How to argue?

[Detales]

Hi Rookie,

I am no way a Scientologist. But, actually my experience with Scientology is that it faces situations from ethics to handling money to methods of work and healing far more directly and clearly than Catholicism. I nevertheless agree with neither one other than topically. Each has vital, major, pieces but both have neglected to put them together either correctly or in sequence, as far as I can tell.

When I am refering to left and right wiring, in those terms I am speaking of the habitual keeping of the switch to primaryily or pure right brain experience in the “off” position. In the same way that parables have at least three levels of meaning, our experience only superficialy seems to be necessarily involved with the world of experience in the way it is in our culture. This is a proceedural illusion habitually aquired by the necessities of survival. It is not wrong, but it is not complete. And in any of the three positions of experiencibility, the actual referent is to something quite beyond, but inclusive of, matter.

The more complete analogy might be a comparison to a radio transmission. What you hear as a program is the modulation of the carrier wave. Without the modulation it sounds like silence. Yet it is the same energy. Without modulation it is simply potential of expression. With any alteration it becomes modulated and audible/experiencible. Now you can add the concepts of the EM spectrum and both amplitude and frequiency modulations.

To the untrained mind, the root of awareness appears to be nothingness. On examination it can be found to be equivalent to Meaning and Significance. It is also the place where one can go for what psychologists call intuition or diversive thinking problem solving. Ordinarily, some degree of this is a close as folks get. The trick, here in the Earth experience, is to find the “other side” and keep it balanced with the world of form. Rare, but experiencible.

 

[grannymh]

Hi granny,

With more time, I’d like to get into some of the spiritual reading I’ve come across. Maybe that should be on another thread. I think I’ve already re-directed this one from its original topic – How to argue. In any case, I was enthralled with St. John of the Cross and his book “The Dark Night of the Soul.” I don’t think I ever completely understood it. I still wonder if he was experiencing something on such a high spiritual plane – the dryness of his prayers – or was it the exisential angst? Did it truly come from God? Or was it related to psychological implications like depression since he was imprisoned for quite some time? I know I’d be pretty depressed, but he’s a saint, and having read other spiritual authors, it seems to point to an act of God.

No devils on my sewing needles!

Agreed: “All human life is sacred.”

God bless,
rookie

Dear rookie,

– One of the best ways to argue is to smile and hand someone a good book or pamphlet.
Caution: be sure you have read the book or pamphlet first.

Your question about the “dark night of the soul” being spiritual or angst is expertly answered by Father Dubay referenced in post 138. He has two columns, side by side, which show the difference between “Mental/emotional problem” and Dark, purifying night". For example, under “Dark, purifying night”, he writes:
“There is no depression at all. At work, play, meals, the person is as cheerful as at any other period in the spiritual life.” page 163 of Fire Within. The book is published by Ignatius Press and I bet it is still available. Or it might be in a parish library.

Nothing to count on your sewing needles. :nope:
Then you will have lots of time to read.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect.

 

[Sair]

This thread is not aimed at provoking a discussion, rather it is the collection of a few thoughts I gathered while reading these boards. Naturally, I welcome any all all replies.

In my opinion far too many posters use ineffective arguments, which could not possibly be persuasive to the discussion partner, because they use incorrect “tools”.

When arguing with a Catholic, you are in an easy position: you can use any all platforms, the Cathecism, the Magistretium, the Bible, the Sacred Tradition, and any secular arguments you may think of.

When arguing with a Protestant, the “toolset” becomes smaller. Since Protestants do not acknowledge anything but the Sola Scriptura, your arguments should be based upon the Bible and nothing else, apart of course using secular arguments (if you so choose).

Finally, when arguing with an atheist (no need to capitalize it), the only convincing arguments are the non-religious, secular ones. Since atheists do not believe in the Bible, the Cathecism, the declarations of the pope, or any revelation, it is ineffective to use any of these methods to support your position. Naturally, they are great to clarify your position, but you should never think that you actually presented an argument.

This is the true and acceptable “ad-hominem” method. Base your arguments on what your opponent considers correct, not what you think is correct. The discussions will be much more fruitful. Obviously this is just a friendly advice, nothing more.

