As against these views, it must be noted that authority, even the authority of God, cannot be the supreme criterion of certitude, and an act of faith cannot be the primary form of knowledge. This authority, indeed, in order to be a motive of assent, must be previously acknowledged as being certainly valid; before we believe in a proposition as revealed by God, we must first know with certitude that God exists, that He reveals such and such a proposition, and that His teaching is worthy of assent, all of which questions can and must be ultimately decided only by an act of intellectual assent based on objective evidence. Thus, fideism not only denies intellectual knowledge, but logically ruins faith itself.
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
From the Catholic Encyclopedia on Fideism
Here.
As against these views, it must be noted that authority, even the authority of God, cannot be the supreme criterion of certitude, and an act of faith cannot be the primary form of knowledge. This authority, indeed, in order to be a motive of assent, must be previously acknowledged as being certainly valid; before we believe in a proposition as revealed by God, we must first know with certitude that God exists, that He reveals such and such a proposition, and that His teaching is worthy of assent, all of which questions can and must be ultimately decided only by an act of intellectual assent based on objective evidence. Thus, fideism not only denies intellectual knowledge, but logically ruins faith itself.
As against these views, it must be noted that authority, even the authority of God, cannot be the supreme criterion of certitude, and an act of faith cannot be the primary form of knowledge. This authority, indeed, in order to be a motive of assent, must be previously acknowledged as being certainly valid; before we believe in a proposition as revealed by God, we must first know with certitude that God exists, that He reveals such and such a proposition, and that His teaching is worthy of assent, all of which questions can and must be ultimately decided only by an act of intellectual assent based on objective evidence. Thus, fideism not only denies intellectual knowledge, but logically ruins faith itself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
As I've been saying all along...
Obviously Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Peter Boghossian have never read this.
their understanding of faith is a super simplified fedeism
"As I've been saying all along... "
Except for all those times when, due to your Rah-Rah-ism, you say the opposite.
When have I ever said anything contrary to that quote?
Answer: never.
How can a "Rah-Rah" ever say anything opposite to The Catholic Encyclopedia?
And if he did, wouldn't that be in spite of, rather than because of, Rah-Rah-ism?
what is Rah Rah ism?
Ilion uses the term to deride anyone supporting Catholicism.
By the way, here is one of the best "apologetic" videos (from a Catholic perspective) I've seen in quite a while.
Jezu ufam tobie!
B.linded: "When have I ever said anything contrary to that quote?"
Constantly; else I'd not have said what I said. You keep wanting to forget that I am always right.
B.linded: "Answer: never."
One of the examples I have in mind is your ... let's put it honestly: irrationality ... with regard to the Protestant solas, and specifically, sola scriptura.
Edgestrow:"How can a "Rah-Rah" ever say anything opposite to The Catholic Encyclopedia?
And if he did, wouldn't that be in spite of, rather than because of, Rah-Rah-ism?"
But that's not how human beings, in general, and especially not human beings in the grip of some rah-rah-ism, in particular, operate.
First, the person in the grip of some rah-rah-ism may not realize that some particular thing he's saying is contrary to the over-all public/exoteric message of the thing for which he rah-rahs.
Second, his rah-rah-ism may be such a monomania that even after being made aware of such a discrepancy, he actively ignores it, blinding himself to this discrepancy.
Third, The One True Bureaucracy purposely encourages and trains its adherents in such self-blinding with respect to the specific foundational differences between Protestantism and Catholicism. One does understand the imperative of bureaucratic self-preservation.
Look again at (a portion of) the original quote: "... it must be noted that authority, even the authority of God, cannot be the supreme criterion of certitude, and an act of faith cannot be the primary form of knowledge. This authority, indeed, in order to be a motive of assent, must be previously acknowledged as being certainly valid; before we believe in a proposition as revealed by God, we must first know with certitude that God exists, that He reveals such and such a proposition, and that His teaching is worthy of assent, all of which questions can and must be ultimately decided only by an act of intellectual assent based on objective evidence. ..."
B.Prokop is forever invoking the Mysterium (that's intentional) of The One True Bureaucracy --
* in arguing against me (turning his argument into an exercise in fideism)
* in arguing against 'atheists' (turning his argument into a double exercise in fideism)
On the one hand, I, like B.Prokop, am a Christian -- but I do not accept the assertion that "the Magisterium" is the Word of God. However, we both do accept the Bible as being the Word of God, as being the instrument of God's explicit revelation of himself to us. Moreover, The One True Bureaucracy *claims* that all its doctrines are grounded in the Bible (even if it has to "quote-mine" the Scriptures to "ground" those doctrines; for instance, the "Upon this rock ..." bit)
The point here is that *all* his rantings against sola scriptura founder on the fact of his own personal, and the RCC's institutional, implicit acknowledgement that sola scriptura is correct -- that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the sole ultimate standard by which we may evaluate a person's claim to speak for God or to have a revelation from God or to have a new understanding of some truth about God.
