Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Sarah Palin can't give press conferences, but she sure likes talking to sycophants like Sean Hannity and Hugh Hewitt. The latest was James Dobson. And she told him she's not worried about the polls because God will make sure they win the election:
Dobson asked the vice presidential hopeful if she is concerned about John McCain's sagging poll numbers, but Palin stressed that she was "not discouraged at all.""To me, it motivates us, makes us work that much harder," she told the influential Christian leader, whose radio show reaches millions of listeners daily. "And it also strengthens my faith because I know at the end of the day putting this in God's hands, the right thing for America will be done, at the end of the day on Nov. 4."
Really, Sarah? What if you get stomped on Nov. 4th? What if you lose by 150 electoral votes? Will that mean God is doing the right thing for America by keeping you out of office? But remember, folks, you heard it here first: if Obama wins, it's because God was doing the right for America and wants him to win.
She also thanked her supporters -- including Dobson, who said he and his wife were asking "for God's intervention" on election day -- for their prayers of support."It is that intercession that is so needed," she said. "And so greatly appreciated. And I can feel it too, Dr. Dobson. I can feel the power of prayer, and that strength that is provided through our prayer warriors across this nation. And I so appreciate it."
Bear in mind that these are the same people who say that everyone has free will, yet they pray for God to intervene in the election. The only way God can do anything to change the election is to change people's minds, which pretty much destroys the notion of free will. But they are oblivious to the obvious contradictions in their faith-based absurdity.
Politics
Comments
I don't think she's referring to God working through the voters. "At the end of the day on Nov 4th" God is going to file a lawsuit against ACORN for voter fraud.
Posted by: Odie | October 23, 2008 9:44 AM
Posted by: Skip | October 23, 2008 9:52 AM
Personally, I think I'm going to make a Tshirt with Palin's quote "I know at the end of the day putting this in God's hands, the right thing for America will be done, at the end of the day on Nov. 4," so I can wear it on November 5th.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 23, 2008 9:58 AM
Does God have standing?
If he does, then ISTM that lawsuit from that guy in Nebraska(?) just came back to life. If God can file papers, then he can also be served with them....
If I were God, I'd lie low, and stay away from the legal system.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | October 23, 2008 9:59 AM
My paranoia may be showing, but I'm hearing something different here. By putting it in God's hands, "the right thing will be done," and God's intervention and intercession will ensure McCain's victory. Given that God works through His mortal believers, it sounds like she's acknowledging the plans for rampant fraud to steal the election in favor of McCain.
Posted by: BobApril | October 23, 2008 9:59 AM
Of course if Obama wins Palin and her ilk won't then conclude that God felt that Obama is the "right thing for America". They'll say that God has brought forth a "Muslim" in the White House to test them; a greater effort must then be made to make America a God-fearing, Christian nation. Sigh.
Posted by: zevatron | October 23, 2008 10:06 AM
My immediate reaction to the subject title of this post is similar to BobApril's comment.
"God will help us win" = "It's OK to steal the election by whatever unethical or illegal means possible and still consider yourself a good conservative Christian in good standing with God - in fact you are doing God's will given that 'God helps those that helps themselves' ".
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 23, 2008 10:10 AM
What BobApril said. Didn't you see the first season of Heroes? God could just hack all the voting machines and give McCain the victory.
Posted by: Brandon | October 23, 2008 10:10 AM
NOTE to Ed: same post is in the queue (the multiple links filter.) --it can be ignored. Or not, if you have a hankering for double posts.
Although she is more accessible than Biden. At least according to those in-the-tank for Palin news organizations:
ABC: blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/palin-now-much.html
and
CBS: www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/22/politics/fromtheroad/entry4539166.shtml
Well, she might say yes. I'm for Palin, but if (when) she loses I will still be Calvinistic about it. I will still believe, as the Westminster Confession states so well: [In] relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.
I would say the way God intervenes, as when men are regenerated, is to change their desires not their minds. This preserves the notion of free will- you choose what you want. As far as free will is concerned, we have the market cornered on it. As Cornell biologist Provine notes, a clear consequence of naturalistic evolution is that human free will is non-existent. (You may not be as deterministic as Provine, but in fact there is no satisfactory naturalistic explanation for free will--nothing more than some mumbo-jumbo incorrectly invoking Heisenberg.)
(see eeb.bio.utk.edu/darwin/Archives/1998ProvineAbstract.htm)
Note: Explicit rather than embedded links to (hopefully) avoid the moderator's queue.
