The Spock principle

[The_Exodus]

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.

I understand that you don’t like appeals to authority, but you are asking people questions about their faith. What do you expect? Further, if no one ever argued from another position, literally no one would get anywhere. There must be common ground, at least hypothetically, for the purpose of argument and so each can see the others’ side clear enough to refute it, or agree, or suspend judgment. Again, if one asks questions about the Catholic faith, the only responses must be founded on that very faith itself.

I can’t imagine going to China and seeing some ancient monument and inquiring about it’s history, only to reply, after an explanation has been give, “I don’t believe in your history! Quit arguing from your own position!”

In short, there must be some openness from the side of the person asking the question. This itself is reasonable, unless you think yourself omniscient. Maybe your mind is a bit closed, a priori?

spock:

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.

It would be one thing if we went up to the Protestant and started from all these varying authorities. But, if the Protestant asks a specific question about the Catholic faith, the logical thing to do is appeal to Catholic authority.

spock:

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.

If the topic under question is God’s existence, simple rational, “secular” methods can be used, but if the topic under question is a certain position/dogma of faith, then the authority of the faith must be appealed to. This is because faith rests on such authority. It is belief, not certain knowledge. Hence one way answer questions about it - that is what apologia means: a defense (and you are in the Apologetics forum) - but one is not in the same position as rationally arguing to a conclusion from natural reason, such as that God exists.

 

[Della]

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.

Yes, there are passages that are to be taken literally. They are generally the historical ones, naturally enough. Of course, even they must be understood within the overall context of the Bible, it’s cultural heritage, it’s theological meaning because they all play a part in our understanding of them. To read historical passages as mere history would be to, once again, miss the point. There are also some that have only one theological interpretation, such as the institution of the Eucharist passages, but they also have spiritual meaning, or else they would merely be telling us about a ritual and nothing about its content. You see, one does need some scholarship to understand these things or failing that to have trust in the general consensus those who do since not everyone is cut out to be a scholar, biblical or otherwise.

Spock:

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.

And you misunderstand me, for I never claimed your criteria. There’s a difference between making a reasonable point that any sensible person of good will wold be willing to follow versus eliciting acceptance from anyone about anything. . That’s not my “job”. My task is to help people understand Church teaching, not make them accept that teaching on my grounds or your grounds. You misunderstand our purpose here. All I ask is that people give us the benefit of the doubt when inquiring into matters pertaining to the Church since we have some expertise in such matters. It’s like giving a scientist or teacher the benefit of the doubt on a point about which he knows more than I. It’s a courtesy I rarely see.

 

[jmcrae]

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?

Hopefully not, since the character on TV never limited himself to the knowledge level of his opponent - he brought all of the relevant information to bear on any problem he was attempting to solve. He even quoted Vulcan philosophers in defense of his ideas, to people like Dr. McCoy who had little or no Vulcan education or ancestry.

Indeed, he would have been of very little use to the crew of the Enterprise, if he had never made use of information that he alone was aware existed.

 

[sojo]

Good point!

 

[NYTony]

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.

Well said. It does appear that this is sport to him. Propose a question, define the rules, dazzle us with wordplay, and watch the Catholic squirm. Waste of time.

 

[ricmat]

Well said. It does appear that this is sport to him. Propose a question, define the rules, dazzle us with wordplay, and watch the Catholic squirm. Waste of time.

“Dazzle?” I must have missed that part.

 

[Spock]

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.

The parable is nice. Now, put God into your place. Obviously, for God it would be no problem to present the needed evidence about the impending disaster when choosing the wrong road. And still give the proper warning to all the other racers. For some racers the simple warning is sufficient, for others some more evidence is needed. Surely it does not exhaust God’s resources to give all the racers the evidence they happen to need. And giving the evidence still does not interfere with the racers’ free will, to heed the advice or disregard it. But in this case the ones who still choose the wrong road will have absolutely no excuse. They asked for the evidence they need, and they got it. If they are dumb enough to disregard the evidence, that they find sufficient, they truly and really can only blame themselves. As a by-product, most (if not all) of the ones who need more evidence, will heed the warning, and will finish the race. Do you like this little extention of your parable?

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.

