Pages

Thursday, August 14, 2008

"Individualism"

Catholics disapprove of the so-called right of private judgment. As I’ve often said, I don’t care for that expression, but since I didn’t write the theological lexicon, I’ll go along with conventional usage.

So why do Catholics disapprove of private judgment? It can be difficult to zero in on their precise objection.

1.At one level, they disapprove because private judgment leads to a diversity of opinion. And they regard that consequence as unacceptable. But why is that unacceptable?

There’s a sense in which this isn’t unacceptable to God. After all, this is God’s world. He chose to create a world in which diverse opinions exist. So that clearly serves a purpose in the divine scheme of things.

There’s a sense in which God doesn’t approve of everything that happens. He approves of everything as a means to an end, but he doesn’t approve of everything in and of itself.

Still, God could have made everyone think alike if he wanted to. Catholics have a pragmatic argument for the Magisterium. They think it’s antecedently probable that God would install a divine teaching office in his church.

But even if we go along with this pragmatic justification, there are far more efficient ways of corralling the sheep. What if God created Johnny Mnemonic sheep? Every sheep could know the same thing through a direct, instantaneous upload of information.

So even if you think that arguing from antecedent probabilities is a valid methodology, antecedent probabilities don’t select for the Magisterium.

2.Catholics also disapprove of private judgment because it’s individualistic. Every man becomes his own interpreter.

Oftentimes a Catholic will simply describe private judgment, and leave it at that, as if the mere description constitutes a refutation: “Sola scriptura makes every man his own interpreter!” Case closed!

But that doesn’t rise to the level of an argument. Catholics never stop to ask themselves whether, as a matter of fact, that may indeed be the way in which God has arranged his affairs. What if God intends every man to be his own interpreter?

3.On the face of it, it’s hard to see how we can avoid that consequence. It’s not as though Catholicism can avoid that consequence. For example, just consider all the commentaries which various Catholic theologians have written on Vatican II. Consider how different theologians offer differing interpretations of Vatican II.

In fact, sometimes two popes offer differing interpretations of Vatican II. Or sometimes the same theologian or the same pope will offering differing interpretations of Vatican II in the course of his career. His own understanding of the document evolves over time:

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=86

Indeed, Benedict XVI goes so far as to accuse Vatican II of teaching heresy (the Pelagian heresy, to be precise). Yet Vatican II was an ecumenical council. An exercise of the extraordinary magisterium. This is the sort of thing that’s suppose to resolve open questions, not open a host of additional questions—or ratify an ancient heresy.

Every time the Magisterium answers an old question, that raises new questions. Every answer is a launch pad for another question. “What does the answer mean?” “What does the answer imply?” “What’s the scope of the answer?”

4.Sometimes the objection seems to be that whenever two men disagree about something, you can’t know which man is right. You think you’re right, but your opponent thinks that he is right, so the mere fact that you think you’re right doesn’t make you right. And since you’re the one who’s doing the thinking, you can’t escape your own conviction—even if your conviction is erroneous.

That’s a complicated issue. But if that’s a problem, then Catholicism is hardly exempt. After all, two men may disagree about Catholicism. A Catholic will disagree with a Protestant.

But if the mere phenomenon of disagreement justifies scepticism, then you can hardly appeal to such disagreements as an argument for the Catholic Magisterium—since the Magisterium is, itself, an object of disagreement.

5.This objection also fails to distinguish between proof and knowledge. When someone says, “How can you know your own interpretation is right? Even if you were wrong, you’d mistakenly believe you were right,” he’s confusing two different issues.

It’s often possible to know something without being able to prove it. Take those science fiction scenarios in which a character is abducted and then immersed in a virtual simulation. The simulation may be very realistic. Yet the character knows this isn’t real because he remembers his past. And this is not the life he led. And yet, from within the simulation, he can’t prove that his experience is illusory.

