Debating Conspiracy Theories

[Era Might]

How do you think we should handle conspiracy theories? How do you argue that the Jesuits aren't infilitrating the government or the Jews aren't in a plot to take over the world? When I meet someone who really believes this stuff, I'm tempted to just laugh it off, but then they probably think that confirms their conspiracies. Can you argue rationally about this stuff? Is it implicitly giving it legitimacy to argue it like a legitimate opinion?

[123]

[quote]How do you think we should handle conspiracy theories[/quote]


Everyone has a right to believe what they wish. One who believe in a consipracy theory isnt any less of an american. I am not a fully established conspirer, but I do stand with 75% of Americans that dont believe all the rubbish that the corporate machine chucks out.

My attitude of this, is that laughing of conspiracies is as just a wrong as subjecting yourselves to the really foolish ones.

Edited November 6, 2006 by GloriaIesusChristi

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I think this thread is all part of an elaborate scheme to suppress the masses.

[123]

sounds like a conspiracy to me...So whom here is guilty? Whether we believe it or not, we all contain certain forms of Conspiracies in our lives. It may not nessessarily be directed at the American government, it could be directed at Vern Johnson down the street. Regardless, we are still critical, and have the right to be critical we were made for just that.

[MilesChristi]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1112219' date='Nov 5 2006, 08:14 PM']
How do you think we should handle conspiracy theories? How do you argue that the Jesuits aren't infilitrating the government or the Jews aren't in a plot to take over the world? When I meet someone who really believes this stuff, I'm tempted to just laugh it off, but then they probably think that confirms their conspiracies. Can you argue rationally about this stuff? Is it implicitly giving it legitimacy to argue it like a legitimate opinion?
[/quote]

Since the existence of such conspiracies isn't evident to anyone but your opponents, the burden of proof is on them, not you.

[Era Might]

[quote name='MilesChristi' post='1112326' date='Nov 5 2006, 10:06 PM']Since the existence of such conspiracies isn't evident to anyone but your opponents, the burden of proof is on them, not you.[/quote]
I realize that, and you realize that, but conspiracy theorists don't. The nature of a conspiracy theory is that it is based on absurd "evidence". If George Bush's great-great-great grandmother had Jewish blood, then that's proof that he is part of the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy.

You can't argue with that kind of stuff. But then, do you just leave these people to their own devices?

I think maybe these kinds of things can only be driven out with prayer and fasting.

[123]

Conspiracy is no more foolish that being gullible. I would rather float on "Absurd" evidence than believe everything that everyone says.

And, technically you cant prove that all of those whom are critical of certain entities utilize "absurdity" to reach that goal. Thats a blanket statement, and in turn isnt compatable with all of those whom think with a critcal mind. Instead of just giving in.

Many of the mentors I know have studied for years and they [b]just have questions[/b]. They dont play the blame game. But, truth be told there are very stupid theories out there that is fabricated hap-hazardly and is ridiculous. But, thinking crtically isnt a crime.

Edited November 6, 2006 by GloriaIesusChristi

[cmotherofpirl]

Most people stuck on "conspiracies" are not thinking at all.
THAT is the problem.

[RC_]

Most conspiracy theorists are incappable of critcal thinking. That's what leads them to such absurd theories.

[cmotherofpirl]

It reminds me a lot of the problem of private interpretation of scripture.

[123]

true, but then again those who just keep their politcal traps shut, are being just as incappable of thinking critically.

Edited November 6, 2006 by GloriaIesusChristi

[Red Knight]

I don'tbother to debate with conspiracy theorists. They generally won't believe a word you say anyway. But check out this book:

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Nothing-This-Book-Exactly-Things/dp/1883319013"]Nothing In This Book is True...[/url]

It is some of the most interesting reading that covers conspiracy theories I have ever run across. This guy believe this stuff, that's where I drew most of the entertainment value from reading this. A riot.

[goldenchild17]

Pretty sad. The consensus on this. I would've thought any person no matter what beliefs they held would be important enough to try and help. At least in regards to things that could be harmful spiritually. Guess not...

[Red Knight]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1112763' date='Nov 6 2006, 01:20 PM']
Pretty sad. The consensus on this. I would've thought any person no matter what beliefs they held would be important enough to try and help. At least in regards to things that could be harmful spiritually. Guess not...
[/quote]


If I notice a thread of hope for change in their views, I will pursue it. However, that is rarely the case.