I think that participation in these threads is voluntary. If you think that your time is wasted, and do not wish to participate, that is your prerogative. I will not bear any ill will toward those who decide to ignore me and my posts. Sounds fair?

 

[Spock]

I understand accept this principle, but not its name.

My friend, call it whatever you want. Let’s agree to call it the “principle of reasonable debate” or “PORD”. Or something else. I don’t care about the name as long as we agree on the principle itself.

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.

I agree wholeheartedly. That is why I said that clarification is most important and welcome. Use whichever method you wish to clarify your position. Just don’t think that you delivered an argument which should be taken as a convincing argument by your opponent.

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.

I agree again.

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.

Triple cheers my friend!

 

[Spock]

I understand that you don’t like appeals to authority, but you are asking people questions about their faith. What do you expect?

If that faith in only grounded on authority, then it is insufficient grounding, since the authority is not accepted by the other party. If, however, that faith is also grounded on other things, which is accepted by the other party, then you don’t even need to refer to the authority. Does this make sense?

I really don’t want to derail the thread, so I will bring up one example, and I will not go into a discussion here. The Christian says that God is love. He brings up John 3:16 to support it. The Bible is not accepted by the atheist, so the claim is not sufficiently grounded. If the Christian could bring up actual events, where God visibly interfered to show his love for the people, that would be convincing. And in that case you would not have to refer to John 3:16. Do you see my point?

 

[Spock]

Yes, there are passages that are to be taken literally. They are generally the historical ones, naturally enough.

Naturally, since the historical claims are supported by independent sources. But you said: “generally”. How about the others, which are not supported by independent sources? Are there any other passages, which “must” be taken literally? Examples?

And you misunderstand me, for I never claimed your criteria.

Well, I don’t think there was anything to misuderstand. This is what you said: “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.” - and this is a very straightforward claim. So I asked for some concrete examples.

All I ask is that people give us the benefit of the doubt when inquiring into matters pertaining to the Church since we have some expertise in such matters. It’s like giving a scientist or teacher the benefit of the doubt on a point about which he knows more than I. It’s a courtesy I rarely see.

Ahem. The scientist and the teacher are authorities, because they can support their argument even if you do not give the benefit of doubt. They can substantiate their claims, even if one does not accept those claims a-priori. They can show that the doubter is wrong, using only methods that the other person accepts. And that is what is missing from the religious authorities. It is all “I am an authority, and you are not”. Come “down” to my playing field, and show me where I am wrong. I promise you that I will not use any “knee-jerk” reaction. I am very much willing to listen to your arguments, as long as we use the same “language”. And that is a promise, sincerely given.

Adding:

Let’s be blunt here: “no one gets the benefit of doubt”. Scientists especially don’t get it. If they cannot substantiate what they claim, their “name” will not rescue them. In science it does not matter, who says it, what matters is what do they say.

 

[Della]

Naturally, since the historical claims are supported by independent sources. But you said: “generally”. How about the others, which are not supported by independent sources? Are there any other passages, which “must” be taken literally? Examples?

I gave an example. If you wish more do some research. Everything you wish to know is readily available.

Well, I don’t think there was anything to misuderstand. This is what you said: “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.” - and this is a very straightforward claim. So I asked for some concrete examples.

No. I will not give examples to a general statement. Look at the discussions regarding science and religion and you will see it for yourself.

Ahem. The scientist and the teacher are authorities, because they can support their argument even if you do not give the benefit of doubt. They can substantiate their claims, even if one does not accept those claims a-priori. They can show that the doubter is wrong, using only methods that the other person accepts. And that is what is missing from the religious authorities. It is all “I am an authority, and you are not”. Come “down” to my playing field, and show me where I am wrong. I promise you that I will not use any “knee-jerk” reaction. I am very much willing to listen to your arguments, as long as we use the same “language”. And that is a promise, sincerely given.

So no one is an expert in his field of study unless he meets your criteria? Tell that to all the universities that give out PHDs in such topics as philosophy and theology. The test tube method of “proof” doesn’t work in all fields of study. Therefore, my lowly B. A. in the Bible trumps your lack of any degree of any kind in the same subject. Therefore I ought to be accorded some respect for having gained my degree. I don’t have to “substantiate” anything to you since I’ve already satisfied the institution of higher learning from which I earned my degree. And if you want to understand theological precepts it would behoove you to learn something about them instead of expecting me to dumb everything down to try to explain to you what you should be willing to learn on your own. Apologetics isn’t debating with people merely on their own terms, but can start there. It’s up to the inquirer to put some effort into learning these things. If he isn’t willing to participate, but insists on being spoon fed he isn’t really interested in learning but merely in reinforcing what he already wants to believe.