He knows the simulation is illusory. But since the entire simulation is illusory, the simulation itself furnishes no clue regarding its illusory character. He can’t point to any evidence within the simulation to show that it’s just a simulation. The illusion is perfect. No computer glitches. No incongruities. A seamless illusion.

However, there are times in which knowledge does depend on proof. I experience my own memories, but I don’t experience the distant past. Take a historical claim like apostolic succession. That requires historical evidence. I wasn’t there.

And it’s worse than that, for even if I were there, I can’t discern the validity of ordination. The validity of ordination turns on certain indetectible conditions, like the intent of the officiate and the intent of the ordinand.

6.There is also the question of responsibility. I’m not responsible for proving the impossible. We can concoct ingenious thought experiments in which the human subject is imprisoned within some intractable delusion. So what? If it’s inescapable, then it’s futile to even raise the conundrum.

And there’s something deceptive about the deception. If you’re conscious of a self-delusion, then you’re thinking outside the self-delusion. So you’re not deluded by the delusion after all.

7. Finally, Catholicism suffers from a very blinkered view of divine guidance. You don’t need a complete set of verbal instructions for you do to do the right thing.

Consider the lives of Joseph and Daniel in the OT. God didn’t reveal to them his “perfect plan” for their lives. God didn’t give them a daily itinerary and say, “This is what you need to do today to fulfill my perfect plan for your life.”

Rather, through a series of unlikely events, God maneuvered them into positions of power. He put them exactly where he wanted them without telling them what to do every step of the way.

And that applies, not only at the behavioral level, but the doxastic level as well. When and where you live is going to affect what you believe. God can make someone believe something based on the epistemic environment he puts him in. Depending on what he wants them to believe, he will put them in the corresponding environment.

Jesus said to the Samaritan woman, “You worship what you don’t know; we worship what we know, for salvation comes from the Jews” (Jn 4:22).

The Jews were right and the Samaritans were wrong. What made the difference? Ethnicity. Geography. An “accident” of birth. Same thing the heathen (Eph 2:11-22).

And who’s responsible for when and where we’re born? God is (Ps 139:13-16; Acts 17:26).

God guides his people into the truth through providential events as well as revelatory words. Mute guidance as well as verbal direction.

8 comments:

  1. Are you saying that every Biblical interpretation is about as reliable or good or respectable as any other, so long as a concerted effort was made in attempting to understand Scripture in its totality?

    I don't think you really believe that because if you did, you wouldn't have room to critique the Episcopal church for its ordination of gays or women. The Episcopal church has some prayerful, earnest men and women whose beliefs you would readily denounce as heretical or blasphemous at best. You would find them Christians in name only.

    What I think you're suggesting is that there is SOME room for disagreement on SOME topics: on all others, one had better tow the theological line if one wishes to be considered a true Christian (although I'm not sure what those items would be). Who or what determines that line, I couldn't say for certain, but I'll bet it's there.

    ReplyDelete
  2. JAMES SAID:

    "Are you saying that every Biblical interpretation is about as reliable or good or respectable as any other, so long as a concerted effort was made in attempting to understand Scripture in its totality?"

    How does that follow from what I said? It doesn't. Try again.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Yet Vatican II was an ecumenical council."

    It is? I thought that there was so much debate about Vatican II mostly because it wasn't conclusive whether it was considered infallible or not (among other things).

    ReplyDelete
  4. "I thought that there was so much debate about Vatican II mostly because it wasn't conclusive whether it was considered infallible or not (among other things)."

    Yes, it's infallible or not depending on your private interpretation.

    :P

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Every sheep could know the same thing through a direct, instantaneous upload of information.

    So even if you think that arguing from antecedent probabilities is a valid methodology, antecedent probabilities don’t select for the Magisterium."

    We have to limit our analysis of antecedent probabilities to exclude those which are clearly not true. It's no use saying that the antecedent probability is that God would only ever create polka-dotted dragons, when clearly we are not polka-dotted dragons. To introduce absurd possibilities to argue against potentially true probabilities, is a bad argument.

    "What if God intends every man to be his own interpreter?"

