Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 9
On “arguments from silence,” the speaker says they’re legitimate if you’d reasonably expect evidence (elephant vs virus) and applies it to claims like the papacy. What would count as “elephant-level” evidence for something as church-shaping as papal supremacy or icon veneration, and how do you decide what you should reasonably expect early sources to mention?
Another way to ask: If papal supremacy or honoring icons were truly central, what clear “elephant-sized” evidence would you expect early Christian writings to show? How do you decide what early sources should reasonably mention if it was really that important?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The transcript implies “elephant-level” evidence would be clear, early, repeated indications that the Bishop of Rome was in charge of the whole church or could speak infallibly, or that image-veneration was part of Christian worship—not just the existence of images. You decide what to expect by asking whether the doctrine would significantly change church life and therefore likely appear in disputes, councils, and ordinary teaching.
- He defines the principle: an argument from silence is valid when “you can reasonably expect that if X were true, you would have evidence for it” (elephant) and invalid when you wouldn’t (virus).
- He applies it: for papacy, one could argue we’d expect evidence because it “changes the ecclesiology enough” that someone would mention the pope being “infallible” or “in charge of the whole church.”
- He clarifies some “silence” claims aren’t silence at all: “The early church didn’t treat the Bishop of Rome like a pope… That’s… actual evidence.”
- For icons/images, he distinguishes presence from use: images existing doesn’t prove “they must have venerated images.”
- He uses the digital camera/Facebook analogy to show why evidence must match the specific practice, not just a related object.