Nothing in a scientific consensus is beyond challenge based on data and/or theory. However a challenge to any part of science is useless and ignored unless it is consistent with and accepts all other parts of every scientific consensus. As a result, the deep parts of science are nearly impregnable, defended on all sides by all the parts of science they are consistent with. To challenge deep science you must work your way in step by step, changing many other parts of science as you go. In the same way, though to a less powerful degree, all other complex systematic bodies of thought are highly resistant to change, in a very natural way. In this context, the Catholic doctrines of doctrinal infallibility stick out like a sore thumb. They assert that certain parts of the body of thought are outside the realm of admissible discussion. That comes off like an admission of defensiveness, a fearfulness that the Catholic body of thought is insufficiently robust and self-defending. It also seems inconsistent with a basic Catholic postulate of freedom of conscience: Catechism, 1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.
Posted on: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 01:11:23 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015