TFTD: Cafeteria Catholicism Isn't Only Liberal

Preliminary Note:

It is not my interest to defend Bishop Hubbard and claim everything in Albany is hunky-dory.  It is my interest in speaking out against what seems to be a growing distraction among Catholics seeking to be faithful to the Church – a distraction which seems to set aside Magisterial authority whenever one does not like the political implications of what is said.

Whenever Catholics judge a teaching from their political slant instead of judging a political view from Church teaching, there Catholics have lost their way.

Those of us who seek to be faithful to the teachings of the Church need to realize that dissent isn't something which only happens to others.  The Pharisees were pious men, seeking to be faithful to the teachings of the law, but their views were not in keeping with the holiness God calls us to.

I don't say any specific Catholic is guilty of this, but I do say all of us are obligated to examine our consciences daily and examine our political views to see if they are contrary to the teachings of the Church.

So any reader who thinks I am indicting any specific Catholic interprets me wrongly.

With Growing Concern

One thing the whole budget squabble brings home is that Cafeteria Catholicism isn't only a liberal thing.  Conservatives may not dissent over moral issues, but I think the issue of the social teachings of the Church are overlooked.  Moreover, I think that like liberals, conservatives also make use of the genetic fallacy, with both writing off the statement of a bishop because he is identified with a disliked political stance.

For example, Bishop Hubbard's July 26 statement to the House of Representatives is derided by some bloggers on the grounds that he is a liberal who did not act against Governor Cuomo in some of his public sins.  Maybe that accusation of liberalism is true, maybe it is not (one thing I've learned from the blogging experience is we don't always know what goes behind the scenes).  Either way, that does not mean his statement is false just because he is accused of being liberal. 

In fact, I find his three points to be in keeping with the Church teaching as a whole:

1. Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it protects or threatens human life and dignity.
2. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects “the least of these” (Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first.
3. Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity in difficult economic times.

In other words, budget cuts can't disproportionately affect those in need of our help.  If a cut will prevent those from receiving what is needed to survive, it is not a budget which protects human life and dignity.  I don't see anything in these points (or in the whole statement) which was not stated in Caritas in Veritate.

What we need to remember is this: There can be debate over what the best means are to be faithful to the social teaching of the Church.  There can't be debate over the Social Teaching of the Church.

We need to avoid the error of reductionism.  Just because socialistic programs in government may share certain points with the Catholic Social Teaching, it does not follow that the position spoken of by a Catholic Bishop is "nothing but" support for a socialistic program.

Now, I am not saying it is evil to be conservative (I'm sure most liberals would label me as one for example, and I think Obama's regime has been disastrous for the moral and religious state of this nation).

However, I am saying it is evil to ignore Church teaching on a subject.

Each person will have to look to the teaching of the Church and their own political views and see if there is a need for conversion .

TFTD: Cafeteria Catholicism Isn't Only Liberal

Preliminary Note:

It is not my interest to defend Bishop Hubbard and claim everything in Albany is hunky-dory.  It is my interest in speaking out against what seems to be a growing distraction among Catholics seeking to be faithful to the Church – a distraction which seems to set aside Magisterial authority whenever one does not like the political implications of what is said.

Whenever Catholics judge a teaching from their political slant instead of judging a political view from Church teaching, there Catholics have lost their way.

Those of us who seek to be faithful to the teachings of the Church need to realize that dissent isn't something which only happens to others.  The Pharisees were pious men, seeking to be faithful to the teachings of the law, but their views were not in keeping with the holiness God calls us to.

I don't say any specific Catholic is guilty of this, but I do say all of us are obligated to examine our consciences daily and examine our political views to see if they are contrary to the teachings of the Church.

So any reader who thinks I am indicting any specific Catholic interprets me wrongly.

With Growing Concern

One thing the whole budget squabble brings home is that Cafeteria Catholicism isn't only a liberal thing.  Conservatives may not dissent over moral issues, but I think the issue of the social teachings of the Church are overlooked.  Moreover, I think that like liberals, conservatives also make use of the genetic fallacy, with both writing off the statement of a bishop because he is identified with a disliked political stance.

For example, Bishop Hubbard's July 26 statement to the House of Representatives is derided by some bloggers on the grounds that he is a liberal who did not act against Governor Cuomo in some of his public sins.  Maybe that accusation of liberalism is true, maybe it is not (one thing I've learned from the blogging experience is we don't always know what goes behind the scenes).  Either way, that does not mean his statement is false just because he is accused of being liberal. 

In fact, I find his three points to be in keeping with the Church teaching as a whole:

1. Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it protects or threatens human life and dignity.
2. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects “the least of these” (Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first.
3. Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity in difficult economic times.