I need to work on this maybe?

[goldenchild17]

What is the point of a crusade going to any message board in the world where one can't know for sure whether or not the people are open to change. What about the great saints who went into the woods of early America to convert the pagan Indians. Did they have some confirmation from the Indians ahead of time that they would be willing to hear what the priests had to say? Doing something only because there is a visible chance for success is not the way to go about something. Yes there certainly is the whole "wipe the dust from your sandals" bit. But Scripture calls us to at least try initially.

What about those people who have expressed wishes to be shown their error if it exists (like me)? But maybe we're just too far gone and lack any useful brain cells for any effort to be worth it.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1112219' date='Nov 5 2006, 09:14 PM']
How do you think we should handle conspiracy theories? How do you argue that the Jesuits aren't infilitrating the government or the Jews aren't in a plot to take over the world? When I meet someone who really believes this stuff, I'm tempted to just laugh it off, but then they probably think that confirms their conspiracies. Can you argue rationally about this stuff? Is it implicitly giving it legitimacy to argue it like a legitimate opinion?
[/quote]
You can't argue rationally with people who refuse to use reason.

[goldenchild17]

The assumption of course is that people who believe conspiracy theories do not use reason. Some, definitely. Many, probably. But is it a given that because a person believes a conspiracy theory they are then automatically dismissed as stupid and irrational? Based on the posts here that is exactly what you guys are saying. How sad? Are apologists today really so incompetent that they can't at least try to show a person their error, instead of automatically writing them off as loonies? Seems so.

[Era Might]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1112799' date='Nov 6 2006, 01:57 PM']What about those people who have expressed wishes to be shown their error if it exists (like me)? But maybe we're just too far gone and lack any useful brain cells for any effort to be worth it.[/quote]
It's not the person, it's the ideas that they have adopted. It's a question of how can you argue with someone who believes in a conspiracy? How can you argue with an anti-Catholic who thinks that Jesuits are infilitrating the United States in a vast Catholic conspiracy? You can point them to the origins of the Jesuits, why they were founded, what their mission is today, but the person will just claim it's all a smokescreen. Then how can you argue with them? How can you prove it's not a smokescreen? You can't, because their paranoia is not based in reason, it's based on their general distrust of Catholicism. You would have to prove that Catholicism is an honest religion, and you can't really prove something like that. Either someone believes that Catholicism is an honest religion, or they don't. It's not a question of not wanting to engage people, but some ideas are just so beyond the pale and paranoid that there is no reasonable way to reason with someone. What we do then, I don't know. Like I said before, prayer and fasting is probably the only recourse.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1113295' date='Nov 6 2006, 10:26 PM']
It's not the person, it's the ideas that they have adopted. It's a question of how can you argue with someone who believes in a conspiracy? How can you argue with an anti-Catholic who thinks that Jesuits are infilitrating the United States in a vast Catholic conspiracy? You can point them to the origins of the Jesuits, why they were founded, what their mission is today, but the person will just claim it's all a smokescreen. Then how can you argue with them? How can you prove it's not a smokescreen? You can't, because their paranoia is not based in reason, it's based on their general distrust of Catholicism. You would have to prove that Catholicism is an honest religion, and you can't really prove something like that. Either someone believes that Catholicism is an honest religion, or they don't. It's not a question of not wanting to engage people, but some ideas are just so beyond the pale and paranoid that there is no reasonable way to reason with someone. What we do then, I don't know. Like I said before, prayer and fasting is probably the only recourse.
[/quote]

I have to disagree. For one, I know a number of Novus Ordo Catholics that believe this very claim about the Jesuits. They are strong believers and are firm in their faith in the Church, but they believe things about the current agenda of the Jesuit leadership that are questionable. Now, whether or not the claim is true or not is another thing. I would agree that by and large the majority of conspiracy theorists as they are called, are pretty much paranoid about a lot of things. But you guys make too much of a generalization.

