The Spock principle

[Spock]

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.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The Spock principle seems a bit one-sided. Can’t cite the Bible, the Catechism, or the Popes. But you can cite Darwin or Bertrand Russell?

 

[Pieman333272]

So you mean like how all those catholic theologians turned the radical skeptic movement around to blast New Age? Or does it only pertain to atheism and rationalism?

Edit: Actually, the example I cited would be a violation. But you get the point. It’s been followed before, I’m just trying to say. It just hasn’t been put on paper (or forum posts). Until now, lol.

 

[Della]

The Spock Principle is merely that–your principle, not CAF’s principle. If you want to have one-sided arguments in which no person or group of persons may be cited that don’t already agree with you, then you should start your own forum. But what is the point of having any discussion on those terms?

Also, the pope is not to be negated because he believes in God any more than an atheist must be negated because he doesn’t. Anything that is true, no matter who says it, is right and good and ought to be allowed to be said. And atheists hardly have a corner on truth. Nor does the Church make such a claim for itself, either. It claims that the fullness of truth revealed to us by Christ subsists within it. That’s leaves a lot of room for others to contribute much else for our understanding. I’d like to see any atheist say as much.

 

[Betterave]

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.

So what does that mean? When arguing with an ignorant fool, make foolish and ignorant arguments? This principle seems really vague and ad hoc.

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.

In other words: never reject faulty premises. (That’s a really dumb rule.)

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.

In other words: if your opponent in an argument is really closed-minded, he’ll probably ignore whatever he possibly can, just because he can. (But this need not imply that “your starting point should always be fully secular,” although this will often be a good strategy; it may imply that you need to address the issue of your opponents closed-minded bigotry directly - which I suppose is a “secular” enough starting point.)

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.

Here’s my proposal for a more aptly named “Spock principle”:

If you make a bad argument and someone explains your error, insult the person who pointed out your error and go repeat the same error in some other thread, all the while patronizingly and publicly congratulating yourself for your stellar reasoning skills (for example, by starting threads like this one). Never admit your own ignorance or the fallaciousness of your own reasoning, even when these are clearly and publicly pointed out to you.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

It spite of the rather inflated ego behind thinking you have discovered your own “Principle” of arguing logically and then naming the supposed new Principle after yourself, I hate to inform you the the lesser beings of the world have known about the newly named “Spock principle” for years, it’s known by names as “Circular reasoning” or “Begging the question” i.e. assuming the truth of what is suppose to be the final conclusion of an argument in the very first premise of that same argument.

maybe next you can rename Reductio ad Absurdum as Reductio ad Spockdum

 

[Spock]

The Spock principle seems a bit one-sided. Can’t cite the Bible, the Catechism, or the Popes. But you can cite Darwin or Bertrand Russell?

Excellent question. Unfortunately the answer is not simple. Catholics are not fully “faith” driven. They also allow for secular arguments, as long as those do not interfere with their faith. I am not sure what you quotes referring and citing Darwin and Beterand Russell you refer to. But I agree that the best way to argue against the Catholic point of view should be based on the Catholic ground.

There is one problem with it. As soon as an atheist brings up the Bible or the Cathecism, the opponent will scream “bloody murder”, and declare that the quote is “taken out of context”, or is being a “distortion”, or it is “misunderstood” or it is a “caricature”. In and by itself this would be very good, if only the person would explain just how the quotation is incorrect, just what the correct understanding is. But this never happens. The point is that the Bible can be interpreted in many ways, the Cathecism is unclear, and the Catholic will pick and choose which one he happens to agree with. The real sad part is that there is no “Catholic Annotated Bible”, which would declare which parts of the Bible are to be taken literally and which parts are allegorical, and if allegorical, what does the allegory mean? It leads to a hide-and-seek game.

 

[Spock]

So what does that mean? When arguing with an ignorant fool, make foolish and ignorant arguments? This principle seems really vague and ad hoc.

No. Never argue with a fool. You cannot win, and they will drag you down to their own level.

In other words: never reject faulty premises. (That’s a really dumb rule.)

On the very contrary! You are right to point out a faulty premise, as long as you can do it on the ground your opponent accepts.

The rest of your post does not merit response being just an ad-hominem raving.

 

[Della]

There is one problem with it. As soon as an atheist brings up the Bible or the Cathecism, the opponent will scream “bloody murder”, and declare that the quote is “taken out of context”, or is being a “distortion”, or it is “misunderstood” or it is a “caricature”. In and by itself this would be very good, if only the person would explain just how the quotation is incorrect, just what the correct understanding is. But this never happens. The point is that the Bible can be interpreted in many ways, the Cathecism is unclear, and the Catholic will pick and choose which one he happens to agree with. The real sad part is that there is no “Catholic Annotated Bible”, which would declare which parts of the Bible are to be taken literally and which parts are allegorical, and if allegorical, what does the allegory mean? It leads to a hide-and-seek game.

