Argumentum Ad Baculum and its use in Catholicism

[Inquiry]

Gorgias:

We’re talking about matters of divinity here.

If you have no secular arguments, then you have nothing. Any argument must be based on reality.

This is pretty much like someone from France going onto an English speaking forum and insisting that they converse in French because though he knows English he doesn’t want to be bothered to speak it.

 

[goout]

Gorgias:

We’re talking about matters of divinity here.

If you have no secular arguments, then you have nothing. Any argument must be based on reality.

Another false assumption.
All of reality is not secular, or observable, or provable, or testable, or whichever semantic game you will now resort to.
Oddly enough, your attempt to limit reality to your own experiences and sensations kind makes you into a god.

Odd position for an atheist.

 

[Hume]

That’s nothing more than “I disagree” in the language of condescension.

There would be much less of this if forum moderators held everyone to the same standards…

 

[Hume]

Its interesting you decry proof and then mention rebuttals…

Point being, its difficult for empirical thinkers to accept that “god is good”.

First, those that advocate are attempting to describe a god that isn’t part of observable reality.

Second, the basis for description is nothing more than tautology.

If I were to grant that god exists despite a lack of supporting evidence, I would have substantial difficulty describing it as good and/or sovereign.

The existence of suffering seems to describe either a god that is sovereign and apathetic to suffering or a god that might be good but is unable to stop suffering. A third option might even be a god that enjoys suffering.

The classic problem of evil cannot be explained away, which is why it persists. “Free will” is given as an escape/answer, but that comes at direct expense to the sovereignty of the God in question.

 

[Hume]

I think that the big squabble, from some distance, might be over posteriori truths vs a priori truths.

A prioris are typically seductively nice and tight little deductive systems and posterioris are inductions from observations that inherently bear uncertainty. And who in the truth-hunting business likes uncertainty???

But for empiricals, posterioris have the general benefit of being observable, giving them a clear edge in our minds.

 

[whatistrue]

If you know about an impending terrorist attack, and could prevent it, but don’t do it, then you are held responsible for your inaction.

Really? By whom?

 

[whatistrue]

Unnecessary, gratuitous suffering contradicts “love”.

Okay. Now demonstrate that any specific suffering is unnecessary. Unless you are omniscient, you cannot.

 

[Gorgias]

So you accept the principle, but doubt that it is being used correctly?

I’m willing to work with the concept of the principle, if we can show that there are criteria that identify whether it’s able to reach a valid conclusion in a specific case.

As long our expectations are borne out by the observed reality, we reached a valid conclusion.

So, let me attempt to rephrase what you just wrote, and we’ll see if I’m grokking you:

• we gather a set of observations of some ‘thing’
  • do we know whether we’ve made all possible observations?
  • do we have some criterion of sufficiency for the set of observations?
• we use these observations in order to map the observations onto some known entity
  • what kinds of “known entities” are possible mapping targets? how can we characterize them?
  • are there some kinds of “known entities” which, a priori, are unable to be mapped? How would we identify or at least characterize these?
• once we’ve identified a target entity, we confirm that “our expectations are borne out”
  • is this a valid approach? After all, we’ve observed “quacking”, and concluded “duck”. Once we conclude “duck”, how do we confirm our conclusion? Surely, it’s more than “well… I heard it quack, you know!”

If we don’t, then the reality will punish us for our mistake.

I’m not sure that this is the desired approach.

If there is something that cannot interact with our senses, then its possible existence is irrelevant. An example: “whatever might exist outside the light cone is irrelevant”. If there is some non-physical reality, which cannot interact with our senses, its existence is irrelevant.

Says you. Theists would disagree vehemently with this notion.

But since there is unnecessary suffering; the omni-benevolence is null and void.

No, you’re begging the question, here. Without demonstrating “unnecessary suffering”, you use the mere assertion of it as a premise.

You say that every piece of suffering is “necessary”, in other words, this is the best possible worlds.

I’m not sure that this is the accurate conclusion. Remember: we’re talking about this in the context of God and His knowledge (and, more to the point, His providence). You have to have knowledge of His providence in order to reach a conclusion. You don’t. Therefore, you cannot reach a valid conclusion.

The concept of lèse-majesté is null and void.

Against a human person? I’d be willing to entertain that notion. Against God, though? Nope.

 

[Gorgias]

And your “understood properly” is a dead giveaway of trying to wiggle out.

Certainly not.

Mercy is when the punishment is lower than it should be.