Have a nice day!

\//

Nifty

Having experienced several threads in this forum now, I really appreciate the idea of having a “debaters’ toolkit” for arguing with various positions. Different arguments will carry weight with different posters, depending upon their beliefs and their ethical standpoint. I would suggest it can also be useful to arm yourself with a list of logical fallacies, so you can spot arguments that are poorly constructed, or internally contradictory, or just plain invalid.

What I have yet to discover, however, is an effective means of arguing with those who will stick doggedly to their position, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, and will belittle your position by denying that your arguments are valid, but without actually giving any consistent support to their own position. My suspicion is that it’s best to ignore such posters, but unfortunately, my passionate belief in certain issues and principles sometimes leads me to debate with stonewallers…

 

[Spock]

Nifty

Having experienced several threads in this forum now, I really appreciate the idea of having a “debaters’ toolkit” for arguing with various positions. Different arguments will carry weight with different posters, depending upon their beliefs and their ethical standpoint. I would suggest it can also be useful to arm yourself with a list of logical fallacies, so you can spot arguments that are poorly constructed, or internally contradictory, or just plain invalid.

Very true. I am planning another thread (maybe titled: “How not to argue”) and collect the most frequent fallacies.

What I have yet to discover, however, is an effective means of arguing with those who will stick doggedly to their position, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, and will belittle your position by denying that your arguments are valid, but without actually giving any consistent support to their own position. My suspicion is that it’s best to ignore such posters, but unfortunately, my passionate belief in certain issues and principles sometimes leads me to debate with stonewallers…

Yes, it is quite annoying to see the same old, refuted arguments pop up all the time, and some posters ignoring all the refutations. What can we do? Probably, as you said, they should be ignored. But, they are the ones who follow you from thread to thread, making condescending remarks, and generally making pests of themselves. I guess, this is the price to pay…

 

[Detales]

I’ve had the same experience with myself, Sair. Good point. I finally had to ask mysief “Who am I doing this argueing for?” In the last alnalysis, I was doing it to please myself, to have that feeling of rightness that comnes from an argument that from my side feels righteous. I finally had to admit, that that is not only fruitless, but potentially destructive.

If I am someone in fifth grade who has just found our some information that is true at that level, and it is new and exciting and meaningful to me, I can argue it against a more inclusive position from a twelveth grader forever. they will have their more inclusive arguenment and be correct in it, while I am at my capacity at the moment. If they persist, I mey become foreverentrenched in my lesser position by habit of defending it. Or I can be argueing against someone who is just plain stubborn and attack will only entrench tem further.

It is also not uncommon even in science to have proved theories rejected by many scientists of an older paradigm. E=MCC wasn’t accepted by many fo a long time. Some physicists went to their grave rejecting it. As Merrell-Wolff pointed out, three things need to happen before a theory is accepted in science:

A) It must be reasonable, and shown to be founded on existing, accepted theories.
B) It must be repeatable, and any experimenter who does the proof given the same paramaters must come up with the same results, or alternately disprove the paramaters.
C)* Most importantly*, it has to be emotionally acceptable. Remember the farmer who didn’t see the steam engine because it was impossible within his frame of reference. Many arguements on here are simply not emotionally acceptable to the worthy opponent. Along with that, it is mostly fruitless to argue against faith. Argument is only sufficient if it enlarges experience on a foundation that at least* appears *solid to the opponent, and if they are desireous of change to begin with.

I always try to check the personal info on someone whose post I am replying to. That sometimes gives me a clue as to who I am addressing my comments. There are everyone from teenagers to old fogeys like me who are on here. That’s why I did the courtesy of providing a bit of personal info on my profile. Ideally, an answer is couched in a setting appropriate to the poster. Sometimes, though, you have to “fly blind” and answer the face of the question. That can be chancy sometimes. I even had a posting that seemed innocent enough to me deleted by a moderator. And certailny there are some posters I just won’t respond to. Oh, well, live and learn.

In any case, it is good to consider whom you are arguing not to, but for. If I see that I’m arguing for myself in the face of an adamentine attitude, I’m just being selfish or stupid or both. sometimes I notice, sometime someone has to whack me up the side of the head. Hopefully it is all a learning experience.

