Appeal to authority

[Belacqua]

More appropriately, we have to be sure that those who we think are authorities are, in fact,  authorities in the subject at hand. At the very least, that means they have access to the information on which they are claimed to be authorities and there is a way they can verify the information. We also have to make sure their authority is relevant to the statements made.

So, for example, if Einstein claimed to be an authority on ancient Egyptian history, we would reasonably doubt that claim unless he could present some evidence of his knowledge of such. In contrast, it is well-known that he was an authority for physics. But we also know that authority expires. So Einstein, even in physics, would not be an authority in any discoveries made since his death.

Yes, all agreed. 

I just wanted to make the point that a statement like "X said Y, therefore Y is true" is a logical fallacy, even if X is a real authority and Y really is true. Yet we all have to put confidence in authority sometimes. 

On the other side, we can reasonably ask whether *anyone* can be an authority in theology. Yes, it is quite possible to be an authority in what people in the past have thought about theology, 

Right. An authority on theology, I guess, would be someone who is trustworthy when she describes the arguments made by theologians. Just as an authority on any branch of philosophy will be someone trustworthy in his discussion of what philosophers have said. Such people are useful as guides when we're looking into the field. We often see straw-man versions of theological arguments by people who aren't authorities, or experts, and if we're serious it's important to know the real claims involved.

But does anyone have testable access to any deity to justify their claims to knowledge? And, even if they did, how could anyone else verify such? So, it is reasonable to deny any appeals to authority about the nature of God simply because anyone claiming authority is clearly lying.

Here you're setting an axiom, which is a philosophical or metaphysical claim. You are taking as given the idea that knowledge is only gained by testable and -- I assume -- empirical input. And that to be reliable it must be verifiable -- again, I assume by empirical testing. 

You are aware, I'm sure, that the axiom you've given -- that all reliable knowledge must be obtained through empirical verifiable methods -- is not something that can be confirmed by empirical and verifiable methods. So it's a claim that needs to be argued in a philosophical way. 

Experts or authorities on theology or philosophy can be very helpful in analyzing the axiom you use here. Metaphysics in general is -- by definition -- not something that physics can test. Hence the name "metaphysics." Yet we all have positions on metaphysical ideas. E.g., your position that science is the best source of knowledge. 

Good authorities on theology, metaphysics, or other branches of philosophy make careful arguments concerning issues which can't be tested in the way you want knowledge to be tested. There are claims about theology and metaphysics which are foolish, and claims which are very hard to disprove. The authorities, as in any field, help us to understand these. 

Sometimes people begin with the same axiom as you and then just assume that anything a metaphysician argues must be stupid. This has led to some very bad philosophizing from non-authorities in the field. If they begin with the assumption that all theology is stupid, they assume they can knock it down easily. But its isn't always this easy.