I once took a graduate course in education in which I was the only non-teacher. One day, I disagreed with something said by another student, and her response has always baffled me. She said: "Who are you? You can't question me until you've walked in my shoes." In other words, she felt that I was unqualified to question her, to cast doubt on anything she said. Who was I to say? Well of course her response was nonsense but how so? As a matter of logic or illogic, was her remark an example of an appeal to authority? She certainly felt that she was an authority.
I am having trouble understanding the difference between a 'necessary' and a 'sufficient' condition (in philosophical usage). Would I be right in thinking that the former is a condition that must be present in order for something to happen, while the latter is merely 'enough', i.e. that no other condition needs to be met (while with a necessary condition others can be met)?
A friend once had me consider this logic.
Because the Catholic Immaculate Conception doctrine is a cornerstone tenet of the church, but is essentially a dogmatic belief, any dogmatic doctrine canonized by the church must also be as worthy of faith as the Immaculate Conception doctrine.
However the doctrine of transfiguration is also a dogmatic belief. Yet even after a priest has blessed the sacramental wine and bread, in reality it does not literally transfigure into the blood and body of Christ even though the doctrine of transfiguration states that it does.
If the wine does not literally turn to blood, the doctrine of transfiguration is wrong and because the doctrine of transfiguration is equally as valid as the Immaculate Conception, it too is also wrong by association.
However, if the Christ were literally made of bread and wine, then all conflicts would be resolved. Can you please comment on this logic?
- Read more about A friend once had me consider this logic.
- 1 comment
- Log in to post comments