Posted by: heddle | October 23, 2008 10:18 AM
Ooh -- I feel a Heddle teachable moment coming on...
Posted by: tacitus | October 23, 2008 10:19 AM
Is God an American citizen? So unless ACORN registered the deity - he doesn't have a say in this election.
/snark
Posted by: yoshi | October 23, 2008 10:20 AM
tacitus,
No no, you cannot make a prophecy after the fact. That's what "higher critics" accuse Jesus of in regards to his accurate prophecy regarding the destruction of the temple.
So, sorry, I have to take out my red "Tacitus Seminar" card and vote you down
Posted by: heddle | October 23, 2008 10:26 AM
"As far as free will is concerned, we have the market cornered on it."
Okay, I'll bite. If I don't believe in God, who / what do I believe controls my will? If it's not outside my physical body, I would classify that as my own free will.
Posted by: Odie | October 23, 2008 10:29 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | October 23, 2008 10:31 AM
Holy hell, heddle.
1. Desires occur in your mind. You are aware of this? To change a person's desires is to change their mind.
2. What a biologist from Cornell believes has nothing to do with what Christians who want God to intervene on election day believe. The point is that they presumably believe that free will exists, yet they are simultaneously asking for God to step in and interfere with the election.
3. The matter of whether free will can exist in a world of "naturalistic evolution" is very much open for debate. Daniel Dennett, for example, argues in his book Freedom Evolves that free will and determinism exist simultaneously. Just for the record.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 23, 2008 10:37 AM
Odie,
It is inside your body. Your desires control your choices. You always chose what you want most, at any given moment, without exception. Your actions are determined, but not by an external agent or puppet master, but by your inclinations. You are self-determined.
At least that's the way we Calvinists see it. And I haven't heard anything better. It's a very libertine view of free will: you always choose what you want most.
Example: if you are presently "girding your loins", it is because you want to do what Joe Biden says more than you want to dismiss what Joe Biden says.
Posted by: heddle | October 23, 2008 10:37 AM
That's kind of a dodge though; as soon as God intervenes, the 'free' in free will goes away. If God changes every American to desire that McCain win, free will is kept intact? We are free to do as God makes us desire? I'd say that does quite a bit of violence to the notion of free will.
Posted by: Spartan | October 23, 2008 10:38 AM
Spartan,
I don't think there is any justification for the hope, should you have it, that God will intervene to change peoples desires so that they vote for McCain or for Obama. The direct, personal intervention that is actually discussed in the bible is almost entirely limited to regeneration and the increase of faith. What is taught, I think you can safely infer, is that whoever is elected, it was ordained by God, and Christians are to be model citizens. (Oh, if only...)
And yes, the notion of "choices determined by desires" destroys some notions of free-will--but like I said, who has a better model?
Posted by: heddle | October 23, 2008 10:47 AM
At least that's the way we Calvinists see it. And I haven't heard anything better. It's a very libertine view of free will: you always choose what you want most.
But if God can change what you want (ie. desire) doesn't that violate the notion of choice and free will?
Posted by: Draconiz | October 23, 2008 10:50 AM
Governor Palin sounds a lot like Katherine Harris, the unsuccessful Senate candidate in Florida in 2006 who was convinced that god would give her victory over her opponent in that election. Clearly another born again boob.
Posted by: SLC | October 23, 2008 10:54 AM
Draconiz,
Yes. (Or should I say: You betcha!) He is God. He does change people. That's kinda the point. If he didn't do that, nobody would be saved. But the bottom line is: people choose what they want.
Posted by: heddle | October 23, 2008 11:00 AM
To a certain authoritarian mindset, democracy is scary business. Indeed, I suspect that for most of us it can be tempting to want free will for ourselves, and want everyone else to agree (ideally of their own free will, but with the priority being the agreement).
People make mistakes; witness Bush. For once, I see where that "trusting in God" thing might actually be comforting.
That said, if this is all some kind of dog whistle for "it's ok to steal" I will be rioting in the streets if they try.
Posted by: Becca | October 23, 2008 11:01 AM
Thanks for the answer Prof.Heddle Still doesn't make much sense to me(in a "war is peace" kinda way) but I understand your point.
Posted by: Draconiz | October 23, 2008 11:06 AM
That is a good question Heddle, but I guess I don't necessarily believe your model is the best going. I don't consider the naturalistic explanation to involve any more mumbo-jumbo than the idea that God poofed free will into existence, but we have obviously different starting points.