    That would only seem probable if it was a system which seemed to work. However it has never worked in keeping Christians united.

    "Consider how different theologians offer differing interpretations of Vatican II."

    So maybe there will be a Vatican III if the church considers the points of dispute significant enough to warrant clarification.

    To claim we don't need councils to clarify things, because people might misinterpret councils would be to say we don't need Paul's commentary on Genesis, because someone might misinterpret Paul. The fact is, having Paul is better than not having Paul, even though Paul can be misinterpreted. If we didn't have Paul's interpretation, Christianity would be considerably impoverished.

    "Yet the character knows this isn’t real because he remembers his past."

    In this highly improbable science fiction scenario, if we assume that his memories are a valid reason for knowing his surroundings aren't real, and that his memories can't have been interfered with, then the proposition has been proven by the memories. It might be difficult to transfer the proof to someone else because of the technological problem of proving what is in your brain, but it would be adequately proven to oneself. But if the memories are not a valid reason to believe because they may have been faked, then the person can't know what they think they know at all. The normal rules of proof or evidence are as applicable as in any other scenario.

    So this argument is not a valid one against someone thinking their interpretation is correct but being wrong.

    "Take a historical claim like apostolic succession. That requires historical evidence. I wasn’t there."

    Luke wasn't there to witness many events he records either, but relied on an existing ecclesiastical tradition to obtain his information. In the same way the church has always taught that the truth subsists in those ecclesiastical bodies with succession from the apostles. This is not an entirely historical question, just like not everything Luke wrote is entirely historical, some of it is theological. Whether the church subsists in those bodies with succession is not something an historian is likely to address.

    "Depending on what he wants them to believe, he will put them in the corresponding environment. "

    How this establishes a blinkered Catholic view of divine guidance we are not told. Given that the number of people in the world who have a generally Catholic worldview exceeds by orders of magnitude those who hold to the style of Christianity found on this blog, and given that the Catholic worldview puts great emphasis on this fact, I would think Catholics are the ones with a high regard for divine providence.

    ReplyDelete
  6. That would only seem probable if it was a system which seemed to work. However it has never worked in keeping Christians united.

    Let the record show that JJ is judging the question ("What if God intends...") not by what Scripture says, but by his utilitarian yardstick. JJ doesn't bother to consult Scripture. He doesn't bother to ask what God has actually said and done. He begins with his own preconceived ideas.

    So, let's rephrase the question, "What if God intends for there to be divisions within and among the churches?"

    To claim we don't need councils to clarify things, because people might misinterpret councils would be to say we don't need Paul's commentary on Genesis, because someone might misinterpret Paul. The fact is, having Paul is better than not having Paul, even though Paul can be misinterpreted. If we didn't have Paul's interpretation, Christianity would be considerably impoverished.

    JJ is getting famous for offering this analogies in lieu of an argument. But the analogy is fatally flawed.

    Church councils are not inspired by God. Paul was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Pauline corpus is Scripture. Genesis is Scripture. The councils don't rise to that level. Nice try JJ, but your analogy breaks down at a critical point of comparison.

    Luke wasn't there to witness many events he records either, but relied on an existing ecclesiastical tradition to obtain his information.

    Where does Luke say he used "ecclesiastical tradition." Luke never actually wrote that. You seem to have a broad view of "ecclesiastical tradition." Not all eyewitness testimony is "ecclesiastical" in nature. Not everybody who is a "servant of the word" is an Apostle or elder or church officer. Luke doesn't specify his exact sources. Some of them are deducible from the text. Others are not.

    In the same way the church has always taught that the truth subsists in those ecclesiastical bodies with succession from the apostles.

    Notice the implicit analogy. The Church is like Luke passing down "ecclesiastical tradition."

    a. So the Church is inspired by the Holy Spirit?

    b. Does the Church pass down tradition that is not found in Scriptures that already exist? Remember, Luke is generally believed to be dependent on Mark. Luke adds some new, different material. So, if this analogy is to be correct, the Church must be adding new material to Scripture too. Where's the supporting argument?

    c. What traditions are being vouchsafed by "the Church?" How can we verify this? What documentation can JJ provide?

