Greg wrote:

I think not. Faith is of things unseen. The evidence is precisely less than compelling.

Maybe not the evidence for the resurrection, but the evidence for at least one previous point in the epistemic chain must be compelling.

Let us take a look at the definition of faith by the Ecumenical Council Vatican I in its Dogmatic Constitution "Dei Filius", ch. 3 "On faith":

"The Catholic Church professes that this faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, is a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with the inspiration and assistance of the grace of God, we believe that the things revealed by Him are true, not because the intrinsic truth of the things has been perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived."

Clearly this definition of faith cannot apply to the identification of the medium of divine Revelation, lest the epistemic situation be circular, as a person should have to identify M as the medium through which God reveals by an assent to the truth that "God reveals through M" based on the authority of God who revealed (through M) said truth (i.e. that He reveals through M). Thus, the medium of divine Revelation must be identified on the basis of rationally apprehensible motives of credibility.

The medium of Revelation which must be identified includes two stages:

- the original medium through which God has revealed in the past, and

- the proximate medium that currently holds the "deposit" of what God has revealed through the original medium and, in magisterial paradigms of divine Revelation, provides authoritative identification and interpretation of that Revelation.

Placing it all together in the case of someone listening to an Apostle preach in 50 AD or to Church X (claiming to have apostolic succession) preach in 2018, this person must, first of all, identify the teaching of the Apostle/Church X as the proximate medium of divine Revelation on the basis of rationally apprehensible motives of credibility, and the evidence for that identification must be compelling. Only then can this person believe that what this Apostle/Church teaches is true based on the authority of God on whose behalf this Apostle/Church preaches.

Reframing now the original question as

"is someone acting in an epistemically vicious way if they don't find the evidence for the teaching of [place your Church here] as the proximate medium of divine Revelation compelling?"

my answer is that the only answer that matters is God's, not yours or mine, because only God sees the intellect of a person, and He sees it with total clarity. Thus, only He knows with certainty whether the person in question is acting in an epistemically vicious way, and He certainly does not need our opinion on the subject.
 

Last edited by Johannes (10/29/2018 6:01 pm)