Argumentum Ad Baculum and its use in Catholicism

[Jen95]

Actually Catholicism has never been spread with the argument of force.
Convert or be beheaded has been and it is still used by other faiths.

Really? Here’s just one example:

Northern Crusades - Wikipedia

 

[goout]

The whole “problem of evil”, or, to be more precise the “problem of needless pain and suffering” rests on three premises:

1. God is omniscient - or KNOWS about the impending pain and suffering.
2. God is omnipotent - that is ABLE to prevent that foreseen pain and suffering.
3. God is loving and caring - and therefore does not allow any unnecessary pain and suffering.

We see many instances of “seemingly” unnecessary pain and suffering. That presents a “seeming” contradiction. Your only defense would be to prove that every “seemingly” unnecessary pain and suffering is actually a “measurement error”, and whatever “seems” to be an unnecessary pain and suffering is actually the “optimal state of affairs”, that is eliminating or even slightly reducing the pain and suffering would actually increase the amount of pain and suffering. Which is a contradiction of first class.

Your turn.

You seem to assume that
if God is omnibenevolent
and if God is omniscient
and if God is omnipotent
then human suffering should not exist.

Why would you assume that?

And if you do assume that, why do you not also assume that pleasure and joy and all "good’ things should not exist from God’s hand?
Why is God only responsible to eliminate your suffering, but not responsible for things you’d like to keep without “credit”?

The reality of human suffering in no way disproves the absence of a loving God. The proposition abjectly fails. It depends on your own assumptions of how God should act (that’s kinda like religion), and as an atheist, you find yourself in a very odd position there.

 

[goout]

The problem at it’s heart is a complete misunderstanding of the relationship of love to freedom/responsibility.

 

[goout]

goout:

You seem to assume that
if God is omnibenevolent
and if God is omniscient
and if God is omnipotent
then human suffering should not exist.

Why would you assume that?

I already said several times, that this is not my proposition. @Gorgias seemed to miss the all important part, too.

then unnecessary suffering should not exist.

And if you do assume that, why do you not also assume that pleasure and joy and all "good’ things should not exist from God’s hand?

Because there is no contradiction between benevolence and providing a good environment without gratuitous suffering.

Can we expect to read in the news soon that you have provided your children

a good environment without gratuitous suffering.

by locking them in their rooms, where they are kept safe from all of life’s uncertainties and potential dangers.
That solves your perceived problem of evil. No one ever gets hurt, and the children will be de facto dead because they are starved of love and freedom.

 

[goout]

I’d rather not starting parsing the meaning of gratuitous.

 

[goout]

Can I translate that as “I don’t like my basic assumptions to be challenged”?

 

[Gorgias]

This is a perfect example of blind faith. Disregarding the obvious evidence.

What “obvious evidence”? You yourself said that your best heuristic was the “duck principle”! So, if the best that you can do is look and say “sure seems like unnecessary” and shrug, then the best I can do is look and say “sure seems like God’s handling it” and shrug! Both are as “blind” as the other!

As soon as an apologist will be able to give a rational (non-faith based) argument that preventing the Holocaust (always a useful example) would have resulted in an even less desirable state of affairs, you will score a good point. Not enough, of course, but a good one.

Now you’re just acting in bad faith. You’ve already assented to the notion that humans (being non-omniscient) are incapable of doing that precise thing; now, you’re setting it up as a condition required for you to give assent.

Just because you have no rational argument against it, it does not make it a red herring.

I don’t have “no rational argument against it”; I’d just hoped you’d see that it’s irrelevant. But, since it’s your assertion, I’ll give you a chance to defend it: why, then, is the relevant standard for responsibility that “the difference between God and human adult is greater than the difference between human adult and human child”? And, if you can’t provide a rational reason, well… you know: “freely asserted, freely denied.”

If one has real, true foreknowledge of an event, which one can simply prevent by exercising one’s will, and one considers that act evil - and does nothing about it, then one is culpable for that act.

So: are humans capable of such an act to quash evil?

On this forum we talk about the God of the philosophers and NOT the God of the Bible. Is this surprising for you?

Yes: because on this forum, we talk about both. What we don’t do is retreat when challenged and retort, “well, I was talking about that, not this.”

Not with 100% certainty.

With what kind of certainty, then? And, is it reasonable enough to draw a conclusion? Or, just reasonable enough to say “I have no idea, but it seems like…”? Because, if that’s all you’ve got, then you don’t have enough to make assertions based on that conclusion. At best, what you could say is, “I have no idea, but I’d like to think that…”

 

[Gorgias]

There is nothing fallacious about making a judgment based upon ALL the available evidence. And disregarding the unsubstantiated assumptions.