Actually… no. That’s one form of mercy (deferring punishment). Mercy speaks to providing what’s good for a person, above and beyond what they deserve. Sometimes, that might not mean “less punishment.”

Which means that justice and mercy are logically contradictory concepts. If the God you propose is both “just” and “merciful” then he is just another married bachelor… not worthy to contemplate.

Because you misunderstand God’s mercy, it’s understandable that you reach this invalid conclusion. I would encourage you to contemplate a bit more…

If you have no secular arguments, then you have nothing.

Freely asserted, freely denied. I mean… if you’re going to wade into the discussion here, while simultaneously claiming that the beliefs of Christians are “null and void”… then why bother? I mean, maybe it feels good to roar at the Church and her constituents, but if all you’re doing is repeating to us what legions have already shared – and ineffectively, at that – then, umm… thanks? Have a cookie… please come again?

Point being, its difficult for empirical thinkers to accept that “god is good”.

I think I would nuance that assertion a bit. Theists are “empirical thinkers”. However, we’re not exclusively empirical thinkers ! So, in a sense, I agree with you: if there are no more things, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your empirical philosophy, then yeah: you’re likely not going to be able to engage in productive dialogue with those who aren’t mere materialists.

First, those that advocate are attempting to describe a god that isn’t part of observable reality.

Agreed. If you refuse to accept that premise, then (unless your goal is polemics and proselytization of theists) the discussion ends there, no?

If I were to grant that god exists despite a lack of supporting evidence, I would have substantial difficulty describing it as good and/or sovereign.

There is evidence. It’s simply that you reject it.

The existence of suffering seems to describe either a god that is sovereign and apathetic to suffering or a god that might be good but is unable to stop suffering. A third option might even be a god that enjoys suffering.

A fourth – which is what we assert – is that God’s will for us is greater than any suffering humans endure. Coaches allow their athletes suffer… in order to achieve their goals. God allows us to suffer… in order to attain to heaven.

 

[Gorgias]

The classic problem of evil cannot be explained away, which is why it persists.

No: the solution is merely rejected by some. That’s cool… but it’s dishonest to say that there’s no solution. There’s just no solution that’s palatable to you.

“Free will” is given as an escape/answer, but that comes at direct expense to the sovereignty of the God in question.

Nope. “Primary and secondary causation”, my friend. It’s not a new concept.

But for empiricals, posterioris have the general benefit of being observable , giving them a clear edge in our minds.

So, what you’re claiming is that “inherent uncertainty” is superior to certainty? Umm…

Okay. Now demonstrate that any specific suffering is unnecessary. Unless you are omniscient, you cannot.

That’s been the point we’ve been dancing around for this entire thread!

 

[Hume]

To be sure, we’re no more capable of demonstrating that suffering is unnecessary than you are capable of demonstrating that god exists and it’s good.

As I stated a few posts back, this is probably a waste of time.

 

[Gorgias]

To be sure, we’re no more capable of demonstrating that suffering is unnecessary than you are capable of demonstrating that god exists and it’s good.

So, here’s where we go back to “there’s evidence, but you reject it”. A Christian would assert that God’s existence and goodness are found in the record of God’s self-revelation; that is, the Bible. I could even take it a step further and characterize parts of the Bible as Jesus’ words – transmitted by eyewitnesses and scribes of eyewitnesses – that were witnessed, recorded, and passed down.

But, like I said, I’m guessing that the likely response will be “I reject the Bible as a source of evidence.”

 

[Hume]

So, here’s where we go back to “there’s evidence, but you reject it”.

If you’d like to start another thread a la “Lee Strobel” and make the case for the existence of any particular god, I’d be happy to review, rebut and generally follow along.

But as far as there being material evidence for the existence of god, no. There isn’t any. There never has been and, more than likely, there never will be. Please, feel free to rebut if you know of any.

The only “evidence” is a priori arguments that require essential concessions that empirically minded people simply cannot make in good conscience.

And I’m not trying to be mean or combative in saying this. It’s just the current reality in which we find ourselves. I tried like the dickens to find it for all the years I was a theist and what I thought I found, I wasn’t giving a fair trial. I’d let it pass because I wanted it to be true.

A Christian would assert that God’s existence and goodness are found in the record of God’s self-revelation; that is, the Bible.

But if we’re being fair, Christianity isn’t the only religion with a holy book, right? Moreover, there seems to be a few different faiths fighting over the “ownership” or legacy of what I’ll generally refer to as the Old Testament of the Christian bible.