If we assume that God exists though, it would seem that it would be an improvement if, in your case of regeneration, God does not intervene to change your desires. If our other desires can change without God's intervention, which I don't know if you agree with, I don't see why the desire for God necessarily requires his intervention; the change to desire God and believe in him could be more like changing your favorite food from steak to lobster because you're sick of steak. I do understand that you believe in God's intervention in this scenario because you believe this is what the Bible teaches, but it would seem like free will could be kept more intact if you were the one changing your desires in the regeneration instance also, and if God did not directly change them.
My scenario does have problems though, in that we can then just ask if God defines how we will desire based on the information and feelings that we have, and if that makes any difference; if God defined that upon realizing that Christ is your savior that you will desire God, then is that any different than him intervening directly on your desires? I need some of DuWayne's extracurricular substances to help me think that one through any deeper though.
Posted by: Spartan | October 23, 2008 11:07 AM
heddle wrote:
Political Punch wrote:
That may be true, but in terms of general availability to their traveling press corps, Biden's and Palin's roles are switching.
------------------------------------------------
so let's use a sports analogy to make what should be an obvious point. does the batting title go to the player who hits the best on the final day of the season or does it go to the person who has the highest average for the entire season? if someone goes three for three on the final day, are they the greatest hitter ever?
Posted by: sdg | October 23, 2008 11:07 AM
I love t-shirts like that! I had one that read "The darkest day in Ohio State history"-Earle Bruce. It was regarding their 31-10 loss to IU in football in 1987. I wore that shirt until it literally fell apart in the washer. If you make the Palin one, let me know.
To paraphrase Martin Luther-"I'd rather have a pagan ruler who rules justly than a righteous man (woman) who is a fool." And the way Palin is trying to "interpret" the Constitution; I think the dunce cap is on her! Also, I think Obama is far from a Pagan-or a Muslim; not that it really matters.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | October 23, 2008 11:12 AM
If God can't interfere with free will than there's no way he can determine the outcome of the election, because an election is the aggregate of millions of free, individual choices.
Posted by: MZ | October 23, 2008 11:12 AM
I should read that Daniel Dennett book that Gretchen cited to find out what the heck I'm talking about, but in my own naive ruminations I have concluded that naturalistic evolution can and should produce non-deterministic (non-predictable) organisms, by evolving a random-number-generator mechanism, to tip the scales among alternatives when there is no clear winner. By seeding or modifying a psuedo-random algorithm with external stimuli, one can devise a mechanism which is unpredictable. (Quantum indeterminacy can "trickle up" into the process via the external seed.)
I've done it in computer game programs, so I know it is possible, and desirable. Say you are writing a program to simulate the behavior of an ant, and the ant finds itself exactly midway between two food sources. It needs a mechanism to chose a course, and if that choice is predictable it becomes more vulnerable to predators.
Posted by: JimV | October 23, 2008 11:16 AM
Exodus:
4:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.
10:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him:
11:5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.
Doesn't sound like regeneration of faith to me.
Posted by: howl | October 23, 2008 11:19 AM
Define "free will." I will be surprised if you can define it in such a way that it can be reconciled with the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient creator. I'll be double surprised if you can find a definition I can't reconcile with a material existence.
Posted by: Dan L. | October 23, 2008 11:20 AM
Spartan,
What naturalistic explanation?
The only break from pure determinism is quantum uncertainty. Let's grant that quantum effects can somehow be amplified into decisions. The choice is then between pure determinism and randomness. Which do you choose? Or is there some better naturalistic model?
That would be the doctrine of Original Sin or Total Depravity or the Fall. It teaches, in a nutshell, that nobody (in their natural, fallen state) seeks God. Nobody. (Rom. 3:11) It requires intervention because you'll never choose what you don't want, and what you don't want is God.
This view is truly "good news" because it means that "seeking" is a sign of regeneration, not of potential regeneration.
It is true that this model can be, at best, first order only. Within some parameter space their must be some room for humans to affect their own desires--otherwise the whole question of free moral agency is in jeopardy. But the bible seems to teach that on the question of coming to faith, you must first be regenerated. (Of course, all those Arminians who think its the other way around would beg to differ.)
sdg,
Or we could use a sports aphorism: What have you done for me lately?
Posted by: heddle | October 23, 2008 11:29 AM
Republican Prayer Warriors ACTIVATE!
I insist on brightly coloured jumpsuits being issued to the McCain/Palin campaign team along with a dance instructor so they can get their moves down.
