Since Bryan dropped by to instruct on the nature of Jason and the Callers’ pursuit of ecumenical dialogue, the following exchange between our Sean and their Bryan from a few weeks ago may be revealing.
First Bryan:
If you are indifferent to the fallacy of begging the question (or to any fallacy), then CTC is not the right place for you to attempt ecumenical dialogue, and there is no point in our attempting to reason with one another (since reasoning together requires a mutual recognition of the rules of reasoning), and no point in my attempting to reason with you regarding the rest of your comment. May Christ, for whom nothing is impossible, aid us in coming to agreement in the truth.
Then Sean (who cuts through the charity and logic):
I’m unwilling to have a discussion with you where I must submit to the premises of YOUR construction to have the dialogue. I reject the authority structure of YOUR paradigm, just as you reject mine and throw your question begging flags. For me to do otherwise is to allow an abandonment of my paradigmatic premises; perspicuity of sacred text. At that point we’re not having ecumenical dialogue but a syllogistic game of coherence or lack thereof, but on your terms, not a ‘neutral’ ground; rigged game. It’s your blog, you’re entitled to lay down the ground rules, but don’t confuse that with ecumenical dialogue, that’s just one-upmanship. Your representations, or better, constructions, are often times just that; your constructions. And as such don’t represent more than your unique developments not of theology proper but your polemic. Ecumenical dialogue, for whatever else it requires, entails an accurate representation of both sides position. If I abandon or allow modification of my very premise in order to have the discussion, we’re not having an ecumenical dialogue representative of anything other than your or mine particular representation or in this case, misrepresentation of our respective communion. So you either want to engage an accurate or full-orbed representation of the other’s position or you want to control the ‘ground’ on which the discussion takes place. One is ecumenical and seeking to understand and fairly represent both sides, the other is a game.
Then Bryan (who gets the last word though the comm box was hardly full on this one):
I entirely agree with you that (a) I ought to represent your position fairly and accurately, (b) you should not need to abandon or alter your premises in order to participate in dialogue here, and (c) I ought not beg any question or commit any fallacy in my claims or arguments made to you. I also understand that belief in perspicuity is a basic precommitment for you. However, at the same time, if, when I point out that one of your claims or arguments is begging the question against the Catholic position, and you respond by expressing indifference, (e.g. “You can throw question begging flags all day if you’d like”), then at that point no possibility of rational dialogue remains; the only form of discourse remaining open is table-pounding and sophistry. There is an option open to you other than either compromising your own position or tossing out the rules of reasoning. But choosing the latter is a very quick way of removing yourself from the dialogue here. When I point out that one of your claims or arguments begs the question, then at that point the rational-dialogue-preserving response is something like, “Why or how is that claim question-begging?” or “Here’s why I think it is not question-begging” or something like that. But the ‘I don’t care if it is question-begging’ response shuts down the possibility of continued ecumenical dialogue.
But since this is where I blog, I’ll have the last word on this post. Only someone who is committed to an abstract understanding of the papacy, void of creaturely circumstances, can conduct logic-governed and premise-bound “conversation” where both parties “share” the pursuit of truth. It’s not human. It is HAL the computer.
Old Life 
Darryl,
First, I don’t know what you mean by “premise-bound conversation.” Our (CTC’s) only prerequisite is civility. So if you mean the prerequisite of civility, then why can only computers agree to a prerequisite of civility? Why can’t virtuous people also do so? Second, under what conditions is it right or good to violate the laws of logic in one’s reasoning?
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
The problem is that you misunderstand and misapply the rules of logic. Some logical fallacies aren’t fallacies outside of math and formal logic. For example, ad hominem is not necessarily a fallacy if one is determining the reliability of one’s source. While it is true that cheating on your taxes does not necessarily imply that you falsified a source of data, it is rational to be more skeptical of claims made by one who has a track record of dishonesty. None of us has the ability to sift through all of the primary data on our own – we have to rely on the work of others. The character of those people is an important datum. Your willingness to ignore contradictory evidence suggests that you are not a reliable source of information. While ad hominem, it goes straight to your credibility. Which leads to the second error you make as it relates to fallacies.
You misunderstand begging the question – you have stated that a contested premise is begging the question (your response to Oakley’s thesis). That is not a valid way to move a conversation forward. If you think Oakley’s work is wrong (upon which that particular argument rested), that’s fine. You need to provide evidence to that effect. You didn’t. Rather you asserted that a careful study shows otherwise therefore referring to Oakley is begging the question. That’s a conversation stopper – you have ignored multiple requests for a reference. If I can charge you with begging the question by simply asserting that any given premise is wrong because some anonymous careful study shows otherwise, then no conversation can ever move forward. Now if I knew that you were a careful and fair historian with expertise in this area (i.e. one who does not think it proper to ignore evidence), then I might be inclined to simply take your word for it when you claim that Oakley’s claims do not hold up.
LikeLike
Bryan,
The problem is that when Protestants critique you on Protestant grounds, they are automatically begging the question. It is as if on those who critique you based on Roman Catholic grounds can do so. Well, guess what—one must first accept the truth of Roman Catholicism in order to do that. It’s a game, and we see through it, no matter how sincere you want to come off as.
I’m not pretending that there should be some neutral ground, because that is not really possible. Just don’t pretend that you want to honestly here anything from the opposing position if any critique of it is not grounded in a 3,000 word argument that accepts de fide the authority of the papacy and the infallibility of the church. Those are the various issues that are truly up for debate, and Rome doesn’t get to be right just because Rome says so.
LikeLike
SDB,
I completely agree with this.
Where, precisely, have I shown a “willingness to ignore contradictory evidence”?
Yes it is. If a premise is not accepted by one’s interlocutor, continuing to use the premise will not move the conversation forward. Rather, what is necessary in such a situation is first recognizing that the premise is not accepted by one’s interlocutor, and then mutually stepping back to consider together whether/why that premise is true.
That would be true if one is attempting to *establish* or *demonstrate* the truth of one’s claim. But if one is merely intending to point out the question-begging premise in one’s interlocutor’s argument, one is not required to construct an argument. It is a fallacy to demand an argument in response to an evaluation of an argument, as if an argument can be evaluated only by the construction of another argument.
I’m willing to defend what I said about conciliarism, but that’s something I would do in a separate article, not in a combox.
No it is not. Ecumenical conversation does not hang on whether both parties agree with Oakley. There are many other pieces of evidence from which we can draw, and which we can discuss, besides Oakley’s work. And the conversation can also take a step back to the consideration of the reasons why one party thinks Oakley is mistaken.
As I’ve explained here before, I don’t have time to read, let alone interact with, all the comments in the combox here. I generally only read the yellow comments (i.e. Darryl’s).
If the only thing you were willing to do is make such an assertion [i.e. that a given premise is question-begging], then your conclusion would follow, and I would agree with you. But otherwise your conclusion does not follow. And I’m willing to do more, but a combox is not the right sort of place to make that positive case.
I don’t expect you to take my word for anything, except for my statements about what I believe (i.e. *that* I believe x). So I don’t expect you to take my word about Oakley (i.e. whether what he is saying is true or not). Rather I expect you to take my word that *I believe that* that Oakley is mistaken. And then we can go from there (i.e. consideration of why I think that, etc.), but that takes time and patience from all involved, because I have other responsibilities and time commitments.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Robert,
If I believed that only those who accepted Catholicism (or Catholic premises) could critique Catholicism, then I would agree with you that the discussion would be a silly “rigged” game. But I don’t believe that only those who accept Catholicism can critique Catholicism, nor have I ever required such an acceptance as a condition for critiquing Catholicism.
You have to be very careful in the inference from the fact that presupposing the truth of Protestantism in critiquing Catholicism is question-begging, to the conclusion that one must accept Catholicism in order to critique Catholicism. That conclusion does not follow that premise.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, you never know what I mean. (I can’t imagine — once again in the circumstances of the real world — what your spouse must experience when you and she disagree; but maybe with the same paradigm, all is well.)
Here’s what I mean as far as your failure to engage in a conversation and why CTC’s call is a sham:
This is a classic instance of your refusing to talk about historical speed bumps on your road to papal audacity. Nothing we bring up can falsify anything you say. Appealing to the past is only hand-waving. So what we have with you is an exercise in logic, not a conversation.
So all the “outreach” you are doing is not only on your paradigmatic terms, but it’s also in this silly world of logic. People don’t talk that way. They don’t blog that way. They don’t write encyclicals that way. Pastors don’t counsel this way. You are the invasion of HAL.
LikeLike
Bravo!
LikeLike
Bryan, I know you likely only red the yellows, so my best shot is to make this brief. The current landscape of the blogosphere, both yours and Darryl’s ‘playgrounds’ are not the proper forum in which to engage in ecumenism. CTC is proof it can’t work. It’s a bunch of is nobodies telling other nobodies who’s in charge. Real ecumenism will involve the individuals we all want to hear from, that are smart enough to stay off this medium of blogging and comboxxing. There is only tearing down. Every CTC article, to me, is only devolution. I see no forward progress or momentum on what it is you are trying to accomplish, if I understand correct. Primarily, we have created facebook environment to discuss the Christian religion, and everyone tears each other down. Sorry, too lomg, but I could keep going. I know this is just another tear down message, but you must see the absurdity of much of this. You’ve been at it a long time. Do you agree with anything I’ve said here, or am I just more abdsurdity on top of layers of absurdity? Hence, I must bring up golf in every combox I post. Or is entertainment the reason? We should be trying to help each other, right?