I could even take it a step further and characterize parts of the Bible as Jesus’ words – transmitted by eyewitnesses and scribes of eyewitnesses – that were witnessed, recorded, and passed down.

Sure. According to the witnesses of the events, things like steel, silk, cows, pigs, horses and submarines existed in the New World before Europeans brought them. The people that make this claim, complete with a couple collections of sacred texts, are generally referred to as Mormons.

You’d probably agree with me that their claims are fairly laughable. There has never been one solitary instance of this stuff being found Pre-Columbian archeological digs.

But, like I said, I’m guessing that the likely response will be “I reject the Bible as a source of evidence.”

Because I have a terrible problem if I accept it - if I give the bible a pass, why not the Book of Mormon? Why not the [insert one of the other religious texts of the broader world]?

We’re not trying to “be mean” to Christians. We’re trying to be impartial.

 

[Gorgias]

But as far as there being material evidence for the existence of god, no. There isn’t any. There never has been and, more than likely, there never will be. Please, feel free to rebut if you know of any.

So, here’s the thing: I would assert that historical records are “material evidence”. Would you agree?

Moreover, I would assert that Jesus’ existence as a man is “material evidence”. However, I would assert that it’s not reasonable to demand that material evidence of the existence of any arbitrary person in antiquity – be he prince or pauper – would still be extant.

So, when we ask for “material evidence” of Jesus, what are we asking for, and how reasonable a request is it?

But if we’re being fair, Christianity isn’t the only religion with a holy book, right?

Agreed. My claim is that the Bible is actually God’s self-revelation, and other holy books are not. I assert that support for this claim is found in the life, teachings, and actions of Jesus. (I’m not trying to make a circular argument, BTW: the New Testament stands as an authority. It witnesses to the truth value of the Old Testament.)

According to the witnesses of the events, things like steel, silk, cows, pigs, horses and submarines existed in the New World before Europeans brought them. The people that make this claim, complete with a couple collections of sacred texts, are generally referred to as Mormons.

They don’t make these claims in the Bible. They make them elsewhere. I’m not claiming “God-given revelation” for the Book of Mormon or the writings of Joseph Smith.

Because I have a terrible problem if I accept it - if I give the bible a pass, why not the Book of Mormon? Why not the [insert one of the other religious texts of the broader world]?

Because their claims are provably false, no?

We’re not trying to “be mean” to Christians. We’re trying to be impartial.

Isn’t that kinda like saying “it’s not like I’m trying to ‘be mean’ to the Washington Nationals in their claim that they won the World Series – it’s just that I’m being impartial to the other MLB teams”…?

 

[Hume]

So, here’s the thing: I would assert that historical records are “material evidence”. Would you agree?

Material evidence with a very low degree of reliability, yes. Just to illustrate the point - casualty records for ancient battles. They’re typically wildly inflated by the victor. Same for the battles themselves; Tours, to Christians, was an epic where the Muslim onslaught out of Iberia was righteously Vanquished.
To Muslims, it was a minor skirmish fought by an empire so militarily successful that it outran its ability to well-govern.

Historical records that existed prior to the enlightenment are generally suspect to varying degrees, especially depending on the subject matter. I don’t think this is a particularly controversial position.

Moreover, I would assert that Jesus’ existence as a man is “material evidence”.

Agreed. Not a particularly controversial position. Jesus of Nazareth probably did exist.

So, when we ask for “material evidence” of Jesus, what are we asking for, and how reasonable a request is it?

Slightly different goal-post. We’re asking for material evidence of his divinity.

My claim is that the Bible is actually God’s self-revelation, and other holy books are not. I assert that support for this claim is found in the life, teachings, and actions of Jesus.

So then the reasonable return is that 1.) why should I care what Jesus of Nazareth had to say about anything, apart from any other ancient and near-ancient supposed savior and 2.) how certain can I be that the writings about him presented the man in a fair and impartial manner?

They don’t make these claims in the Bible. They make them elsewhere. I’m not claiming “God-given revelation” for the Book of Mormon or the writings of Joseph Smith.

Well, claims for the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth aren’t to be found in the OT either, per modern Jews.

Since Christianity added to that older collection of scriptures, Christians have have gotten an opportunity to “stack the deck (or bible)” a bit in their favor and in the favor of this man, Jesus.

Because their claims are provably false, no?

