The arguments of Richard Swinburne seem to be well known (and well debated) among professional philosophers of religion, but little known outside their ranks.

Swinburne’s Principle of Testimony:  “[T]hose who do not have an experience of a certain type ought to believe any others when they say they do -- again, in the absence of deceit or deception.  If we could not in general trust what other people say about their experiences without checking them out in some way, our knowledge of history or geography or science would be almost non-existent.”

His Principle of Credulity:  “Now it is a basic principle of rationality, which I call the principle of credulity, that we ought to believe that things are as they seem to be (in the epistemic sense) unless and until we have evidence that we are mistaken .... If you say the contrary -- never trust appearances until it is proved that they are reliable -- you will never have any beliefs at all.  For what would show that appearances are reliable except more appearances?  And, if you cannot trust appearances as such, you cannot trust these new ones either.  Just as you must trust your ordinary senses, so it is equally rational to trust your religious sense.”

Richard Swinburne, Is There a God? (Oxford, 2d ed., 2010), pp. 115-116.

Harvard anthropologist David Pilbeam, reviewing a book about human origins:  “My reservations concern not so much this book but the whole subject and methodology of paleoanthropology.  But introductory books – or book reviews – are hardly the place to argue that perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories.  Rather, the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past.  Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about.  But that is heresy.”   --  American Scientist 66 (May-June, 1978), pp. 378-379.

“Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.  And, I suppose I should add, it is traditionalism that gives tradition such a bad name.”  --  Jaroslav Pelikan, The Vindication of Tradition

So far I’ve agreed with Bishop McElroy that the distinction between principles and prudential judgments should be consistently applied to both social evils and intrinsically evil acts, but I’ve suggested that he is not consistently following his own advice.

But there is another way he might have made his argument, and I think it would have been stronger. Suppose we agree that the decision to press for an increase in the minimum wage, rather than, say, a change in vocational training, is a judgment of prudence. And suppose we further agree that the decision to press for a series of graduated restrictions on abortion, rather than an immediate comprehensive prohibition, is a judgment of prudence too. But notice: The Church does press for graduated restrictions on abortion. Why then may she not press for an increase in the minimum wage? If one judgment of prudence is within her purview, why not all judgments of prudence? Aren’t all judgments of prudence the same?

What this alternative argument gets right is that the Church does sometimes press judgments of prudence, and not just about abortion. Consider the run-up to the Second World War. She might have contented herself with restating the principles which Nazi ideology denied, but she went further. “With burning concern,” she judged that the Nazi regime had committed atrocities in violation of these principles, and condemned it for them.

What the alternative argument does not get right is whether all judgments of prudence are the same. Some are so urgent and obvious that no person of good will could deny them; they are inseparable from the defense of principle itself. But most are either not so urgent, not so obvious, or neither. Principle can be defended without insisting on them, and reasonable debate among persons of good will may even improve them.

The Church must ardently press the former kind of prudential judgment.  With equal ardor, she must resist the temptation to press the latter kind.

Sadly, human beings are capable of dispute even over the question of which things are reasonably indisputable. It is sufficient to point out that this does not imply that they all really are.

As we saw yesterday, Bishop McElroy doesn’t argue that we shouldn’t distinguish between basic principles and prudential judgments, but that that we ought to apply this distinction consistently -- not only when we are considering social evils such as poverty, but also when we are considering intrinsically evil acts such as abortion.  I closed by saying that this is an excellent point, but the devil is in the details.  Why?

First a bit more explanation.  Concerning poverty, the bishop says the principle which cannot be denied in good faith is that “Catholic teaching demands robust and effective legal sanctions against abortion.” Refusal to support legal restrictions on abortion is inexcusable, even if a legislator argues “that he is in fact doing more to reduce abortions by his support for aid to the poor and health care programs.” On the other hand, reasonable persons may disagree about questions like these: “Should the law criminalize abortion for the mother or for those performing the abortion? Alternatively, should there be noncriminal sanctions? What is the best pathway to outlawing abortion: a series of graduated proposals beginning with parental notification and prohibitions on late-term abortion, or an immediate full court press for comprehensive prohibitions?”

Concerning abortion, he says the principle which cannot be denied in good faith is that “In addition to promoting conditions that provide meaningful jobs for their citizens, nations must provide a humane threshold of income, health benefits and housing.” It would be utterly unjust to “systematically . . . decrease governmental financial support for the poor,” “reduce development assistance to the poorest countries,” or enact “tax policies that increase rather than decrease inequalities.” But reasonable persons may disagree about “financial structures,” “incentives for wealth creation,” and “income support programs that enhance rather than undermine family life.”

Now that devil.  The first difficulty with these examples is that the bishop’s statement of the principle to be defended concerning abortion is far too mushy. He should at least have said that abortion should be discouraged in every practical way, including robust and effective sanctions, sanctions implemented with the greatest possible swiftness and urgency (conceding that since citizens both in and out of government have to be persuaded, the swiftest possible way might conceivably be a series of graduated restrictions, becoming tougher over time).

More to the point is the second difficulty. Although the bishop complains that the distinction between principle and prudence ought to be applied consistently, he does not consistently apply it either. To keep the distinction straight concerning poverty, he should have said something like “governments must earnestly seek the most effective means to raise the level of meaningful employment at good wages, and to ensure that all citizens have access to decent housing and health care.” This would leave open just what the most effective means actually are. Instead he says the government should simply “provide” people with these good things.

It may seem a dubious proposition that the poor are really better off if governments simply hand over income with no strings attached, but whether dubious or not, it is a judgment of prudence. If the bishop thinks it is not a judgment of prudence but a principle of “economic justice,” all I can say is that St. Paul disagrees with him: “If anyone will not work, let him not eat. For we hear that some of you are living in idleness, mere busybodies, not doing any work” (2 Thessalonians 3:10–11).

Notice too that the bishop wants to have it both ways. To say as he does that reasonable people may disagree about how income support should be structured is to say there may be strings attached. Yet his warning that such support may not be systematically decreased is to say there may not be. For what is it to enact, say, a work requirement, but to say that for good reason, the income support of those who refuse to work shall be systematically decreased?

Conclusion tomorrow.