Ask a Theologian IV

El_Machinae · Oct 9, 2012

Jehoshua said:
Oh, an incidentally attempting to contact the deceased through occult means is absolutely forbidden (CCC 2116) amongst other things. Just thought that should be made clear

I suspect they're internally consistent, but from the outside it's not obvious. How does this jive with praying to Mary or the saints?

Mouthwash · Oct 9, 2012

Plotinus, what do you think of my case for radical skepticism?

_random_ · Oct 9, 2012

Jehoshua said:
Some persons have mused on whether that could be a possibility, but thats not a part of Catholic teaching and regardless the conception of ghosts that priest of yours had is completely beyond the pale of Catholic doctrine.

Well, I should reiterate that I did not personally hear the priest; I heard an Anglican teacher who went to an event where the priest was speaking describe something that struck her as interesting. I can't vouch for how well that represents the priest's actual views. For what it's worth, he seems to be pretty well-liked among American Catholics. The made a movie about him.

Jehoshua · Oct 10, 2012

El_Machinae said:
I suspect they're internally consistent, but from the outside it's not obvious. How does this jive with praying to Mary or the saints?

The Church forbids Necromancy, ergo occult rituals that attempt to summon spirits, or make contact with the deceased (in the manner of say a medium), or compel the deceased to do ones bidding in an attempt to get them to do something for you.

This is quite different from asking for the saints in heaven to intercede to God for those on Earth for whatever purpose. Namely your not expecting their ghost to pop up and speak to you, and the objective of your prayer is God, with the saint (who in a sense is more alive than you are, since they have attained eternal life in heaven) serving to pray with you to the Lord, useful since as it is written the prayers of a righteous man availeth much. (james 5:16)

Oh and an aside, majority opinion amongst Catholics is that Mary was physically assumed into heaven at the end of her earthly life while still alive. However the Church only dogmatically defines that she was assumed into heaven, it is completely orthodox to say that she in fact died before her bodily assumption. The Church hasn't seen fit to proclaim on that matter.

_random_ said:
Well, I should reiterate that I did not personally hear the priest; I heard an Anglican teacher who went to an event where the priest was speaking describe something that struck her as interesting. I can't vouch for how well that represents the priest's actual views. For what it's worth, he seems to be pretty well-liked among American Catholics. The made a movie about him.

Well presuming what was reported to you is accurate, he would be teaching heresy there. Considering he was doubting the Church's teaching on the demonic originally (according to the movie) it wouldn't be surprising that he would be in error in other areas as well I suppose if thats the case.

Regardless I suppose if he is well liked amongst Catholics themselves (the movie wasn't made by a Catholic, or a Catholic organisation) it wouldn't be amongst the more orthodox crowd

. From my observation the more orthodox americans tend to have their own group of priests and bishops they like, examples include say Fr Zuhlsdorf, Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke and Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz.

Plotinus · Oct 10, 2012

Mouthwash said:
Plotinus, what do you think of my case for radical skepticism?

I don't quite understand it. As far as I can tell, logic isn't about probability, it's about consistency. To whit:

(1) All men are mortal.
(2) Socrates is a man.
(3) Socrates is mortal.

(3) follows from (1) and (2) because the denial of (3) is inconsistent with (1) and (2). That's the definition of validity. It's not probably inconsistent with them, it flat out is inconsistent with them.

Logic deals with form, not content. It's the study of what forms of argumentation are valid, on the basis of what sorts of statements are consistent with each other. You can replace "men", "mortal", and "Socrates" in the above syllogism with anything you like, and it will still be valid (although the premises or the conclusion might not necessarily be true, but that's another matter and not one addressed by logic).

You'd have to have a very radical scepticism indeed to be able to doubt good logical reasoning, because unlike empirical or perceptual claims (the usual things that sceptics doubt) it leaves no room for doubt. Even if I doubt that I'm really sitting here - even if I think perhaps I'm dreaming or being tricked by a malicious demon - I cannot doubt the validity of the above syllogism, at least not in the same way. To doubt it I'd have to doubt all reasoning, without exception. But if I then infer anything from this doubt (e.g., the conclusion that logic can't be trusted), I'm using reasoning, and I'm no longer consistently doubting it.