    This is not an entirely historical question, just like not everything Luke wrote is entirely historical, some of it is theological. Whether the church subsists in those bodies with succession is not something an historian is likely to address.

    1. Then you should be able to document these traditions that were passed down this way.

    2. How does one validate apostolic succession?

    3. Notice the bait-and-switch. He's implicitly moving from the Apostles to bishops, councils, and ecclesiastical bodies.

    4. And, yes, it is a historical question, not a theological question, since these "traditions" should be documentable.


    How this establishes a blinkered Catholic view of divine guidance we are not told. Given that the number of people in the world who have a generally Catholic worldview exceeds by orders of magnitude those who hold to the style of Christianity found on this blog, and given that the Catholic worldview puts great emphasis on this fact, I would think Catholics are the ones with a high regard for divine providence.


    It establishes a blinkered worldview, JJ, because it demonstrates a low view of God's providence. God NEEDS an infallible Magisterium in order to preserve the truth if we follow Catholicism to its logical end. It's not just a matter of establishing a teaching authority, rather, the Church can't function w/o an infallible authority. What's more you're indulging in the fallacy of the popular. It is entirely irrelevant how large a following Rome has. Indeed, when we read the Bible, we find that it's often the remnant, the MINORITY, not the majority, who are the faithful. Once again, you don't bother to consult the Bible first, instead you reason from your utilitarian yardstick. That demonstrates not only a low view of God's providence but also a low view of Scripture.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Let the record show that JJ is judging the question ("What if God intends...") not by what Scripture says, but by his utilitarian yardstick."

    How many times have we been told by protestants that the canon must be right because of God's purpose in establishing his word? Ye olde double standard.

    "So, let's rephrase the question, "What if God intends for there to be divisions within and among the churches?"

    Yet Jesus says he wants and intends unity. So let's rephrase the question: "What if God contradicted himself?"

    "Church councils are not inspired by God. Nice try JJ, but your analogy breaks down at a critical point of comparison."

    Assumes what you wish to prove then claims victory.

    "Where does Luke say he used "ecclesiastical tradition." Luke never actually wrote that. "

    Luke says he recorded what was "handed down" by "servants of the word". Handed down = tradition. Servants of the word = church.

    " Not everybody who is a "servant of the word" is an Apostle or elder or church officer."

    Nobody claimed that it must be.

    "b. Does the Church pass down tradition that is not found in Scriptures that already exist? Remember, Luke is generally believed to be dependent on Mark. Luke adds some new, different material. So, if this analogy is to be correct, the Church must be adding new material to Scripture too. Where's the supporting argument?"

    1. ??????

    2. Luke is generally believed to be dependant on "Q", for whatever "generally believed" might be worth.

    3. Whatever Luke is dependant on, they weren't exclusively infallible sources in the protestant world where only scripture is infallible.

    "What traditions are being vouchsafed by "the Church?" How can we verify this? What documentation can JJ provide?"

    That's a big question that I can hardly exhaustively answer. The short answer is to join the Church and learn it over time. The other short answer is to get some books and summaries of Catholic belief. Now how do I verify that the protestant canon and only the protestant canon, and the protestant interpretation thereof is the correct one? I take it you can answer in 25 words or less. After all, a potential convert needs to be saved now, and doesn't want to do a university course first.

    " How does one validate apostolic succession?"

    The Church validates it.

    " Notice the bait-and-switch. He's implicitly moving from the Apostles to bishops, councils, and ecclesiastical bodies. "

    All part of the one church.

    "It establishes a blinkered worldview, JJ, because it demonstrates a low view of God's providence. God NEEDS an infallible Magisterium in order to preserve the truth if we follow Catholicism to its logical end."

    God has always used human beings, prophets, apostles, scribes, translators and so forth. If this is a problem, it's as big of a one for you.