And, if that’s what you’d done, then I’d agree. But… it isn’t.

The other one is: “if you cannot DISPROVE my stance, it is rational to hold it”. That is the real fallacy.

Khedron:

“if it looks like unnecessary pain and suffering, the only rational conclusion is that it IS an unnecessary pain and suffering - as long as you are unable to prove the opposite.”

OK, so… the form of both of those statements is identical. In other words, you’ve just asserted that your claim is a fallacy. I agree. Thanks for proving my point.

@Gorgias seemed to miss the all important part, too.

then unnecessary suffering should not exist.

Nah. We’ve been debating the critical part of that assertion: you are unable to assert that it’s “unnecessary”. You can say that your guess is that it’s unnecessary, but unless you’re able to show that this is the case, then your assertion falls flat.

Can I translate that as “I don’t like my basic assumptions to be challenged”?

Pretty much.

The word unnecessary or gratuitous are the most important parts of my proposition.

And yet, you can’t demonstrate that you can conclusively identify “unnecessary”. Kinda puts your whole proposition on shaky ground…

 

[Hume]

Also reference the Cathars.

Ever since becoming a state religion, religious officials have been happy to issue the boots of the legions, crusaders, etc. to “reason” with those that dissent.

Not an inherently Catholic problem. It’s a problem with the marriage of church and state.

 

[Hume]

The duck principle is super useful, but as all observational truth tends to be, it lacks an element of certainty.

But it provides a good starting point. We can’t be the proverbial donkey staring at two equally good piles of hay for all eternity while we starve to death trying to decide between the two.

 

[Gorgias]

Not at all. This is exactly as incorrect as proposing: “the chance of hitting a jackpot on Powerball is 50% - because it either happens or not.” Not all “seemingly” unnecessary outcomes are equal.

Fair enough. Yet, you have to demonstrate that you’ve got more than a handful of observations before you reach a conclusion – you have to demonstrate, rather, that you’ve got a sufficient set of observations with which to draw a conclusion! Otherwise, you’re one of the five blind men encountering an elephant and concluding “well, seemingly, it’s all trunk”…!
Khedron:

So: are humans capable of such an act to quash evil?

Sometimes.

we do not have the necessary power (ability) to prevent a truly foreseen event .

Ya know… it’s difficult to engage in a discussion when one’s interlocutor keeps changing his position. So… which is it? Can we “sometimes” prevent an evil event, or is it that we are unable to do so?

And if they could, but don’t do it, they are just as culpable as the actual perpetrator. Can you provide an argument against this principle?

I don’t need to. It’s your principle. If you want to use it, then you need to argue for it, and not just put it out there as if it were true. So: can you provide an argument for this principle?

With what kind of certainty, then? And, is it reasonable enough to draw a conclusion?

Close to 100% certainty.

How can you assert that this is the case? By its very nature, your “principle” claims that it doesn’t have all knowledge in drawing its conclusions!

And, to be painfully honest, you can’t make that claim with God. Oh, sure: if the lighting is good enough, and the environment is quiet enough, you can see and hear a ‘duck’, and thus conclude that your observations are sufficient to reach a valid determination. With God, however, you cannot make that determination of sufficiency. The best you can do is wave your hands a little and say “it’s a duck.” So, yet again: if you feel that you have sufficient observations in order to reach a conclusion, then please share with us the rationale behind that determination. Otherwise… just yet another assertion without argumentation.

 

[Gorgias]

Obviously I cannot consider something that is UNavailable for consideration.

That’s been my point to you, all along! You’re putting assertions out there, but not providing any basis for them, such that we can consider their validity!

Wrong. In an open, inductive system one cannot PROVE a negative.

If A, then B.
A.
Therefore, B.

A is your first statement. B is your second. You asserted the truth of A. You just proved that your B statement is fallacious. By your own words, nonetheless!

Of course I can. Every instance of suffering that we can prevent is by definition - unnecessary. And “unnecessary” is just a shorthand for “logically unnecessary”.

Here’s your counter-example: I can prevent my son from falling off his bike while learning how to ride a bike, and thereby prevent suffering. (Of course, I also prevent him from learning how to ride a bike.) The suffering, therefore, is not “unnecessary”. It is, however, part of reaching the goal of learning how to ride a bike.

Exactly as “shaky” as proposing that the Earth will not be destroyed tonight by a wandering black hole.

Not in the least. You can make a good argument for why your observations are sufficient to conclude that you won’t get sucked up by a black hole tonight. What you cannot do – nor have even yet attempted to do – is demonstrate that you can sufficiently determine “unnecessary suffering.”