In other words, budget cuts can't disproportionately affect those in need of our help.  If a cut will prevent those from receiving what is needed to survive, it is not a budget which protects human life and dignity.  I don't see anything in these points (or in the whole statement) which was not stated in Caritas in Veritate.

What we need to remember is this: There can be debate over what the best means are to be faithful to the social teaching of the Church.  There can't be debate over the Social Teaching of the Church.

We need to avoid the error of reductionism.  Just because socialistic programs in government may share certain points with the Catholic Social Teaching, it does not follow that the position spoken of by a Catholic Bishop is "nothing but" support for a socialistic program.

Now, I am not saying it is evil to be conservative (I'm sure most liberals would label me as one for example, and I think Obama's regime has been disastrous for the moral and religious state of this nation).

However, I am saying it is evil to ignore Church teaching on a subject.

Each person will have to look to the teaching of the Church and their own political views and see if there is a need for conversion .

The Intolerant Tolerance

Introduction

Recently, in the news, there have been reports of certain politicians seeking to ban “discrimination” against homosexuals by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation. One effect of such a law would be to force Christian institutions out of running adoption agencies, unless they go against what they believe to be right and commanded by God.

The interesting thing about it is this sort of action is done in the name of Tolerance. To oppose allowing people to do certain things on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation is called Intolerance and those groups practicing what is labeled “intolerance” is to be opposed and the groups who practice it are not to be… tolerated.

What it Means to Tolerate – or to be Intolerant

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

—Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

Let's start with the actual definition of the term. Tolerate is defined as:

tolerate

■ v.

1 allow the existence or occurrence of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference.

2 endure (someone or something unpleasant) with forbearance.

(Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.)

It's a significant point. One tolerates something which they do not like and allows it to exist without interference. The contrary would then be Intolerance:

intolerant

■ adj. (often intolerant of) not tolerant of views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own.

(Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.)

So from a strict definition, anyone who refuses to allow the views, beliefs or behavior different from one’s own to exist without interference is intolerant.

Catch-22

They [La Prensa] accused us of suppressing freedom of expression. This was a lie and we could not let them publish it.

— PJ O'Rourke, Holidays in Hell (quoting a Sandinista Official [Nelba Blandón]).

The irony shows up when one considers the opposition to groups labeled as Intolerant. Such groups are to be opposed in their beliefs and laws are proposed or passed which seek to force such “intolerant” groups to either change their views or cease to function in a certain sphere of influence.

Such opposition cannot be considered to be allowing the existence without interference, and in fact seeks to reduce their ability to operate in public while practicing their views.

This is of course the definition of Intolerance however. If Tolerance is to be an absolute value, then those who champion tolerance are in fact intolerant and must be opposed.

Looking at the Real Issue

This is what happens when slogans and propaganda replace rational discourse however. Tolerance and Intolerance are in fact labels to promote one point of view and vilify another. What we need to do is to look behind the labels and see what is actually being championed.

Let's consider the following groups, for example (especially chosen for their repugnance):

1. Pedophiles
2. Terrorists
3. Serial Killers
4. Nazis
5. Rapists

If it is true that All Intolerance is Wrong, then it follows that any attempt to interfere with the groups listed above is wrong.

However, I think any sane person however would reject the idea of the rights of the groups listed above to practice without restriction.  Indeed, we would consider anyone who thinks their behavior right to be morally or mentally disordered.

That's where the problem lies. If there is something which is recognized as always wrong, not merely wrong in certain circumstances, then it follows that one ought never to tolerate that which is always wrong.

So the real issue which masquerades behind the label of tolerance is an assumption that a certain moral view is correct, and those who disagree with it are morally wrong in doing so. The person who labels another’s beliefs as intolerant is actually saying they think the person’s beliefs are morally wrong.

On Moral Rightness and Wrongness

To say an action is morally right, morally neutral or morally wrong is actually to appeal to some sort of absolute which transcends culture. Genocide was not morally right in Nazi Germany from 1933-1945 just because the society leaders accepted it. Ethnic Cleansing was not right when it was practiced in Bosnia after the breakup of Yugoslavia.

We condemn these actions, not because the Nazis or the Serbs were intolerant, but because they were doing something – targeting racial and religious minorities for persecution – which we condemn as always wrong.

So if accepting the activities of a group as being morally acceptable or morally neutral is required in some cases (such as ethnic or religious minorities), and not right in other circumstances (tolerating pedophiles) it means one group is doing something unobjectionable and another is doing something wrong.

This requires us to ask, what makes an act right? On what authority is one group to claim that [X] is an absolute good or evil?

Authority and Reason

To the Christian, the belief that there are acts which can never be justified and some acts which are good is obligatory. We believe that God has structured the universe where Good reflects His nature and evil contradicts it. Also, Good is beneficial to us while Evil harms us. We believe that good and evil can be known by all individuals and this knowledge is distinct from our passions and wants. Our knowledge of good and evil can be deadened by indulging our passions and ignoring our conscience.

