Nostr Web Client

Which of course brings us back to epistemic certainty as a presupposition of the Catholic faith. What justifies epistemic certainty being a premise?

MichaelJ 2y ago

This is probably where the finer points of the argument start to go beyond my present knowledge, but I can tell you how things look from my perspective.

If I have the choice between two churches, one of which claims to have privileged and certain access to the Truth, and another which claims to have access to the Truth, but without the same degree of certainty, I'm going to go with the former, so long as it can provide sufficient evidence to support that claim. The Roman Church's claim to magisterial authority, per se, is not in itself why I remain Catholic (I am a cradle Catholic), but the weight of evidence suggesting it is the church Christ founded makes me trust its claim to authority.

More broadly, I am convicted that there is an absolute truth out there to be known, even if it can be difficult to discover. I know some schools of thought doubt the possibility of epistemic certainty in and of itself, but I've never found those ultimately convincing.

So I hold that there's a truth to be known and that there is evidence pointing to the Catholic Church as the keeper of that truth, and so I trust its Tradition and Magisterium.

Does that get at what you're thinking of regarding epistemic certainty as a premise? Do you think it is not a justified premise?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

James A Lewis 2y ago

> never found this ultimately convincing

Neither are they absolutely certain of it, necessarily by their own position 🤣

hodlbod 2y ago

Interesting, while I do believe in absolute truth as well, I think there are many things we aren't given to know about (angels for one), that are hidden from the church by design. Many sects that claim certainty about the spiritual world are cults (mormonism, prosperity gospel). So I'm suspicious of claims of certainty, especially when faith (the substance of things not seen) is such an emphasis in Scripture. I can't comment on the reliability of Catholic tradition, it's something I hope to read more about.

StephanGuy 2y ago

you can know truth by results

if someone says x+y=z and it doesnt, then that is not true

the bible is full of falsehoods when interpreted literally as are most ancient texts

alas you have muted me lol

MichaelJ 2y ago

There is a long history of Scriptural interpretation that deals with the question of how it ought to be taken. An argument like "the creation narrative in Genesis is literally false" doesn't really address what Christians claim about Scripture (depending on which schools of Christian thought you ask, anyway).

StephanGuy 2y ago

dont throw out the baby with the bath water

how do you reconcile with your eyes vs what is written in the bible? the vast existence of the universe, apparent history of so much other life, planets, faiths?

do you know god? or do you know what some have written of god?

there is a 'long' history of people trying to understand our existence

StephanGuy 2y ago

the bible aligned with scientific knowledge is much more interesting

MichaelJ 2y ago

What do you mean by that?

I've never found the Bible and science to be incompatible. Personally, I find it evident that we live in an old, vast, and complex universe, as we've come to understand through scientific inquiry.

I also hold that God is the ground of all being, that He actively sustains all that is, and that He works in and through created things for the good of His creation.

I find both beliefs to be mutually compatible.

StephanGuy 2y ago

the bible taken literally does not always match science exactly, eg genesis, but becomes interesting when you see science does align in some way like floods, hominids etc

when you look at the bible as a human oral tradition then written it is remarkable it has the facts it does, given mans flaws

StephanGuy 2y ago

i like to imagine the view point of the people in the bible when trying to understand it, as what did people then know and understand about the world around them and how that might affect what they thought

science also offers tremendously deeper understanding about principles in the bible

MichaelJ 2y ago

It depends on what principles you're looking for in the Bible. Science doesn't have much to say about theology.

James A Lewis 2y ago

This is so hard for secularists to fathom, for whatever reason. It helps at least a little when they see the list of Catholic clergy who have made some of the most important scientific discoveries and authored the greatest theories. Georges Lemaître I think is one of the biggest for our day and age.

StephanGuy 2y ago

secularists often throw the baby out with the bath water, they usually have misunderstandings to say the least but so too do many religious types and are prone to some absurd quackery, i think both are actually after you look at covid and some atheists, sam harris for example

James A Lewis 2y ago

True. Quakery comes from all over. The error seems to be similar: the primary source of belief needs to say something about the other domain of thought.

Science can't say what's right or wrong, and religion doesn't say how electricity, gravity, and computers work.

StephanGuy 2y ago

i disagree as science does say what is right and wrong with facts tho you are obviously refering to morals which i am sure it can go into too

either is free to talk on the other

science is or can be a religion, tho obviously this point depends how we define either

James A Lewis 2y ago

What is moral, what is good, and what is beautiful are things that science can't judge. Science can observe that certain things result in preferred outcomes.

For example, by science one may observe the law of reciprocity results in better social cohesion, but science doesn't judge whether social cohesion is good per se. That would be the person's own judgment that comes from somewhere other than the scientific method. Science can go further to observe that people in society generally prefer cohesion, that the longevity of those people may be higher, that suffering may be lower, etc. if the law of reciprocity is followed by the members of the society, but it cannot judge whether those are good things. Good is a human element one imposes upon science, a presupposition when once engages in the scientific method.

StephanGuy 2y ago

i disagree, as science can talk to anything that may be measured or maybe better said known

good and morals are better defined as that which is survival and science can talk a lot on survival

the bible talks extensively on the topic of survival, infact moral lessons go hand in hand with it

i do agree that human intelligence generally limits its view point, but luckily it is not the only intelligence

StephanGuy 2y ago

science has something to say about everything

much theology would be in psychology, but i would say true theology and science are one and the same

science is the knowledge and study of existence and existence is or of god, theology is the study of god and so also existence

i see religions (particularly earlier) as forms of science, catholics have particularly intertwined the 2

i see truth as a path to god, i theorize reality has fundamental lies to it too

MichaelJ 2y ago

You're right, we Catholics view all fields of knowledge as working together in pursuit of truth.

The way I, and I think many others, commonly make the distinction is that science qua science usually refers to studies of nature the material world. Theology is the study of God specifically, and together with philosophy deals with spiritual realities more broadly. So there's typically a spiritual/material split between theology and the natural sciences.

I actually think we'd do well to quit pushing theology and natural science into opposite corners as if they're opponents in a boxing ring. We should let them work together more.

StephanGuy 2y ago

exactly

MichaelJ 2y ago

The Bible is inspired but it was also written by humans in a human way, which means many parts of it likely came out of oral tradition and such like you describe.

My personal suspicion (and not Christian doctrine by any means) is that the flood narrative in Genesis and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah refer to ancient cataclysmic events that can be understood through a naturalistic lens. Other things, like the crossing of the Red Sea and the sun standing still for Joshua and the Israelites are more likely miracles as we would commonly recognize them.

Either way, God is at work throughout.

MichaelJ 2y ago

I would say I know God through what I've been taught, through what I've read in Scripture, and through personal experience.

MichaelJ 2y ago

I don't think it is true that faith necessarily implies uncertainty. As I understand it, faith is a kind of spiritual perception granted by God. It is a different certainty than that which we obtain by experiencing things through our senses, but not, as far as I know, a belief in the face of inherent doubt.

I think it's also worth pointing out that cults defend their claims of certainty by attacking dissidents. An institution with legitimate truth claims would allow people to freely come to an understanding of that truth, which is indeed what the Church does.

MichaelJ 2y ago

There are also surprisingly few things the Catholic Church binds believers to hold as true. Much of the body of belief is subject to ongoing refinement over time.

Fabiano 2y ago

Part of this conversation forked from a reply I was not included or I just simply never got the notification for resulting in hours of conversation I have missed.

MichaelJ 2y ago

Some clients struggle with many-branched threads like this. I was having a hard time tracking parts of it too.

Fabiano 2y ago

Amethyst is supposed to be the best at that.

I am betting on human intention. hahaha