Argumentum Ad Baculum and its use in Catholicism

[Gorgias]

Hypothetical Atheist:

1. Catholic to Child: “You will go to mass today or (threat)”.
2. Bible to Human: “Love me or you will be sent into Hell”.
3. All arguments in the Bible that use Hellfire as a threat.

Your hypothetical atheist isn’t a good debater:

• #1 isn’t “an appeal to force to bring about acceptance of a conclusion”. The parent isn’t trying to convince the child to accept an argument; he’s pointing out that, in the parent-child relationship, there are consequences for actions.
• #2 is a misconstrued interpretation of what the Bible teaches. However, it too teaches “actions have consequences”.
• #3, likewise, spins “consequence” as threat.

Think of it this way: if I say to you “if you continue driving at 165, you’ll eventually end up with your car wrapped around a telephone pole,” then I haven’t threatened you. I’ve merely identified the consequences of the actions you are choosing.

The fallacy you’re quoting works differently. It’s kinda like “look, buddy: if you refuse to listen to me, I’m gonna come and whack your kneecaps with a lead pipe, until you assent to the argument I’m presenting.”

That’s a whole different vibe than what you’re asserting here.

(p.s., your kneecaps are safe; if you disagree with me, I’ll continue to assert my point, but I’m not gonna go looking for a lead pipe. )

 

[MPat]

Wow, you can read minds! Amazing.

Nah. I’m pretty sure we aren’t all that good at reading minds. Including our own mind.

Which is precisely why I find seeing what can be deduced from the various clues more reliable than your proclamation about what, in your current opinion, played what role long time ago.

And in that case we have one hypothesis saying that evidence was important to you, and another one saying that it was not, that you just were “offended” by a “threat” and used “Reverse Argumentum ad Baculum”.

Next we have to see where each of them would lead us.

If the hypothesis that evidence played an important part here was true, you could be expected to reason that, let’s say, the danger was unlikely to be real and could be ignored. And if that step was important, you would have said so in your original argument (it is not long). But you did not. So, this hypothesis leads to a contradiction and should be rejected.

On the other hand, the hypothesis that evidence was not important does not seem to lead to a contradiction. It only leads to the conclusion that you are wrong to think that evidence played a significant role here.

For that matter, if I am wrong, you can point out what in my representation (in 3 or 4 numbered points) of your argument is to be corrected.

I get an impression that either the evidence will be just tacked on and do little work, or you will end up with two separate arguments mashed together.

You might want to brush up on the Principle of Charity as it pertains to philosophy, too.

So, what do you imagine this “Principle of Charity” to be, and why should I follow it?

Do you follow it? Did you follow it in this thread, or with the “Bible kid”?

 

[Rhubarb]

Alright mate… It seems to me you’re just after scoring RhetoricalPoints rather than actually engaging with a person and thoughts. But I’ll make one more pass at this just to put a cap on it. I trust you’ll forgive me for re-gathering my thoughts after a few late-night posts on my way to bed on my phone. You’re going to have to stop inventing imaginary sub-text though. I’m laying out -exactly- what I mean. Perhaps I’ve made some enthymematic moves in how I’ve posted previously, so, let me fill out some of the points. Maybe that’ll help.

If the hypothesis that evidence played an important part here was true, you could be expected to reason that, let’s say, the danger was unlikely to be real and could be ignored. And if that step was important, you would have said so in your original argument (it is not long). But you did not. So, this hypothesis leads to a contradiction and should be rejected.

There is no hypothesis to contradict, refute, or reject. We’re discussing personal preferences here. You can’t fill out a truth table regarding someone’s preference of chocolate over vanilla.
As I said. I wasn’t giving an argument against God’s existence, or whether someone ought to or not ought not to believe. I don’t give a fig who believes or doesn’t. If you do, great. I’m glad you have something you cherish.