The Christian stance on good and evil is not a mere “the Bible says so” stance. Saint Thomas Aquinas pointed out (Summa Contra Gentiles I: Chapter 2, #3) that it does no good to point to the Bible as an authority if someone does not accept the Bible as authoritative, and we must make use of natural reason to justify what we believe.

That of course cuts both ways. If someone says “I reject Christian teaching and believe we must do [X] instead,” then it is not enough for them to insist on it from their own say so (called ipse dixit – claiming the truth of something based solely on their own say-so). They must also make use of natural reason to justify their authority.

Practicing What is Preached

It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.

—GK Chesterton

Failure to understand why Christians believe as they do does not make Christians bigoted, but it does make those who use the labels bigoted by failing to consider why they feel they must act as they do.

I think this is important to stress here. If Christians are accused of imposing their views on others (as is done on issues such as abortion or Gay “marriage”) then it follows that those who would try to force their views on Christian institutions are guilty of the same – they are hypocritical if imposing values they disagree with is something to be considered wrong.

Thus the person who invokes the propaganda term of tolerance as a reason for opposing Christian values is not practicing what he preaches. To paraphrase Peter Kreeft, if they practice what they preach, they’ll stop preaching. However, if they think issues like abortion and homosexual acts are morally acceptable and those who disagree are morally in the wrong, they must recognize that moral absolutes do exist and they must offer their own defense as to why their values are correct.

They must let those arguments face the challenges of those who disagree instead of stooping to ad hominem attacks, calling those who disagree with them “racist,” “homophobe,” “intolerant,” and the like. 

Otherwise such opposition to Christian beliefs can be justly called both hypocritical and intolerant – in the true sense of the word.

The Intolerant Tolerance

Introduction

Recently, in the news, there have been reports of certain politicians seeking to ban “discrimination” against homosexuals by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation. One effect of such a law would be to force Christian institutions out of running adoption agencies, unless they go against what they believe to be right and commanded by God.

The interesting thing about it is this sort of action is done in the name of Tolerance. To oppose allowing people to do certain things on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation is called Intolerance and those groups practicing what is labeled “intolerance” is to be opposed and the groups who practice it are not to be… tolerated.

What it Means to Tolerate – or to be Intolerant

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

—Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

Let's start with the actual definition of the term. Tolerate is defined as:

tolerate

■ v.

1 allow the existence or occurrence of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference.

2 endure (someone or something unpleasant) with forbearance.

(Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.)

It's a significant point. One tolerates something which they do not like and allows it to exist without interference. The contrary would then be Intolerance:

intolerant

■ adj. (often intolerant of) not tolerant of views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own.

(Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.)

So from a strict definition, anyone who refuses to allow the views, beliefs or behavior different from one’s own to exist without interference is intolerant.

Catch-22

They [La Prensa] accused us of suppressing freedom of expression. This was a lie and we could not let them publish it.

— PJ O'Rourke, Holidays in Hell (quoting a Sandinista Official [Nelba Blandón]).

The irony shows up when one considers the opposition to groups labeled as Intolerant. Such groups are to be opposed in their beliefs and laws are proposed or passed which seek to force such “intolerant” groups to either change their views or cease to function in a certain sphere of influence.

Such opposition cannot be considered to be allowing the existence without interference, and in fact seeks to reduce their ability to operate in public while practicing their views.

This is of course the definition of Intolerance however. If Tolerance is to be an absolute value, then those who champion tolerance are in fact intolerant and must be opposed.

Looking at the Real Issue

This is what happens when slogans and propaganda replace rational discourse however. Tolerance and Intolerance are in fact labels to promote one point of view and vilify another. What we need to do is to look behind the labels and see what is actually being championed.

Let's consider the following groups, for example (especially chosen for their repugnance):

1. Pedophiles
2. Terrorists
3. Serial Killers
4. Nazis
5. Rapists

If it is true that All Intolerance is Wrong, then it follows that any attempt to interfere with the groups listed above is wrong.

However, I think any sane person however would reject the idea of the rights of the groups listed above to practice without restriction.  Indeed, we would consider anyone who thinks their behavior right to be morally or mentally disordered.

That's where the problem lies. If there is something which is recognized as always wrong, not merely wrong in certain circumstances, then it follows that one ought never to tolerate that which is always wrong.

So the real issue which masquerades behind the label of tolerance is an assumption that a certain moral view is correct, and those who disagree with it are morally wrong in doing so. The person who labels another’s beliefs as intolerant is actually saying they think the person’s beliefs are morally wrong.

On Moral Rightness and Wrongness

To say an action is morally right, morally neutral or morally wrong is actually to appeal to some sort of absolute which transcends culture. Genocide was not morally right in Nazi Germany from 1933-1945 just because the society leaders accepted it. Ethnic Cleansing was not right when it was practiced in Bosnia after the breakup of Yugoslavia.