 

[Sair]

Atheist is someone who lacks the belief in a god or gods. Religion is the practice stemming from the belief in something “supernatural”.

You are right in a sense, the question “Religion” does not allow a proper response. (Just like the question: “when have you stopped beating your wife?”. If you never raised hand against your wife, this question cannot be answered.) If I had answered: “Religion: Atheist”, that would have been incorrect, as per the definition of “religion”. Atheism is not a religion.

So glad you said this. I’ve noticed that one of the most favoured ‘arguments’ against atheism is that atheists are just as dogmatic and attached to their beliefs as any Christian/Jew/Muslim/Hindu/Insert-relevant-religion-here, and therefore atheism is just another religion among many. Sure, some atheists are fairly inflammatory, like Dawkins, but atheism in no way constitutes a religion in and of itself. Some religions are, by their nature and ethics, atheistic - like Buddhism, Jainism, and, dare I say it, Scientology
shudder. Conversely, theism also doesn’t constitute religion. Like atheism, it is an aspect of some religions.

Incidentally, I listed ‘atheist’ in the ‘Personal Information’ section of my profile, not the ‘Religion’ section

 

[warpspeedpetey]

the enemy of my enemy is my friend

 

[Detales]

There is also a line of reasoning that asserts that faith based, as distinct from empirical systems such as Zen, are themnselves secular in that they rely on the acceptance of dogmas based on emotion, habit and the particualr argument of that belief system. Ao it might be said that someone who is solely basing their belief in God on an argumention of unexperienced scriptural validity is yet secular despit the object of theyr belif system being God. This is because the God is in this case anthropomorphic and a construct as distinct from a direct experience. It is contents, not an argument proceeding from experience of substance.

 

[Sair]

I think it is necessary at times to inject points into a discussion that are so powerful and unanswerable that the person to whom these remarks are addressed may tend to over-react and become angry. This is especially likely to happen in discussions with atheists, who tend to twist the argument into an attack on their person (“Stop telling me what my motive is for being an atheist!”) when the atheist at the same time is openly or by insinuation constantly implying that true believers are ignorant of science and prone to superstition. You will often find atheists using words like “silly” or “absurd” or “childish” to describe a religious point of view expressed in these forums.

So I think the criticism of manners goes both ways, and I have noticed that the worst and most angry manners belong to the atheists. I am certainly not alone in thinking so. Many Catholic apologists I know have registered the same complaint.

So I think when atheists presume to tell Christians how to comport themselves in discussions, they should also be giving atheists some advice as well.

Speaking as an atheist who has frequently posted to the forum, I must own that there are times when I have been less than courteous. I do understand the mitigating factors at work here, however, for both Catholics and non-Catholics (having been, during my life, both of these). There are only so many times one can hear an opposing worldview injected into an otherwise neutrally-reasoned argument before becoming aggravated. Of course, it’s each individual poster’s choice as to whether they succumb to the aggravation, but since we are all imperfect beings, it’s largely inevitable that it will happen some of the time. All I can say in my own defence is that I do try - very hard, sometimes - to be polite, even in the face of derision. Although I can’t say I have noticed any greater tendency to rudeness in atheists than in Catholic or other religious posters, that may well be because I don’t tend to examine people’s personal profiles when reading threads.

 

[Detales]

“You will often find atheists using words like “silly” or “absurd” or “childish” to describe a religious point of view expressed in these forums.” ~Charlemagne II

This can easily be said by other than atheists, and I am quite sure it is said silently by many before replying to some posts.

 

[Sair]

There is also a line of reasoning that asserts that faith based, as distinct from empirical systems such as Zen, are themnselves secular in that they rely on the acceptance of dogmas based on emotion, habit and the particualr argument of that belief system. Ao it might be said that someone who is solely basing their belief in God on an argumention of unexperienced scriptural validity is yet secular despit the object of theyr belif system being God. This is because the God is in this case anthropomorphic and a construct as distinct from a direct experience. It is contents, not an argument proceeding from experience of substance.

