The Spock principle

[tonyrey]

Well you have a confused understanding of the Christian notion of faith. I am talking about claims which exceed our experience: that Jesus performed miracles, or that God became man, for instance. Or that there is an afterlife.

You are misrepresenting me. The Christian concept of faith is quite different from the philosophical concept which is abstract, intellectual and unrelated to a specific ideology.

 

[vz71]

You believe incorrectly. A solipsist might deny the existence of the external world. I would not argue with such a person, I would kick him and see if he still can deny it. Problem solved.

No, I am quite correct.
You stated your principle as arguing with someone on their own terms.
You provided examples that included tossing out evidence that the other party finds inauthoritative.

Yet you state that you should not toss out certain evidences no matter who you are arguing with.

That is a violation of principle.

Then we arrive at this above quoted example…by admission you are telling us that you resort to violence when faced with an untenable argumnet.

Your principle seems shaky at best. For you cannot even follow your own rules.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

I will respond fully when I actually get to a computer. My SmartPhone is dumb. It takes from its owner.

A word in passing though… The statements of mine that you bolded were a statement of “interpretation” and “verse”, respectively. The interpretation was clearly wrong in terms of the verse.

And I never said that the Church IS the ONLY one QUALIFIED to make the interpretation. I just said I believe the Church makes correct interpretations. More precisely, it never makes the wrong one.

And I strongly disagree with your exegesis and final statement (as usual). Perhaps we will never agree but it is certainly worth the discussion.

I guess that was several words in passing but more explanations, elaborations and responses later. It may be today or at the latest Monday.

Take care buddy

 

[davidv]

Who created hell? Did not God create everything? Is God not omnipresent - which means that God is everywhere, also in hell? But of course I said that to condemn someone to everlasting torture is not a good way to express God’s love toward that person. That is not how love manifests itself in the circles where I dwell.

What do you mean by everything? Did God created the building that you live in?
Depending on your answers, the your first question may be invalid.

Is hell a thing? Is it a place?

Catholic teaching indicates that hell is a relationship, specifically a lack of a loving relationship between an individual and God, the exclusion of God. Given this it appears you have presented a strawman.

 

[jmcrae]

Who created hell?

Hell came into existence when Lucifer rebelled against God.

Did not God create everything?

God didn’t create evil; yet it exists. Both Hell and evil can be thought of as absences or gaps in Creation - evil is a lack of good; Hell is a lack of Heaven.

Is God not omnipresent - which means that God is everywhere, also in hell?

“If I make my bed in Hell, behold, Thou art there.” Ps. 139:8

But of course I said that to condemn someone to everlasting torture is not a good way to express God’s love toward that person.

Ultimately, we make our own free choice, whether to go to Heaven, or to go to Hell. God doesn’t “send” anybody to Hell, but by default, those who refuse to go to Heaven, end up in “not Heaven” (the absence of Heaven) - which is Hell.

 

[Betterave]

No, you did not. Jmcrae did. But I consider a scare tactics dumb and unreasonable.

And no doubt sometimes they are. But only sometimes. To consider them always dumb and unreasonable is itself dumb and unreasonable.

I don’t think it is silly. A God who is so immensely knowledgable and powerful cannot consider our feelings toward him important.

Oh really? Why not? (It sounds like you think you understand God pretty well - that’s a bit odd, isn’t it?)

(If you could communicate with ants, would you care about their “adoration”?)

No; nor would ants be capable of adoring me, even if I could communicate with them. So what??

Also, according to Catholic teaching God instilled our reasoning power in us. I think it is “silly” to assume that God prefers that we suspend our reasoning powers (given by him) and wishes that we rely on unsubstantitated “faith”.

But that is a straw man (I never said God prefers that we suspend our reasoning powers so as to rely only on unsubstantiated “faith”). In other words, your claim here IS a “suspension” of your own reasoning powers insofar as it is a bad argument, and you are right: such a “suspension” (or rather, abuse) of reason is not pleasing to God, at least according to the Catholic view.