LikeLike
Bryan – But I don’t believe that only those who accept Catholicism can critique Catholicism
Erik – Those who accept Catholicism can critique it? With an infallible head why would any critique be necessary?
LikeLike
Darryl,
You are inferring (mistakenly) from what I said, to the conclusion that I refuse or am refusing to talk about something historical. That conclusion does not follow from what I said.
If that is truly the case, then that is a problem, for your position. You need better arguments.
I’ve never said that, nor do I believe that, nor does it follow from anything I have said.
This statement presumes that we must choose between being logical, and having a conversation. I don’t share that presumption. As I asked you elsewhere, please show (or provide an example) in which it is good or right to violate the laws of logic. Show me an example of a conversation that made progress toward the truth by abandoning reason.
Because it is more logical (reasonable) to abandon logic? Really? Why should anyone believe that? Notice, of course, the contradiction, in claiming that it is more logical to abandon logic. But, if logic doesn’t matter, then contradictions don’t matter either. But in that case, if one abandons logic, there is no way of evaluating any claim or any argument – it all comes down to brute power, as Socrates showed a long time ago.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Darryl,
Here’s another approach around the roadblock:
Bring up an inconvenient instance from Roman Catholic history. Say that since we observe this instance we conclude that this must be normative for Roman Catholics unless we hear otherwise from a Catholic. If Bryan remains silent then I guess our interpretation of that particular piece of history is correct by default. If he responds, then we’ll consider his response. To just sit back and wait for him to address these things is futile.
I can just see the blog post title now: “Pope Demonstrates that Kidnapping is O.K.”
LikeLike
Bryan: This statement presumes that we must choose between being logical, and having a conversation. I don’t share that presumption. As I asked you elsewhere, please show (or provide an example) in which it is good or right to violate the laws of logic. Show me an example of a conversation that made progress toward the truth by abandoning reason.
Sean: Bryan exactly how is this charitable? You couch the response in an unfavorable construction in an effort to diminish the response from the other side. You know very well that nobody is ABANDONING logic or reason. And if you tell me you DON’T know very well that nobody is abandoning logic or reason, then I’ll work off those inferences. The desire instead, is not to have every conversation boil down to a game of syllogistic constructions which leads ultimately to contested premises, ‘we’ve been there and done that’ and got a couple of t-shirts. Are you capable of having a conversation that doesn’t devolve into a formal logic exam with you as the arbitrator?
LikeLike
Sean, you’re trying to win an argument with Spock-in-flat-cap.
LikeLike
Bryan, it’s the same old HAL:
Been there, heard you play dumb.
LikeLike
Sean, I say we call Social Services and have them visit the beleaguered Cross children. Can you imagine dealing with a dad like that?
Me: Dad, I want a bike?
Bryan: nothing I’ve said is logically false.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I’ve never played dumb with you Darryl, but of course you are free to believe the worst of me, if you choose.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, just like your free to construct responses in the WORST possible light; “Abandoning reason”. And still turn around a play the victim card. Of course you do sign off; ” In the peace of Christ.” Which has all the moral equivalence of Ricky Bobby’s: “I said with all due respect”.
LikeLike
Heading nowhere fast (or slow) are we?
LikeLike
sean,
I am willing to acknowledge that you know Darryl better than I do. But that doesn’t help me know what Darryl means when refers to “this silly world of logic,” as though he wants a conversation in which fallacies are not pointed out. He has yet to clarify the role logic would play in the conversation he *does* want. Right now, the only options I can see are (1) one in which we attempt to abide by the rules of logic, and we are free to point out fallacies as such, or (2) we abandon logic. I don’t see a third option. Perhaps you do. But I’ll have to wait for Darryl to explain what is the third option.
(And I never “play the victim card.” When I point out that someone is not being charitable or that a particular way of interpreting a claim is uncharitable, that’s exactly and only what it is. Spinning it as “playing the victim” is inaccurate and unhelpful.)
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Sean, it is interesting how moral and intellectual crusaders mirror each other in pushing back against their Christian critics. For not showing sufficient moral indignation, the former accuse of antinomianism. For suggesting the limits of logic, the latter accuse of anti-intellectualism. All of life is swallowed up either by morality or logic.
LikeLike
Bryan: (And I never “play the victim card.” When I point out that someone is not being charitable or that a particular way of interpreting a claim is uncharitable, THAT’S EXACTLY AND ONLY WHAT IT IS. Spinning it as “playing the victim” is inaccurate and unhelpful.)
Sean: Bryan, here’s me being charitable, I’m going to presume that you’re kidding. (The capping is mine in an effort to bring into relief.)
LikeLike
Bryan, how much do you scrutinize conversations at Happy Hour over a beer (if you drink)?
LikeLike
That sounds like a really good way forward. Maybe some nicotine too.
LikeLike
Ding-a-ling?
I won’t say golf might play a role. Won’t say it. Never.
LikeLike
A former pastor of ours used to say there were two kinds of Presbys in America: English Puritans and (Scotch-drinking) Scots. I’m guessing BC was the former…formerly.
LikeLike
Who invented golf, AB?
LikeLike
Bryan,
David Anders made these comments at CTC today. I assume he is a reasonably smart Catholic (he talked about writing a dissertation).
“Anyway, I wonder why you even point this out. To my mind, the amazing thing about Protestant conversions to Catholicism in recent years is that we have all joined a church that we know to be empirically flawed, weak, intellectually and morally poor, and oftentimes unwelcoming. I’m trying to think of one Protestant congregation run with such knavish imbecility that can boast anything like the number of conversions seen in my very ho-hum, boring Catholic Parish”
(1) Do you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is empirically flawed?
(2) Do you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is weak?
(3) Do you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is intellectually and morally poor?
(4) Do you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is oftentimes unwelcoming?
(5) If the Roman Catholic church possesses these attributes, may we draw any conclusions about the truth or falsehood of Roman Catholic doctrine from them? If not, why not? If so, what conclusions can we draw and why?
(6) If you do not base your trust in the truth of Roman Catholic doctrine on the attributes that Anders mentions, what attributes to you base them on?
For example, antiquity? particular historical events? Scripture? fideism? other things?
No references to lengthy posts if possible. I don’t expect an exhaustive response. There’s no hurry to wrap this up.
LikeLike
Anders seems to conclude that these conversions are supernatural since no one would choose to belong to a church with these negative attributes. Might it also be possible that sometimes people just back bad or irrational choices? If someone spends their time shooting up heroin, living on the streets — a lifestyle most of us would conclude to be negative, do we conclude that there is a supernatural explanation?
LikeLike
I don’t read much at CtC but it only takes a few minutes to find some serious crazy talk. Often the real logic seems to be “because I think so.” In fact there’s a lot of “I” in the arguments. As in “Eventually I connected the dots. A building or denomination didn’t save me, but an institution did.” Really.
LikeLike
Zrim, sounds like variations of QIRC and QIRE to me;
http://heidelblog.net/2013/07/the-qirc-er-must-be-right/
http://heidelblog.net/2013/08/everyone-is-subject-to-the-qire/
LikeLike
Zrim, sounds like variations of QIRC and QIRE to me;
http://heidelblog.net/2013/07/the-qirc-er-must-be-right/
LikeLike
http://heidelblog.net/2013/08/everyone-is-subject-to-the-qire/
I’m just glad it never happens to me.
LikeLike
C-dubs, all I can say, is whoever invented this thing called “golf” better be paying for it in one of Dante’s layers. About all I know of this person is their nationality. I may love the game, but I still have some comments pre-drafted, for their blog combox, when I find the internet in the new heavens and new earth.
Shalom.
LikeLike
Erik, you do well with these C2Cers. I wish I could help, but golf found me before C2C did. Anyway, even they respond back and say that you do.
Golf clapping,
AB
LikeLike
I don’t comment that often, but I do read regularly. A little armchair analysis: Regarding the Hal-like approach that Darryl refers to… Bryan, my observation is that you have a rather obvious relational requirement in these interchanges, i.e… Bryan as the Teacher on a higher plane: “I am the professor. You are the pupil.” What seeps out of most every comment of yours is an assumption in your style of relating that you are not only always correct and without any lacks in all that you state and understand, but that the Reformed Protestant is inherently lacking in facts, logic and understanding and is not your academic equal. So your ecumenical invitation is a rather an unappealing: Listen and learn…
Bryan, of course I could be wrong in my “diagnosis.” But I think there is something to this. If you disagree and think I’m wrong (which I’m sure you do), then consider taking on this challenge as an experiment: Try being as professorial, faultless, and teachy as you can in these discussions (or anywhere) for one day. See if anyone can tell the difference. Will you be able to tell the difference? I don’t suggest this as a put-down. I’m just wondering if you’ve considered the possibility that your points aren’t being “heard” because of a relational layer that you insist upon that keeps you safe behind the professor’s lectern rather than sitting down as one of the guys at the OL bar, someone more or less just like everyone else. That’s all for now.
Bartender, I’ll have another…
LikeLike
Thanks AB.
