Assessing Papal Probabilities: A Reply to Joseph E. Blado
Joseph Blado critiqued my probabilistic arguments against Roman papal doctrines by deploying probability arguments, particularly Bayesian arguments, in favor of the papacy. He contends that there are good C-inductive arguments for papal doctrine that, taken together, add up to a good P-inductive arg...
| 發表在: | Perichoresis |
|---|---|
| 主要作者: | |
| 其他作者: | |
| 格式: | 電子 Article |
| 語言: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | 載入...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| 出版: |
Sciendo, De Gruyter
[2020]
|
| In: |
Perichoresis
|
| IxTheo Classification: | HA Bible KCB Papacy VB Hermeneutics; Philosophy |
| Further subjects: | B
Luz
B probability arguments B Intertextuality B papal doctrine |
| 在線閱讀: |
Volltext (doi) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| 總結: | Joseph Blado critiqued my probabilistic arguments against Roman papal doctrines by deploying probability arguments, particularly Bayesian arguments, in favor of the papacy. He contends that there are good C-inductive arguments for papal doctrine that, taken together, add up to a good P-inductive argument. I argue that his inductive arguments fail, and moreover that there are three good C-inductive arguments against papal doctrine in the neighborhood of his failed arguments. I conclude by critiquing his retreat to what he calls ‘skeptical papalism’ as a last ditch sort of move to defend papal doctrine. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2284-7308 |
| Reference: | Kritik von "On the Plausibility of the Papacy: Scaling the Walls of Contemporary Criticisms (2022)"
|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Perichoresis
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.2478/perc-2020-0031 |