We condemn these actions, not because the Nazis or the Serbs were intolerant, but because they were doing something – targeting racial and religious minorities for persecution – which we condemn as always wrong.

So if accepting the activities of a group as being morally acceptable or morally neutral is required in some cases (such as ethnic or religious minorities), and not right in other circumstances (tolerating pedophiles) it means one group is doing something unobjectionable and another is doing something wrong.

This requires us to ask, what makes an act right? On what authority is one group to claim that [X] is an absolute good or evil?

Authority and Reason

To the Christian, the belief that there are acts which can never be justified and some acts which are good is obligatory. We believe that God has structured the universe where Good reflects His nature and evil contradicts it. Also, Good is beneficial to us while Evil harms us. We believe that good and evil can be known by all individuals and this knowledge is distinct from our passions and wants. Our knowledge of good and evil can be deadened by indulging our passions and ignoring our conscience.

The Christian stance on good and evil is not a mere “the Bible says so” stance. Saint Thomas Aquinas pointed out (Summa Contra Gentiles I: Chapter 2, #3) that it does no good to point to the Bible as an authority if someone does not accept the Bible as authoritative, and we must make use of natural reason to justify what we believe.

That of course cuts both ways. If someone says “I reject Christian teaching and believe we must do [X] instead,” then it is not enough for them to insist on it from their own say so (called ipse dixit – claiming the truth of something based solely on their own say-so). They must also make use of natural reason to justify their authority.

Practicing What is Preached

It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.

—GK Chesterton

Failure to understand why Christians believe as they do does not make Christians bigoted, but it does make those who use the labels bigoted by failing to consider why they feel they must act as they do.

I think this is important to stress here. If Christians are accused of imposing their views on others (as is done on issues such as abortion or Gay “marriage”) then it follows that those who would try to force their views on Christian institutions are guilty of the same – they are hypocritical if imposing values they disagree with is something to be considered wrong.

Thus the person who invokes the propaganda term of tolerance as a reason for opposing Christian values is not practicing what he preaches. To paraphrase Peter Kreeft, if they practice what they preach, they’ll stop preaching. However, if they think issues like abortion and homosexual acts are morally acceptable and those who disagree are morally in the wrong, they must recognize that moral absolutes do exist and they must offer their own defense as to why their values are correct.

They must let those arguments face the challenges of those who disagree instead of stooping to ad hominem attacks, calling those who disagree with them “racist,” “homophobe,” “intolerant,” and the like. 

Otherwise such opposition to Christian beliefs can be justly called both hypocritical and intolerant – in the true sense of the word.

Dead Fish, Live Fish and the Bald King of France: On Asking the Right Questions First

The story goes that King Charles II posed this question to the Royal Society:

"When a live fish is thrown into a basin of water the basin water and fish do not weigh more than the basin and water before the fish is thrown in whereas when a dead fish is employed the weight of the whole is exactly equal to the added weights of the basin water and fish."

In other words, why does a dead fish weigh more than a living fish?

The members of the Royal Society debated the phenomenon and prepared several theories but found them unsatisfactory.  Finally, someone proposed testing the theory and found out that dead or alive, the weight was increased by the weight of the fish.  Thus the question began from an unquestioned but faulty premise.

Another interesting question is whether a question has meaning.  Bertrand Russell raised up the statement, "The Present King of France is Bald."  In such a statement, is it true or false?

Actually, it is neither.  Present day France is a Republic and has no King.  Therefore the question is meaningless because the original premise (The Present King of France) on which the question of whether or not he is bald is not true.

Both examples show that there is a need to determine what is the primary issue in an assumption which needs to be investigated.  It is meaningless to determine why a thing is until we can determine whether a thing is.

In other words, does the question assume a premise something which needs to be considered in itself?

Applying the Issue to Anti-Catholicism

Of course, Arnobius of Sicca not being a Science blog, I'm sure the reader recognizes I have a different focus in mind in bringing up these points.  Yes, my interest is one of determining truth, especially when the questions asked are ones which are asked in a way which are essentially "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" format.

Let's consider certain assumptions which show up in questions asked which have this format:

• Why does the Church oppose Science?
• Why does the Church oppose Scripture?
• Why does the Church worship statues?
• Why does the Church want divorced people to suffer?
• Why does the Church make it policy to cover up child abuse?

In all these questions, it is assumed that the accusation is true when in fact it is the accusation which needs to be investigated.  If the Church does not oppose science, does not oppose Scripture, does not worship statues, does not want divorced people to suffer and does not make it official policy to cover up child abuse then the question is as meaningless as asking whether the Current King of France is bald.