Also, why would you doubt such things in the first place? Sceptical arguments usually turn on the point that things like memory or sensory perception are fallible, because we've found them to be imperfect. And there are masses of examples, e.g. the stick that is straight but looks bent when put in water, or the tower that is square but looks round from a distance, or the jaundice that makes sufferers perceive everything to be yellow (not actually true, but a frequently repeated example from, I think, Sextus Empiricus onwards). And the argument basically boils down to the claim that any source which has let us down in the past isn't entirely reliable and therefore can't be entirely trusted. But it's hard to see how this argument could be applied to logic, since you'd have to have an example of logic being wrong. Of course people sometimes make mistakes when trying to think logically, but the error is theirs, not logic's. They may think they're thinking logically but they're not.

El_Machinae · Oct 10, 2012

Jehoshua said:
The Church forbids Necromancy, ergo occult rituals that attempt to summon spirits, or make contact with the deceased (in the manner of say a medium), or compel the deceased to do ones bidding in an attempt to get them to do something for you.

This is quite different from asking for the saints in heaven to intercede to God for those on Earth for whatever purpose. Namely your not expecting their ghost to pop up and speak to you, and the objective of your prayer is God, with the saint (who in a sense is more alive than you are, since they have attained eternal life in heaven) serving to pray with you to the Lord, useful since as it is written the prayers of a righteous man availeth much. (james 5:16)

Yeah, from the outside, it doesn't look at that different. The person IS trying to contact the deceased and IS asking the deceased to do something. The inclusion of fetishes (e.g., prayer beads, etc.) makes the whole thing rather occult. Finally, given the number of 'saint appearances' , there may not be the 'expectation' of a ghost popping up, but there certainly is a hope.

I guess the workaround is that the saint isn't 'really' dead.

Global Skeptic · Oct 10, 2012

Plotinus said:
I don't quite understand it. As far as I can tell, logic isn't about probability, it's about consistency. To whit:

(1) All men are mortal.
(2) Socrates is a man.
(3) Socrates is mortal.

(3) follows from (1) and (2) because the denial of (3) is inconsistent with (1) and (2). That's the definition of validity. It's not probably inconsistent with them, it flat out is inconsistent with them.

Logic deals with form, not content. It's the study of what forms of argumentation are valid, on the basis of what sorts of statements are consistent with each other. You can replace "men", "mortal", and "Socrates" in the above syllogism with anything you like, and it will still be valid (although the premises or the conclusion might not necessarily be true, but that's another matter and not one addressed by logic).

You'd have to have a very radical scepticism indeed to be able to doubt good logical reasoning, because unlike empirical or perceptual claims (the usual things that sceptics doubt) it leaves no room for doubt. Even if I doubt that I'm really sitting here - even if I think perhaps I'm dreaming or being tricked by a malicious demon - I cannot doubt the validity of the above syllogism, at least not in the same way. To doubt it I'd have to doubt all reasoning, without exception. But if I then infer anything from this doubt (e.g., the conclusion that logic can't be trusted), I'm using reasoning, and I'm no longer consistently doubting it.

Also, why would you doubt such things in the first place? Sceptical arguments usually turn on the point that things like memory or sensory perception are fallible, because we've found them to be imperfect. And there are masses of examples, e.g. the stick that is straight but looks bent when put in water, or the tower that is square but looks round from a distance, or the jaundice that makes sufferers perceive everything to be yellow (not actually true, but a frequently repeated example from, I think, Sextus Empiricus onwards). And the argument basically boils down to the claim that any source which has let us down in the past isn't entirely reliable and therefore can't be entirely trusted. But it's hard to see how this argument could be applied to logic, since you'd have to have an example of logic being wrong. Of course people sometimes make mistakes when trying to think logically, but the error is theirs, not logic's. They may think they're thinking logically but they're not.

Well, logic is "bridged" with the problem of sound. Is
(1) All men are mortal.
(2) Socrates is a man.
(3) Socrates is mortal.
sound, i.e. both valid and true?

Mouthwash said:
Plotinus, what do you think of my case for radical skepticism?

As Plotinus pointed out, radical skepticism could be - I don't know that I exist as I, because I could be a computer simulation.

So, Mouthwash, if you want to "play" with global skepticism; then nothing can be known about reality as such other than
A is A
A is not A and non-A
A is either A or mistaken and thus non-A (rather for X is Y or X is non-Y).

But for X is Y or X is non-Y that is in part the class of synthetic claims, which can neither be known nor considered true or false as far as synthetic claims go.

Mouthwash · Oct 10, 2012

Plotinus said:
I don't quite understand it. As far as I can tell, logic isn't about probability, it's about consistency. To whit:

(1) All men are mortal.
(2) Socrates is a man.
(3) Socrates is mortal.