Adding:

Let’s be blunt here: “no one gets the benefit of doubt”. Scientists especially don’t get it. If they cannot substantiate what they claim, their “name” will not rescue them. In science it does not matter, who says it, what matters is what do they say.

Scientists and other experts get the benefit of the doubt in the mind of the general public all the time. And that is what we are talking about here–the ordinary person inquiring into matters he knows little about. So, if I, who know little about some aspect of science, ask a scientist about his research in that area of expertise I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he knows what he’s talking about. That is what he would expect from me, a non-science oriented person. It’s not too much to ask of our non-religion oriented inquirers that they give us the same benefit of the doubt since most of us have done more than a little research into our own field of expertise.

 

[Los_Angeles]

Always argue on the playing field of you opposition.

Spock, without the always part, I actually agree with you on this principle becuase it works in practice not just in theory, but you ignored my last posts the last time I tried explaining why an immutable God does not contradict supplimentary prayer. I even tried using reasoning skills without an appeal to any authority that you do not accept.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[Spock]

I gave an example. If you wish more do some research. Everything you wish to know is readily available.

Haha! Maybe you could direct me to some official source which describes which passages (not the historical ones, corroborated by external sources) are to be understood literally and which ones are not.

No. I will not give examples to a general statement. Look at the discussions regarding science and religion and you will see it for yourself.

So you utter a general statement, but refuse to substantiate it.

So no one is an expert in his field of study unless he meets your criteria? Tell that to all the universities that give out PHDs in such topics as philosophy and theology. The test tube method of “proof” doesn’t work in all fields of study. Therefore, my lowly B. A. in the Bible trumps your lack of any degree of any kind in the same subject. Therefore I ought to be accorded some respect for having gained my degree.

Since you just declined to substantiate what you claimed (right above) I am afraid you will not get any respect. It is the well-known strategy of snake-oil peddlers to look sincere and say in a very convincing voice: “trust meeeee”. By the way, I do have a PhD in mathematics, computer science and economics, and there was a very heavy philosophy course in the curriculum.

Scientists and other experts get the benefit of the doubt in the mind of the general public all the time.

If they do, more is the pity. That is why pseudo-sciences and snake-oil peddlers are so prevalent.

But, let it be your way. You refuse to defend your “generic” statements, and that is your prerogative. I will just draw my conclusions and act on them.

 

[Spock]

Spock, I actually agree with you on this principle becuase it works in practice not just in theory, but you ignored my last posts the last time I tried explaining why an immutable God does not contradict supplimentary prayer. I even tried using reasoning skills without an appeal to any authority.

I am sorry. I get so many replies that some will slip by my attention.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

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.

I agree. Nor should an atheist bring up the Bible for theological purposes… That is, unless they have a legitimate question about it. And not force an idea that God is “maniacal, insane, etc…” or whatever insults because of a certain thing He allegedly did.

 

[vz71]

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.

So if I am arguing with someone that rejects facts, I should also toss out facts as well?
This does not seem productive.

Truth is truth no matter who one is debating with.

 

[ricmat]

The parable is nice. Now, put God into your place. Obviously, for God it would be no problem to present the needed evidence about the impending disaster when choosing the wrong road. And still give the proper warning to all the other racers. For some racers the simple warning is sufficient, for others some more evidence is needed. Surely it does not exhaust God’s resources to give all the racers the evidence they happen to need. And giving the evidence still does not interfere with the racers’ free will, to heed the advice or disregard it. But in this case the ones who still choose the wrong road will have absolutely no excuse. They asked for the evidence they need, and they got it. If they are dumb enough to disregard the evidence, that they find sufficient, they truly and really can only blame themselves. As a by-product, most (if not all) of the ones who need more evidence, will heed the warning, and will finish the race. Do you like this little extention of your parable?