The Fallacy of the Loaded Question

The anti-Catholic questions are essentially the Fallacy of the Loaded Question.  The questions assume a condition exists.  For example, with the Have you stopped beating your wife yet? it presumes two things:

1. That you are married
2. That you have beaten your wife before the question was asked.

Both presuppositions must be true for the question to have any meaning.

Yet all too many people start with the assumption that the presuppositions are true.  Yet they often do this because they reason that because the Church does not accept doctrine [X], they must be opposed to the thing the doctrine is about.  For example, because the Catholic Church rejects Sola Scriptura, some assume that therefore the Church must oppose the Bible.

This brings us to our next fallacy to consider.

The Fallacy of Bifurcation

The fallacy of Bifurcation assumes that either one of two conditions must exist.  Either [A] or [B].  The Church does not support [A].  Therefore it must support [B].  However, the rejection of [A] does not mean support for [B].  It merely means the rejection of [A].  For any further discussion, one must investigate what the Church teaches on subject [X] which the questioner rests options [A] and [B] on.

So for example, if one says, "Either the Church accepts [Sola Scriptura] or [Rejects the Authority of Scripture],"  we need to realize that the rejection of [Sola Scriptura] does not mean [Rejects Authority of Scripture].  We would instead have to investigate what the Church does believe about Scripture and why she holds it.

When one looks into what the Church believes on [X], one may find that instead of being an exclusive choice between [A] and [B], the Church actually holds [C].

This would make the attack on the Church unjust and unwarranted.

Conclusion

Ultimately any question about why the Church acts as she does must be grounded with "What does the Church believe?" before one can move on to "Why does the Church believe this?" Otherwise, one has a meaningless question.

Dead Fish, Live Fish and the Bald King of France: On Asking the Right Questions First

The story goes that King Charles II posed this question to the Royal Society:

"When a live fish is thrown into a basin of water the basin water and fish do not weigh more than the basin and water before the fish is thrown in whereas when a dead fish is employed the weight of the whole is exactly equal to the added weights of the basin water and fish."

In other words, why does a dead fish weigh more than a living fish?

The members of the Royal Society debated the phenomenon and prepared several theories but found them unsatisfactory.  Finally, someone proposed testing the theory and found out that dead or alive, the weight was increased by the weight of the fish.  Thus the question began from an unquestioned but faulty premise.

Another interesting question is whether a question has meaning.  Bertrand Russell raised up the statement, "The Present King of France is Bald."  In such a statement, is it true or false?

Actually, it is neither.  Present day France is a Republic and has no King.  Therefore the question is meaningless because the original premise (The Present King of France) on which the question of whether or not he is bald is not true.

Both examples show that there is a need to determine what is the primary issue in an assumption which needs to be investigated.  It is meaningless to determine why a thing is until we can determine whether a thing is.

In other words, does the question assume a premise something which needs to be considered in itself?

Applying the Issue to Anti-Catholicism

Of course, Arnobius of Sicca not being a Science blog, I'm sure the reader recognizes I have a different focus in mind in bringing up these points.  Yes, my interest is one of determining truth, especially when the questions asked are ones which are asked in a way which are essentially "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" format.

Let's consider certain assumptions which show up in questions asked which have this format:

• Why does the Church oppose Science?
• Why does the Church oppose Scripture?
• Why does the Church worship statues?
• Why does the Church want divorced people to suffer?
• Why does the Church make it policy to cover up child abuse?

In all these questions, it is assumed that the accusation is true when in fact it is the accusation which needs to be investigated.  If the Church does not oppose science, does not oppose Scripture, does not worship statues, does not want divorced people to suffer and does not make it official policy to cover up child abuse then the question is as meaningless as asking whether the Current King of France is bald.

The Fallacy of the Loaded Question

The anti-Catholic questions are essentially the Fallacy of the Loaded Question.  The questions assume a condition exists.  For example, with the Have you stopped beating your wife yet? it presumes two things:

1. That you are married
2. That you have beaten your wife before the question was asked.

Both presuppositions must be true for the question to have any meaning.

Yet all too many people start with the assumption that the presuppositions are true.  Yet they often do this because they reason that because the Church does not accept doctrine [X], they must be opposed to the thing the doctrine is about.  For example, because the Catholic Church rejects Sola Scriptura, some assume that therefore the Church must oppose the Bible.

This brings us to our next fallacy to consider.

The Fallacy of Bifurcation

The fallacy of Bifurcation assumes that either one of two conditions must exist.  Either [A] or [B].  The Church does not support [A].  Therefore it must support [B].  However, the rejection of [A] does not mean support for [B].  It merely means the rejection of [A].  For any further discussion, one must investigate what the Church teaches on subject [X] which the questioner rests options [A] and [B] on.