(3) follows from (1) and (2) because the denial of (3) is inconsistent with (1) and (2). That's the definition of validity. It's not probably inconsistent with them, it flat out is inconsistent with them.

Logic deals with form, not content. It's the study of what forms of argumentation are valid, on the basis of what sorts of statements are consistent with each other. You can replace "men", "mortal", and "Socrates" in the above syllogism with anything you like, and it will still be valid (although the premises or the conclusion might not necessarily be true, but that's another matter and not one addressed by logic).

You'd have to have a very radical scepticism indeed to be able to doubt good logical reasoning, because unlike empirical or perceptual claims (the usual things that sceptics doubt) it leaves no room for doubt. Even if I doubt that I'm really sitting here - even if I think perhaps I'm dreaming or being tricked by a malicious demon - I cannot doubt the validity of the above syllogism, at least not in the same way. To doubt it I'd have to doubt all reasoning, without exception. But if I then infer anything from this doubt (e.g., the conclusion that logic can't be trusted), I'm using reasoning, and I'm no longer consistently doubting it.

Oh. I never thought of it that way. :mischief:

And if logic is false, then it shouldn't be just a matter of not knowing what chance the world had of being an illusion as there might not be a such thing as "percentages" or numbers at all. The law of identity and non-contradiction would break down.

Traitorfish · Oct 10, 2012

Mouthwash said:
Oh. I never thought of it that way.

And if logic is false, then it shouldn't be just a matter of not knowing what chance the world had of being an illusion as there might not be a such thing as "percentages" or numbers at all. The law of identity and non-contradiction would break down.

There aren't really such things as numbers in the first place. They're abstractions, and it's precisely because they exist only in abstract that they remain infallibly logical.

Mouthwash · Oct 10, 2012

Traitorfish said:
There aren't really such things as numbers in the first place. They're abstractions, and it's precisely because they exist only in abstract that they remain infallibly logical.

So probability is infallible?

Plotinus · Oct 10, 2012

Mouthwash said:
And if logic is false, then it shouldn't be just a matter of not knowing what chance the world had of being an illusion as there might not be a such thing as "percentages" or numbers at all. The law of identity and non-contradiction would break down.

Sure, but then the question would be, first, why think that logic is false, and second, is this even a coherent question? Doesn't even asking a question about the nature of logic imply at least that there is (in some sense) something called logic, and doesn't that presuppose the law of identity in some way?

Mouthwash said:
So probability is infallible?

What does that even mean? Infallibility is a property, potentially, of things that make claims, whether they are books or people. Probability doesn't make claims, it just is. It's a property of situations, or something like that. You might as well ask whether the colour yellow is infallible. One might, of course, ask about the reliability of our beliefs regarding probability, just as one might ask about the reliability of our beliefs regarding the colours of things we see, but then the infallibility or lack of it is a property of us, and our understanding or perception, not of the objects of our understanding or perception.

Leoreth · Oct 10, 2012

Mouthwash said:
So probability is infallible?

Do you mean mathematical probability theory? As a theory, perhaps. It depends on how you perceive the existence of theories. Mathematical theories are supposed to be internally consistent and in this sense infallible. Now if one theorem that is considered part of the theory turns out to be false, i.e. inconsistent with the rest of the mathematical framework of probability theory, does that mean that the theory was false or that the mathematician who formulated said theorem was wrong in considering it part of the theory of probability?

In any case, probability theory applied to reality is very much fallible, since it is only a model and not a perfect representation of reality, and the model can easily be applied in an inaccurate way (which often deliberately happens for practical reasons).

Global Skeptic · Oct 10, 2012

Mouthwash said:
So probability is infallible?

No, the probability of you being "you" versus you being "a computer simulation" is there, but what the probability is, is in fact unknown. I.e. Mouthwash is "Mouthwash" versus Mouthwash is "not Mouthwash", but Mouthwash is "a computer simulation"; is nothing but the abstraction of X is Y versus X is not Y, but rather X is Z.
X is Y means Mouthwash is connected to the rest of reality "one to one" versus Mouthwash is not connected to the rest of reality "one to one", but rather Mouthwash is connected to the rest of reality "as a computer simulation".
Radical skepticism is to claim that you can't know as either true or false neither as X is Y nor X is not Y, but rather X is Z.

Note this - radical skepticism is true, but empty - i.e. the only thing I know, is that I know nothing (about the "real" reality as "one to one") (stolen for one of the dead Greek guys).
In other words it is a divide between rationalism and empiricism. Only rational knowledge is possible, though empty for any actual content about reality as such and strong empiricism is the belief that there is a reality beyond your mind for which it is so that you can actually know something about it.