I don’t know how well-versed are you in mathematical statistics, but it looks like that it is not your specialty.

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser”, as the internet meme goes.

Let’s shorten the discussion to the basics. Can you provide an argument against the duck principle?

Let’s get even more to the point:

• Can you provide an argument that ‘the duck principle’ works, and that it does so in a way differently than I’ve described (i.e., that there must be sufficient observation prior to concluding "yep; duck!)…? (Otherwise, you’re claiming it always works, and that’s a poor approach.)
• Can you provide an argument that the duck principle is sufficiently determinative for non-physical entities, whom you’re claiming to “observe”?

 

[Hume]

Thank you for that. That’s a tidbit of my now decades-old philosophy education that obviously has a lot of rust on it.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

I don’t need to. It’s your principle. If you want to use it, then you need to argue for it, and not just put it out there as if it were true. So: can you provide an argument for this principle?

It is self-evident. In our existence we encounter untold millions of events every day and every time we act according to what we experience. If you do the same, you accept the duck principle

Wrong principle. At that point in my post, I was responding to your ‘principle’ of culpability. It’s not self-evident (and, in fact, it’s not even part of human jurisprudence!), so that makes it problematic to dodge the question by declaring it manifestly evident. So… let’s see your argument for your “culpability” proposition!

Any suffering that is not LOGICALLY necessary to achieve a certain good result - is unnecessary.

Yet, you claim that humans cannot make that determination. So, all you’ve done is pushed the argument back a step. So, then: what is "suffering that’s not ‘logically necessary’, and more to the point, how can humans make this determination with certainty?

Due to your lack of omnipotence.

Non sequitur.

And there was no “slander” involved.

Says you, but then again you’re the one who accused me of not understanding statistics.

Can you provide an argument that the duck principle is sufficiently determinative for non-physical entities, whom you’re claiming to “observe”?

What non-physical entities?

Not sure why you’re having a hard time keeping up. We’re talking about whether the ‘duck principle’ can sufficiently determine whether there is “unnecessary suffering” – which requires omniscience to fully fathom. The question becomes whether it’s possible to make observations that are sufficient to determine whether suffering is “unnecessary”. If omniscience – that is, a property of God – is required, then the observations we must make are observations of God and His capacities. God is a non-physical entity. Therefore, the question is whether the duck principle is sufficiently determinative, given that the observations are beyond human ability?

The duck principle is NOT limited to visual information

I’m not making that claim.

And not just the direct information counts, but also the direct and indirect information, AND all the logical corollaries.

Nevertheless, we’re still beyond the capabilities of human observation, and into the dimension of divine observation. So… can you demonstrate that the principle ‘works’ when the observations go beyond human powers of detection?

 

[Gorgias]

Let’s add to it. All the animals use the duck principle

We’re not talking about what rats see and smell. We’re talking about the ability to sufficiently determine “unnecessary suffering”. Your example here is irrelevant to that question.

The indirect information shows that God is indifferent , does not reward the “good people” here nor punish the “scoundrels” here.

That God doesn’t reward or punish on earth is insufficient to demonstrate that He is “indifferent.” At best, it only demonstrates the proposition that God doesn’t reward or punish temporally.

 

[EndTimes]

" I. Argumentum ad Baculum (fear of force): the fallacy committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion."

Father to children: “Do not stick your hand into Fire for if you do your hand shall hurt”

Force?
…or
Loving Guidance?

 

[EndTimes]

Stick with Mine… For that’s analogous to God with Man in the Garden

Answer? Loving Guidance…

Arguementum Ad Baculum Fails …

Father to children : “Do not stick your hand into Fire for if you do your hand shall hurt”

Force?
…or
Loving Guidance?

 

[EndTimes]

Just as children are TOLD what will occur if they stick their hands into Fire — OUCH!

So too, Man was told what would occur if they did not stick to the Tree of Life!

Argumentum Ad Beculum is and remains non-Applicable

Anything Else?

 

[on_the_hill]

Argumentum ad Baculum

" I. Argumentum ad Baculum (fear of force): the fallacy committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion."

I think this is a fair characterization of a whole lot about how Catholicism has been taught through the centuries.
Even today, this is a popular means of trying to get people to conform. For example, people who live active homosexual lifestyles are committing ‘the act that cries to to Heaven for vengeance.’ Read through CAF and you’ll see support for old timey fire-n-brimstone homilies.

 

[EndTimes]

Argumentum Ad Baculum as it applies to Catholicism has been debunked. .

Time to move on…

God Is… And Atheism is Wrong