Excuse me, but Catholics have explained, ad nauseum, the meaning of various verses/passages and still have had their time and effort go to no good purpose by those who WILL NOT accept any explanation that doesn’t satisfy their preconceptions or their need to make our faith look bad at any cost. No thank you. The Bible takes a bit of study (with a B. A. in Bible and religious education I know something about that) and cannot be understood apart from the main focus, Jesus Christ. Those who come to to the Bible with ill-will, determined to misunderstand and accuse God of all sorts of evils just to bolster their unbelief are hardly here to learn anything. That is what I have encountered over and over again. And frankly I see no need to spoon feed people who only spit out everything I’ve taken the time to tell them solely because they just don’t want to accept it. Such behavior is immature and surly–like a spoiled child. I expect people to act like adults instead of babies, but if they will be babies who will not understand when crying gets them the attention they crave, I will not add to the drama when I have better things to do with my time. If that’s too direct, I apologize, but I can only speak from what I’ve experienced.

 

[Spock]

The Spock Principle is merely that–your principle, not CAF’s principle.

Very true. I only wish it were to stop wasting time and effort.

Also, the pope is not to be negated because he believes in God any more than an atheist must be negated because he doesn’t.

I did not say anything of that kind. I am merely advising to use arguments that can be convincing for your partner / opponent. What is your problem with that?

 

[Cristiano]

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.

St. Thomas is the one that started discussing religion using this method. If you look at his Summa you can see that he really made an effort to look at the other person point of view. He also introduced arguments (contrary to the teachings of the Church) that were not common at the time. Why do you call it the Spock principle and not the St. Thomas principle? Changing name would be more appropriate in accordance to your logic and it will get more Catholic followers.

 

[Spock]

Excuse me, but Catholics have explained, ad nauseum, the meaning of various verses/passages and still have had their time and effort go to no good purpose by those who WILL NOT accept any explanation that doesn’t satisfy their preconceptions or their need to make our faith look bad at any cost. No thank you. The Bible takes a bit of study (with a B. A. in Bible and religious education I know something about that) and cannot be understood apart from the main focus, Jesus Christ. Those who come to to the Bible with ill-will, determined to misunderstand and accuse God of all sorts of evils just to bolster their unbelief are hardly here to learn anything. That is what I have encountered over and over again. And frankly I see no need to spoon feed people who only spit out everything I’ve taken the time to tell them solely because they just don’t want to accept it. Such behavior is immature and surly–like a spoiled child. I expect people to act like adults instead of babies, but if they will be babies who will not understand when crying gets them the attention they crave, I will not add to the drama when I have better things to do with my time. If that’s too direct, I apologize, but I can only speak from what I’ve experienced.

No need to apologize. I also speak of experience. I have asked a few times why there is no official declaration which Biblical texts are to be taken literally, and there was never a good answer. Maybe you can explain.

 

[Chopstick]

I can definitely see the value in this. It’s not like you can never refer to Catholic sources of information, it’s just that you have to logically prove to the other party that your source is valid, which means starting out totally on their turf.
Like, as a protestant just beginning to look into Catholicism, I’d check all arguements for Catholic theology against my King James Bible. That was the source I trusted. I was kind of surprised that the Catholic view held up even though I wasn’t looking at a Catholic Bible. For simply sharing your beliefs with someone, referring to the Catechism and Sacred Tradition is a fine way to go, but if you want to convince them your beliefs are right, you have to start with what they already believe to be true.

 

[Della]

No need to apologize. I also speak of experience. I have asked a few times why there is no official declaration which Biblical texts are to be taken literally, and there was never a good answer. Maybe you can explain.

The explanation is that there is no official explanation. And why is that? Because it would limit our understanding of the Bible’s meaning instead of elucidating it. Once you say that a passage can only be understood one way, it negates all other possible ways of seeing it. Does that make sense? Sure, there are some, a very few, passages that the Church has said must be understood in at least one sense, but the Church will not hinder devotional understanding nor stand in the way of further study by making such a close definition.

I think many atheists want everything neatly pinned down. That’s just my impression from discussions I’ve had with many on CAF. But, that’s not how life works. Reality is much more complex and full of meaning than just one way of understanding it. Sure, there are some things that are quantifiable and understandable through the sciences, etc., but to limit oneself to that is to miss the point of life itself. As a Catholic I have a truly catholic view of life. It’s so much more than x goes into y therefore x is o, or whatever. Anyway, I stray from the point…

 

[Spock]

I can definitely see the value in this. It’s not like you can never refer to Catholic sources of information, it’s just that you have to logically prove to the other party that your source is valid, which means starting out totally on their turf.
Like, as a protestant just beginning to look into Catholicism, I’d check all arguements for Catholic theology against my King James Bible. That was the source I trusted. I was kind of surprised that the Catholic view held up even though I wasn’t looking at a Catholic Bible. For simply sharing your beliefs with someone, referring to the Catechism and Sacred Tradition is a fine way to go, but if you want to convince them your beliefs are right, you have to start with what they already believe to be true.

Thank you very much! You understood my point exactly.

 

[Della]

I can definitely see the value in this. It’s not like you can never refer to Catholic sources of information, it’s just that you have to logically prove to the other party that your source is valid, which means starting out totally on their turf.
Like, as a protestant just beginning to look into Catholicism, I’d check all arguements for Catholic theology against my King James Bible. That was the source I trusted. I was kind of surprised that the Catholic view held up even though I wasn’t looking at a Catholic Bible. For simply sharing your beliefs with someone, referring to the Catechism and Sacred Tradition is a fine way to go, but if you want to convince them your beliefs are right, you have to start with what they already believe to be true.