LikeLike
O.K., though I promised others otherwise, I’ll play. Can’t help it; I’m an addict. And an ecumenical dialogue is too hard to resist.
Ecumenical dialogue: meh. What is one supposed to say, really? One really should have a decent buzz on; i.e., DG’s asking Bryan how Bryan would interact at a bar is quite apropos.
But, come on, Bryan is the most irenic interlocutor, y’all are gonna find. He’s a good guy; if you can’t see that, then, well, all y’all’s shitty taste in movies has really polluted your heads (fighting words, yes, I know; one can blaspheme God around here [from where I sit], but let us not accuse each other of bad taste in film].
So where does one find oneself who is born in an ethnic ghetto outside of these quaint little squabbles? Well, first, I’m biased. Bryan is quite correct in his basic point: there needs to be an infallible adjudicator of an inerrant Scriptural tradition. If not, then we’re left with Joel Osteen and Jim Baker. Given this, however, a la DG, we also need a reliable historical cipher. I’m sorry, and this is NO DOUBT begging the question on my part, BUT development of doctrine just ain’t gonna cut it amongst those not already predisposed to drinking from that font. Bryan, you may ask us not to beg the question, but DD is the position from which you read, so much so that you always already beg the question with anything theological and/or historical. This is why DG rarely goes to great lengths to give a sustained historical critique; it would be useless, because nay critique within DD is already begging the question. Yes, an assertion without support; I’ve not the time nor the patience, so feel free not to respond.
So where are we? Two systems which use private judgment to judge which system is true. And this is why Bryan resorts to natural logical powers endowed at creation. It’s just that Bryan’s system, so he argues, has been endowed by the Creator for ever creature to use naturally. This is his trump card. If others, even Catholics, even Catholic priests and Bishops, and even Popes, can’t come to the same logical conclusions he’s come to, then they fail, because logic can dictate only one outcome from various (theological and conciliar) variables. It’s really a matter of 2+2=4.
So where are we? Historically speaking, as DG keeps trying to point out, the Papacy’s (Roman Bishropic’s) understanding of itself is most definitely not what is was in 325. This fact (please don’t make me demonstrate that the Archbishop of Rome had an under-developed [I would say “different” but that would be begging the question] self-understanding that he does now) defeats Bryan’s narrative, for DG. For Bryan, all one need do is read later declarations from the Pope to see that it need not contradict what was there since 325 (or earlier); one simply need interpret it from a position of 1854. This 1854 hermeneutic gives to all *logical* readers a clear understanding that one can read from the present back into the past to give the past clarification. There is biblical warrant for this, by the way: Christ on the road to Emmaus. So Bryan’s position has Christological warrant; and what’s good for Christ is good for His Church ( I mean this).
So, in short, all declare bullshit from all sides: the Prots. because Bryan really does beg all sorts of epistemological questions (maybe not from his former reformed perspective but from any perspective that takes into account any sort of ancient heritage–the EO, Copts, etc.; DG keeps arguing from history for this very reason); Bryan because all of this private judgment is just too much to bear. There is too much at stake for private human opinion. So then, from here, when get into the tu quoque (i.e., Prots charge that most Cath. converts rely on private judgment to make a distinction . . . — except for Bryan who uses God-given logic to adjudicate, at least as a charitable, objective first step, so that he can dispassionately distinguish claims and so that he can make the most rational, epistemologically certain choice possible). And so on.
So where does an outsider stand? Well, Bryan is right about the need for a connection to Apostolic succession and for a need for some *body* to adjudicate various theological concerns (like a biblical canon). What this looks like, I’ll leave aside. DG is right about Bryan’s desire to deal from the bottom of the deck: it’s a two handed trick–development of doctrine and Papal infallibility. If these two things are taken out of Bryan’s quiver, he’s left with little. I think he would agree because he asserts (not argues) that these principles have been there from the beginning. But when pushed on these issues, he can only assert that they are NOT precluded, that history does not argue AGAINST them–and then builds from there. But no one wants to play that game, because he assumes a certain, questionable, position, and thus begs the question.
So, it seems to me, what we need to find is some sort of tradition that allows for a conciliar understanding of Church, plus congregations’ input, plus a clear biblical foundation for its creeds, liturgies, etc., plus sweet Byzantine chant. Now does all of this lead to the clear THEORETICAL assurance Bryan so craves? No. But he already lives in an ecclesiological mess; both theologically and liturgically; this FACT (need I cue up clown masses???) is part of DG’s complaint. Does it allow for purely theological personal opinion that prots. hold to? No. You’ll have to give up your quasi- (if not fully) Christological ways. God suffered and died on the Cross. Full stop. Why? Because it would be disastrous (and unbiblical) otherwise. This too is party of history. A certain level of fideism is necessary to understand and embrace (and be embraced by) a system; Bryan seems to avoid admitting to any sort of fideism or tautologies when it comes to a Christoloical system; I’ve been in too many Jewish/Christian think tanks to know that Christian hermeneutics is founded upon certain fideistc gestures and tautological hermeneutics.
Finally, and I’ll end with this, when it comes to adult conversion, we’re all Protestants now. How the Catholic church deals with this (vis a vis invincible ignorance) is something it can parse and sort out–and then declare infallibly (look to Von Balthasar, please). But I think this final point is what all of these spitball fights are about.
LikeLike
Jack,
And add to the fact that our proprietor and BC not only differ significantly in style (understatement of the year (century?)), but the substance of their dialog is that which divides Western Christianity and, well, you can see, we might need more than two drinks to get these wheels greased.
Prots blog about Cats, and Cats blog about Prots. Meanwhile, the PGA championship continues, and we’re all paying close attention to all the happenings through the portals of our world wide inter-web.
Pour me another glass too, please, while you’re at it.
AB
LikeLike
@BC
In case you don’t checknthe other thread, I’ll offer my apologies here as well. I misunderstood who was being quoted or what part of the statement was a quote.
Regarding BTQ, you are mistaken. Disagreeing with a premise does not imply that your conversation partner is btq. If all you mean is that you disagree with Oakley (for example), then just say so. Then we could have a conversation about that. One way to move the conversation forward is rather than make a specious charge of a logical fallacy, you could simply state you disagree with his work and provide a reference we might refer to. Otherwise your response boils down to “isnot-istoo”. Like I said before (and you evidently missed) I don’t expect a detailed rebuttal from you. A reference to this careful study you refer to would suffice. If you are refering to your own study, I have to say you have an impressive range of scholarly interests and I look forward to reading it when you get time to publish.
LikeLike
AB,
wrote Prots blog about Cats, and Cats blog about Prots.
And Bryan corrects and teaches.
Jack
LikeLike
Justin,
You state thus:
“I’ve been in too many Jewish/Christian think tanks to know that Christian hermeneutics is founded upon certain fideistc gestures and tautological hermeneutics.”
Was your conclusion that Christian hermeneutics is founded on tautological hermeneutics generally shared by the others in the think tank?
Welcome to OldLife,
AB
LikeLike
Is that Justin J. Van Dyke?
LikeLike
sdb,
Much appreciated, thanks.
In logic the phrase ‘begging the question’ has two meanings. One meaning is internal to a syllogism, i.e. to load the conclusion of the argument into the premises. But another meaning of the term is not internal to a syllogism, but internal to a dialogue between persons who disagree with each other. In that sense, one begs the question against one’s interlocutor when one argues for one’s position to one’s interlocutor by way of arguments that use premises that one’s interlocutor does not accept, because those premises are part of or presuppose precisely what is in dispute between oneself and one’s interlocutor. In this sense of the term it means using what is in dispute between oneself and one’s interlocutor, to support or defend one’s own position against that of one’s interlocutor. See the second chapter of Doug Walton’s Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation (Cambridge University Press, 1989), and his book devoted to this particular fallacy: Begging the Question: Circular Reasoning as a Tactic of Argumentation (Greenwood Press, 1991).
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
(And I never “play the victim card.” When I point out that someone is not being charitable or that a particular way of interpreting a claim is uncharitable, that’s exactly and only what it is. Spinning it as “playing the victim” is inaccurate and unhelpful.)
yada yada yada.
Bryan informs us that Daryl has not proved Oakley to be true or conciliarism to be contrary to anything CtC has written.
Fair enough.
But then Bryan hasn’t proven Oakley to be false or conciliarism to be consonant with what CtC is peddling/swilling.
IOW logic is a means to the truth. After a valid argument is made, one examines the premises. i.e. the facts, yea even historical.
But Bryan doesn’t want to go there/he can’t go there.
Cause then we have to get outside the prissy philosophy professor whining about the invalidity of ain’t versus isn’t.
Hint. It’s called a love of the truth.
Will you follow where it leads?
Will you acknowledge that there are immediate inferences that appear to the naked eye, even protestant, that whether or not they bother you, must be answered/resolved before a prot gives you the time of day/ thinks you really are interested in a genuine discussion?
Hey, but I usually only read the yellow posts.
Cool. But some of us read yours also and think to ourselves, what a despicable and stupid ass you are making of yourself.
Ad hom, I know. But sometimes it is what it is – the truth.
LikeLike
oh, yeah.
Ad hom.
Will we use the regular meaning or the esoteric?
As in are we interested in communicating or obscuring?
Yeah, I know.
Ad hom.