So for example, if one says, "Either the Church accepts [Sola Scriptura] or [Rejects the Authority of Scripture],"  we need to realize that the rejection of [Sola Scriptura] does not mean [Rejects Authority of Scripture].  We would instead have to investigate what the Church does believe about Scripture and why she holds it.

When one looks into what the Church believes on [X], one may find that instead of being an exclusive choice between [A] and [B], the Church actually holds [C].

This would make the attack on the Church unjust and unwarranted.

Conclusion

Ultimately any question about why the Church acts as she does must be grounded with "What does the Church believe?" before one can move on to "Why does the Church believe this?" Otherwise, one has a meaningless question.

Bifurcation and Accusation

Let's consider this argument:

1. Polly is either a [Cat] or a [Dog]. (Either [A] or [B])
2. Polly is not a [Dog]. (Not [B])
3. Therefore Polly is a [Cat].  (Therefore [A])

This sounds reasonable, right?

But what if Polly is actually a parrot?  In such a case, this argument would be untrue because it fails to consider that other options exist.

I bring this example of logical fallacy up because it seems to be common in today's debate on moral and political issues in an "Either with us or with the enemy" mindset.  If one extreme is not true, the other extreme must be true.

Thus we see homosexual activists label whoever believes homosexual acts are wrong support the "persecution" of homosexuals.  Whoever opposes Pastor Terry Jones in his burning of the Koran must therefore think Islam is as good as Christianity.

Contradictory and Contrary Statements

Such an argument confuses Contradictory statements with Contrary Statements.

A Contrary statement would be: It is Either Hot or Cold.

A Contradictory statement would be: it is either Hot or not Hot.

With contrary statements, there is the possibility of it being neither one or the other – that is — both can be false.  With contradictory statements,  only one can be true, and one must be true.

Denouncing False Accusations

Opposition to a certain belief is not endorsement of the opposite.  Opposition to homosexual acts is not favoring the persecution of homosexuals.  Opposing Pastor Terry Jones is not thinking Islam is equally valid with Christianity.  Opposing Democrats does not mean one supports Republicans.  Opposing remarriage when a prior marriage is seen as valid is not "wanting people to suffer."  The Church not excommunicating a dissenter does not mean supporting the dissent.

See the principle here?

When a person says [Not B], it is wrong to accuse them of supporting  [A].  Saying [Not B] merely means opposition to [B].  Saying such a person supports [A] on these grounds is to put words into their mouth without the right to do so.

Discernment is Necessary

Now of course we need to distinguish between bifurcation and real dilemmas.  Sometimes there are really demonstrably two choices.  Either 2+2 is 4, or 2+2 is 5. 

1. Either 2+2 Is [4] or is [5]. (Either [A] or [B])
2. 2+2 is [4]. ([A])
3. Therefore 2+2 is not [5] (Therefore not [B])

In such a statement, we are not reasoning from what is not to what is.  Rather we are taking what is and excluding what is not.

Likewise, if the Catholic Church teaches that we must believe "Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human" to hold what the Church teaches, anyone who holds that "Jesus is a mere man" is not holding to what the Catholic Church teaches.

1. Either The Catholic Position is [Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human] or [Jesus is a mere man] (Either [A] or [B])
2. The Catholic Position is [Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human] ([A])
3. Therefore [Jesus is a mere man] is not the Catholic position. (Therefore Not [B])

The difference is again, we take what is true [A] and therefore reject [B] since A ≠ B, while Bifurcation argues that [Not B] means [A]

In short, we must discern whether an "Either-Or" situation does accurately limit the situation to two choices where the acceptance of one means the rejection of the other, or whether one claims the denial of one means the acceptance of the other.

• "Either homosexual acts are wrong or they are not wrong" does limit accurately to two possible choices. (Either [A] or [Not A])
• "Either one supports gay marriage or they are homophobic" does NOT accurately limit to two possible choices. (Either [A] or [B]).

The first does accurately divide.  The second does not.

Conclusion

It is important to recognize the fallacy of Bifurcation because it can easily be used to twist things around to either sanctify one's own position or demonize an opponent.  With the recent rhetoric in the media over "gay marriage," over political agendas and other things, we need to be on guard.  The Christian needs to especially be on guard as moral issues under attack will often be used to demonize us based on the claim that because we don't support [B], it must mean we support [A] – even though [A] is also against our beliefs as Christians.

Bifurcation and Accusation

Let's consider this argument:

1. Polly is either a [Cat] or a [Dog]. (Either [A] or [B])
2. Polly is not a [Dog]. (Not [B])
3. Therefore Polly is a [Cat].  (Therefore [A])

This sounds reasonable, right?

But what if Polly is actually a parrot?  In such a case, this argument would be untrue because it fails to consider that other options exist.

I bring this example of logical fallacy up because it seems to be common in today's debate on moral and political issues in an "Either with us or with the enemy" mindset.  If one extreme is not true, the other extreme must be true.

