Debating Conspiracy Theories

[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.

[Socrates]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1113315' date='Nov 6 2006, 11:01 PM']
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.
[/quote]
If you have a particular point to argue, give it. Enough with this whining and vague accusations.

As for "conspiracy theories" the burden of proof is on those holding the theories. If it comes down to proving negatives, the debate becomes senseless. ("How can you prove that Jesuit-Masonic-Jewish-Communist-Lizard-men are [b]NOT[/b] controlling America's government?") For many conspiracy theorists, any evidence presented against the conspiracy claims are merely evidence for how powerful the conspiracy cover-up is.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1113330' date='Nov 6 2006, 11:17 PM']
If you have a particular point to argue, give it. Enough with this whining and vague accusations. [/quote]
Whose whining? I'm addressing the rather lazy principle of refusing to dialogue with people who hold novel ideas simply because some who hold these ideas will not listen to reason. If this was a principle we should follow then evangelization of any kind would be pointless because there are so many people in all faiths who do not understand critical thinking or common sense. I would go so far as to say that there are relatively few people who have an adequate grasp of these things, myself included.

I've made my point quite clear. I've made no accusation that the posters here have not already accepted as applicable to them.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1113330' date='Nov 6 2006, 11:17 PM']As for "conspiracy theories" the burden of proof is on those holding the theories. If it comes down to proving negatives, the debate becomes senseless. ("How can you prove that Jesuit-Masonic-Jewish-Communist-Lizard-men are [b]NOT[/b] controlling America's government?") For many conspiracy theorists, any evidence presented against the conspiracy claims are merely evidence for how powerful the conspiracy cover-up is.
[/quote]

And for others it would be something to consider. The sweeping generalization is what I am addressing. Yes, the burden of proof is on those who claim something is up. So? I wouldn't deny that at all. The only thing you guys would have to do is explain away all the arguments of the "crazies". Once you have done that then there is nothing more you can do but pray, but at least you would have tried. With this dismissal approach absolutely nothing good happens on either side (if indeed the "conspirators" are right).

Edited November 7, 2006 by goldenchild17