I think that participation in these threads is voluntary. If you think that your time is wasted, and do not wish to participate, that is your prerogative. I will not bear any ill will toward those who decide to ignore me and my posts. Sounds fair?

My parable was actually intended more for the other posters.

“Enough evidence?” And even if someone were to rise from the dead, they would still not believe.

Spock, the evidence is there, but you’re not ready for it yet. Go ahead, and proceed on your current path. After you “hit bottom” and gain humility, you will begin to find the answers for which your soul is searching.

I wish you the best. Really.

 

[Betterave]

Apologetics isn’t debating with people merely on their own terms, but can start there. It’s up to the inquirer to put some effort into learning these things. If he isn’t willing to participate, but insists on being spoon fed he isn’t really interested in learning but merely in reinforcing what he already wants to believe.

This is my nomination for the “anti-Spock principle,” which I propose that Spock learn and take to heart. Maybe start reciting it daily. (Of course if Spock is true to form, he will just dismiss the observations others make about his reasoning procedures as irrelevant, supposedly since they are “ad hominem” - which is a non sequitur, Spock: many “ad hominem” comments are highly relevant, and indeed, of paramount importance). Then he wouldn’t keep going back to the well on sophomoric arguments like the one in post #27, or the very naive kind of presuppositions about the purity of scientific reason and the absence of authority in scientific practice which motivate claims like Spock’s “in science it does not matter, who says it, what matters is what do they say.” It’s fine to make bad arguments like those once or twice, but to keep on making them the way Spock does, no matter how many times your’re corrected? That really gets to be inexcusable at some point.

 

[Della]

Haha! Maybe you could direct me to some official source which describes which passages (not the historical ones, corroborated by external sources) are to be understood literally and which ones are not.

As I said, such sources are readily available. Since I cannot know your needs I cannot do your research for you. This website has a library–use it.

So you utter a general statement, but refuse to substantiate it.

No, I refuse to do for you what you can so easily do for yourself. That’s what I said, so do it if you are so interested.

Since you just declined to substantiate what you claimed (right above) I am afraid you will not get any respect. It is the well-known strategy of snake-oil peddlers to look sincere and say in a very convincing voice: “trust meeeee”. By the way, I do have a PhD in mathematics, computer science and economics, and there was a very heavy philosophy course in the curriculum.

Philosophy is fine, but it’s not biblical studies and it’s not theology, in neither of which do you have any expertize. I’m not asking you to trust me, I’m asking you to respect my degree just as I would respect your degree in mathematics, etc. if I wanted to know something in those fields about which you know more than I. What’s so hard to understand about that? Let’s be grown-ups here and not play the “gotcha game”. It’s a waste of everyone’s time and effort.

If they do, more is the pity. That is why pseudo-sciences and snake-oil peddlers are so prevalent.

In some instances I agree. Such as Richard Dawkins (let’s not get side-tracked, just using the man as an example here) making pronouncements about religion. Why should anyone take his word on such a subject when it so obvious he knows nothing about it. However, if he were to speak about his own field of study, of course we should listen to him and give him the benefit of the doubt.

But, let it be your way. You refuse to defend your “generic” statements, and that is your prerogative. I will just draw my conclusions and act on them.

And you are all hung up on nothing and seem to take glee in trying to show me up. Why? I answered you as I think best. If you don’t like my answer, well, it’s neither here nor there. I don’t like your basic premise in this thread, and have explained why. I thought that was the conversation we were having here. It’s your thread, but let’s not take it off topic by pursuing side issues about nothing.

 

[Betterave]

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

So you want to revise your principle then? Instead of:

“Always argue on the playing field of you opposition”

you want to say:

“As a rule argue on the playing field of your opposition; but never argue with a fool.”

And the practical question then becomes:

Should we argue with you? How do we decide whether or not *you *are a fool?

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.

So what does that mean? You shouldn’t point out the truth to someone who doesn’t believe the truth? If you are debating a reasonable person, the fact that another reasonable person disagrees with him should be a reason in itself to reconsider his own position, including his grounds for accepting it, which will usually turn out to be ill-articulated. (See your, or Antitheist’s, ill-articulated position in the thread “Why scientism is a faith” for example, to which you made minor contributions in your usual unproductive, unreasonable way.)

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

*Is *it ‘raving’ though? *Is *it?? Are you *sure *about this? How?