Posted by: Andrew | October 23, 2008 11:36 AM
Forget the election - this just shows that Palin is fully delusional. Does anyone want someone who cares nothing for actual evidence but instead jumps into things expecting their sky daddy to take care of it for them like some valet? However, if Obama wins by a landslide, then that will be a sign that God let Satan win temporarily, or else that God has other plans that are unknowable, or any of a hundred other excuses that people like that make when their dreams don't come true. Rationalization is dime a dozen for these idiots.
Posted by: Badger3k | October 23, 2008 11:36 AM
If something absolutely prevents you from ever wanting God (unless literally a miracle occurs), you don't have free will. Less free even than what JimV explained three comments above yours. So stop calling it so.
Posted by: David Marjanović | October 23, 2008 11:37 AM
howl,
Of course I didn't say that God doesn't intervene in the world, I said that his direct intervention into the free-will domain seems to be limited, for the most part, to regeneration and increasing faith. But your point is a good one: I forgot about "heart hardening." Calvinism generally understands that as a withdrawal of grace that is given to all people, believer or unbeliever, to prevent them from being as bad as they can be. Thus it is not viewed as active (God makes Pharaoh more evil) but passive (God withdraws his restraint.) Elsewhere is is described as turning people over to their true desires.
Dan L.
Free will, in this view, is defined as "the ability to choose what you want, and the absence of being coerced by an outside, supernatural agency."
That definition fits perfectly with the theological framework known as Calvinism, which certainly posits a omnipotent creator, Of course, you can define free will differently.
I look forward to your materialistic explanation of free will--any definition of free will.
David Marjanović
Sez who? Only if you define free will to include the ability to choose what you don't want. Well, fine. Explain how that works, using just science.
Here is an imperfect example I always use. Imagine a loving mother, of sound mind, not on drugs, sitting at the kitchen table, holding her beloved child. She is morally incapable of standing up, walking to the microwave, putting her child inside, and turning it on. That doesn't mean she doesn't have free will, just because she is incapable of making such a decision. Same principle applies: just because you are morally incapable of choosing God, doesn't mean you don't have free will.
Posted by: heddle | October 23, 2008 11:50 AM
As far as free will is concerned, we have the market cornered on it.
This is utter BS. Every religion I know of is at least as deterministic as any atheistic scientist: prophesies that cannot be forestalled (and often come true due to our efforts to prevent them from coming true); gods whose powers are absolute and incontrovertible; universal laws that can never be broken (even by gods, in some cases); silly humans who laugh at prophets and soothsayers, only to be screwed when the prophesies come true; ghosts, karma, and other supernatural forces forcing the hands of mortals; the list goes on, and compared to all of these stories and warnings, any lip-service they pay to "free will" simply fades into insignificance. So please, heddle, quit pretending your religion, or any other, offers us more "free will" than an atheistic worldview; we all know they don't.
PS: Getting back to the subject, I really don't read any of this as "God will help us win." It's really nothing more than the generic standard rhetoric of "putting things in God's hands" that you'll hear anywhere from anyone in nearly any situation. Delusional, yes, but not outside the norm.
My guess is, Palin suspects she's about to lose, and is getting an excuse ready: "We did everything right, we got all prayed-up, and God just decided not to let us win." That way, if they lose, it's God's fault; and if they win, it's God helping them when all seemed lost (thus proving that everyone who voted against them is anti-God).
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 23, 2008 11:59 AM
That would be the doctrine of Original Sin or Total Depravity or the Fall. It teaches, in a nutshell, that nobody (in their natural, fallen state) seeks God. Nobody. (Rom. 3:11) It requires intervention because you'll never choose what you don't want, and what you don't want is God.
Again, that's horseshit: practically all humans have spiritual yearnings (named or unnamed, recognized or unrecognized), and do indeed seek closeness to God(s) as they understand it/them. This is an obervable fact for anyone who has any serious contact with other humans. Either the bible is dead wrong here, or you're interpreting it wrong.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 23, 2008 12:06 PM
Badger3K: You are leaving out lots of possibilities. My favorite speculation is that McCain angered God when McCain failed to utterly destroy the Amalekites, even after God had given him three chances to overthrow their leader and make him a burnt offering. It's going to take a lot of waterboarding to make up for that.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 23, 2008 12:13 PM
Heddle - slice it anyway way you want it...