 

[Betterave]

What is enough information is decided by each person. You cannot decide for me, and I cannot decide for you. Moreover, not even God can make that decision for me.

It might be decided by each person, but that decision is subject to correction by someone else who knows better (think God, for example).

 

[Betterave]

God didn’t create evil; yet it exists. Both Hell and evil can be thought of as absences or gaps in Creation - evil is a lack of good; Hell is a lack of Heaven.

That’s not what I believe and not what I believe to be the Catholic view. God indeed freely created Hell. What reason do you have for denying this?

 

[Spock]

And no doubt sometimes they are. But only sometimes. To consider them always dumb and unreasonable is itself dumb and unreasonable.

You are playing word games. I did not say that they are “always” dumb. But I did not say that they are “generally” dumb either. I simply left out the qualifier.

Oh really? Why not? (It sounds like you think you understand God pretty well - that’s a bit odd, isn’t it?)

Maybe it is odd. See the next line for the logic.

No; nor would ants be capable of adoring me, even if I could communicate with them. So what??

And if they “would be capable”? And if you “could communicate” with them? The difference between the ants and us is much smaller than the difference between us and God. That is my point. There is no common platform between us and God. To say that God wants “worship” and “adoration” is to anthropomorphize God.

But that is a straw man (I never said God prefers that we suspend our reasoning powers so as to rely only on unsubstantiated “faith”). In other words, your claim here IS a “suspension” of your own reasoning powers insofar as it is a bad argument, and you are right: such a “suspension” (or rather, abuse) of reason is not pleasing to God, at least according to the Catholic view.

I will risk your ire by quoting the Bible: “The wisdom of the world is folly with God”. As Luther said (and some posters agreed here): “Reason must be made the handmaiden of faith”, and “reason must be trampled underfoot”. If God gave us our reasoning powers, then we are to use it, and if reason contradicts faith, then faith must be re-examined, and if necessary, discarded.

 

[The_Exodus]

I don’t think so. Look at tonyray’s post above. He says that everything is accepted on “faith”, except the existence of our own thoughts. Before you accuse me of having an incorrect understanding, look around in your “camp”.

Pointing fingers doesn’t make an argument or refutation. Regardless of what tonyrey said – or what you misunderstood him as saying – you’ve said nothing toward my point.

spock:

Anything? How do you know that? I read the following nonsense so many times, that I am sick and tired of it: “For those who believe no proof is necessary. For those who do not, no proof is sufficient”. Hogwash!

Unless one already believes in God, people will attempt to rationalize miracles or explain them away. Indeed, they will not think them as possible (I don’t know why, perhaps because of some faith they have in “the order of nature.”)

What I mean about explaining away can be seen in the greatest evidence of a miracle in the sceintific community today - the Big Bang. Apparently people are more willing to suspend their minds and believe the absurd claim that everything came from nothing for no reason at all, than think that the universe is the result of some higher power.

 

[vz71]

And if they “would be capable”? And if you “could communicate” with them? The difference between the ants and us is much smaller than the difference between us and God. That is my point. There is no common platform between us and God. To say that God wants “worship” and “adoration” is to anthropomorphize God.

Another “let’s pretend” argument.

Arguments go much further when rooted in fact. Ants are simply incapable of adoration of another. It is pointless to speculate on the ramifications of a condition that does not and cannot exist.

As to God being more different from us then the ants…pish posh.
We were made in God’s image.
God regularly communicated with us in the OT, and such was a two way communication.
God became man. God experienced what we experience and died for us.

Man may not be able to reach up and understand God, but God has certainly reached down to us to provide us with what we need.

 

[Spock]

Pointing fingers doesn’t make an argument or refutation. Regardless of what tonyrey said – or what you misunderstood him as saying – you’ve said nothing toward my point.