    And you've just finished lecturing us that perspecuity admits necessity of commentaries.

    "It's not just a matter of establishing a teaching authority, rather, the Church can't function w/o an infallible authority."

    Again the obsession with infallibility.

    "What's more you're indulging in the fallacy of the popular. It is entirely irrelevant how large a following Rome has."

    In that case, its irrelevant how many believe in the 27 books of the NT. Maybe only 3 are inspired. Maybe there are dozens more inspired. How many times have we been told by protestants that the canon must be right because of God's purpose in establishing his word? Ye olde double standard.

    ReplyDelete
  8. My comments are interspersed.

    >Catholics disapprove of the so->called right of private judgment. >As I’ve often said, I don’t care >for that expression, but since I >didn’t write the theological >lexicon, I’ll go along with >conventional usage.

    The concern is over what private interpretation, where each man is his own king with respect to interpreting Scripture and building a theology based on that interpretation, leads to: fragmentation and disunity, and sizable threats to preservation of the Gospel, in part. This is not to say that people do not have a right to interpret Scripture, but in doing so the individual is called to do so within the context of the authoritative Church Christ established as a guide. Those who reject the authoritative Church are left to decide everything for themselves. It is no longer a matter of receiving a faith and preserving it, but of changing it however one likes or making one's own faith, however similar or dissimilar it might end up being when compared to the faith given by the Apostles.

    >So why do Catholics disapprove of >private judgment? It can be >difficult to zero in on their >precise objection.

    >1.At one level, they disapprove >because private judgment leads to >a diversity of opinion. And they >regard that consequence as >unacceptable. But why is that >unacceptable?

    Diversity is not the problem. Error is the problem. So is division. So is pride. So is thinking one is king over the authoritative Church Christ started and guides. The Church is the Body of Christ, but, on Protestant principles, it is whatever a person wants it to be, many times.

    >There’s a sense in which this >isn’t unacceptable to God. After >all, this is God’s world. He >chose to create a world in which >diverse opinions exist. So that >clearly serves a purpose in the >divine scheme of things.

    Did he clearly choose to have Christians separating and dividing into thousands of different fragments, some of whom will not even speak to others because they disagree over how to interpret this or that passage in Scripture? Recall that Christ prayed for Christian unity.

    Further, if God started an authoritative Church then thinking that one has authority over that Church would be a problem. The Bible does not tell me that I am the pillar and bullwark of truth. It tells me that the Church is. It does not tell me to only yield to myself. It tells me to yield to the Church leaders.

    >There’s a sense in which God >doesn’t approve of everything >that happens. He approves of >everything as a means to an end, >but he doesn’t approve of >everything in and of itself.

    >Still, God could have made >everyone think alike if he wanted >to. Catholics have a pragmatic >argument for the Magisterium. >They think it’s antecedently >probable that God would install a >divine teaching office in his >church.

    No. They think he did also, and that it is also antecedently probable. We are not just interested in what God could have done, but what he did do.

    >But even if we go along with this >pragmatic justification, there >are far more efficient ways of >corralling the sheep. What if God >created Johnny Mnemonic sheep? >Every sheep could know the same >thing through a direct, >instantaneous upload of >information.

    God has typically revealed himself through other people. With Christ, some had direct revelation, but after Christ left earth (in the relevant sense) we were left relying on men to tell us about him. But they were given authority and they gave other men authority.

    >So even if you think that arguing >from antecedent probabilities is >a valid methodology, antecedent >probabilities don’t select for >the Magisterium.
    >Christ might have though.

    No, but Christ might have.

    >2.Catholics also disapprove of >private judgment because it’s >individualistic. Every man >becomes his own interpreter.

    Every man becomes his own king, if he likes, when it comes to interpretation of Scripture. Of course not all think they are up to the task so they tend to follow others who think they are. But the issue is whether or not men like Luther and Calvin and so many others should be king over these other men or whether the authoritative Church that Christ started should be.

