Our friend Alan Rhoda, the mighty Alanyzer, has some interesting thoughts on what he calls the “Theologian’s Fallacy”, or “Trumping”.
I see his point, though I don’t like the names (it may be a popular sort of response among theologians, but it’s hardly limited to them.) And it isn’t really a fallacy is it? Isn’t it just a recognizable species of bad behavior – epistemically bad, and perhaps sometimes morally bad as well?
“Trumping” – not the right word either. He’s talking about a bad habit, a vice – “trumping” is too neutral a term.
Anyway check out his post, and this follow up. Ideas, and not the names for them, are what matter.
I see what Alan is on to, though I think some of his critics are right that we need some more analysis alanyzis of the idea of “trumping”…
One more quick thought. This accusation of irrational “trumping” makes more sense when there’s a dispute about the proper interpretation of the Bible. If the Authority is a pope, you can just ask him, or read him. On some points, creeds are crystal clear. Sometimes, there are few worries about what the Authority says – depends on the Authority which is being appealed to. Of course, one can still ask: why accept that as an Authority.