I pointed out that “faith” is used ambigously.

Unless one already believes in God, people will attempt to rationalize miracles or explain them away. Indeed, they will not think them as possible (I don’t know why, perhaps because of some faith they have in “the order of nature.”)

And here is another glaring example of misusing “faith”. Enough said.

What I mean about explaining away can be seen in the greatest evidence of a miracle in the sceintific community today - the Big Bang. Apparently people are more willing to suspend their minds and believe the absurd claim that everything came from nothing for no reason at all, than think that the universe is the result of some higher power.

No scientist says that the universe came from “nothing”. The Big Bang is not the beginning of the Universe, it is the beginning of the current form of the Universe. Scientists will readily admit that they do not know the properties of the singularity. To call the Big Bang a “miracle” is nonsense.

 

[Betterave]

You are playing word games. I did not say that they are “always” dumb. But I did not say that they are “generally” dumb either. I simply left out the qualifier.

There was no word game. Being precise with language is not a game, even if it’s also not something that matters on *your *“playing field.”

In any case, in a statement of the form “I consider scare tactics dumb and unreasonable” - note the lack of qualification by a “sometimes” or an “in this instance” - the “always” is clearly enough implied. So it is you playing word games (rather ineptly).

Maybe it is odd. See the next line for the logic.

Indeed, let’s see…

And if they “would be capable”? And if you “could communicate” with them? The difference between the ants and us is much smaller than the difference between us and God. That is my point. There is no common platform between us and God. To say that God wants “worship” and “adoration” is to anthropomorphize God.

Your logic is based on an obviously false premise, which in turn rests on a non sequitur. The difference between ants and us may be smaller than that between us and God; it does not follow that there is no “common platform” between us and God. And indeed, the latter claim is certainly false according to Catholic belief. Also, if God and man have something in common, then there is nothing wrong, in principle, with “anthropomorphizing” God; it’s just a matter of how this is done. And finally, you provided no logic here whatsoever to defend your implied claim to be able to make true claims about God - that claim still seems rather odd, coming from you.

I will risk your ire by quoting the Bible: “The wisdom of the world is folly with God”. As Luther said (and some posters agreed here): “Reason must be made the handmaiden of faith”, and “reason must be trampled underfoot”. If God gave us our reasoning powers, then we are to use it, and if reason contradicts faith, then faith must be re-examined, and if necessary, discarded.

The “wisdom of the world” is not always true wisdom; sometimes it is folly. This can be known by the use of reason, just as well as by an appeal to what is known by faith. You are proposing a false dichotomy between faith and reason, which you *must *know by now (?) is contrary to the Catholic conception of the matter. (“Faith tramples reason”?? - puh-leease! You do *learn *something occasionally in your time spent here at CAF, I hope?)

 

[vz71]

If God gave us our reasoning powers, then we are to use it, and if reason contradicts faith, then faith must be re-examined, and if necessary, discarded.

It is true wisdom to know where a conflict truly exists and where only the appearance of a conflict exists.

In essence, knowing what you know and knowing what you do not know are essential.

 

[Betterave]

In any case, in a statement of the form “I consider scare tactics dumb and unreasonable” - note the lack of qualification by a “sometimes” or an “in this instance” - the “always” is clearly enough implied. So it is you playing word games (rather ineptly).

Spock,
I’m guessing there’s a good chance you won’t understand why the “always” is implied, so let me explain: If you believed that scare tactics were dumb and unreasonable only sometimes, you would owe us an argument of the following form:

Scare tactics are dumb and unreasonable in certain cases.
This case is one of those because…(fill in the reason).
(Implied conclusion: therefore the scare tactics used here were dumb and unreasonable.)

But you didn’t give us an argument of that form. You gave us this:

Scare tactics are dumb and unreasonable (implied: always).
(Implied conclusion: therefore the scare tactics used here were dumb and unreasonable.)