Good point! Perhaps as a general rule, it might be a good idea to state the position from which you are arguing, before launching into an argument. For example, as you say, it may be possible that a believer is arguing purely from dogmatic belief in scripture, or from some enlightenment they have attained through personal experience which either supports their belief in scriptural pretexts, or contradicts it. This way, the poster’s reasoning becomes more clear to others reading the post, and perhaps most will take the hint as to whether you are open to counterarguments or impervious in your beliefs and liable to take offence.

 

[Sair]

Yes, it is interesting in that regard that many folks I’ve talked with have gone one way or another with suffering. It either drove them into something akin to despair, or they have grown from it. My own Mom, who was a refugee near the end of WWII, said that despite the horrors of it all, she would not trade it for anything because of the lessons she learned, especially about herself. I have heard this in particular from people who have experienced combat or were the victims of war. Of course, my sampling is very very small, but I was surprised to hear that similar remark from many.

So it is possible, for sure, to conclude that suffering *may be *good for the soul, if correctly utilized as motivation. Certainly the usual need for dealing with suffering is to end it. And I think that the greatest suffering is the sense of separation. In fact, my Mentor defined hell as the sense of separation and heaven as the sense of unity.

Suffering is a universal problem, I believe - at least in terms of what one should do about it, or do with it. My belief, at least as far as I have been able to formulate one on this issue, is partially derived from the utilitarian notion that suffering is generally best avoided, if possible. The granting of basic rights to humans and other animals is based in part on the principle that anything that can suffer has a right to be spared unnecessary suffering. Then of course, one must define the ‘unnecessary’ component. Obviously if someone chooses to hurt you through malice or just does so through thoughtless inconsideration, then the suffering could, at least in theory, have been spared. Alternatively, to pose a simple example, the suffering entailed in sitting in the dentist’s chair is often necessary to preserve dental health

More importantly, as others have suggested, is the way one copes with situations that cause suffering. Ultimately, we have a choice as to what we do with our experiences, and it’s clear that while some people are brutalised by suffering, others are able to rise above it, learn from the experience and emerge stronger from it. That would depend in part upon the nature of the suffering, and whether it was something that one could actually cope with. I would think that the suffering arising from torture would be qualitatively different from the suffering arising from a long illness, for example.

I have sometimes observed that all it takes to avoid a victim mentality is to make the choice to refuse it. If one decides that one is going to learn from one’s experience, then every experience, whether good or bad, makes you richer in knowledge and understanding, at least about yourself. If you can wrest goodness from bad experiences, you become more powerful within yourself.

And I have to say, on a slightly lighter note, that discontentment definitely makes for better poetry!

 

[Detales]

I found the phrase “scriptural pretexts” interesting. Do you mean by that that scripture is pretext per se, or that it is misunderstood and misinterprted due to ignorance and inexperience, or do you mean something else? I am asking because from my position I found that before and after a particular instance of profound insight and consequent re-education, I had a radically different interpretation of scriptures known to me through my birth religion. I now had an experiential referent that infused certain texts with a deep Meaning that was far different from the dogmaticaly assigned interpretation. This is why I constantly advocate self inquiry. Though my particular insight was thrust upon me, my understanding is that similar insight, or better, may be gained by certain practices. At least those practices can afford a scaffolding for the structure of insight, whereas blind faith is prophylactic to the Meaning of certain experiences, even if they are had.

My experience, because I was already in a state of inquiry, changed my world, and now I have to agree with the man who said that “The search for Reality is the most dangerous undertaking; it destroys your world.” This is emphatically true. But the “world” refered to in that statement is the world of inexperienced dogmatic belief. I would not yet recommend such a search for everyone, and it is also incompatible in process and conclusion with some a-religious systems. But at least I can say that I base what I profess on what I know is true for me experientially, as distinct from what was previously an emotion based need for an answer. After, I was able to say* for myself* "HOLY COW!!! THAT’S what was meant by that!!!

 

[Detales]

Amen to the poetry! LOL! I don’t dwell on suffering, but one of my best came from it, LOL!

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread has gone way off topic. Please take side discussions to new threads or join existing ones of interest. Thank you, all.