Non Belief Attributable to Ulterior Motives?

[David Sklansky]

Not Ready and others, notably txaq007, contend that even without "faith" the evidence and arguments available to everyone should be enough to convince someone of the truth of their PARTICULAR beliefs. And that a rational person after sudying those arguments and pieces of evidence, if still unconvinced, must have conscious or unconscious ulterior motives for such unbelief. Such as not wanting to accept the consequences of those beliefs.

It occurred to me that a good way to argue against this position would be to bring up those rare times where they are less believing. For instance transsubstantiation or the high stature of Mary. Why can't BluffTHIS say that Not Ready's unbelief is not based on evidence but based on his ulterior motives? Or does Not Ready say that BluffTHIS belief in those things are obviously counter to the evidence and are thus caused by BluffTHIS's ulterior motives. And if Not Ready says that, I ask how can he be so sure that he's the objective one?

Of course this dilemma goes away if one acknowledges that the difference of opinion is NOT caused by at least one of the parties having ulterior motives, but rather by the fact that the evidence isn't so clear cut after all.

[IronUnkind]

The specific issues which you mention have to do with where authority is vested rather than evidence, per se. Are you familiar with the Council of Trent?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Not Ready and others, notably txaq007, contend that even without "faith" the evidence and arguments available to everyone should be enough to convince someone of the truth of their PARTICULAR beliefs. And that a rational person after sudying those arguments and pieces of evidence, if still unconvinced, must have conscious or unconscious ulterior motives for such unbelief. Such as not wanting to accept the consequences of those beliefs.

It occurred to me that a good way to argue against this position would be to bring up those rare times where they are less believing. For instance transsubstantiation or the high stature of Mary. Why can't BluffTHIS say that Not Ready's unbelief is not based on evidence but based on his ulterior motives? Or does Not Ready say that BluffTHIS belief in those things are obviously counter to the evidence and are thus caused by BluffTHIS's ulterior motives. And if Not Ready says that, I ask how can he be so sure that he's the objective one?

Of course this dilemma goes away if one acknowledges that the difference of opinion is NOT caused by at least one of the parties having ulterior motives, but rather by the fact that the evidence isn't so clear cut after all.

[/ QUOTE ]David, you have been nailing some posts recently.

[IronUnkind]

In the context of this thread, your compliment is a non-sequitur.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
In the context of this thread, your compliment is a non-sequitur.

[/ QUOTE ]I've always dreamed of having a nemesis. Friendly rivalry only tho. You will likely find that we argee or much more that we difer. And you would carry more wieght if you explained what was wrong with DS's post.

[David Sklansky]

If the example I used is flawed, I'm sure there are other ones that are better.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
If the example I used is flawed, I'm sure there are other ones that are better.

[/ QUOTE ]

David,

[ QUOTE ]
For instance transsubstantiation or the high stature of Mary.

[/ QUOTE ]

These two examples are perfectly fine for highlighting two differences between Catholics and Protestants, if that is the question.

RJT

[IronUnkind]

Yes. I think the point you were introducing was an interesting one. I just don't think that your examples fit as well as say, this one.

[IronUnkind]

A discussion on mariology will not result in the kind of fingerpointing that David predicts because the dispute is underpinned by more fundamental issues, namely, canonicity and papal authority. Same thing, but to a lesser extent, with transubstantiation.

[IronUnkind]

But he was not emphasizing the fact that they disagree on these issues. His focus was on the style of the disagreement. I doubt that these examples would elicit charges of ulterior motives, though anything is possible given the parties in question.