Without the “always,” the implied conclusion would be a non sequitur. Now this is basic logic, and you might object that I’m not playing on your playing field when I appeal to basic logic. But that’s too bad for you! I can’t play on your illogical playing field. It would just be wrong. You’ll have to join me on mine (that’s an invitation, as well as an argument).

 

[vz71]

Now this is basic logic, and you might object that I’m not playing on your playing field when I appeal to basic logic. But that’s too bad for you! I can’t play on your illogical playing field. It would just be wrong. You’ll have to join me on mine (that’s an invitation, as well as an argument).

Another violation of ‘The Spock Principle’

But don’t worry, the principle is regularly borken by Spock as well as many others.

The principle is more a suggestion then a rule.

Perhaps we should title this thread ‘The Spock Un-Principle’

 

[david_friol_1]

I tried to introduce this concept a few times before, during the many years I have been around. For a short time it was followed. The new posters do not know about it, and they keep on repeating the same errors, over and over again. The principle is about the proper way of making a meaningful argument. Using just a few words, it says:

Always argue on the playing field of you opposition.

Examples:

When talking to a Protestant, don’t ever try to refer to the Cathecism, or try to refer to the infallibility of the Pope, or the authority of the Catholic Church. These arguments are meaningless to a Protestant. Your only option is to argue based upon Sola Scriptura. Nothing else is convincing to a Protestant.

When arguing with an atheist, never try to bring up the Bible, the sacred tradition, the Cathecism, the infallibility of the Pope, or the authority of the Catholic Church. You only waste your time, and your opponent’s time. If you want to make a convincing argument, use only rational, secular methods. And your starting point should always be fully secular. Otherwise your arguments are wasted. Your conversation partner will not accept it.

You are not only free, but strongly advised to bring up these sources to clarify your position. It is always helpful to have a clear understanding of what you believe in. But don’t think that you delivered an argument, because you did not. Of course I am not naive, and I don’t think that this advise will be followed for a long time. Eventually it will be forgotten, even if it might be followed for a short time. I would like to see this as a “sticky”, to cut down on meaningless posts, but I don’t think this will happen. But as long as I am around, I will refer to it. When I see a post contrary to this principle, I will not go into details, but I will refer to it as a violation of the Spock principle.

Hey Spock
I don’t know if anyone has said this to you or not on this thread but I think many times on other threads you have violated the Spock principle. Because according to it when you are arguing with a Catholic you, apparantly are not allowed to use “rational, secular methods”, but only the Bible, the sacred tradition, the Cathecism, the infallibility of the Pope, or the authority of the Catholic Church.
I think the Spock principle is funny!
God bless you Spock in all your efforts!

 

[Spock]

Hey Spock
I don’t know if anyone has said this to you or not on this thread but I think many times on other threads you have violated the Spock principle. Because according to it when you are arguing with a Catholic you, apparantly are not allowed to use “rational, secular methods”, but only the Bible, the sacred tradition, the Cathecism, the infallibility of the Pope, or the authority of the Catholic Church.
I think the Spock principle is funny!

I need to answer this one.

It is interesting to see that you deny “rational and secular” methods being used by believers in general and Catholics in particular. My opinion is that believers are not as irrational as you paint them to be. (Funny that my opinion is not as devastating toward the believers as yours.) In real life I find them as rational as everyone else, and not all of them lose their rationality when it comes to religious matters - especially when it comes to religions different from theirs.

So I do not violate my own principle when I use secular arguments as well as looking at the Bible, the catecism and the dogmas.

By the way, I find it very kind of you to look up all the threads where I paricipated and see you resurrect them. But I don’t have the time or the inclination to carry so many threads around. So take this remark as a “thank you note”, for finding my posts worthy of reviewing.

 

[david_friol_1]

I need to answer this one.

