The Spock principle

[Betterave]

Philosophy is fine, but it’s not biblical studies and it’s not theology, in neither of which do you have any expertize.

Philosophy *is *my field of expertise, and let me assure you, it is *not *one of Spock’s.

 

[Windfish]

Excellent discussion, guys. I must say, the quality of intellect is higher on CAF than on other Christian forums, and I salute you guys for being so smart. Proud to be Catholic.

 

[Della]

Philosophy *is *my field of expertise, and let me assure you, it is *not *one of Spock’s.

From what Spock has written on CAF I have to agree. Anyone who wants to have discussions on his terms alone certainly isn’t a philosopher of any stripe. Anyway, I’m bored going around in useless circles here. I hope the rest of you can manage to have a fruitful discussion. Anything is possible, I suppose, even if improbable.

 

[tonyrey]

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…

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.

You are begging the question by assuming that “rational, secular methods” are the most reliable guide to the nature of reality. How do you distinguish rational from secular? Or do you equate them?

 

[The_Exodus]

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?

If faith is grounded in anything other than authority, it is not faith, but certain knowledge.

spock:

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?

This is the way things look to me. Take the example you just gave, of the Christian citing John 3:16 to the atheist. Now, you are the atheist, but you are asking questions about the very revelation and faith itself. Yet you claim we ought not appeal to it. You are asking for an impossibility. As if someone asked about what the Bible said about Jesus, and then responded, “don’t cite the Bible, I don’t accept it!”

If you asked questions concerning why God allows evil, or why people go to hell, etc. you are already entertaining the idea of revelation even to formulate your question, and basing the concepts in your question - which need to be further explained oftentimes - on revelation itself.

So my question is, how, on your view, ought one to answer such questions which come from revelation, without appealing to it?

 

[Spock]

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.

Why not? You do believe in the Bible, the cathecism, the infallibility of the pope, etc… To argue based upon those is to use your playing field.

 

[Spock]

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

Why would you argue with someone who reject facts? If someone rejects facts, reality will reming him very quickly. If someone rejects the reality of gravity, and attempts to live accordingly, he will die. And we shall all be better off, one less fool to worry about.

Truth is truth no matter who one is debating with.

I agre with this. The question is: “how do you substantiate it?”.

 

[Spock]

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

How do you know that? I am sure that people would take notice if Jesus would come down, and start resurrecting dead people. On television, in front of an atheistic audience he would start to bring back their lost loved ones. Yes, I am talking about enough evidence, which may be different from person to person.

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.

Thank you.

 

[Spock]

You are begging the question by assuming that “rational, secular methods” are the most reliable guide to the nature of reality. How do you distinguish rational from secular? Or do you equate them?

I am not begging any questions. My playing field (for better or for worse) is the one where no reference is made to faith, revelation, and autority - as an argument. If you can argue on that ground, you can convince me. Otherwise you cannot.

 

[Spock]

If faith is grounded in anything other than authority, it is not faith, but certain knowledge.

No, not really. Some people call it faith that I believe that my car will start in the morning. It is not based on any authority, rather the expectation stemming from past experience. Of course I don’t call it “faith”, I call it “reasonable expectation”. But many believers call everything “faith” for which they do not have ironclad certainty - and I am using their playing field.

This is the way things look to me. Take the example you just gave, of the Christian citing John 3:16 to the atheist. Now, you are the atheist, but you are asking questions about the very revelation and faith itself.

I am asking about God’s love, not about John 3:16.

When in turn you refer to John 3:16, you gave me an evidence for your belief, and I understand that this evidence is sufficient for you. Now I ask, is there any other evidence? Suppose you will quote other passages from the Bible. I am still shaking my head, and asking: “do you also have non-biblical evidence?”. You say: “no”. At that point we are at an impasse. If all your evidence is based upon the Bible (or the Cathecism, etc…) then you don’t have evidence which would be meaningful to me.

Yet you claim we ought not appeal to it. You are asking for an impossibility. As if someone asked about what the Bible said about Jesus, and then responded, “don’t cite the Bible, I don’t accept it!”

Bad analogy. A better one would be: “I am asking you about the evidence that Jesus performed miracles - evidence outside the Bible”. If you could give me a list of non-biblical evidence, I would be satisfied.

If you asked questions concerning why God allows evil, or why people go to hell, etc. you are already entertaining the idea of revelation even to formulate your question, and basing the concepts in your question - which need to be further explained oftentimes - on revelation itself.

So my question is, how, on your view, ought one to answer such questions which come from revelation, without appealing to it?

If you cannot, then say it. I would never press any further, and we would part our ways in a friendly fashion.

 

[Abba]

I am not begging any questions. My playing field (for better or for worse) is the one where no reference is made to faith, revelation, and autority - as an argument. If you can argue on that ground, you can convince me. Otherwise you cannot.

MY way or the highway…

This is exactly the type of situation that makes me think God has a sense of humor.
Does Jesus have a sense of humor?: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=525705 But, no sign will be given you except the sign of Jonah - for your hardness of heart. What is the sign that is being given to you? JESUS.

Actually, Spock, this thread could very well be a continuation of a thread I am participating in which you may have skimmed. Why doesn’t God reveal anything useful in scripture? forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=524751 According to YOUR rules you can argue that I did not make any valid points and went off even quoting Saint Augustine.And, as if that was not enough - I even asked the poster to pray to the Holy Spirit and for me and my children! How illogical, you would say.

But, you cannot trap people nor God in your little formulas. It’s like Aristotle would say; we need to consider each situation and individual when evaluating a situation or condition. We can only go so far with capturing certain fixed elements when dealing with human beings and, of course, with GOD.