Thus we see homosexual activists label whoever believes homosexual acts are wrong support the "persecution" of homosexuals.  Whoever opposes Pastor Terry Jones in his burning of the Koran must therefore think Islam is as good as Christianity.

Contradictory and Contrary Statements

Such an argument confuses Contradictory statements with Contrary Statements.

A Contrary statement would be: It is Either Hot or Cold.

A Contradictory statement would be: it is either Hot or not Hot.

With contrary statements, there is the possibility of it being neither one or the other – that is — both can be false.  With contradictory statements,  only one can be true, and one must be true.

Denouncing False Accusations

Opposition to a certain belief is not endorsement of the opposite.  Opposition to homosexual acts is not favoring the persecution of homosexuals.  Opposing Pastor Terry Jones is not thinking Islam is equally valid with Christianity.  Opposing Democrats does not mean one supports Republicans.  Opposing remarriage when a prior marriage is seen as valid is not "wanting people to suffer."  The Church not excommunicating a dissenter does not mean supporting the dissent.

See the principle here?

When a person says [Not B], it is wrong to accuse them of supporting  [A].  Saying [Not B] merely means opposition to [B].  Saying such a person supports [A] on these grounds is to put words into their mouth without the right to do so.

Discernment is Necessary

Now of course we need to distinguish between bifurcation and real dilemmas.  Sometimes there are really demonstrably two choices.  Either 2+2 is 4, or 2+2 is 5. 

1. Either 2+2 Is [4] or is [5]. (Either [A] or [B])
2. 2+2 is [4]. ([A])
3. Therefore 2+2 is not [5] (Therefore not [B])

In such a statement, we are not reasoning from what is not to what is.  Rather we are taking what is and excluding what is not.

Likewise, if the Catholic Church teaches that we must believe "Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human" to hold what the Church teaches, anyone who holds that "Jesus is a mere man" is not holding to what the Catholic Church teaches.

1. Either The Catholic Position is [Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human] or [Jesus is a mere man] (Either [A] or [B])
2. The Catholic Position is [Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human] ([A])
3. Therefore [Jesus is a mere man] is not the Catholic position. (Therefore Not [B])

The difference is again, we take what is true [A] and therefore reject [B] since A ≠ B, while Bifurcation argues that [Not B] means [A]

In short, we must discern whether an "Either-Or" situation does accurately limit the situation to two choices where the acceptance of one means the rejection of the other, or whether one claims the denial of one means the acceptance of the other.

• "Either homosexual acts are wrong or they are not wrong" does limit accurately to two possible choices. (Either [A] or [Not A])
• "Either one supports gay marriage or they are homophobic" does NOT accurately limit to two possible choices. (Either [A] or [B]).

The first does accurately divide.  The second does not.

Conclusion

It is important to recognize the fallacy of Bifurcation because it can easily be used to twist things around to either sanctify one's own position or demonize an opponent.  With the recent rhetoric in the media over "gay marriage," over political agendas and other things, we need to be on guard.  The Christian needs to especially be on guard as moral issues under attack will often be used to demonize us based on the claim that because we don't support [B], it must mean we support [A] – even though [A] is also against our beliefs as Christians.

God, Invisible Pink Unicorns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters

I had a drive-by atheist come by the other day anonymously posting a comment on a post I wrote over a year ago.  There was nothing especially brilliant about what he said.  Essentially it boiled down to "Prove God exists," while making use of the Argument from Silence and the Shifting the Burden of Proof.

Such drive-by trolling indicates a certain type of thinking:

1. It presumes anything which exists has a physical existence.
2. If one can't prove a physical existence of a thing, it isn't true.

This is where we get the concepts of the "Invisible Pink Unicorn" and "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" invoked by some atheists as a mockery of the belief in God.  (It's essentially a rehashing of Bertrand Russell's Tea Cup).

There is a problem with such materialist beliefs.  Let's use the following exercise to demonstrate it:

1. Think of your hair color.
2. Are you aware of your hair color?
3. Are you aware of being aware of your hair color?
4. Prove that your thought in #3 exists.

This is the problem with materialistic atheism in a nutshell: In order to attack the belief in God, they have to make use of special pleading (exempting themselves from the standard they demand others follow).  Anything which is not material is denied to exist.  A counter example is used.  The response is to try to explain away the counter example as not mattering.

The end result of this is to recognize some important facts.  Science is entirely limited to the physical realm of things which are observable in some way.  That's good for what it can do.  However, it becomes useless in determining something beyond the scope of the physical realm.  If such a thing exists, the fact that science cannot detect it indicates a limitation of science, not a delusion in thinking it exists.

This doesn't mean "Science is useless."  Instead it means we use science for dealing with the material world and with material causes, and recognize that to try to use it in dealing with the supernatural is just as effective as using a microscope for astronomy.