1. I do not see sufficient evidence for the existence of God. Nor are any of the arguments I’ve studied moving. I find them all invalid or unsound in one way or another. In a state of lacking evidence or compelling argument, one is justified in not believing. If by some happenstance God DOES exist, I suggest that person is still not justified in not believing if the evidence and argumentation isn’t there to move their belief. (Whether or not anyone agrees with this is not for this thread as it’s off-topic)
2. The phenomena the OP discusses is very real. My example of ‘bible kid’ was an anecdote describing it. “You should believe, because you’ll burn if you don’t”
3. Considering the phenomena described above, I’ve come to the conclusion that even if God exists, my expressing belief out of the fear of hell rather than being convinced by evidence and argument would be dishonest. And that to condemn someone for not believing something that wasn’t made evident is wrong. Fear will not drive to to accept a consequence that I am highly skeptical of.

So, what do you imagine this “Principle of Charity” to be, and why should I follow it?

Do you follow it? Did you follow it in this thread, or with the “Bible kid”?

https://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html

It’s like, the FIRST thing you learn in a phil101 course. A discussion if philosophy isn’t a contest, or a competition. Pigeon-holing, making assumptions, putting words in people’s mouth, and strawmanning other people to try and strengthen your own argument will get you flunked out of any philosophy department simply for arguing unethically.

 

[Rhubarb]

And that’s not even touching on your attitude - if a student came to my office with your condescension and smugness I would ask them to leave until they came back with a more productive frame of mind. I’ve already said I’m not trying to ‘beat you’. Or even make an argument. I am not making an argument I am not making an argument I am not making an argument I am not making an argument I am not making an argument I am not making an argument God might exist, or might not exist for all I know.

I am explaining my reaction the very real thing the OP is trying to discuss. That is all. Kindly don’t put words in my mouth or mis-characterize me after I’ve clarified what I meant.

 

[Gorgias]

In a state of lacking evidence or compelling argument, one is justified in not believing. If by some happenstance God DOES exist, I suggest that person is still not justified in not believing if the evidence and argumentation isn’t there to move their belief.

Just out of curiosity: I’m gonna assume you’re familiar with Newman’s argument for the “illative sense”. What’s your reaction to his argument?

The phenomena the OP discusses is very real. My example of ‘bible kid’ was an anecdote describing it. “You should believe, because you’ll burn if you don’t”

Yeah, but if the Bible Kid had come to you and said “God wants us to love Him or else He’ll kill us all with global warming”, would you disbelieve his premise (“God loves us”) just because his conclusion (“God will kill us via global warming”) is in error?

I’ve come to the conclusion that even if God exists, my expressing belief out of the fear of hell rather than being convinced by evidence and argument would be dishonest

Right. If you don’t believe, but are just giving lip-service to an argument out of fear, then that’s dishonest. On the other hand, if you think that the assertion might be true, and act out of concern of the possibility of the negative consequences, then that’s not dishonest, per se!

And that to condemn someone for not believing something that wasn’t made evident is wrong.

Perhaps, but that’s not what’s in play here. If I come up to you and say, “run! run for high ground! a tsunami’s coming, and you need to get out of here!”, you might decide “meh… I’m not convinced; i’m staying put”. And, if the wave does come, you will be at the receiving end of the consequences. The “receiving consequences” doesn’t come from the (perceived) lack of evidence… it comes from your decision to not accept the assertion. That’s a choice that you get to make. If a given choice leads to good outcomes, bully for you! If it doesn’t…

 

[HumbleIOughtToBe]

I firmly believe in Heaven. I Believe in God’s love, and that God exists… I don’t think hell hurts God’s love.

I think a lot of Gods arguments for compliance are based upon indirect post death consequences. Hide the consequences for sin until after death and you will lose adherents.

 

[Thom18]

Whether the use of force is right or wrong in this case, fallacies such as this are for logical demonstrations. None of the situations you’re describing are just logic arguments so there’s no logical fallacy bring invoked here.