Of course not. I can’t disprove Jesus any more than I can disprove Vishnu. Which is a problem for both the men proposing Jesus and Vishnu.

Isn’t that kinda like saying “it’s not like I’m trying to ‘be mean’ to the Washington Nationals in their claim that they won the World Series – it’s just that I’m being impartial to the other MLB teams”…?

I can verify whether someone won the world series. I can’t verify religious claims.

This is evidence (though not proof) that religion is bunk from an empirical perspective. The natural counter is that supernatural events are, by rule, not subject to empiricism. But that’s still a huge problem for the religious. If I should buy in to the miracles and deific claims of Jesus of Nazareth, then why not also the claims of Mirza Husayn Ali Nuri (the savior of the Bahai)?

In short, if we admit Jesus, there’s no good reason to stop at Jesus.

Offered as kindly as I can.

 

[Gorgias]

Material evidence with a very low degree of reliability , yes.

Perhaps. Then again, the Gospels of the New Testament aren’t “casualty records” or “battle records”.

In fact, they aren’t “historical records” of the sort that you claim are “generally suspect” – after all, they weren’t stored in a dusty archive: they were circulated widely among communities and read aloud on a regular basis! If there were any glaring inaccuracies in them, we would expect that the community would object to their truth, no?

We’re asking for material evidence of his divinity.

If “divinity” is a non-physical attribute, then what does “material evidence” of a non-physical attribute mean? Is it even reasonable to ask for such evidence?

why should I care what Jesus of Nazareth had to say about anything, apart from any other ancient and near-ancient supposed savior

Because he made good on his promises, according to the eyewitness testimonies! No other “ancient [or] near-ancient supposed savior” has!

Hume:

how certain can I be that the writings about him presented the man in a fair and impartial manner?

Two thoughts:

• if you think that any history – ancient or modern – is written without a particular point of view and end in sight… then you’re more naive than I’d have thought!
• the reason is the public circulation of the document. We all love to play devil’s advocate against magicians, don’t we? So, hearing the accounts, we’d expect folks to say “wait a minute! He didn’t multiply loaves and fishes! They bought them at Panera!” or “he didn’t raise Lazarus from the dead! We all saw Lazarus walking around before Jesus arrived!”. And, more to the point, the movement that was the early church would have lost credibility at that point. It didn’t.

Hume:

Well, claims for the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth aren’t to be found in the OT either, per modern Jews.

Irrelevant. We’re looking at the Gospels for claims of the divinity of Jesus.

Hume:

This is evidence (though not proof) that religion is bunk from an empirical perspective.

Agreed. However, the problem with that statement is the “from an empirical perspective” part. We agree that divinity cannot be demonstrated from empirical evidence. Why, then, would we take a lack of empirical evidence as evidence against religion? “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, after all.

Hume:

But that’s still a huge problem for the religious. If I should buy in to the miracles and deific claims of Jesus of Nazareth, then why not also the claims of Mirza Husayn Ali Nuri (the savior of the Bahai)?

What are the proofs of the reliability of their claims?

Hume:

In short, if we admit Jesus, there’s no good reason to stop at Jesus.

I’d disagree. Of course, you’d expect me to say that.

There’s every good reason to stop at Jesus, because if what he says is true, then what others say is untrue.

Hume:

Offered as kindly as I can.

Appreciated.

 

[Hume]

Fun chat. I concede the floor for now as continuing at this point would be circling, certainly on my side.

Thanks again!

 

[Gorgias]

I concede the floor for now as continuing at this point would be circling, certainly on my side.

LOL! Yeah… that’s generally how these conversations go. G’nite!

 

[EndTimes]

Just wanted to point out that for the religious, “God is love” or “god is loving” is their equivalent of a brute fact. It’s a base axiom on which their system is built.

They can’t prove it and our attempts at falsifying it will nearly always be met with dismissal. I wouldn’t bother.

And you can’t disprove. So, why else are some here; anywho?

Those without Faith - and thus know not Faith - are left to only demanding Proof…

… Faith and Proof are akin to Water and Oil…

Reminds of 1 Corinthians

*For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him,
God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

*Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

 

[goout]

That’s nothing more than “I disagree” in the language of condescension.

There would be much less of this if forum moderators held everyone to the same standards…

Ok sure.
When posters obstinately go on proselytizing for atheism or any other flavor of religion, without really addressing basic questions, then you don’t have good faith discussion to begin with.
You can’t smell up a room and then be amazed when it smells bad.