An Arguement Against Catholicism

[MichaelFilo]

I think there is a general (not absolute) consensus in the Phatmass community that an arguement against Catholicism from the Bible is impossible, ultimatly, because it must be untrue. An arguement from history would be impossible as well, because She does not slip up on matters of Faith or Morals. So too ultimatly any arguement against her morality from reason will be thrown down because natural law supports Her.

Then, what of an arguement against reason itself. If anyone is famaliar with Hume, his belief that causation does not exist, and that the world is chaos would seem to be a challenge against the common denominator against all the arguements stated above, that is, that there is some natural order, some objective correctness that exists. What then, if this world is nothing more than chaos, a senseless conglomoration of events, sense perceptions etc, and that it is all very meaningless. Something akin to the point suggested by Camus's "The Stranger". I mean, after all, a Catholic may argue quite well against any attack against the Biblical truths of the religion, the historical and Tradition based truths, and even against the morality of the Church, but what arguement can defend agains the claim that life is nothing more than random events, not nearly as linked as our minds deceive us to believe that they are.

Basically, the arguement is exestansialist in nature.

[Socrates]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' post='1137086' date='Dec 6 2006, 11:30 PM']
I think there is a general (not absolute) consensus in the Phatmass community that an arguement against Catholicism from the Bible is impossible, ultimatly, because it must be untrue. An arguement from history would be impossible as well, because She does not slip up on matters of Faith or Morals. So too ultimatly any arguement against her morality from reason will be thrown down because natural law supports Her.

Then, what of an arguement against reason itself. If anyone is famaliar with Hume, his belief that causation does not exist, and that the world is chaos would seem to be a challenge against the common denominator against all the arguements stated above, that is, that there is some natural order, some objective correctness that exists. What then, if this world is nothing more than chaos, a senseless conglomoration of events, sense perceptions etc, and that it is all very meaningless. Something akin to the point suggested by Camus's "The Stranger". I mean, after all, a Catholic may argue quite well against any attack against the Biblical truths of the religion, the historical and Tradition based truths, and even against the morality of the Church, but what arguement can defend agains the claim that life is nothing more than random events, not nearly as linked as our minds deceive us to believe that they are.

Basically, the arguement is exestansialist in nature.
[/quote]
This is not an argument, but nonsense. It is self-defeating. An argument pre-supposes meaning.

Edited December 7, 2006 by Socrates

[BurkeFan]

I'd need to ponder over this more, and review my Hume, but in the end, I don't think an argument against Catholicism from Hume would be earth-shaking, especially given Hume's view of tradition.

[MichaelFilo]

Socrates, fair enough, then if I should choose to live as if no order exists, and need no arguement for it, because no arguement can exist in chaos which truly makes sense, then it would seem prudent for someone who believes there is some order to this chaos, and should be able to find some sensible arguement against a chaotic world.

[BurkeFan]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1137090' date='Dec 6 2006, 11:36 PM']
This is not an argument, but nonsense. It is self-defeating. An argument pre-supposes meaning.
[/quote]

I wouldn't be so quick to discount Hume, though as I said, an argument from Hume wouldn't ultimately be earth-shattering. Hume is a strong thinker and a force to be grappled with, but discounting him so quickly is inadvisable.
I would actually say the same about existentialism in general. The arguments may ultimately be faulty, but to dismiss them at face value isn't the best response, especially since there are some truths in existentialism which may be drawn out.

[quote name='MichaelFilo' post='1137093' date='Dec 6 2006, 11:41 PM']
Socrates, fair enough, then if I should choose to live as if no order exists, and need no arguement for it, because no arguement can exist in chaos which truly makes sense, then it would seem prudent for someone who believes there is some order to this chaos, and should be able to find some sensible arguement against a chaotic world.
[/quote]

You might consider re-reading [i]Fides et Ratio[/i].

[MichaelFilo]

It is just that which I call into question however. Fides et Ratio says

"Although times change and knowledge increases, it is possible to discern a core of philosophical insight within the history of thought as a whole. Consider, for example, the principles of non-contradiction, finality and causality"

however, these basic principals can be questioned, and the arguement would be just that. Philosophy leads to questioning, and the question of causality must be brought up. The reality is if we hold 4 pens and we open our hands, we will never know if the next we do it they will fall or they may float. Our minds try to set up absolute laws, rules, etc, such as gravity, but you cannot tell if the same thing will happen even if you repeat the experiment.

Fides et Ratio presupposes that those certain things are agreed upon, and refers to them as "implicit philsophy". I would argue that Fides et Ratio becomes invalid for the discussion because one of it's points is called into question which the whole arguement is built upon.