Again, perhaps threat of force is unethical in certain situations, but argumentum ad baculum is for logical demonstrations and not what you’re describing.

Good observation.

This whole “threat of force” thing has no bearing on an argument’s validity or soundness anyways. Aside from this, the examples brought up by the OP are only a hypothetical atheist’s version of things, which don’t show the whole picture, only the part which they want to paint.

I might say to a child, “Don’t stick a fork in the electrical outlet or you’ll get electrocuted and die”. Even the hypothetical atheist would admit that, while falling under argumentum ad baculum, such a statement isn’t wrong to say to a child because the conclusion I present does (or could) follow from the action referenced. Maybe the child dies, maybe they just come close to dying. Either way, it’s accepted to say as such because it’s said to prevent serious harm from befalling someone.

And so, when they present God as a being who says, “Love me or go to Hell”, they’re demonstrating a double standard. In addition to unfairly representing the idea (which would be more accurately described as, “If you want to spend eternity with me, do what will lead you to spend eternity with Me and you will; if you want to spend eternity separated from Me, do what will lead you to spend eternity separated from Me and you will”), the hypothetical atheist temporarily (situationally) suspends logic, or their previous opinion about something, in order to criticize God.

So, an atheist could not then say, “I don’t believe in God because He is illogical, because He uses logical fallacies”, because it is not fallacious to describe what an event will cause to happen. Instead, they have the option of changing their opinion to, “I don’t believe in God (or won’t follow Him) because He is unjust”. Then, they must attempt to justify that belief, keeping in mind that they can no longer claim anything fallacious is in these statements.

 

[Gorgias]

It all depends on why one discards the claim.

Not so much. If a tsunami comes and you’re in the lowlands, you reap the consequences of your decision. It doesn’t matter why you refused to seek higher ground; the consequence followed the decision.

You’re conflating “culpability” with “consequence”. The two are distinct. (There’s an interesting entanglement between the two, in the context of divine judgment, but that’s a discussion for another day, I think.)

 

[Gorgias]

And one can reasonably accept or discard that claim depending on the circumstances.

Sure. But, the argument being made is that it’s unjust to say “if you do this, then that will result.” An adult has the choice to make his own judgment. However, he’s not being threatened. And, if it happens, then it’s a matter of saying “we tried to tell you.”

As believers in God, the outcome “it doesn’t work in the way God told us it works” doesn’t enter into consideration as a possibility. Again, however, if a person wants to bank on that, then that’s their business.

The point is that a mere “claim” is not sufficient grounds to accept the validity of that claim. To take any claim seriously would be the height of stupidity.

Agreed. And, theists would agree that, if there weren’t significant basis for the claim, then it shouldn’t be taken seriously. However, “God said it” is just about the best basis going (aside, perhaps, from "hey look! there’s a tsunami out there!)…

We only have some unsubstantiated claim that a “tsunami comes”.

Just to cover all the bases: God’s claims aren’t “unsubstantiated claims”. They might be disbelieved by some, of course.

 

[Rhubarb]

I’ve browsed Grammar of Assent but I haven’t dug in too terribly deeply. From what I remember, Newman wrote about justification for belief and why religious belief isn’t crackpottery.

And that’s not something I’d argue with. Some people have deeply spiritual events in their lives, or are otherwise genuinely moved to genuine belief. And I have no problem with that. I wouldn’t ever try to argue someone out of their faith.

I’ll see if I can’t find a copy when I get home from work. Doxastic epistemology always fascinated me.

 

[MPat]

And that’s not even touching on your attitude - if a student came to my office with your condescension and smugness I would ask them to leave until they came back with a more productive frame of mind.

So, that’s one problem: you expect from me the level of respect which a lowly student owes to his competent and respected professor.

And I do not happen to think I owe you that much respect. After all, among other things, I am not your student.

So, I do not think I have to just assume you know what you are talking about, and defer to your wisdom.