LikeLike
AB,
“Was your conclusion that Christian hermeneutics is founded on tautological hermeneutics generally shared by the others in the think tank?”
Yes, of course, how could it be otherwise? The Resurrection of Christ is the hermeneutic position par excellence. This is, quite simply, how Christians read (or at least ought to). Again, we can look Road to Emmaus (or all of Hebrews–or just about everything, since the Gospel is always only, literally post-Resurrection).
What did this mean for Scriptural reading: well, no overt Christological readings. But all parties flourished with regards to historical (huzzah, Old life) Jeiwsh understandings of baptism, circumcision, the Gentile question, etc. It was all quite illuminating. I imagine Christians and Jews were more diverse than those here so that dialogue was easier (we knew where our differences lie), considering that sameness, similarity, and proximity breeds violence.
LikeLike
“Is that Justin J. Van Dyke?”
Erik,
I’m so out of the loop here that if it’s not a reference to Chuacer, Shakespeare, Aquinas, Dionysus, the Dude, or Mamet, I’m lost.
Now if you’re referring to Dick Van Dyke, yeah, I’m all over that–so subtle in his humor.
If it was a compliment, thank you. If it was an insult, well, make it nastier next time so that I can appreciate it. And, please, make me laugh.
LikeLike
Comment at Called to Communion that didn’t make it through moderation (yet?):
David – People are becoming Catholic because of a certain trajectory of thought – about the nature of the Church, truth, holy scripture and authority, etc. And that these questions trump concerns about the empirical church
David earlier – To my mind, the amazing thing about Protestant conversions to Catholicism in recent years is that we have all joined a church that we know to be empirically flawed, weak, intellectually and morally poor, and oftentimes unwelcoming.
Erik – Why would I respect the “trajectory of thought” of someone who chooses a church that in your own words is “empirically flawed, weak, intellectually and morally poor, and oftentimes unwelcoming”? It seems more rational to conclude that these people possess these same attributes themselves.
LikeLike
Justin,
If you’re not Tom Van Dyke, never mind.
If you are, we’ll figure it out definitively pretty soon.
How about linking to a blog so we know more about you?
LikeLike
Justin,
Just so you know, the coffee around here is for closers.
LikeLike
Erik,
DG knows me well enough. So that makes me not Tom Van Dyke.
By the age of four all of my children know 2 things: 1) “Donny, you’re out of your element;” 2) my own revised version of Baldwin’s monologue.
And, by the way, my own addition to this sad dialogue here is because I’m here on a mission of mercy.
LikeLike
Erik, hardly. Justin makes sense. (I believe we may have seen the last of TVD)
LikeLike
In the logic of Doug,
-Bryan
LikeLike
Erik, Justin is our link to Byzantium at OL. Hearing what the Eastern Christians make of the Western divisions is always welcome.
LikeLike
Very good. Welcome, Justin.
Wedding day today. Giving away one of my two daughters. I’ll try not to cry.
LikeLike
@BC
I disagree that the sevond use of btq to which you refer is a logical fallacy for the reasons I stated above(whuch if you stand by your argument would imply that you are begging the question).
But I accept that you don’t find Oakley’s thesis unconvincing. Can you recommend a reference ro careful work undermining his thesis? Alternatively, if his historical analysis were to prove correct do you concede that the implication should cause one to rethink RC ecclesiology and ultimately the infallibility of the magisterium? If not I’d be curious to hear why, though I suspect further discussion on this topic wouldn’t be fruitful.
LikeLike
Justin,
Thanks for answering my question.
If I’m understanding what’s being said about you, just know, it was an Eastern Orthodox priest’s writing that helped me start squaring things, Christologically speaking. I may forever feel a debt of gratitude.
That said, I’m a “no hope without it” kind of dude.
Again, welcome.
AB
LikeLike
His Crossness stands thoroughly convicted of Schoolmarmery. Exhibit A:
“In logic the phrase ‘begging the question’ has two meanings. One meaning is internal to a syllogism, i.e. to load the conclusion of the argument into the premises. But another meaning of the term is not internal to a syllogism, but internal to a dialogue between persons who disagree with each other. In that sense, one begs the question against one’s interlocutor when one argues for one’s position to one’s interlocutor by way of arguments that use premises that one’s interlocutor does not accept, because those premises are part of or presuppose precisely what is in dispute between oneself and one’s interlocutor. In this sense of the term it means using what is in dispute between oneself and one’s interlocutor, to support or defend one’s own position against that of one’s interlocutor. See the second chapter of Doug Walton’s Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation (Cambridge University Press, 1989), and his book devoted to this particular fallacy: Begging the Question: Circular Reasoning as a Tactic of Argumentation (Greenwood Press, 1991).”
Brutal.
LikeLike
Chortles,
Good catch.
In my sophomore year of college, I was planning to be a history major/philosophy minor. That lead to a quarter whereby I took upper division history (17 Century Europe and Reformation Europe) and lower division philosophy (introduction to Logic). I feel like by commenting on this thread and the other one, I’m back to being a sophomore.
I try to picture Cross being my Introduction to Logic class. I liked that class a lot, and got a better grade in that one than the history ones, as I recall.
Anyway, the history and philosophy fields are better without me. I’ve been sent to permanent P.E. with the golfers. It’s not a bad gig.
Fun times all around,
AB
PS Chortles, your avatar pic looks worried, next to BC’s stern and confident presence. Thanks as always, for your contributions. Later.
LikeLike
Recently, I came across a book review which claimed that dialogue between Protestants and Catholics based upon reasoned assessments of arguments will probably not be fruitful, because:
“In fact, most people – especially religious and spiritual people of the evangelical Christian variety – think in purely emotional terms. “How does this make me feel?” they ask, or, “Does this offend my sensibilities?” Most people do not stop to consider the logical ramifications of their position, because to do so would often be unpleasant.”
Like Bryan, I don’t know what is the third option between ignoring the laws of logic and stopping to consider the logical ramifications of a position, but the reviewer is certainly correct in his assessment of “most people.”
LikeLike
Erik, you had to give her away? You couldn’t sell her?
LikeLike
Andrew, you are deluded to think that you and Jason and the Callers are just following reason. Try that over at First Things. Wait for chuckles.
You know, another part of the brain thinks historically — now is not past, now is not future. So far, Jason and the Callers have not shown the slightest ability to think historically.
LikeLike
May avatar is a famous worrier. And social philosopher:
“The world is full of social reformers and nothing irritates your social reformer more than finding some damn fool who’s happy.”
LikeLike
Justin’s a counter puncher. If you’re going after him better keep your head back and your hands up. Well done.
LikeLike
DGH, I really enjoyed your chapter on missions whilst between Des Moines and Atlanta (on the way to Maine, naturally). And it’s fun to read a book with details that we Presbyterians are looking for, like worship songs, confessional concerns, church government issues, etc. But the missions chapter snuck up on me.
LikeLike
Andrew,
Ever met Jeremy Tate? Plenty of emotion & enthusiasm on display at CTC, with logic taking a back seat.
Also, conservative P&R folks generally are not very good “evangelicals”.
To evangelicals credit, though, most of them can read the Bible and find Rome wanting in light of it.
I’ll take evangelicals who logically love Jesus in light of what they learn of him in Scripture over Papists who obscure and overshadow Jesus any day.
LikeLike
D.G.,
Not only was I not able to sell her, but my savings seem to be dwindling with each day that passes.
The 4 hour pre-ceremony is going to be brutal. Kind of like the lead-up to the Super Bowl. Thankfully I’ll have Hart’s P&R Dictionary with me for any lulls.
Now I need to go get in my suit and hit the PCUSA church rummage sale on the way to the LCMS church where the ceremony is at. Yesterday I picked up an early printing of “Naked Lunch” at an estate sale so I’ve got to keep it rolling.
LikeLike
Andrew,
I’m shocked that you read a book that blamed protestants for the failure of ecumenical dialogue. Shocked. If you read a book that blamed Catholics you might have to adjust your paradigm and we can’t have that.
LikeLike
Andrew, for a group who escapes to the realm of noumenalism and abides a communion rife with superstition and such a radical skepticism of Imago Dei creation(Rom 2, divine imprimatur, even thomistic NL), God, Jesus Christ(incarnation), the Holy Spirit, and inscripturated apostolic tradition, that you have to ultimately reside in a religious premise of; “I believe what the church believes”. Your not exactly in a position to talk. According to CtC, Jesus should have just left us a handbook for critical argumentation because that’s uber-perspicuous and so reminiscent of the way Jesus and the apostles taught.
LikeLike
Andrew,
Bryan seems unwilling to comment on Stellman’s recent piece on the things he dislikes about Catholicism and my attempt to post it with some questions on his conversion narrative at CTC doesn’t seem to be making it through moderation. Are you willing to comment on it?
LikeLike
Yeah, Andrew. How about St. Jason’s problems with “70s Jesus shooting rainbows at people?” which we are told by pious female is a “representation of a vision by St. Faustina of Poland. You would do well to read her conversion diary and emulate her faith.” No emotion there. Or is that stuff just for the commoners and not you smart guys?
LikeLike
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph!
There’s a special kind of aspergers that you’ve got to have to follow what’s going on at CtC.