YOU have it all figured out.

It’s like inviting me to play a game of chess and I agree and sit down and start placing my pieces on the board. But, you start to place the pieces wrong and l let you know. But, you say, HEY! I want my queen and king on the corners. THAT’S IT! Well, we would no longer be playing chess, would we? We would be playing some game of yours.

In you mind, you think that you are seeking God. That is, investigating to find out if he really exist. But, you have put all the pieces in the wrong place. You have come up with a method to find him and: THAT’S IT! Have you stop to consider that he may have a mind of his own? You have selected from HIS CREATION a couple of methods and what ever else and decided that he needs to play by YOUR RULES. REALLY?

You cannot serve two gods. You seem to have made a god of knowledge, not recognizing that it too shall pass away. What god is that who you are seeking? The one you created? What a tangled web that is that you are in and tiny too.

You are an intelligent man. Snap out of it. Enjoy the humor of your condition and see how God has been patiently loving you all along. It’s like ant who has decided that if humans do not do some ant thing which that particular ant has decided - then humans do not exist.

How could you possible think that you know the mind of God?

Spock, you should really read Jonah. It may help you to gain some perspective on your situation.

Peace,

Abba

 

[jmcrae]

I am not begging any questions. My playing field (for better or for worse) is the one where no reference is made to faith, revelation, and autority - as an argument. If you can argue on that ground, you can convince me. Otherwise you cannot.

You are starting with the faulty assumption that it is up to someone else to convince you, on your own terms.

Do you think that you can go to the Judgement Day and say to God, “But, but, but, they failed to convince me on my own terms!” You are responsible for your own soul - nobody else is. If you refuse to be convinced, that will be your own problem, come Judgement Day. Blaming others won’t win you any points.

 

[jmcrae]

Bad analogy. A better one would be: “I am asking you about the evidence that Jesus performed miracles - evidence outside the Bible”. If you could give me a list of non-biblical evidence, I would be satisfied.

The Bible is the compilation of all of the witness testimony there was, all put into the same “box” so to speak.

What you are asking is that someone re-open a solved case, and prove the results over again, but don’t use any of the evidence that was collected at the scene of the crime, but rather, try to find some other evidence that nobody ever collected, and then use that to prove the result over again.

Jesus has already risen from the dead - all the witness testimony that there is, is already “in the box” - all you have to do is read it.

And no, there is likely not any witness testimony outside of the Scriptures (other than that which has been handed down by word of mouth in the oral tradition) because in 405 AD, it was all collected together (27 witness statements), and placed into the Bible.

 

[Spock]

MY way or the highway…

Yes. Of course only if you want to convince me that you are right. If you merely wish to state your convictions, then there is no need or obligation to follow my way.

How could you possible think that you know the mind of God?

I do not claim to know the mind of God. I can and do claim that I know what you, the apologists say about God. And I point out the problems in your assertions.

 

[Spock]

You are starting with the faulty assumption that it is up to someone else to convince you, on your own terms.

Do you think that you can go to the Judgement Day and say to God, “But, but, but, they failed to convince me on my own terms!”

If it comes to that, I certainly will. I will bring up the generic principle that “there can be no full responsibility if there is deficient information”. And only I can decide what is sufficient information for me. I make decisions based upon the information available to me. If you can make it clear on my terms that I am wrong, so be it. I will admit it. But I do not accept the method of snake-oil peddlers whose only “argument” is “trust meeee…”.

 

[Spock]

The Bible is the compilation of all of the witness testimony there was, all put into the same “box” so to speak.

What you are asking is that someone re-open a solved case, and prove the results over again, but don’t use any of the evidence that was collected at the scene of the crime, but rather, try to find some other evidence that nobody ever collected, and then use that to prove the result over again.

Jesus has already risen from the dead - all the witness testimony that there is, is already “in the box” - all you have to do is read it.

And no, there is likely not any witness testimony outside of the Scriptures (other than that which has been handed down by word of mouth in the oral tradition) because in 405 AD, it was all collected together (27 witness statements), and placed into the Bible.

Except that there was no evidence. It is ALL hearsay.

 

[jmcrae]

If it comes to that, I certainly will. I will bring up the generic principle that “there can be no full responsibility if there is deficient information”.

And then God will point out to you how He revealed Himself to you in so many different ways - a sky full of stars, a child laughing, a flower unfolding in the sun - the Church, the Bible. It’s all there. Open your eyes and look.

 

[jmcrae]

Except that there was no evidence. It is ALL hearsay.

Well, it would still be hear-say, even if someone believed that Jesus had risen from the dead, and then didn’t become a Christian. (The fact that everyone who witnessed that Jesus rose from the dead became a Christian, despite the very real danger of being fed to the lions, is evidence that they really saw what they claim to have seen, to my way of thinking - the reason we don’t see any unbeliever testimony is that you don’t witness someone rising from the dead, make a note of it in your diary, and then carry on like nothing important really happened - such a thing would blow their mind, and cause them to stop fearing death - which in fact is what happened.)

 

[Spock]

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?

Get real. You never refuted anything, you only claimed that you did, and always in a condescending and taunting fashion. Now I challenge you: come clean and actually refute these two specific arguments. Remember, post #27 was a parable, in response to a parable. The other one about the role of authority in science is clear and simple. Refute it. Go ahead, make my day.

 

[Spock]

And then God will point out to you how He revealed Himself to you in so many different ways - a sky full of stars, a child laughing, a flower unfolding in the sun - the Church, the Bible. It’s all there. Open your eyes and look.

Oh, brother! Now, who claims that he knows the mind of God? And if God cannot do any better, he is in real sorry shape for the upcoming debate.