If you want an extraordinary level of respect, it is a good idea to treat others with that level of respect. Like that “Bible kid”.

I wasn’t giving an argument against God’s existence, or whether someone ought to or not ought not to believe.

And I was not claiming you were. The conclusion of my representation of your argument was “Therefore, I refuse to choose X, I’d rather have Y happen.”. Yes, this argument results in your decision, and it is based on your tastes.

And yes, I am saying this conclusion is unreasonable.

Kindly don’t put words in my mouth or mis-characterize me after I’ve clarified what I meant.

As you can see, it looks like I did not misrepresent what you have said, instead you ended up misrepresenting mine.

It’s like, the FIRST thing you learn in a phil101 course. A discussion if philosophy isn’t a contest, or a competition. Pigeon-holing, making assumptions, putting words in people’s mouth, and strawmanning other people to try and strengthen your own argument will get you flunked out of any philosophy department simply for arguing unethically.

So, the formulation is " The Principle of Charity is a methodological presumption made in seeking to understand a point of view whereby we seek to understand that view in its strongest, most credible form before subjecting the view to appraisal.". OK.

As you might note, I was asking you if you were applying it in this thread. It looks like you did not answer.

And that seems to go back to your expectations of asymmetrical respect, as if we had to assume you know what you are talking about (and effectively write arguments for you), while you can afford to assume everyone else (like the “Bible kid”, who could be seen to make a “Pascal’s Wager” argument) makes no sense.

Considering the phenomena described above, I’ve come to the conclusion that even if God exists, my expressing belief out of the fear of hell rather than being convinced by evidence and argument would be dishonest. And that to condemn someone for not believing something that wasn’t made evident is wrong. Fear will not drive to to accept a consequence that I am highly skeptical of.

That is an improvement over an original argument, but it is still silly. For example, “And that to condemn someone for not believing something that wasn’t made evident is wrong.” simply doesn’t follow from any premises you have introduced.

 

[Rhubarb]

Perhaps, but that’s not what’s in play here. If I come up to you and say, “run! run for high ground! a tsunami’s coming, and you need to get out of here!”, you might decide “meh… I’m not convinced; i’m staying put”. And, if the wave does come, you will be at the receiving end of the consequences. The “receiving consequences” doesn’t come from the (perceived) lack of evidence… it comes from your decision to not accept the assertion. That’s a choice that you get to make. If a given choice leads to good outcomes, bully for you! If it doesn’t…

I would say that there’s ample evidence to the existence of tsunamis, and we have ample evidence of what happens when people ignore the warnings. What we know about tsunamis were complied through observation and study, also. In a way that’s markedly different than theological study. So I don’t think these are comparable.

But I’d also say that if someone’s dead-set against ignoring the warnings - maybe they want to protect their home (as if they could) as some people do during floods or hurricanes. Or they’re just being obstinate, that’s their choice.

 

[Rhubarb]

So, that’s one problem: you expect from me the level of respect which a lowly student owes to his competent and respected professor.

Students aren’t ‘lowly’. But no, I expect common courtesy that we give everyone when we discuss matters. And you’ve been lacking that since your first reply to me. I didn’t start this conversation with you, you chose to pick it up. And you stated it off in a way that if I adequately described it, I’d be banned from these forums. It’s completely capable of having these sorts of discussions in a moderate, polite manner. Youv’e done nothing but condescend.

TuRegardless, thank you for this bit. At least I can work with this. “And that to condemn someone… etc” isn’t a conclusion. Nor is it a premise. I’ve said several times **I AM NOT Y
I’m not trying to convince anyone, I’m not stating a case, I’m not laying out 10,000 words of arguments, sub-arguments, and proofs. I’m stating my own personal belief on the matter.

 

[EndTimes]

My favorite theory is that a certain level of intelligence needs it and thus invents it.

Satan’s intel surpasses Man’s and IMO vain Intellectuals are his easiest targets.