At the same time, being a Rah-Rah Catholic (even if thankfully not to the degree that Ben Yachov is), B.Prokop also tries to present the Bible as being the product of "the Church", rather than the truth of the matter, which is that the church is the product of the Bible. This made B.Prokop's indignation over a certain pretend atheist's lie about "the Church" having re-written the Bible to taylor it to emerging doctrines so amusing.
On the other hand, 'atheists' not only reject that "the Magisterium" is the Word of God, but also deny that God is. A Catholic quoting "the Magisterium" as the basis of his argument against a God-denier is as irrational, and as ignorant, as a "fundie" quoting the Bible as the basis of *his* argument against the God-denier.
B.Prokop invoking the Mysterium, and thus displaying his fideism -- "Thank God for the Magisterium, so we do not have to rely on our own fallible interpretations!"
Why not just B.Honest? "Ilion uses the term to deride anyone supporting Catholicism."
That's not true, and you know it's not true. I refer only to those engaging in anti-logical and/or anti-rational "supporting [of] Catholicism" as "Rah-Rah Catholics".
Ben Yachov is the exemplar Rah-Rah Catholic -- he is *never* rational (and rarely logical) is his attempts to argue for Catholicism or against Protestantism.
B.Prokop is a piker in comparison.
Ilion,
Since you maintain that scripture is "the instrument of God's explicit revelation of [H]imself to us", I will now defeat sola scriptura using only scripture.
"the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)
Note Paul does not say, "scripture, the pillar, etc. ..." but the Church.
Wow. That was easy! (I do believe I will now take time to perform an end zone victory dance, whilst the crowd chants "Rah Rah!")
Jezu ufam tobie!
And for your next trick you can "defeat" logic using logic.
"And for your next trick you can "defeat" logic using logic."
Oh, that! I can do that with one syllogism tied behind my back!
But (in all seriousness) remember, Christ Himself, when demolishing the teaching of the Sadducees (who held that only the Five Books of Moses were valid scripture), did not reason from the Prophets (or any other portion of the OT), but confined His argument to those texts held to be inspired by the Sadducees. (See: Mark 18:26-17.) So be not surprised that it is possible to prove sola scriptura to be in error, solely from scripture!
Jezu ufam tobie!
Ilion uses the term to deride anyone supporting Catholicism.
By the way, here is one of the best "apologetic" videos (from a Catholic perspective) I've seen in quite a while.
Jezu ufam tobie!
thanks for the rha rah--and Wittgenstein said there's no private language!
I'VE TAKEN THE PLUNGE
I've decided to start my own blog. Its humble beginnings can be seen HERE.
Theology: That place where you can never be wrong if you think you're right.
Another way of saying this would be: Intellectuals care deeply about what they think. Scientists care deeply about what can be known.
I'm not a scientist and I care deeply about what can be known.
99.9 percent of internet atheists are not scientists, so they also must not care about what can be known.
Jezu ufam tobie!
From the first line of the entry on Wikipedia for the word, scientist: "A scientist is a person engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge that describes and predicts the natural world."
But who cares about what definition of science one is using? The contrast is between the pointless intellectual narcissism of something like theology with the process of intersubjective checking employed by those who approach topics scientifically.
As an example of the first, I refer you to the first dozen or more comments here.
"A scientist is a person engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge that describes and predicts the natural world."
Uhh.. That describes just about every last person on this planet.
For a definition to be of any value, it must define, i.e, it must specify, fix the boundaries or extent of, make clear the outline or form of, show the shape, outline, or edge of something clearly (all these descriptives are from the dictionary).
Cal's Wikipedia definition (like so much that one finds using that source) is utterly valueless, because it excludes nobody. You don't think astrologers have a system by which they make their predictions? Were not alchemists systematically (using trial and error) attempting to transmute the elements? Did not Bishop Ussher systematically calculate the age of the Earth using the genealogies in the Old Testament?
Jezu ufam tobie!
Cal
But who cares about what definition of science one is using? The contrast is between the pointless intellectual narcissism of something like theology with the process of intersubjective checking employed by those who approach topics scientifically.
Don't confuse me withy the facts. the other guys are no good, ra ra my team.
yes those old theologians are just narcissistic they just want to pontificate and feel important saying nothing; unlike us selfless paragons of noble humanity embodied in rational and brilliant skepticism (like mine) who nobility seek nothing more than total knowledge of all reality, and to produce good technological invocation.
Science is so great the way it's just factual and doesn't any of that human pride stuff.
Post a Comment