    >Oftentimes a Catholic will simply >describe private judgment, and >leave it at that, as if the mere >description constitutes a >refutation: “Sola scriptura >makes ?>every man his own >interpreter!” >Case closed!

    >But that doesn’t rise to the >level of an argument.

    True. But the statement you just made is not an argument either. But I do agree that as much as possible arguments are helpful at getting at the deeper issues.

    > Catholics never >stop to ask >themselves whether, as >a matter >of fact, that may indeed >be the >way in which God has >arranged >his affairs.

    Some do.

    >What if God >intends >every man >to be his own >interpreter?

    What if He does not?


    >3.On the face of it, it’s hard to >see how we can avoid that >consequence. It’s not as though >Catholicism can avoid that >consequence. For example, just >consider all the commentaries >which various Catholic >theologians have written on >Vatican II. Consider how >different theologians offer >differing interpretations of >Vatican II.

    >Every time the Magisterium >answers an old question, that >raises new questions. Every >answer is a launch pad for >another question. “What does the >answer mean?” “What does the >answer imply?” “What’s the scope >of the answer?”

    Sure. We cannot eliminate the need for interpretation within communication, but having a guide is better than no guide at all. Protestantism divides and continues to divide, as this man rises up against that one over how to interpret Scripture or as to what the theology we ought to build from this or that interpretation. But if Christ gave us a living authoritative Church to walk through history along with the Bible and to even canonize the Bible, that is what we have to deal with, less we think we have more authority as individuals than the Church Christ started. That is what the Catholic is thinking here.

    >4.Sometimes the objection seems >to be that whenever two men >disagree about something, you >can’t know which man is right. >You think you’re right, but your >opponent thinks that he is right, >so the mere fact that you think >you’re right doesn’t make you >right. And since you’re the one >who’s doing the thinking, you >can’t escape your own conviction—>even if your conviction is >erroneous.

    >That’s a complicated issue. But >if that’s a problem, then >Catholicism is hardly exempt. >After all, two men may disagree >about Catholicism. A Catholic >will disagree with a Protestant.

    Disagreement, by itself, is not the problem. No authority to handle disagreements is the problem.

    >But if the mere phenomenon of >disagreement justifies >scepticism,

    The charge is not one of absolute skepticism, many times. But Revelation is different than the study of nature.

    > then you can hardly >appeal to >such disagreements as >an >argument for the Catholic >Magisterium—since the Magisterium >is, itself, an object of >disagreement.

    Disagreement is mentioned, many times along with the fact that so many men who disagree think we should follow them and the theology they have put together, when in fact Swaggart has no more authority than Luther and Luther no more than Calvin. I have met Protestants who say that they refuse to trust any mere man on any of these issues, that these other men are not any better able to settle these issues than they are. There is a lot of truth to that. Some who are experienced in Protestant circles will oftentimes have faith in this or that denomination for a time only to lose faith in all eventually, relying more and more on themelves. But the issue is whether they are left with mere men that have no authority or whether there really is an authoritative Church that speaks on such matters. At least that is one issue.


    >However, there are times in which >knowledge does depend on proof. I >experience my own memories, but I >don’t experience the distant >past. Take a historical claim >like apostolic succession. That >requires historical evidence. I >wasn’t there.

    It is an historical issue. So is bible history and church history.

    # 6 did not seem relevant, like most of #5, but perhaps Steve could elaborate.

    >7. Finally, Catholicism suffers >from a very blinkered view of >divine guidance. You don’t need a >complete set of verbal >instructions for you do to do the >right thing.

    No, you do not, but if Christ started a Church that has authority, you might want to do the right thing with respect to it.

    >Rather, through a series of >unlikely events, God maneuvered >them into positions of power. He >put them exactly where he wanted >them without telling them what to >do every step of the way.

    >God guides his people into the >truth through providential events >as well as revelatory words. Mute >guidance as well as verbal >direction.

    And perhaps also through an authoritative Church. Why not?

    Eric

    ReplyDelete