Answering a blog post ( http://thechristianpundit.org/2013/07/17/young-evangelicals-are-getting-high/ ) that displays all the signs of being a New York Times trend story with another New York Times trend story ( http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/08/why-evangelicals-are-getting-high-a-response-to-rebecca-vandoodewaard/ ) is truly frightening.
Myself being a Catholic convert I’m sensitive to this and tried to talk them down from the ledge but it soon degenerated into this “Church that Christ Founded”* TM Borg-speak.
On behalf of all Catholics I apologize. This isn’t how ecumenical dialogue is done and please don’t allow this to taint your view of all Catholics.
J-Slice, I’m no longer smoking and engaged to be married, to a Lutheran no less!
* For a proper understanding of this see the late Fr. Raymond Brown:
“Apostolic Succession concerns the fact that the bishops eventually took over the pastoral tasks of the apostles; It does not involve HOW the early bishops were chosen or appointed. We know little about that, not even being certain that there was a formal action designating them….That does not mean of course that all the presbtyer-bishops of the early church were appointed by apostles, but there is a good chance that somewhere that occurred….Eventually, of course, the church developed a regularized pattern of selection and ordination of bishops, and from the third century on that was universally followed.” -101 Questions and Answers On The Bible page 120.
LikeLike
M&M, it did me as well. Can’t believe how much I learned from that book.
LikeLike
Erik, darned! Oh for the days of arranged marriages (like the times for which Jason and the Callers pine).
LikeLike
Dan H. — refreshing indeed. Anyone in their right (non Borg-assimilated) mind and with any understanding of sin has reason to be apologetic about their own church (whatever it is) and their own profession.
LikeLike
This word hasn’t been thrown around, but the concept of perfectionism might be helpful here. The Callers believe Rome has the perfect claim to the Church Christ Founded. This excuses anything and everything (pesky history) and probably ends up with a redefining of even personal morality as a result as in perfectionist circles — I can’t sin so I didn’t sin.
LikeLike
Andrew,
Of course there is a third way to dialogue and one which is far more fruitful: one can point out that one’s interlocutor has begged the question (or whatever logical fallacy committed) and then proceed with charity. Such a dialogue begins with phrases like this: “What I think you’re trying to get across is . . .” and then respond. Or “I think I’m understanding your point that . . .” and then respond. It may take a little longer and, God forbid, one may get to know one’s interlocutors better (maybe make a joke or two), but in the end one can actually respond to objections and have one’s objections responded to. Not if all one want to do is apologetics, then, sure, there may only be two options. But if one wants a dialogue, then the third option is clearly the way human persons communicate. I think this is why Darryl keeps asking Bryan if he talks to his wife and children in the manner on display here. If there really are only two options to dialogue–i.e., the ones you lay out–then God help us all. God doesn’t even talk to Moses in these terms. Can you imagine Abraham dialoguing with God over the fate of the Sodomites in the either/or manner you suggest?
Maybe I grade too many student papers, but I’m always trying to help them clarify their positions and often ascribe to them greater clarity than is on paper. Often, one has to say, “I think you’re trying to argue X, and if so, then you’ll need to revisit passage Y.” It would be an odd thing to write simply “ad hominem” “begging question” and then move on (maybe one can do this on a philosophy paper? None of my philosophy profs ever did). Of course one points these things out, but that’s merely the first step. If I want to try to figure out what a student means, then I need to relax a bit and allow them to flesh out their thoughts. Of course, a paper on the Old English “Wanderer” is hardly the realm of apologetics. Perhaps therein lies the problem–that apologetics takes on a winner-takes-all pose.
All this is a long way of saying that there is a third way. And a fourth–but the interwebs hardly seems the place for interpretive dance.
LikeLike
High five, Cdubs.
LikeLike
C-Dubs, I remember a line from Rod Rosenblatt(WHI), I don’t quite remember the context, in which he joked that the LCMS had dealt with remaining sin it’s members and officers by amending the confession to rule it ‘right out’. I always thought that was a great idea. I’m still for it.
LikeLike
DG,
Historical arguments, like all arguments–the point of which is to arrive at conclusions that actually follow from the premises–have to be evaluated according to the laws of logic, or else not. And if not, then the historian would seem to left to the mercy of prejudice and emotion in formulating his conclusions, no matter how thoroughly he has done his research. You suggest that there is a part of the brain that thinks historically. In your opinion, is this part of the brain exempt from thinking, or unable to think, logically?
Erik,
I have met Jeremy and most of the other members of CTC in person and of course in our collaboration on the website. As a general rule, I have not found him or any other CTC member, when asked to evaluate an argument, to appeal to emotion, or to gush with enthusiasm, or to revert to sarcasm. If there have been exceptions to this rule, I am confident that any of us would want this to be pointed out, and we will be happy to apologize and then to reasonably engage the argument. Unlike the “most people” referred to in the book review, our express intent is to examine whether or not the conclusions of our own arguments or the arguments of others follow from the premises.
This is of course perfectly consistent with writing blog posts that are more creative or evocative (or something like that) than syllogistic. CTC features both kinds of posts, though because our overarching purpose is to resolve disagreements rather than merely trade assertions, there has been an emphasis on making and evaluating arguments.
You claimed that “conservative P&R folks generally are not very good ‘evangelicals’.”
Based upon the posts and comments at this website, however, it seems to me that P&R folks are preeminently evangelical in disposition, insofar as “evangelical” includes the tendency to emote rather than to reason.
LikeLike
Justin J.,
Genuine dialogue requires charity and good will from *both* sides, as I have argued in a CTC post titled “Virtue and Dialogue.” But see this comment from January 23 of this year, in the “What a Difference a Council Makes” thread here at OL. If Darryl changes his approach from one of snark, sarcasm, and uncharitable judgments, to one of good faith dialogue, I will be very glad to shift from merely pointing out the fallacies in his arguments concerning CTC, to engaging in genuine dialogue with him.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
“Recently, I came across a book review which claimed that dialogue between Protestants and Catholics based upon reasoned assessments of arguments will probably not be fruitful, because…”
I disagree with the premise, so your begging the question. Thus your argument is invalid. This is sure to move the conversation forward…
LikeLike
Bryan,
Is Darryl’s comment only ‘snark’, or possibly a playful yet serious critique of what he has observed in his dialogue with the Callers? By assigning it to the category of unserious snark, you then don’t have to engage . And, isn’t it uncharitable of you to assume that his comment is merely ‘snark’? Could it be that your constant invocation of various rules of dialogue, logic, etc. which must be obeyed, understandably leads one to add a bit of snark and sarcasm along with substance, in hopes of penetrating the professorial shield?
LikeLike
Andrew, logic, like w-w, is overrated. No one lives or has a conversation like this. If they did, they’d never watch a sit-com.
And we’re the rationalists?!?
LikeLike
Bryan, “If Darryl changes his approach from one of snark, sarcasm, and uncharitable judgments, to one of good faith dialogue, I will be very glad to shift from merely pointing out the fallacies in his arguments concerning CTC, to engaging in genuine dialogue with him.”
Does that conclusion follow from the premise?
LikeLike
Andrew, by the way, you really could take some of this blow back back to your huddled callers yearning to commune. Your schtick is not playing well with some of those people you are calling. You may reach those longing for logical certainty, but if you want to have a broader appeal, you really should come down from the high horse of logic and talk like you would in a bar/pub/tavern — or even the living room of your home.
LikeLike
@JJ
More seriously, data (historical or otherwise) have uncertainty attached to them and are underdetermined. While it may be possible to construct post-facto explanations of various pieces of data (where all statements are true and logic sound) we generally, rightfully, don’t find such arguments particularly compelling (the track record of such approaches isn’t so hot). Second, you have to contend with the need for interpolation and applying confidence intervals to various pieces of data. Generally, we don’t get to do this quantitatively out side of the physical sciences which means that other criteria for making a judgement are necessary. The rules of logic don’t apply.
In assessing Rome’s claims about her authority, the evidence is uncertain, sparse, and largely based on testimony. So ad hominem concerns feature prominently. The character of her leaders matter, her (ab)use of political power when she has had it matter, and so forth. So when we hear her defenders talk about “moral certainty” that serial abusers are innocent of all charges, we are made very skeptical of the reasoning that leads to such conclusions. When we see Cardinals in the church conspire to protect child abusing priests and offload them to unsuspecting congregations, I am made very skeptical about their credibility more generally, and so on… The misbehavior of popes and other church leaders means that I put no faith in their claims that I can’t check independently…but of course that means that I have to make a private judgement and I’m now defacto protestant…hmmmm…
As far as your claims about the emotional claims of protestants versus the cold rationality of RCs, to whom are you referring? Protestants generally versus RCs generally? Evangelical Americans are really more emotional and less logocentric than Brazilian RCs? Scottish Calvinists are really guided more by emotion than RCs in Spain? Or do you mean that evangelical intellectuals are more emotional and less logical than RC intellectuals? So Alvin Plantinga is driven more by emotion than Garry Wills? Or are you comparing clergy? It seems to me that hasty generalizations like the one you’ve quoted say more about your own confirmation bias than the ability of protestants to engage in reasoned dialog.
