tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post8543188113872821811..comments2023-08-19T23:23:19.849+10:00Comments on Sentire cum Ecclesia: Obsequious and Docile...Schützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-69504600503648129942007-09-21T15:47:00.000+10:002007-09-21T15:47:00.000+10:00John, I see what you mean. I agree that Brian's qu...John, I see what you mean. I agree that Brian's question is phrased hypothetically. But remember the context. The original challenge is for poor old David to justify the title of his blog, i.e. to justify his confidence in the Church's and the Pope's magisterium. In <I>that</I> context, I think Brian's "hypothetical" <I>is</I> begging the question. <BR/><BR/>But maybe I've got it wrong, and this new question is meant to be taken entirely separately from the original challenge. <BR/><BR/>You could then use Brian's second question as a "proof by contradiction" strategy. That is, let's assume David is horribly, horribly wrong, enslaved to Babylon etc. Then show that this assumption leads to a contradiction, or at least to some unpleasant conclusions. <BR/><BR/>But in that case, Brian's hypothetical would only help David's case, not Brian's!<BR/><BR/>It's a very confusing way to conduct a debate. Perhaps the best way to proceed would be to ask Brian to clarify which of the two challenges he wants David to address.Athanasiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04376282404358594418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-82736458489887290962007-09-21T13:39:00.000+10:002007-09-21T13:39:00.000+10:00If a statement is hypothetical (as David said this...If a statement is hypothetical (as David said this one is to be) then it does not implicitly demand acceptance of a conclusion. It is something supposed for the sake of argument. It is <I>explicitly</I> something not yet accepted as true. <BR/><BR/>In similar wise, a <I>hypothesis</I> proposed by a scientist is something that will be tested by experiment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-43413180824277448032007-09-21T10:50:00.000+10:002007-09-21T10:50:00.000+10:00Peter, you're right on the money there. As I comme...Peter, you're right on the money there. As I commented in David's entry "How to reply to Brian Coyne? HELP!" below, this is actually a recognised logical fallacy in philosophy. "Begging the question" is when you implicitly demand your opponent accepts your conclusion at the start of the discussion. It renders any discussion meaningless.Athanasiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04376282404358594418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-20560632462215398692007-09-21T09:13:00.000+10:002007-09-21T09:13:00.000+10:00And best of all, when your dream Pope renounces hi...And best of all, when your dream Pope renounces his old-fashioned charisms, the usual suspects are delighted.....at first. But really they are like your children, who would not be happy for long if the parents stopped having rules and limits. Soon they find it to be boring to have no one to rebel against. (And the would-be female priests discover they are not so keen to face 8 years of tough formation in the seminary.)<BR/><BR/>Eventually Hans Küng has to stand barefoot in the snow for 3 days, begging the Holy Father to be his father once more, and make the game fun to play again...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-72756367858491409502007-09-21T07:16:00.000+10:002007-09-21T07:16:00.000+10:00I think it's a good question. Imagining a world wh...I think it's a good question. Imagining a world where the Pope "calls one wrong" gives you a great opportunity to explain Infallibility, and to point out that, historically, he hasn't ever done so. Most people probably don't know that.<BR/><BR/>And then you have a chance to vividly show how things fall apart once our trust in the Magisterium is lost. I look forward to your tale about the frightful schisms and confusions that shake the world during the short unhappy reign of His Holiness Rowan I.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-3528642547163055042007-09-21T04:35:00.000+10:002007-09-21T04:35:00.000+10:00Judas, it is precisely the charism of infallibilit...Judas, it is precisely the charism of infallibility which prevents calling it wrong when exercised.<BR/><BR/>What is really being said is, assume there is no charism of infallibility; what if you believed in something that doesn't exist. Could that not be applied to anything we believe? Why stop with infallibility? Unless that's the target.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-88835011482218050992007-09-21T01:15:00.000+10:002007-09-21T01:15:00.000+10:00Brian insisting that you approach the problem usin...Brian insisting that you approach the problem using his question is similar to arguing along the lines of ...<BR/><BR/>"Imagine you and wrong and I am right... hard to imagine you being right is such a world eh?"<BR/><BR/>In other words it assumes what it is trying to prove.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15189580002644810418noreply@blogger.com