Leoreth · Oct 10, 2012

Global Skeptic said:
No, the probability of you being "you" versus you being "a computer simulation" is there, but what the probability is, is in fact unknown.

Is there really? Either he is himself or a computer simulation, in either case with 100% probability.

Global Skeptic · Oct 10, 2012

Leoreth said:
Is there really? Either he is himself or a computer simulation, in either case with 100% probability.

No, you can't beforehand assign the actual probability, because they are unknown. Of course he must be one or the other but which is unknown; i.e. we can't assign any actual probability.

_random_ · Oct 10, 2012

Jehoshua said:
Well presuming what was reported to you is accurate, he would be teaching heresy there. Considering he was doubting the Church's teaching on the demonic originally (according to the movie) it wouldn't be surprising that he would be in error in other areas as well I suppose if thats the case.

According to my source, the whole "struggling with faith" bit was mostly for the sake of story (as was most of it aside from "American priest goes to the Vatican to train as an exorcist"). Fr. Gary did serve as a consultant for the film, ensuring the supernatural bits were in line with his own experiences.

Regardless I suppose if he is well liked amongst Catholics themselves (the movie wasn't made by a Catholic, or a Catholic organisation) it wouldn't be amongst the more orthodox crowd . From my observation the more orthodox americans tend to have their own group of priests and bishops they like, examples include say Fr Zuhlsdorf, Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke and Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz.

Some fairly prominent Catholic organizations reviewed the movie well, according to Wiki. Make of all this what you will.

Going along this line, what sorts of theology-related movies do you enjoy, Plotinus? Any theology things you think could make a good movie that haven't been made?

Leoreth · Oct 10, 2012

Global Skeptic said:
No, you can't beforehand assign the actual probability, because they are unknown. Of course he must be one or the other but which is unknown; i.e. we can't assign any actual probability.

But in this situation, there is no way of coming up with any probability. It's a very unhelpful category to think about things like that.

Jehoshua · Oct 10, 2012

El_Machinae said:
Yeah, from the outside, it doesn't look at that different. The person IS trying to contact the deceased and IS asking the deceased to do something. The inclusion of fetishes (e.g., prayer beads, etc.) makes the whole thing rather occult. Finally, given the number of 'saint appearances' , there may not be the 'expectation' of a ghost popping up, but there certainly is a hope.

I guess the workaround is that the saint isn't 'really' dead.

Yes, but your not trying to establish a dialogue with them, and I can certainly tell you as a Catholic that no one has a hope of having some apparition. Indeed it is considered wrong and a manifestation of pride to ask God for, or internally desire to recieve, visions.

Also a fetish is something that is believed to have/contain supernatural power. Prayer beads, sacramentals and so forth are not believed to have power of themselves, they serve really only as reminders to the faithful of the availability of the God. Ergo any benefit the faithful get out of them comes from their faith in God, not from the object itself.

timtofly · Oct 10, 2012

Jehoshua said:
Yes, but your not trying to establish a dialogue with them, and I can certainly tell you as a Catholic that no one has a hope of having some apparition. Indeed it is considered wrong and a manifestation of pride to ask God for, or internally desire to recieve, visions.

Also a fetish is something that is believed to have/contain supernatural power. Prayer beads, sacramentals and so forth are not believed to have power of themselves, they serve really only as reminders to the faithful of the availability of the God. Ergo any benefit the faithful get out of them comes from their faith in God, not from the object itself.

My only concern would be what is the Holy Spirit for if we go to all the other spirits/saints for help, comfort, and guidence, much less intercession?

Jehoshua · Oct 10, 2012

The same principle applies to asking a saint to pray for you as asking a friend down the street to pray for you.

The Holy Spirit on the other hand is the agent of sanctification and salvation in that through the Holy Spirit, the soul is imparted divine grace. Indeed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is considered the unforgivable sin, precisely because in denying the Holy Spirt you deny the very instrument of your own salvation since it is only through grace that salvation is possible. This salvific agency is a fundamentally different role from the role of a saint.

Ask a Theologian IV

Colour vision since 2018

Escaped Lunatic

Jewel Runner

Catholic

Philosopher

Colour vision since 2018

King

Escaped Lunatic

The Tighnahulish Kid

Escaped Lunatic

Philosopher

Blue Period

King

Blue Period

King

Jewel Runner

Blue Period

Catholic

One Day

Catholic

Similar threads