There is an ongoing debate between Baha’i theologians on the definition of infallibility itself. They can’t arrive at an agreement and the arguments have been flying back and forth for some time. One theological school of thought says that it has something to do with the Arabic word maasum.
But for most people infallibility means that one doesn’t make mistakes, everything one says or decides or does is right.
So for the sake of simplicity, lets go with that definition. Here’s the thing that I just can’t wrap my puny mind around: If someone, or some institution, as the case is in the Baha’i Faith is believed to be infallible, then doesn’t that require a prerequisite of omniscience?
Let me explain.
If I were to ask an infallible person (say, the Pope) or an institution (say, the UHJ) what the air-speed velocity of an unladen African swallow is, wouldn’t they have to know the air-speed velocity of an unladen African swallow before being able to give me an infallible answer?
You might argue and say, “Wait a tick! The Pope and the UHJ are only infallible when it comes to subjects relevant to Roman Catholicism or to the Baha’i Faith. They have nothing to say when it comes to ornithology, therefore they have an automatic ‘Get Out of Jail’ card. So there! Ha.”
ok, fine. Technically you’d be right but I was just making an analogy, I would respond. Try and chillax there, Mr. McNitpickyson.
So getting back to the topic, logic dictates that before one can answer a question or take a position on something in an infallible way… one would require knowledge or information. And lots and lots of it. In fact, if you want to be absolutely right always and without limits, then you would require absolute knowledge, without limits. There’s a word for that: omniscience.
And even if one doesn’t simply know everything, to be able to be infallible, one would still require knowledge to be able to calculate, analyse and so forth correctly to be able to arrive at an infallible conclusion (that is, know not only how to arrive at it but to recognize the answer) .
But wait, you pipe up from the back: “What if Pope didn’t have to be omniscient to answer, what if the Pope could bend the fabric of space and time and simply reconstitute reality so that the air velocity of an unladen African swallow would be whatever he deemed it to be? What then, huh, smartypants?”
There is only one thing I would object to in that case. Namely that the Pope, nor the UHJ nor any mortal person has such power. There aren’t any omnipotent beings running around. Except for God (and some people don’t even believe He exists). And to my knowlege no one else is claiming to be omnipotent.
Back to square one.
This might be a good place to wonder if the the UHJ is indeed omniscient. That would certainly make things simple.
“However, the Universal House of Justice is not omniscient…”
(Universal House of Justice — June 14th, 1996)
Well, there goes that theory.
Now, before proceeding, I want to clarify something else. I am not saying that omniscience and infallibility are one and the same. Not at all. One can know everything and be fallible. That is, one can choose to not exercise one’s omniscience. Like for example, knowing how to juggle and choosing to sit on your hands. The two are clearly separate and distinct from each other. You can have one without the other, but can you have the other without the one first?
Could one be infallible if one is not omniscient? If yes, how would that work?
Here is the UHJ again:
We have found nothing in the writings of Shoghi Effendi which suggests that the House of Justice would on any occasion reach a “wrong decision”.
(Universal House of Justice — June 14th, 1996)
How could anyone or any earthly institution be infallible (in the sense of never making mistakes and always being right) if they do not also possess omniscience?
There is the conundrum for me.
If you have an answer, I’d be delighted to hear it. But please use small words so that my few remaining brain cells can handle the synaptic load.
You might also be interested in Part II – a continuation of this discussion.