It is interesting to see that you deny “rational and secular” methods being used by believers in general and Catholics in particular. My opinion is that believers are not as irrational as you paint them to be. (Funny that my opinion is not as devastating toward the believers as yours.) In real life I find them as rational as everyone else, and not all of them lose their rationality when it comes to religious matters - especially when it comes to religions different from theirs.

So I do not violate my own principle when I use secular arguments as well as looking at the Bible, the catecism and the dogmas.

By the way, I find it very kind of you to look up all the threads where I paricipated and see you resurrect them. But I don’t have the time or the inclination to carry so many threads around. So take this remark as a “thank you note”, for finding my posts worthy of reviewing.

Hey Spock
It is good to hear from you I thought you were not reading mine or something. My response was more tongue and cheek than anything. But since you responded I will too as it is only polite to explain so you do not get the wrong idea which I think you may have. And for that I do apologize!
You stated:
It is interesting to see that you deny “rational and secular” methods being used by believers in general and Catholics in particular. Now I never denied anything but was simply restating the division that the Spock principle already assumed when I used the phrase “according to it”.
Also I was not making fun of you in any way when I said "I think the Spock principle is funny!" I really thought it just had a funny ring to it that brought a warm smile and a giggle to me, thats all! So no offense was intended.
And regarding your last statement:
By the way, I find it very kind of you to look up all the threads where I paricipated and see you resurrect them. But I don’t have the time or the inclination to carry so many threads around. So take this remark as a “thank you note”, for finding my posts worthy of reviewing. When I first read one of your posts(I do not remember where) you said you were not satisfied or were never satisfied with any answers that were ever given to you on Catholic answers forums[or something to that effect] I sent you a PM and apologized and offered to answer your Questions after admitting that I am not a “real apologist”, to which you responded once or twice on the forum you then started. Though now you seem more aggitated by me than before I do understand that you do not have time to respond to everything but I have made it one of my Lenten sacrifices to at least respond to your previous posts which you say you never had a satisfactory answer to. I only am trying to help in my own small and probably inadequate way. I am not trying to resurrect or draw any attention to them or me for that matter. I’ve made it a goal to answer them honestly with out sarcasm. My only concern is that you at least read them and maybe just maybe consider what is said without looking for ways to twist what is said to make it seem different than what is intended to further substantiate your own views in you mind.
I have a great love for you Spock and I only want you to find your way to heaven, if there really is one, which I believe there is!

 

[Jeffe]

Agreed.

Ok. So now you say that only the Church is qualified to interpret the Bible correctly.

But you tried, and that counts for a lot in my book. I appreciate it.

Now you said that for the time being we are not talking about actual reality. The trouble is that the Bible is supposed to be about actual reality. It is not enough to study the Bible for internal consistency (and it is not consistent, as the examples show), but it must be measured against the actual reality.

I will show you here: (1 Kings 7:23) and (2 Chronicles 4:2) both say this:

He made a bronze altar twenty cubits long, twenty cubits wide and ten cubits high. He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.

Pretty straightforward description of the temple. Do you see where the factual error is? I will tell you. A circle with the diameter of 10 units does not have a circumference of 30 units. And this fact was known in the Biblical times. Now this is usually countered by saying that the Bible is not a “science book”. That is not an excuse to have actual errors in it, especially when the error was known in those times.

I must admit after reading this example I was impressed…than I investigated.

You’ve taken these verses away from the entire mathematical equation. If you read a few lines further, verse 26 of 1 Kings to be exact:

(NOTE: I’ve converted the cubits to inches, 18 inches to 1 cubit)

1 Kings 7:26 - “It was a handbreadth[p] in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths.”

A handbreath translates to roughly four inches. Take the diameter 180 and subtract the four inches from each side. You now have 172 inches multiplied by 3.14 and you finish at a circumference of 540 inches (or 30 cubits).

What lead you to these verses, was it another website easily found on Google to help support your argument? I would hope someone with their PhD in computer science and mathematics would surely check the integrity of their sources…right?

You are still in my prayers!

-Jeffe