[BurkeFan]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' post='1137104' date='Dec 6 2006, 11:53 PM']
It is just that which I call into question however. Fides et Ratio says

"Although times change and knowledge increases, it is possible to discern a core of philosophical insight within the history of thought as a whole. Consider, for example, the principles of non-contradiction, finality and causality"

however, these basic principals can be questioned, and the arguement would be just that. Philosophy leads to questioning, and the question of causality must be brought up. The reality is if we hold 4 pens and we open our hands, we will never know if the next we do it they will fall or they may float. Our minds try to set up absolute laws, rules, etc, such as gravity, but you cannot tell if the same thing will happen even if you repeat the experiment.

Fides et Ratio presupposes that those certain things are agreed upon, and refers to them as "implicit philsophy". I would argue that Fides et Ratio becomes invalid for the discussion because one of it's points is called into question which the whole arguement is built upon.
[/quote]

This is a slight aside, but have you read Hume's treatment of miracles?

[Mary's servant]

AMDG+JMJ
Hume does not leave the world in utter chaos. He admits of instincts, which allow for local justification to believe things. Although he syas that there is no universal justification for holding certain beliefs, we do have local justification. I have been studying him and the existence of universal/local justification in one of my classes. In fact I am currently in a review session for that class (I did pay attention to Hume though) One of my two professors is the director of the department of Logic and Philosophy of Science at my university, which was just recently ranked to have the best Logic and Philosophy department in the English speaking world, beating schools like Oxford, Yale, etc. I'm going to believe him over half baked attempts to destroy Catholicism especially using a philosopher whose works haven't been able to do it for several centuries. Maybe you should start trying to develop L Ron Hubbard philosophies to actually refute Catholicism, it could be more interesting

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='Mary's servant' post='1137114' date='Dec 7 2006, 12:07 AM']
AMDG+JMJ
Hume does not leave the world in utter chaos. He admits of instincts, which allow for local justification to believe things. Although he syas that there is no universal justification for holding certain beliefs, we do have local justification. I have been studying him and the existence of universal/local justification in one of my classes. In fact I am currently in a review session for that class (I did pay attention to Hume though) One of my two professors is the director of the department of Logic and Philosophy of Science at my university, which was just recently ranked to have the best Logic and Philosophy department in the English speaking world, beating schools like Oxford, Yale, etc. I'm going to believe him over half baked attempts to destroy Catholicism especially using a philosopher whose works haven't been able to do it for several centuries. Maybe you should start trying to develop L Ron Hubbard philosophies to actually refute Catholicism, it could be more interesting
[/quote]

Of course, Hume may choose a shoddy arguement against justification at the local level, but unless someone says that is the basis of some sort of rebuttal then it is irrelevant. if it is the rebuttal, then it suggests that truth is subjective to the person.

And if I really wanted a refutal of Catholicism, then I simply would argue apathy. But there can be no arguement against not caring.

[SJP]

Great thread!

Check out Cardinal Newman


[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/FR89402.TXT"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/FR89402.TXT[/url]
This article touches on some of the points raised in this thread, it's worth the read.

[beatty07]

This is why I appreciate Hume so much. He's honest (like Nietzsche) about the consequences of atheism. If you take away God, then there's no reason left to believe in anything else. Even logic. Even your "self." Nietzsche has him beat in one area though... integrity. He had the integrity to go raving mad, while Hume was known as a really nice and normal guy.

I think the position you're suggesting really boils down to a final and all-encompassing cowardice. It's looking life straight on and rejecting it summarily. Rather than deal with the universe, one would sooner deny the goodness of a newborn or the meaningfulness of mother-love. What could be more pathetic?

To determine that there's no rational principle is exactly as silly as thinking "I'm not thinking right now" or shouting "I'm being quiet" at the top of your lungs. It's an act of sheer willfulness, which renders one impervious to the most obvious facts. So argument is pretty much a waste of time. Seems to me, the best remedy is a punch in the nose, which I am sadly unauthorized to dispense.

[prose]

potatoes.

Does that make sense?

No.

Why?

Because being simply random makes no sense as an argument.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I would contend the assumptions of this thread. There is historical uncertainties that could disprove the CC if more info was known, though admittedly the uncertainties have not provided exhuasitive evidence against the CC. I'd argue the uncertainties and information that does exist is sufficient to not be a Catholic, and even overriding enough to be proof, albeit not exhaustive, against it.

Plus, if you simply disagree with the faith of the CC as many do, that's something to consider that its wrong. Though I admit most protestants who disagree do a bad job saying why, and you'd think there'd be better evidence to show the CC has contradicted itself.

[BurkeFan]

[quote name='prose' post='1137907' date='Dec 8 2006, 12:25 AM']
potatoes.

Does that make sense?

No.

Why?

Because being simply random makes no sense as an argument.
[/quote]

On this, I now agree more with prose than I did at the beginning. It's not enough simply to postulate that Hume might pose a good argument against Catholicism. You need to present that argument.
I brought up the 'aside' of Hume on miracles because he (at least, seemingly) contradicts himself on causality.

[Akalyte]

no argument against the church stands. The arguments crumble before they are even concieved. lol