Open Letter to a Protestant: A critique of his claim to argue from "Scripture and plain reason"

B---,

I am open to being shown the Catholic Church is wrong, but only by good arguments.

"Scripture and plain reason" does not best describe how you debate. Your rhetorical tactic consists more in misrepresentations, sarcasm, and personal attacks than in plain reason. Likewise, you have alluded to passages from the holy book without clearly drawing out how they support your contention or put an interpretation on them which directly tells against the Catholic Church; or, when this was done, not given me a chance to defend and explain the Catholic position or to question the interpretation presented. Despite all your talk about being open, I am beginning to suspect that your only chief principle here is simply this: "Catholics must be wrong."

Since you claimed for yourself "plain reason" and, by implication, contorted reasoning for me, I feel it is my duty to set before you a sample of the errors which may be found in your reasonings. I do not do this because of any ill-will toward you, nor even as an indirect justification of my own position; nor do I claim that all the arguments I have or will make are free from fallacies. I do it merely to show you that "plain reason" does not accurately describe many of the arguments you have made. I will only note a few errors in Scriptural arguments, since the bulk of what I have to say will be addressed in another email.

A syllabus of errors.

(A) Errors in reason

(1) Fallacy the first: ad hominem arguments, whether by direct attack or implication, are the most obvious fallacy in reasoning. For example, from your letter of 5 Aug 05:

Though with different specifics, I can share in your, "It simply must/cannot be that _____," presuppositional posture and I understand the feeling of, when it's all boiled down, panic.

And from our chat on 26 April 06:

I don't know what it's like to feel like my particular crowd needs to be uniquely infallible in teaching and morals . . . so maybe I don't want holes poked or doubts placed or new ways explored

And from your letter of 10 May 05:

. . . you appear to have, for whatever reasons, a vested interest in defending Rome to the death, despite the rather sound and compelling arguments to the contrary. . .

(The question of why a person holds a belief is entirely separate from whether that belief is true, which is the question at hand.)

I answer that, logical fallacies are not sound and compelling arguments.

(2) Fallacy the second: the use of antecedent moral judgments against your opponent's position (sometimes called "poisoning the wells") is a serious fallacy in reasoning. For example, from your letter of 5 Aug 05:

...and, just so you know where I'm coming from, my opinion is that if you don't see one, then you simply aren't being intellectually honest with yourself and are living in a world where you are convinced that you simply cannot see one...

And from your letter of 27 April 06:

...it does seem like you're trying to maintain a life that involves breathing amniotic fluid through your nose and eating your meals through your umbilical cord while my modus operandi is air and hamburgers.

(The question of whether holding a certain proposition implies a degraded state in the believer is separate from whether that position is true, which is the question at hand.)

I answer that, this fallacy is like the first in kind (by confusing sentiments and reason) though it is graver in degree. By claiming all who do not hold the speaker's position must be morally deficient or intellectually dishonest, this fallacy (1) seeks to coerce rather than persuade, (2) substantially equates morality with rational thought, and (3) undercuts the grounds from which the opponent may object. Consequently, if the attacked replies calmly, the other can suggest he is an eloquent and smooth talker; or if he argues convincingly against an objection, he is a great logician and a perfect Jesuit; and so on. To this base fallacy I say: controversies should be decided by reason, not by personal misgivings and dislikes.

(3) Fallacy the third: "special pleading" is the fallacy of appealing to a principle in one context and then refusing to admit the same principle in another. For example, your letter of 5 August 05:

The thing is, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You're either a Roman Catholic or you're not. Rome is either "The One True Church/Faith" or it's not. It's either flawed to the core having gone off course sometime 1000+ years ago or it isn't. It's either a reflection of faith, theology, and authority in the way Jesus called us to or it isn't. That which Rome asserts is infallible either is or it isn't.

Compare that with your response on 10 May 06 to my use of the same principle:

I don't think that, on most things anyway, various expressions are truly as at odds with each other as they think; I think it has much more to do with them each describing a different portion of the whole

(It is inconsistent to appeal to the principle of non-contradiction in the case of one group and then refuse to do so in the case of another group.)

I answer that, Admit this basic principle of logic in all conversations or in none, but do not use it inconsistently.

(4) Fallacy the fourth: sarcastic mockery does not constitute a valid argument. The examples here are too many to quote, and their refutation too obvious to mention.

(5) Fallacy the fifth: misrepresentation and ironic distortion of your opponents position is another fallacy which you use commonly. For example, your letter of 10 May 06:

. . . if, to you, this is simply a matter of me needing to hear why Rome is uniquely infallible (on anything) and justifying just how it is that I (*cough*, *choke*, *sputter*) disagree.

And from your later letter of 10 May 06:

Hey, if I get to Heaven and Jesus says, "Gee, Brad...I really wish you would have prayed to my mom more," I will certainly be accountable for my choices.

And from the same:

This is infallible on the basis of it coming from Us.

(First learn what the Catholic Church teaches, then plan out your objection.)

I answer that, the Magisterium does not teach that it is infallible on "anything," nor that prayers to Mary are necessary for salvation, nor that the ground of infallibility is the Church herself. Consequently, you have not made a valid argument against the Catholic position. I assume this is from ignorance and not malice.

(6) Fallacy the sixth: "appeal to incredulity" is another fallacy found in your writing. For example, from your letter of 22 July 06:

The 'certainty' of your various arguments only makes me smack my forehead at the reality that there are people -- incredibly intelligent people, even -- who actually believe this stuff.

(Showing amazement that anyone could profess beliefs contrary to yours does not make your belief true.)

I answer that, in debate when you make an attack (explicit or implicit) fairness dictates you allow your opponent a chance to respond in good faith. Dismissing an argument which was responding to a previous attack is an intellectual failure to consider an argument you begun.

These are some of the errors in reasoning which may be found in your writings.

(B) Errors in Scriptural arguments.

(1) Error the first: referring to Scripture passim does not constitute an argument. For example, your letter of 10 May 06:

Do bear in mind that I stand by my belief that you are, in fact, in love with the romantic notion of Rome more than you are engaging this on a matter of being convinced by Scripture and plain reason

And from our chat on 31 May 06:

Since our common ground is the Bible, I think there is a fairly sound argument to be made for too many of Rome's proclamations being doubiously unbiblical (not simply extra-biblical) to where their project and self-pronounced claims to being The Answer collapse.

(Let each objection be considered fully, one at a time.)

I answer that, do not refer in passing to earlier objections you made, unless you want me to specifically address that objection. Certainly do not speak of them as if they, as a whole, invincibly told against Catholicism; for then you assume that each objection is valid, while I have not yet been given a chance to address them or defend my position.

(2) Error the second: the "argument from silence," while strictly speaking not a fallacy, is nonetheless a weak argument. For example, from our chat on 7 May 06:

Did Paul speak one word about Mary?

(Because there is a lot Scripture does not say, this argument can be used to justify almost any ridiculous position.)

I answer that, arguing from the silence of Scripture is only probable if Scripture contains the whole of God's revelation to man in Christ, that is, if the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura is true. Since Catholics deny this, arguments based on sola Scriptura are impotent to persuade.

These are some of the errors in Scriptural arguments which may be found in your writings. These being said, I make no further criticisms at present.

Peace, etc.