The problem with the hiding behind specious charges of fallacies rather than engaging substantive challenges is that it becomes a total conversation stopper. DGH’s post about Oakley and BC’s response is a case in point. Oakley’s work raises a number of difficult questions for RC apologist claims about papal primacy which in turn has implications for beliefs about an infallible magisterium, etc… Rather than explaining why he disagrees with Oakley, pointing to a reference that demonstrates problems with Oakley’s argument, or admitting that this is something worth looking into, we are treated with a specious charge of BTQ.
LikeLike
BTW – all this talk about paradigms is ironic given that they were invoked to get around metaphysical concerns about truth. Paradigms are not true or false – I’m not sure I would want to reduce my faith to a pragmatic structure for organizing programs…. Though I think van Frassen’s (an RC by the way!) talk of stance would be a much more fruitful model than paradigm for describing one’s faith.
LikeLike
Let’s see, the cat who purposefully hangs his shingle as RC apologist, ecumenist and pointed polemicist against Ref. Prots. Trading on his reformed prot heritage no less, and placarding the spoils of his raids on the Worldwide web, wants ‘consideration’ from the reformed community on the web while he goes about his efforts. That’s not a high horse, that’s a friggin rocket to the moon. And before the charity police come and break down the door, here’s Paul;
8 That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 9 “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.” 10 I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion, whoever that may be, will have to pay the penalty. 11 Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!
LikeLike
Wouldn’t Bryan’s use of the begging the question fallacy in response to historical evidence against papal infallibility also apply to RC apologists who point to Protestantism’s many divisions as a reason for why we need an infallible magisterium? Personally, I am willing to accept that as a reasonable argument, but I am not persuaded by it because of how it conflates the perspicuity of Scripture with infallibility in the interpretation of Scripture. But from Bryan’s perspective, that argument would seem to be an example of begging the question.
LikeLike
My biggest issue in the CtC/Cross mode of dialogue here is the tendency to strain gnats in the name of logical consistency while whole camels are swallowed in the name of the ideological/theological coherence of the magisterium.
In the end it ends up falling along the Kantian lines that sean consistently points out – CtCers are reliant on RC infallibility that only exists in a noumenal realm, where historical scrutiny and external referentiality are never really addressed. Maybe they have to go this route, because in rejecting the logocentrism of the Protestants, the CtCers are left to defend a much broader base of authority, all of which must cohere – tradition, authoritative succession/infallible papacy, and (if they ever get around to it) Scripture. In the end, I am not sure how they can conclude that allegiance to Rome is any less of a faith commitment than remaining Protestant.
LikeLike
Meanwhile over at CtC:
DGH – Interesting that no one else here in the CTC echo chamber is alarmed by the statistics. It seems folks here are more interested in rooting for the home team than actually noticing the score.
His Crossness – Here you are again inferring from an absence of expressed “hand-wringing,” to some negative judgment about ourselves. And again, that conclusion does not follow from that premise. Perhaps we respond to such negative statistics not with public hand-wringing, but with prayer and a redoubled effort to do our part. Perhaps our faith that the gates of hell shall not prevail over the Church frees us from the need to engage in hand-wringing.
—
See my earlier remark on perfectionism. The piety is thick you could slip on it! Holy pedantry, thy name is Bryan.
LikeLike
Andy,
Careful. The disputed premise in this case is not “historical evidence,” but a thesis (in Oakley’s book) which he claims is supported by the historical evidence.
If one’s interlocutor does not accept the belief that this thesis is shown to be true by the historical evidence, then using this thesis as a premise in an argument against one’s interlocutor’s position is question-begging. That using such a thesis in such an argument is question-begging can easily be shown by putting the shoe on the other foot. Imagine, for example, my using some uniquely Catholic thesis (from some Catholic history book) as a premise in an argument against Protestantism. You would instant see that my doing so is question-begging.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Andrew, it’s one thing to take the Presbyterian out of evangelicalism, another to take the evangelicalism out of the Presbyterian. Evidently not unlike taking the logician out of the evangelical-turned-Reformed-turned-Catholic.
LikeLike
Matt. 12:36 I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,
LikeLike
I don’t know, Zrim, it depends on your technique. I got in touch with my inner evangelical Southern Baptist child, got him buzzed on Guinness, and them drownt him in the crick. He thought he was just being rebaptized for the second or third time. Sorry jc.
LikeLike
I can’t speak for Andy, but it isn’t clear to me. Let’s flesh out your imaginative exercise. Consider that an RC critic of the conservative protestant understanding of perspicuity was to argue that Kenneth Miller, the RC biologist, has shown that the YEC is untenable. CPs have broadly made a YEC interpretation of Genesis, therefore they have been incorrectly interpreting scripture for the past 500yrs, therefore the doctrine of perspicuity is not tenable.
According to you the CP could simply retort that he doesn’t believe that YEC has been shown to be untenable, indeed a careful study of the data shows that YEC is indeed tenable therefore the RC critic is merely begging the question. I remain unconvinced that this is a logical fallacy or that it should be labeled begging the question. But perhaps that is just semantics. More importantly, this doesn’t strike me as a productive way to move forward. Better examples of ways to respond are to say:
1) the evidence I’ve seen suggests that Miller is likely wrong
2) I’ve read Miller as well and find him unconvincing because of ____
3) author X has shown Miller to be in error
4) I’m not familiar with Miller’s work and will need to look into it.
But why study every book your interlocutor says provides evidence for a thesis that undermines one’s belief? Life is short and we’re all busy. So maybe a productive way for the conversation to move forward is to tentatively grant the premise in order to discuss whether the thesis would undermine one’s position – maybe the CP could grant that Miller’s work undermines YEC but that doesn’t imply anything about perspicuity. Thus further discussion about Miller would be a waste of time.
If it is decided that the thesis would in principle undermine perspicuity, then to decide whether further consideration of Miller’s thesis is worth the effort would depend on the credibility of Miller – is he a C-list RC apologist publishing in a vanity press or is he a respected scholar whose work has survived scrutiny in the academy and made it through peer review? If the latter, it would suggest that the CP needs to take his work seriously.
Turning back to Oakley’s work, the seriousness with which one should take his argument depends on two things:
1) what is his track record: is he distributing his work through Chick publications or a respected academic press?
2) If his argument proves correct, does it undermine a central pillar of RC?
At this juncture, perhaps we can’t settle the validity of Oakley’s work, but we could have a fruitful discussion about the implications of his thesis if it is ultimately proven correct. Of course if there is a good reference to a careful work that undermines his claims that would be helpful to offer as well. Shutting down the discussion with a specious charge of a logical fallacy is not productive.
LikeLike
Speaking for myself, it isn’t clear to me either. In fact, I probably looked like Kylie the Opossum in “Fantastic Mr. Fox” when I read Bryan’s response.
LikeLike
MM- DGH, I really enjoyed your chapter on missions whilst between Des Moines and Atlanta (on the way to Maine, naturally). And it’s fun to read a book with details that we Presbyterians are looking for, like worship songs, confessional concerns, church government issues, etc. But the missions chapter snuck up on me.
Erik – Funny you mention that because D.G.’s chapter on missions in his OPC history (“Between the Times”) also struck me as especially good.
LikeLike
I also read a lot of Hart’s book on Machen (“Defending the Faith”) on an airplane. I guess I thought it would be a good choice should the plane go down.
LikeLike
Andrew – Based upon the posts and comments at this website, however, it seems to me that P&R folks are preeminently evangelical in disposition, insofar as “evangelical” includes the tendency to emote rather than to reason.
Erik – That hurts my feelings.
LikeLike
Bryan – If Darryl changes his approach from one of snark, sarcasm, and uncharitable judgments, to one of good faith dialogue, I will be very glad to shift from merely pointing out the fallacies in his arguments concerning CTC, to engaging in genuine dialogue with him.
Erik – Is this how Christ tells us to proceed in such circumstances? What about:
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Romans 12:17-21
Shouldn’t you respond graciously and sincerely regardless? If you guys have found a truer, better Christianity than us I would assume that you would.
LikeLike
No comment from Bryan on Stellman’s post, no comments from Andrew on Stellman’s post, no posting of my comment for Stellman on his post at CTC….
What gives, guys?
LikeLike
Erik, there you go again (quoting the Bible), using the wrong paradigm. You might be more effective with Bryan if you quoted an encyclical (where the argument follows logically from the premises, of course).
LikeLike
The Callers on Jason’s post on the things that he doesn’t like about Catholicism:
Side-benefit of having your daughter’s wedding in an LCMS church: Browsing in the church library and finding and checking out Martin Chemnitz’s treatise on the Council of Trent. I noticed that they also had Calvin’s Institutes.
LikeLike
Funny stuff, Erik.
I’m convinced more than ever that the CTC phenomenon is a creation made possible by our world wide inter-web. Not only does anyone not talk the way they do in a bar, no one talks that way, period. Understanding the interweb’s role in their existence is key, methinks.
LikeLike
Casey Chalk (a fine fellow) did respond:
Hi Erik (#281),
I’m not sure if Jason will respond to you; I got the impression he was recently on vacation, and your comment may get lost in the mix. I read on Old Life your frustration with no one responding to your questions here at CTC. If it’s not too rude to interject, it seems that you are suggesting through your questions that Jason’s concerns with some aspects of Catholicism indicate that he may be simply choosing the next “flavor of the month,” having already moved from Calvary Chapel to the Reformed faith, and now to Catholicism. Is that accurate? It seems similar to your previous speculation that many Reformed-turned-Catholic folk will end up atheists. I think the short answer to the heart of your question is probably something like “many things are possible.” However, I’d say it’s unfair to question someone’s conversion by claiming that because they’ve been on a spiritual journey that has involved several different theological systems, this somehow weakens the trustworthiness of their conversion. Wouldn’t it seem more appropriate to consider the reasons why they converted, and assess the relative merits of those reasons?
