I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
(07-03-2019, 06:48 AM)cassini Wrote: The ad hominem ploy used by Magister is very obvious to me. He first dismissed Fr Roberts' book ... Then came Andrew White's thesis  ... Did Magister or his buddies acknowledge or address this doctrine. No he didn't, he simply said White was about the business of undermining the Catholic Church so nobody need to taker what he writes as confirming a Catholic doctrine. That is ad hominem at its best.

Two essential thesis on the subject of geocentrism dismissed as not worth reading because of who wrote them. That is how the ad hominemploy works.

Since I teach Logic, I can tell you, cassini, you don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about.

An ad hominem is a fallacious attack by which a person, instead of responding to the argument a person has actually made, instead belittles by insult the person making the argument in a way that has nothing to do with their argument.

If you said that A is B and B is C so A is C, and instead of taking issue with one of the premises, I retorted, "No it's not because you're ugly," that's an ad hominem attack. Never once have I done anything even remotely like that here.

I dismissed Fr Robert's book for three reasons :

  1. Because the very premise of the book has been undermined by the definition of Infallibility at Vatican I.
  2. Roberts seems to have abandoned the Catholic Faith as a result of that definition.
  3. Roberts rejects Geocentrism.
The last is the strongest argument. You are using a text from a man who rejects your position to defend your position. This makes little sense, and suggest special pleading. The next strongest argument for rejecting the book as a defense or support of your position is that the book's purpose and premise (to try to prevent the definition of infallibility at Vatican I) was rejected by the Council.

If Roberts was such a reputable theologian then the Council Fathers would certainly have read his book, and then there are two possibilities :

  1. They thought Geocentrism was dogmatically defined and rejected Roberts' position that it was false, and so Papal Infallibility was not at risk.
  2. They thought Geocentrism was not dogmatically defined and the rejected Roberts' position that it was defined, so even if true, Papal Infallibility was not at risk.
Either way, Roberts was rejected by the Council, which means he is not a reliable theologian to use as a defense.

That is not in any way an ad hominem attack.

As regards White, he suffers from the same problem. Arguably, to point out that he is was a mason falls under Poisioning the Well or the Genetic Fallacy. Those fallacies are bad arguments only when they are not germaine to the topic. When we are speaking about the Catholic Church and her teaching, the fact that someone trying to explain it is not a Catholic or a theologian, and is in fact by blood oath committed to the destruction of the Church is quite relevant to the veracity of his statements.

If you were in court on trial, and your ex-wife who did not get her way in the divorce were called as a character witness, her conflict of interest becomes pretty important. So too when you cite (without attribution) a Freemason who is trying to attack the Catholic Church as being anti-science.

That could be considered a kind of ad hominem against White, but the ad hominem like the genetic fallacy or poisoning the well, is not always fallacious argumentation, when it relates to the argument that is being made.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Stanis

Messages In This Thread
RE: I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution - by MagisterMusicae - 07-03-2019, 07:26 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)