Originally posted by kingdanwa
Nemesio,
I'm not sure what you're getting at exactly. Are you saying that the morals of a priest matter because his "truth" is primarily about morals? Or are you just saying that hypocrite's motives need to be examined, but scientist's dont?
-Le roi
Neither. I said 'we are prone to be distracted.' I meant precisely what I said. A person who
makes a moral proclamation A and then, himself, does ~A is distracting the inattentive examiner
of the proclamation, for we expect a person who proclaims the validity of A to follow it, hence
my example with the Pope who fathers a child.
Whenever we are presented with a moral (or scientific) proclamation X, we reside within our
own hermeneutic. Consider, for example, lucifershammer (who is knowledgable about RCC
doctrine, but has a bias to favor it) and RBHILL (who is utterly ignorant towards RCC doctrine
and has a bias against it). Because we have to start somewhere in out examination of X,
knowing the hermeneutic of the person who proclaims X can give us a hint about where to
start. If lucifershammer says, 'document Y reads Z,' and lucifershammer has a tendency to
read such documents accurately and fairly, then we might, for the sake of expediency, accept
his reading. However, if RBHILL makes the claim that, 'document E reads F,' and we RBHILL
tends to misread documents, we might be more inclined to examine what is being said.
We make all sorts of shortcuts all the time. We choose a certain tack for examining an
argument based on the arguer all the time. That is because we consciously (as well as sub-
and un-consciously) are evaluating the hermeneutic around us. To deny this is foolishness.
However, and I expect this is your point, to say 'RBHILL is wrong
because he is biased
against the RCC' is idiotic and should be avoided.
Nemesio