It may be worthwhile to reflect on why Jason or other CTC contributors converted. I don’t think anyone would say they converted because they “liked” one thing more than another, but that they found Reformed Protestantism no longer intellectually/theologically tenable, and commensurate to that realization, or later, became persuaded that Catholicism was indeed a coherent and believable faith system. If you became convinced sola scriptura was neither intellectually coherent or scriptural, what would you do?
cheers, Casey
To which I say (comment in moderation):
Casey,
Thanks for your response. I just want to see some interaction with Jason’s post here because I see it as a bombshell and very un-Called to Communion-like. I would like to see you guys take Jason on on his criticisms. If not, can I conclude that you agree with them? Reformed guys on Old Life argue with each other all the time. You guys here seem to present more of a united front and Jason’s post was a divergence from that. I wonder if you guys have some buyer’s remorse in elevating him to the status of Catholic apologist within hours of his conversion. I’m not trying to be a wise guy, either.
LikeLike
Erik, all joking aside, Bryan was not returning evil for evil. He was merely acknowledging that when dealing with a snarky man like DGH it makes down to earth conversation impossible. If Darryl were to talk with Bryan with less sarcasm, it would change the dynamic on the everyone’s conversation with the CTC boys.
This doesn’t mean that I am taking CTC’s side on the debate, I stand with the reformers in the main. But Erik, let’s not take Bryan’s words out of context. I know first hand, how hard it is, to be made fun of, and to be marginalized by DGH’s snark,. It’s not a pleasant experience that leads to good conversation.
On the other hand, to DGH’s credit, he let’s me speak me mind………
Just saying, perhaps a little less snark would be a good thing, no?
LikeLike
One thing we could probably all stand to do is lose the notion of intellectual superiority of our respective positions. If intelligence were the primary factor in choosing one’s religion then presumably it would be obvious that all of the really smart people were Catholic, or Reformed, or Mormon, or whatever. There are brilliant people who hold to all of these expressions of faith, however, so this is obviously not the case. Consider Jeopardy uber-champion Ken Jennings, for instance — a Mormon.
One thing that is worth noting about Calvinism is the doctrine of election. If Reformed Protestantism is true it is also true that Reformed Protestants are so because God has appointed it to happen. It follows that those who are Catholic, or Mormon, or Jehovah’s Witness, or whatever are so as opposed to being Reformed Protestant because, likewise, God has appointed it to happen. The intelligence of the adherent in no way enters into it.
Am I saying that no one other than Reformed Protestants are going to heaven? No. Am I saying that we have a way to account for equally intelligent people looking at the same evidence and drawing radically different conclusions? Absolutely. This is why I sleep like a Calvinist.
LikeLike
Doug,
I’ll give up snark when you abandon Theonomy and clunky biblicism.
LikeLike
Erik, I wasn’t so much talking about you, I was referring to your leader. You know, the guy you’ve got a man crush on. You aren’t so much snarky, just down right rude to people who oppose R2K. That would be me. Of course it’s well documented that I fight back, sometimes to my shame.
And if you were to be a little bit nicer to me, you may find out that my theology isn’t really clunky at all. BTW, what do you mean, by “clunky bibicism”. I know it’s an insult, but I’m not sure what you mean by labeling me this way.
Can you give me one example how my theology is “clunky biblicism”?
Just wondering………….
I’m off to church, God bless you
LikeLike
“… I’m off to church, God bless you …”
Is that a euphemism for “In the peace of Christ”?
LikeLike
Bryan, so you want good faith dialogue, then you need to give up logic as the only measure of meaningful dialogue. Part of the reason I keep throwing up parts of Roman Catholic history to you and the Callers is to see how your own experience (not your logic) is colored by such information (like Edgardo Mortara). If I have a hero and find out the hero was a swindler, what do I do? Logic can’t answer this one, unless I some how rationalize away the error/sin. The same goes for American exceptionalism. What happens when I learn that the United States is not the greatest nation on God’s green earth? Will logic tell me that she is still the greatest? Or do I need to work through something existentially to find a way to love the United States but in a different way?
What I would like from you is to step out from behind the lens of HAL and talk about your own experience with the troubling aspects of Roman CAtholicism, both in the past and the present. Is this TMI? Maybe. But since CTC thrives on accounts of personal experiences with the troubling aspects of Reformed Protestantism it is not too much to get some RC converts to admit to how they have had to adjust their former estimation of Rome to some new information.
Again, this isn’t about logic. But it is about truth. And if you somehow think that it is not true that Rome doesn’t have problems, ones that send Roman Catholics into exodus mode into evangelicalism and elsewhere, then you are not being true. But if you and the Callers were to admit that Rome has problems and then explain how you cope, you might actually have something interesting to say.
But it would also discredit practically all of the conversion experiences you have published at CTC. You chose this path (both personal and anti-Reformed), now own up to the consequences.
LikeLike
Doug – I’m off to church, God bless you
Erik – Where? Are you a member? Your elder’s cell # is…?
LikeLike
Doug,
D.G.’s post above illustrates why I have the man-crush. It’s akin to the man-crush that Machen felt for the fellas in his room at Princeton in the midst of tobacco smoking and orange eating. It’s all good. It’s not the truck stop kind of man crush that you fear.
LikeLike
Meanwhile on CTC:
Bryan Cross
August 11th, 2013 12:40 pm :
Erik, (re: #285)
If you see Jason’s post as “a bombshell and very un-Called to Communion-like,” then you don’t adequately understand the distinction between disagreements of faith, and disagreements not of faith. I have explained that distinction in “The Catholics Are Divided Too Objection.” Jason’s objections are in the “not of faith” category, and are for that reason fully compatible with what we have said here at CTC. (And, by the way, we did not “elevate him” to any status; we just talked with him.)
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Erik Charter
August 11th, 2013 4:21 pm :
Bryan,
Were Luther’s 95 These of “of faith” or “not of faith”? Sometimes disagreements that begin as the latter end up as the former. That’s what make’s Jason’s post extremely interesting in light of his past.
LikeLike
Doug,
I don’t think I’m mean to you, but I do and will keep you at arm’s length because I think you are part of a fringe movement that is potentially dangerous to our churches.
I go to church with some people who are heavily involved in the Family Centered Church Movement. They brought a speaker to town for a two day conference on fatherhood:
https://ncfic.org/events/view/des-moines-the-masters-plan-for-fatherhood
Among the assertions made at the conference (I have heard) is that the command to not spare the rod has no age limits. So if your 25-year-old daugher or son gets out of line and is still living at home, you need to administer corporal punishment to her.
Do I think this is nuts? Yes. Can I go to church with people who believe this? Yes. Do I want them as church officers? No. Do I want to affirm what they are all about? No. So I somehow have to coexist with them peacefully while at the same time keeping them at arms length. I feel the same way about you.
LikeLike
Careful. The disputed premise in this case is not “historical evidence,” but a thesis (in Oakley’s book) which he claims is supported by the historical evidence.
Careful, the real disputed premise in the whole “discussion” between romanists here at OLTS is that they are self appointed drummers for an ecclesiastical communion that denies that they can speak authoritatively for that body – never mind private judgement – much more that the same body affirms implicit faith. And then there’s Ignatius of Loyola’s jesuitical comment that if the holy mother church says black is white, the faithful must reply, so be it, much more believe it. Need we say comment is not necessary and any real discussion is fruitless per se, if we have to ignore the forest fire for the splinter in protestant eyes in this combox?
Just how does anybody have a conversation with those that conveniently at times think logic is an end in itself, but can ignore the obvious questions about their communion – at least to outsiders whom they profess to be trying to dialogue with/coax to join with them. On top of that the usual parties are upset and have hurt feelings.
That ECF Augustine might be correct, the ridiculous deserves ridicule – or if you will Prov. 26:4 – never seems to have performatively registered with their conceptual universe/paradigm
The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.
At least according to the chorus of the song we used to sing in Sister Steven’s first grade class at St. Peter’s Elementary Grade school.
Further can we get a third party to verify that comments at CtC are vetted only for civility and charity as Mr. Cross asserts, rather than as it seems, only when one of the CtC faithful have penned a response and not until?
LikeLike
According to CtC, Jesus should have just left us a handbook for critical argumentation because that’s uber-perspicuous and so reminiscent of the way Jesus and the apostles taught.
sean, I would have voted for rosary beads (the linear Western version of Tibetan prayer wheels) , scapulars, a monstrance, a Sacred Heart of Jesus medal (that’s where the evangelicals got their idea for all the holy gimcracks they sell at religious Hallmark stores) and a missalette, but Bryan and Jase know best so we will defer.
LikeLike
Troubling aspects. The Callers do speak of Rome the way freshly minted Presbyterians speak of the Reformed faith and have yet to bump into theonomists or federal visionaries or semi-revivalists or epistemologists. Reformedville has troubling aspects. When does the honeymoon end for Callers the way it ends for Reformed converts who learn that Reformed doesn’t mean “safe from fubar”? Maybe it doesn’t given the nature of the thing.