Let's consider a historical example (For a more detailed view of this example, see my previous article here).  Prior to 1492 [Let's leave aside all the other claims of who "really" discovered America as a distraction], the belief of Columbus was one could sail West to get to China.  His critics claimed he underestimated the size of the Pacific Ocean and one couldn't carry enough food to reach China from Europe.

At this time, a European speculating that a land mass existed between Europe and Asia would not be able to prove it scientifically… but that doesn't change the fact that the Americas existed.  The hypothetical European who used materialistic views to demand proof that such a continent existed, could argue that there was no evidence and since there was no evidence, it was more reasonable to assume such a land mass did not exist.

The point is: Lack of physical knowledge of a thing does not mean there is no reason to believe it exists. 

I want to offer a caveat however.  I am not saying we are free to therefore believe anything.  Reason is still important, and we should not merely go and accept Tertullian's maxim of "I believe because it is absurd."  There are good reasons not to believe in the ancient Greek gods for example and those reasons do not deny the existence of one God.  Philosophical Knowledge, Logic and revelation from one who has knowledge are all valid forms of knowledge.

Philosophical knowledge and reasoning can tell us some things about a thing that does not have physical existence (such as Justice for example), and revelation can tell us of the existence of a thing we cannot verify: If Native Americans came to Europe in 1492, they would have been witnesses to the existence to something a member of Renaissance Europe could not verify on his own. 

So to conclude, it is unreasonable to demand physical proof as the only kind of proof until it can be proven that only things with a physical existence do exist.

God, Invisible Pink Unicorns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters

I had a drive-by atheist come by the other day anonymously posting a comment on a post I wrote over a year ago.  There was nothing especially brilliant about what he said.  Essentially it boiled down to "Prove God exists," while making use of the Argument from Silence and the Shifting the Burden of Proof.

Such drive-by trolling indicates a certain type of thinking:

1. It presumes anything which exists has a physical existence.
2. If one can't prove a physical existence of a thing, it isn't true.

This is where we get the concepts of the "Invisible Pink Unicorn" and "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" invoked by some atheists as a mockery of the belief in God.  (It's essentially a rehashing of Bertrand Russell's Tea Cup).

There is a problem with such materialist beliefs.  Let's use the following exercise to demonstrate it:

1. Think of your hair color.
2. Are you aware of your hair color?
3. Are you aware of being aware of your hair color?
4. Prove that your thought in #3 exists.

This is the problem with materialistic atheism in a nutshell: In order to attack the belief in God, they have to make use of special pleading (exempting themselves from the standard they demand others follow).  Anything which is not material is denied to exist.  A counter example is used.  The response is to try to explain away the counter example as not mattering.

The end result of this is to recognize some important facts.  Science is entirely limited to the physical realm of things which are observable in some way.  That's good for what it can do.  However, it becomes useless in determining something beyond the scope of the physical realm.  If such a thing exists, the fact that science cannot detect it indicates a limitation of science, not a delusion in thinking it exists.

This doesn't mean "Science is useless."  Instead it means we use science for dealing with the material world and with material causes, and recognize that to try to use it in dealing with the supernatural is just as effective as using a microscope for astronomy.

Let's consider a historical example (For a more detailed view of this example, see my previous article here).  Prior to 1492 [Let's leave aside all the other claims of who "really" discovered America as a distraction], the belief of Columbus was one could sail West to get to China.  His critics claimed he underestimated the size of the Pacific Ocean and one couldn't carry enough food to reach China from Europe.

At this time, a European speculating that a land mass existed between Europe and Asia would not be able to prove it scientifically… but that doesn't change the fact that the Americas existed.  The hypothetical European who used materialistic views to demand proof that such a continent existed, could argue that there was no evidence and since there was no evidence, it was more reasonable to assume such a land mass did not exist.

The point is: Lack of physical knowledge of a thing does not mean there is no reason to believe it exists. 

I want to offer a caveat however.  I am not saying we are free to therefore believe anything.  Reason is still important, and we should not merely go and accept Tertullian's maxim of "I believe because it is absurd."  There are good reasons not to believe in the ancient Greek gods for example and those reasons do not deny the existence of one God.  Philosophical Knowledge, Logic and revelation from one who has knowledge are all valid forms of knowledge.

Philosophical knowledge and reasoning can tell us some things about a thing that does not have physical existence (such as Justice for example), and revelation can tell us of the existence of a thing we cannot verify: If Native Americans came to Europe in 1492, they would have been witnesses to the existence to something a member of Renaissance Europe could not verify on his own. 

So to conclude, it is unreasonable to demand physical proof as the only kind of proof until it can be proven that only things with a physical existence do exist.

Sola Scriptura and The Law of Non-Contradiction

Read more »