Definitely. Of course, the other person has to have some willingness to follow your argument and not reject it outright, knee-jerk fashion. We get a lot of that here, sad to say. It’s a huge waste of time to argue against an intractable position based on an unwillingness to see beyond what one already understands. Yes?

 

[Spock]

The explanation is that there is no official explanation. And why is that? Because it would limit our understanding of the Bible’s meaning instead of elucidating it. Once you say that a passage can only be understood one way, it negates all other possible ways of seeing it. Does that make sense? Sure, there are some, a very few, passages that the Church has said must be understood in at least one sense, but the Church will not hinder devotional understanding nor stand in the way of further study by making such a close definition.

I think many atheists want everything neatly pinned down. That’s just my impression from discussions I’ve had with many on CAF. But, that’s not how life works. Reality is much more complex and full of meaning than just one way of understanding it. Sure, there are some things that are quantifiable and understandable through the sciences, etc., but to limit oneself to that is to miss the point of life itself. As a Catholic I have a truly catholic view of life. It’s so much more than x goes into y therefore x is o, or whatever. Anyway, I stray from the point…

You misuderstood me. I am only speaking about the passages which are to be taken literally, and not allegorically - which is a major difference. A literally true passage can only be accepted as correct in one way - literally, and there is no need to “interpret” it. An alllegorical passage may be true (or not) based upon the interpretation, but there is no such ambiguity in a literally true passage. Do you mean to say that there are no literally true passages in the Bible? That everything must be interpreted? You claim to be a Biblical scolar, so you can answer this.

 

[Spock]

Of course, the other person has to have some willingness to follow your argument and not reject it outright, knee-jerk fashion. We get a lot of that here, sad to say.

Can you quote an instance of this? You say that “we get a lot of that here”. Show me an instance of an atheist, who makes a claim which can be refuted on solely atheistic ground (no reference to faith, or authority of the Church), and he (or she) refuses to accept it. I would really appreciate it. It cannot be too difficult, since you claim that there are a lot of instances of this.

 

[ricmat]

Spock, here’s a parable to show you the position that I feel like I’m in (maybe others too):

---

Imagine that there is a cross-country car race in the desert. The racecourse goes near a high cliff, and if the racers turn the wrong way, then they go over the edge, and that’s the end of them. My job is to stop those wrong way folks from going over the cliff.

So I notice that Spock is going the wrong way and I wave him down frantically. Ricmat - “That way will lead you over the cliff. You need to turn around and go the other way.” Spock - “Prove it to me, for example, show me a satellite image, or evidence of other cars which have crashed already or (you get the idea).” Ricmat - I don’t have any satellite images." Spock - So you just want me to believe you on faith?" Ricmat - “I don’t have that information, but please believe me that you’re going the wrong way.” Spock - “Hey, no problem. Just take your time, and go back to civilization and get some maps, images, pieces of cars that already crashed, or whatever. I’ll wait for you.”

Meanwhile, numerous other cars are approaching the cliff, and I’m busy arguing with Spock about “sufficient evidence.” If I keep arguing with Spock, I have no opportunity to wave the others off to the right direction, even though there’s a good chance that some of them will actually heed my warning.

---

Spock - I don’t know what your real motivation is in being here, but I do know that for many of us, our time would be better spent with other forum members. If you really really want to know the Truth, it might be the kind of thing that you will need to figure out by yourself rather than demanding that people prove it to you. And I would also point out that there is no obligation on us to prove to your satisfaction what it is we believe.

But I do really hope that you have an open mind and find the truth someday.

 

[sojo]

I understand accept this principle, but not its name. Did you name this old debate rule after yourself or did you name yourself after the TV show and movie character with pointy ears?

But nonetheless, I don’t think it is an entire waste for non-Catholics to see that we day-to-day Catholics do, on occasion resort to the, “if in doubt, we just follow the tradition of the church as explained in the CCC.” Since non-Catholics are here, supposedly to learn about our faith and have a little debate, it doesn’t hurt for them to see that while some folks have academic and scholarly backgrounds (apologetic or debating), others of us don’t. We can share from the heart what our faith means to us and how it influences our beliefs in other things - such a marriage, divorce, the daily news events, popular media, books, etc.

It is NOT a waste for non-Catholics to see that we Catholics fall back on tradition and doctrine. That is a fundamental truth of our religion. As a convert, this was a huge leap of faith for me, but after all these years of study, I feel it is true and safe position. If something seems not right or not logical, we don’t (in general) run to find another church that agrees with our position, nor do we (in general) go off to start our own church. We inquire of the more studied, and we read, and we pray and we defer to the authority of the Catholic church, at least as long as our conscience allows. That is the Catholic way. It is who we are as a faith. There will always be exceptions, of course.

However if one is really set to change or influence someone else’s opinion, it is true that one must either debate on your opponents field, or, establish a common ground and common set of definitions before beginning the discussion.