But part of the beauty of Calvinism is in its allowance for fubar among human beings, even as its adherents throw themselves Reformationpaloozas every October 31. That allowance may not do much for those questing absolute certainty, but it sure can provide the needed relief for those who know that as long as people are involved there will never be infallibility, and that any claim to the contrary is just more religious fantasy.
LikeLike
You said,
“Further can we get a third party to verify that comments at CtC are vetted only for civility and charity as Mr. Cross asserts, rather than as it seems, only when one of the CtC faithful have penned a response and not until?”
I’m not a third party, but I only just joined CTC and got access to approve comments for my own articles. I’ve approved some comments where I didn’t have time to respond for a couple days. I’ve seen some cases with other CTC contributors’ where that’s the case, as well. I haven’t gotten the impression anyone is trying to maintain an unfair edge. cheers, Casey
LikeLike
Zrim – “safe from fubar”
Erik – [hearty chuckle]
LikeLike
“We all have orders, and we have to follow them. That supersedes everything, including your mothers.”
“Even if you think the mission’s fubar, sir?”
“Especially if you think the mission’s fubar.”
But, Captain Miller, what if my Mother is infallible?
LikeLike
Bryan Cross
Posted August 10, 2013 at 4:09 pm | Permalink
Wouldn’t Bryan’s use of the begging the question fallacy in response to historical evidence against papal infallibility …
Careful. The disputed premise in this case is not “historical evidence,” but a thesis (in Oakley’s book) which he claims is supported by the historical evidence.
Careful, the disputed premise IS in this case the historical evidence. There is nothing wrong with Oakley’s thesis per se, i.e. the validity of his argument; what remains to be decided is whether it is a true argument, i.e. does the historical evidence back it up – not just whether or not the magisterium agrees with it/sanctimoniously sanctifies it.
But that we can’t have because necessarily it presumes that Roman magisterium can’t just twist historical evidence like a wax nose, if not arbitrarily ignore it, the ahem, default position because it is infallible above and necessarily beyond Scripture, history or logic
Because Christ said so/gave it his authority. . . . . (insert sound of vicious broken record here) . . .
You know, historical evidence like the universal (negative?) consent of the church fathers on the supremacy and infallibility of the pope contra the positive consent on the authority of Scripture.
Or as per DGH previously, whether the pope personally called the ecumenical councils/determined the canon.
Ahh, but maybe even the deviation of the pope has roots in the Tradition which would performatively validate it in certain vicious circles.
If one’s interlocutor does not accept the belief that this thesis is shown to be true by the historical evidence, then using this thesis as a premise in an argument against one’s interlocutor’s position is question-begging.
Translation, the accusation of QBing is a magic wand that tarbrushes all so charged as being worthy of categorical dismissal with the performative consequence that since history is arbitrarily decided by and filtered through the magisterium – which it can never contradict – there’s nothing to see here Peter Rabbit, so just keep hopping along.
That using such a thesis in such an argument is question-begging can easily be shown by putting the shoe on the other foot. Imagine, for example, my using some uniquely Catholic thesis (from some Catholic history book) as a premise in an argument against Protestantism. You would instant see that my doing so is question-begging.
Huh? Isn’t Oakley a Romanist?
As for the gratuitous charges of QB, suffice it say that it only qualifies one as a crybaby in certain paradigms.
In the peace of Christ,
Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
IOW yet another item that certain paradigms innoculate their adherents from grasping in any way whatsoever. Self examination, who, what me? Why I belong to an infallible church don’t you know? Its charism is contagious, if not infused at baptism.
As re. CtC comment moderation, well bully for you, Case, but that was not my experience, though that was awhile ago.
LikeLike
Recognition of fubar leads to fragging and shooting the wounded. Maybe kevlar vests for Jason and some of the other CtC newbies are in order.
LikeLike
Jeremy:
“The Oxford movement of the mid 19th century witnessed numerous Anglicans returning to the Roman Catholic Church. There was not a huge number of conversions. However, many of the converts were from academic circles and the Anglican clergy. The Oxford movement began a trend in England where today the Roman Catholic Church once again has a strong presence in the UK. I believe a similar movement is happening in the United States today. I would be willing to bet that there have been more seminarians converting to the Catholic Church in the past 20 years than in the 200 years before that combined. I totally understand your point about raw numbers. I don’t disagree. But again the trend I referred to earlier is real. There is an increasing movement of well-educated evangelicals, pastors, and seminarians who are discovering the Catholic Church.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy”
Sean: And here’s the real impetus about what’s going on, not just for Jeremy, but the whole underlying compulsion and resulting condescension and arrogance that is CtC : If you’re SMART like we(CtC) are and God is gracious enough to you, you’ll become an RC just like us. To take it a step farther, “we’re really interested in taking just the cream off the top because, well, the quality of your decision reflects on our decision and we’ve inherited a mess over here and we need the Logo-centric protestant to carry most of the water to make it more amenable to our word-based expression of religion to which we’re accustomed.” This is nothing more than a warmed over emergent impulse but with the ability to ‘scratch’ our philosophical and theological itch.
It’s also proof-positive that this isn’t a group(CtC) who’ve embraced the RC of the cradles or how Rome has presented itself from antiquity to now(Vat II). So never mind the ‘dinner-table’ conversation or you ‘catch more than you learn’. This is the prot-catholic/anglo-catholic, carving out their own corner in a communion who accommodates most everything else under the sun, theologically, and for some it’s even an opportunity at a new career in a bigger pond with a bigger audience than what they could pull in their previous gig.
LikeLike
But, but, but what about the rest of us doofuses and serfs that remain satisfied with the plain old gospel of the cross, two lonely sacraments and the historic confessions and catechisms of the Reformation? What’s in it for us? As in throw us a bone/pat us on the head and sympathize/commiserate with the poor benighted separated brethren that we is for remaining where we are.
As for Mr. Charity and Civility (i.e.Damage Control is Us) this mendacious exposure of the real nature of the contemporary Roman ecumenicism over at CtC cannot stand. Not to cherry pick, but like just how nice is it to say something like the “resulting condescension and arrogance that is CtC”?
Of course there will be no substantive response other than usual policy of deflection, avoidance or distraction.
IOW it’s Monday and while we is still off our meds, the current fraud got nailed so hard, the hammer broke. Our hat is off/doffed to the miscreant responsible and no, it isn’t a smug blue beret.
LikeLike
Ran across my bowling ball in the basement this morning. A garage sale find several years ago that actually fits my hand. When Hart & Strange come to Des Moines November 1 & 2 and if Old Lifers are able to make it, will we find any time to Bowl? Isn’t that required at any Old Life get together worth it’s salt? We might all have to commit to staying up 60 hours straight in order to get in everything we should.
And of course we need to find time to consume White Russians…maybe for breakfast.
LikeLike
Could Bob S be Old Bob’s sensible but still slightly askew son?
LikeLike
Bob S is my long lost outlaw relative. Bob just says to he*$ with all that nonsense.
Turkey Creek Jack Johnson: Nobody move!
Doc Holliday(Bob S): Nonsense. By all means, move.
LikeLike
Re: Ecclesiastical Deism:
After spending a year plus thinking about our (Reformed & Catholic) differences it has become clear to me that 95% of our disagreement comes down to the nature of the true church (“duh”, you probably say). You are more concerned with locating the true church in time and space, linking it back physically to Christ) and less concerned about it’s fruits being in accord with Scripture. We are more concerned with the marks of true churches being in accord with Scripture and less concerned with the time and space correlation (thus the accusations of ecclesiastical deism). It’s a fascinating and probably intractable debate.
Personally I’m not very swayed by the ecclesiastical deism argument because we are talking about a God who saw fit to reduce the true church to one not overly virtuous family on a big boat at one time. We’ll keep talking, though.
LikeLike
Erik, last time I bowled with Stellman, he converted. Spooky.
LikeLike
Dunno, Erik. Maybe it’s boils down to the church I’ve found myself in, since 2001. But I’m a “the more things change, the more, they stay the same,” kinda guy. The only thing different this time around seems to be medium, namely, our WordPress interwebs.
The one thing I’ve though, is that none of these guys could figure out the reformed doctrine of Scripture. That doesn’t mean that I do, but, but I do know I wrestled here. RCism seems like a convenient out. Again, nothing new here from yours truly. Even my golf game has plateaued, so take it all witha a grain of salt.
Later.
LikeLike
Yeah, I am lost.
I ain’t got a clue where Turkey Creek is.
But Charter seems to think it is deep enough to float a boat big enough for everybody to go bowling on, OL AND CtC.
Man, that dude is dreaming.
Remind me to be out of town for that occasion.
AB, doctrine of Scripture.
Exactly. Jase couldn’t performatively find WCF 1 if he tried.
And they wonder why the heathen over here emote profound disbelief and sarcasm.
LikeLike
Thanks, Bob S.
Again, it’s just me and my little experience, and my personal opinions as I read what Bryan and Jason write. They can ultimately conclude differently than I did, that’s fine with me. I’m just kind of sad for them. I can’t see what would compel me to give up what I found over here. We press on, maybe even pray for them.
Take care.
LikeLike