Two, how can you prove it's not a smokescreen? Same way you explain Catholic doctrine to Protestants etc. Give them the facts. Give them the accurate interpretation of data and events. What these people do with that information is their own business. As Scripture tells us if someone does not accept us wipe off the dirt from your sandals and move on to another place. But Scripture certainly never tells us to presuppose that someone is too stupid or too closeminded to deal with. Never does Scripture tells us not to try. I know there are many people who have strong faith in the Church but who are questioning some things, not because they are troublemakers and certainly not because they are stupid. But because they are concerned for the well-being of their Church. Now, these people know that in the end their Church will ultimately succeed. But they are concerned for the possible damage done in the intermediate periods. I know this because I am one of them. I love nothing more than I love Christ and the Church. I have all the confidence in the world in the office of the Papacy that it will never fail. But I have concerns about the intermediate period. Am I simply stupid, ignorant of simple common sense? Maybe, but I don't think so. Am I unwilling to look at data that contradicts my questions? Of course not. Now, whether I immediately have a eureka moment and renounce my "errors" all at once is highly unlikely. But I never simply shrug off things I'm not comfortable with. Heck, that's how I got into the position I'm in now. Now, I don't mean to make this about me, because it's not. I use myself as an example of the many so-called stupid and stubborn people that are known to you guys as "conspiracy theorists." Are there nuts out there? No doubt. But they exist in all beliefs. I know this from working in apologetics with protestants and non-christians for so long. What do you do with such nuts? Make your initial effort, then when you see them ignore your evidence you wipe the dirt off your sandals and move on. All one can do for such as these is pray and fast as you say. But you don't isolate a whole group simply because a number of them are ignoring you. There are many who are hungry for whatever information you(and others) might have that can bring us back into the commonly accepted understanding.

[Era Might]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1113315' date='Nov 6 2006, 10:01 PM']I know this because I am one of them. I love nothing more than I love Christ and the Church. I have all the confidence in the world in the office of the Papacy that it will never fail. But I have concerns about the intermediate period. Am I simply stupid, ignorant of simple common sense? Maybe, but I don't think so. Am I unwilling to look at data that contradicts my questions? Of course not. Now, whether I immediately have a eureka moment and renounce my "errors" all at once is highly unlikely. But I never simply shrug off things I'm not comfortable with. Heck, that's how I got into the position I'm in now. Now, I don't mean to make this about me, because it's not. I use myself as an example of the many so-called stupid and stubborn people that are known to you guys as "conspiracy theorists." [/quote]
I don't believe you are a good example, because sedevacantism is not really a conspiracy theory. but a matter of facts. That is, it hinges on an objective fact: whether or not the election of a particular Pope was valid. I'm speaking of the basic idea of sedevacantism, not theories about Cardinal Siri and other ancillary ideas advanced by some sedevacantists.

A conspiracy theory does not hinge on such a fact. You can't "prove" that the Pope isn't out to kill Protestants, because you would have to read his mind, and let others in on the information. You can point out reasons that suggest the Pope is not out to kill Protestants (such as his writings on ecumenism), but there is no objective fact to prove. The person just has to realize that it's absurd to believe the Pope is out to kill Protestants. All facts and logic that you produce are just more proof to them that there is a conspiracy. Logic is irrelevant, because if the Pope were in a conspiracy, as believed, then he would WANT to make everything appear a certain way to keep the conspiracy a conspiracy.

I don't know if these people can be changed without a dramatic moment of grace that just makes them realize how absurd their ideas are. The Bible does warn us about giving silliness too much credibility:

[quote]Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.

--Proverbs 26:4-5[/quote]
The danger in treating conspiracy theories as legitimate opinions is that they make the fool "wise in his own eyes", but when you answer him according to his folly, by ridiculing the idea as an absurdity, it keeps it in the right perspective.

I'm not saying we should completely abandon these people, but there's an element of banging your head against the wall by arguing with them. I think your concerns are valid, and there doesn't necessarily have to be a one-size-fits all approach, but I think in general, it's counter productive to give too much attention to conspiracy theories. If someone is genuinely open to a discussion, then I think that there may be more of a legitimate opportunity there, but many conspiracy theorists are irrational people. I was accused the other day of being part of a Catholic-Jesuit infilitration of a Protestant website. I didn't try to denounce the accusation, because it was just silly, and I had to let it be.

Maybe I should have responded, I don't know. That's why I started this thread. But I think ignoring it was the right decision.