe cognitive mechanisms which explain why it is difficult. But, then the philosopher with his insistence upon iron-clad logic steps in and concludes, as you are describing, that it is impossible to compare paradigms and therefore there is no such things as a good or bad paradigm. No, it is not impossible. It is difficult. It is difficult to leave one paradigm for another, and it is difficult to see that one paradigm is better than another, but it is not impossible.
ReplyDeleteThe point is that when you step out of a paradigm, you leave the rigid world of iron clad logic, and if you insist upon continuing to follow rigid logic, then you will end up with improper conclusions. That is why I prefer to read the work of someone who started a field rather than the logical adjustments of the technocrats who followed him. The originator was trying to discover something; his successors are using logic to tidy up the theory and in so doing destroy the theory. It's not that logic is bad, but logic taken to its logical conclusion seems to ends up eating itself.
In contrast, I seem to have stumbled into a method based in cognitive modules which is a sort of middle road of thinking that is rational but not rigid. Thus, philosophers call my thinking muddled, but my so-called muddled approach seems to be quite successful. (I just finished using it to analyze Piaget’s stages of development, Kohlberg’s stages of morality, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, as well as providing some clarification to a list of ‘unsolved problems of philosophy’ I found on Wikipedia.)
Similarly, I look at Kant’s transcendental argument (which I interpret in terms of cognitive modules) and see difficulty, not impossibility. While it is true that one can never know noumena, one can come up with an increasingly accurate approximation of external reality. However, if one follows rigid logic and insists upon 100% certainty, then one concludes that noumena are unknowable. I insist, in contrast, that it is possible to come up with reasonable approximations of reality, and with that one must be satisfied. I could still be mistaken about the proverbial pig, but I can diminish my chances of being mistaken.
And, the same principle applies to revelation. How do I know for certain that some source is the Word of God? I don’t. But, if I use my mind to test and check the facts—whether I got them originally from a book or from observation—then I can become reasonably certain, and based upon that partial certainty, I can then take a small step of faith. The only way that I can be 100% is when I am working within a paradigm using strict rules, but even then, I am still assuming the axioms of my paradigm, and thus my sense of total certainty is still based upon partial certainty.
Here my wrath is not directed at you but rather at a situation which I have encountered repeatedly, which I am starting now to comprehend, and from which you are reacting.
As a Perceiver person you should know what I am talking about, because the Perceiver person is better than anyone else at working with partially certain information.
To be continued...
Hi Lorin,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments. I think we, deep down, basically agree about Kuhn. If I'm understanding you rightly, there's no quarrel from my end with respect to your latest comment. My intention re Kuhn was was merely to point out some ambiguities/inconsistencies in Kuhn that render his theory in need of certain adjustments. The digression's been fun, though.
I wonder if, taking the language of paradigms, it would be possible to specify a working meta-paradigm that would contain points of agreement between us? This would allow for comparison on a common basis. We then could return to evaluating the claims that form the main subjects of this blog: "The Catholic Church is right" versus "Sola Scriptura is right."
I appreciate your rejection of the maniacal use of logic. I agree that a self-enclosed 'iron-clad' logic in the end only serves to bind thought, not free it to take in reality. Reality isn't reducible to syllogisms, and, if our knowledge refers to and is based upon this reality, it would likely reflect its subject matter. Rules of rationality, I agree, have ends that transcend mere systematization.
All the best,
Jared
P.S. Maybe more could be said on the concept of certainty. I think we will basically agree, but that my concept is a bit more differentiated than yours. Maybe I will post a brief note on this matter in the near future.