> > > > > As I said at the start: > > > > > > > > > > Appeal to legitimate, recognized authority is not a fallacy. > > > > > > > > > Thus > > > > > > > > > with a fellow Catholic, I could appeal to the Council of > > > > > > > > > Trent and > > > > > > > > > legitimately support a case, but not with Brock, for example. > > > > > > > > > With > > > > > > > > > Brock I could (or ought to be able to in any case) appeal to > > > > > > > > > the words > > > > > > > > > of Scripture to support my case. > > > > > > Thus the argument that assumes the truth of Scripture is inaccessible > > > > > to you. Sorry. > > > > > Repeating it doesn't make it true. Disagreeing with you is not > > > > necessarily a sign that some "truth" is inaccessible to me. > > > > The *argument* is inaccessible to you, since you do not accept one of > > > the underlying premises. > > > Rejecting a premise does not make the argument "inaccessible". It > > makes the argument one I disagree with. > > Both sides. Which == the inaccessibility of the argument to you. See > how that works? > > Person A argues, based on his reading of Scripture, X. Person B > argues to the contrary, based on his reading of the same Scripture, > Y. Person A or person B can support their arguments by bringing in > additional Scripture, and the logic of theology applied to Scripture. > > Person C (that's you!) disagrees with the premise that Scripture can > be used to support anything at all, since he does not accept the truth > of Scripture. Thus he would disagree with both position X and > position Y. He might argue position Z, but he would never attempt to > support his argument from Scripture. So person C is sort of arguing > from left field, so to speak.
Person C may agree that the arguments are sound or valid or logical without being true, that an incorrect premise makes the conclusion incorrect. In that situation (my situation), the argument is accessible to me, it's not out of my grasp at all, but I reject the conclusion because I reject one of the premises. It has nothing to do with your argument or Brock's being inaccessible. > Since the meat of the argument is around the question, "what does > Scripture actually mean?", both person A and person B are in the > argument in earnest, constructively, sincerely attempting to arrive at > the true meaning of the Scripture. Person C --- with a little > honesty! --- would have to admit that he is out of place in such an > argument, since he has no position at all on what the Scripture > actually means --- he views it as meaningless. I have never said it was meaningless. It is valuable as literature, folklore, like any set of myths. Some of it seems to be historical. There's nothing magical about your favorite religious texts such that it only grants meaning to those who take it as non-fiction. > To sum up: Brock and myself, if we continue this discussion, will be > accepting as given, the absolute veracity of Holy Scripture. We have > already laid that as groundwork. If you are willing to accept that > given, you can argue from there, and you would be welcome to > participate. But there is nothing fallacious in an appeal to > Scripture as Authority in this argument. Whether or not we agree on the truth of the Scripture, it is a fact of logic that any appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, for the reasons I've spelled out to you before. It may be persuasive, it may be the only source or best source of information available on some topic, but it is not part of a valid logical argument. You might be confused because you think this is some advanced level of logic called "apodeictic." No need to bring that qualifier into it. Average, normal, workaday logic is the kind that is not involved in an appeal to authority. In any class on logic, high school or college level, your answers about appeals to authority would be marked incorrect. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "A Civil Religious Debate" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/a-civil-religious-debate?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