 

[MPat]

But no, I expect common courtesy that we give everyone when we discuss matters.

And you stated it off in a way that if I adequately described it, I’d be banned from these forums.

OK, can you describe how you understand that “common courtesy”?

Given that you claim I have violated it in the very first post (that would probably be this one - Argumentum Ad Baculum and its use in Catholicism - #26 by MPat), where I pointed out that your argument is pretty bad, I get an impression that you expect me to just assume you are such a reasonable and trustworthy man, such a competent philosopher, that you cannot possibly make silly arguments (or are very unlikely to do so).

In such case I’d like to point out that I do not like the idea of you having such “courtesy” for me. I’d say we should evaluate arguments as they are, without making such assumptions. After all, in most cases it should not matter, if the one who made an argument is reasonable or not, trustworthy or not.

For that matter, no reason for asymmetrical respect has been offered. If you do not grant a free assumption that “Bible kid” was very reasonable, trustworthy and competent at philosophy (to the point of being unable or unlikely to make a silly argument), we should not grant the same assumption to you for free either.

Furthermore, I have already seen atheists trying to “weaponise” courtesy, arguing that, since they are reasonable and honest (premises supported by merely “How dare you!!!”), we must accept that atheism is reasonable, that if they say there is no evidence for God, we must accept that it is so, etc.

So no, I refuse to grant such assumptions for free.

If you want them anyway, prove them. Better yet, argue in the way that does not require them.

TuRegardless, thank you for this bit. At least I can work with this. “And that to condemn someone… etc” isn’t a conclusion. Nor is it a premise. I’ve said several times **I AM NOT Y
I’m not trying to convince anyone, I’m not stating a case, I’m not laying out 10,000 words of arguments, sub-arguments, and proofs. I’m stating my own personal belief on the matter.

Well, you were writing:

I’ve come to the conclusion that even if God exists, my expressing belief out of the fear of hell rather than being convinced by evidence and argument would be dishonest. And that to condemn someone for not believing something that wasn’t made evident is wrong.

Grammatically, sentence “And that to condemn” is clearly connected to “I’ve come to the conclusion that”.

If you say you did not mean to say it was a conclusion, feel free to formulate that how you meant to say it.

 

[Thom18]

I’ll see if I can’t find a copy when I get home from work. Doxastic epistemology always fascinated me.

Grammar of Assent?

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/grammar/index.html

 

[Rhubarb]

Given that you claim I have violated it in the very first post (that would probably be this one - Argumentum Ad Baculum and its use in Catholicism - #26 by MPat), where I pointed out that your argument is pretty bad

I can’t tell if you’re being obtuse on purpose or if you’re just… Missing it.

For the umpteenth time, I haven’t made an argument. I’ve made assertions. Nothing more. I’m not arguing, not offering premises or conclusions or patterns of inference.

 

[Rhubarb]

Oh cool. I’ll give it a go-through. I did some looking around.

Like I said though, I don’t think others are wrong for feeling justified in their belief.

 

[MPat]

I can’t tell if you’re being obtuse on purpose or if you’re just… Missing it.

For the umpteenth time, I haven’t made an argument. I’ve made assertions. Nothing more. I’m not arguing, not offering premises or conclusions or patterns of inference.

And in this specific case it does not matter if you have made an argument. I am pointing out that I was responding to what I thought is an argument. (And yes, I still think that you made an argument - or described an argument you made to yourself, if you prefer. But it is irrelevant in this case.)

There is no contradiction in one man not making an argument and another responding, as if the argument was made.

Maybe you should try to respond to some other part of that post…

 

[Rhubarb]

So you’re talking past me. At least that explains why you are hung up.

Yeah, no. I am not going to defend against some nonsense you made up - what “you thought” was an argument. You’re tilting at windmills here.

If you believe, great. I’m glad. If you think I should too… Well. Okay. It’s a free country. That’s the end of it