Palin is basically saying "If you're a lone nut with a gun, go for it, God's cool with that, you betcha [wink}". -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 23, 2008 12:13 PM
Desire is an aspect of the mind. In fact, as far as I can see, it is what drives action. Apart from automatic actions, like breathing or jerking your hand from sudden pain, has anyone ever done something they didn't want to do? I know I haven't and I can't imagine anything else that leads to action. I may have been choosing between some really crappy options. But every action I've chosen has been because that's what I wanted to do. So if there's a God interfering with what I want, that's not free will. Controlling desire controls a persons mind and actions.
Posted by: Abby Normal | October 23, 2008 12:16 PM
As for the "god gets to meddle with 'desire' but you make the final choice" argument that a deity can intervene and we still retain "free will" ... that just ludicrousness. Taken to extreme, if god turned our desire for X up to "11" then would you still say we have "free will"? No. You're just saying that it intervenes to such a little degree that you're still willing to call it free will. Any meddling at all breaks the concept. And it would have to be a perverse god that would tweak a few of the population, gently placing it's thumb on the scale, to succeed at the supposed stated goal of redemption while allowing the rest to "fail" (with disastrous consequences) if it had the power to save all.
Posted by: Don't Panic | October 23, 2008 12:16 PM
Raging Bee,
Well I might be wrong, that's always a possibility. I can only tell you the explanation within my theology. Of course we notice that people seem to be seeking God. What I (we) would say is that there are many people who seek what they perceive God (or any god) offers--peace, harmony, meaning to life, something bigger than themselves, hope, etc. But that is not the same as seeking God.
Questions that are immediately obvious--it should be assumed that other people have long since thought through them and have some answer to them--it's rarely a good idea to pose obvious first objections as "gotcha" questions.
Posted by: heddle | October 23, 2008 12:19 PM
The only way God can do anything to change the election is to change people's minds, which pretty much destroys the notion of free will.
What an idiotic statement. So if I say something that changes your mind, you somehow no longer have free will?
Ridiculous, Ed.
Posted by: mroberts | October 23, 2008 12:26 PM
Don't Panic,
You are, it seems to me, confusing determinism with computability. Classical stat-mech is a technique to deal with large numbers--it is not a dismissal of determinism. And classical chaos (butterfly effect and all) is still deterministic--though the final states are not computable. It means that the universe might evolve into something unrecognizably different if a single big-bang quark is moved by a fermi, but it is still the case a set of initial conditions leads, inexorably, to a determined final state.
QM changes all that--but in terms of free will it, at best, potentially replace or augments strict determinism with randomness. Hardly the free will of the poets and muses.
As for your criticism of my model of free will--I'll stick around to hear yours.
Posted by: heddle | October 23, 2008 12:29 PM
I wrote:
In the long history of stupid arguments you've made on this blog, this one may take the cake. Are you really comparing yourself to God? If you say something that changes my mind, that does not violate my free will. If an omnipotent supernatural being changes my mind for me, it does.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 23, 2008 12:33 PM
But that's (philosophically at least) a very big difference Don't Panic. In all the other examples you listed, we think that if we could specify the system completely and run all the calculations, it would be purely deterministic. Quantum mechanics is the only part of physics that isn't like that - there's a claim that it is inherently non-deterministic at the micro scale.
However, perfect determinism doesn't imply no free will - at least for yourself. The only good argument for this that I've heard goes like this:
Imagine you're a super-scientist with a supercomputer and know all the physical laws and you can calculate what all the actions of all the other people in the world would be. However, that still doesn't mean you can calculate your own actions - because if you did, and found out what they were, that would change the system, since you can now change your actions knowing what they were supposed to be. This basically leads into an infinite loop, preventing you from ever determining what you will do.
So even with perfect determinism, to an outside observer it may look like people have no free will. But that can never apply to the person who's doing that calculations - he/she will always have free will. It's not a particularly sophisticated argument but at least to me that solves the free will issue from a practical point of view.
Posted by: Coriolis | October 23, 2008 12:34 PM
The naturalistic explanation that free will doesn't originate within a divine being or soul; the fact that we don't know how this might work given our current knowledge is no different than declaring, with no explanations of the mechanisms involved, that the soul has the potential for free will and is not bound by determinism. You can't provide any more detailed an explanation as to the laws of the spiritual realm and what the limitations and boundaries of the soul are, and exactly how the soul is free from determinism, so I see nothing superior about the theological 'explanation'. As a matter of fact, the theological explanation has even more unknowns.
As far as choosing God not requiring intervention, I'm speaking outside of what the Bible teaches. Free will would most certainly be more 'free' if God did not intervene in anything, and he of course could have set it up that way. It's similar to what I would see as an undeniable improvement to the character of God and Christianity: there is no eternal suffering. There simply are no concepts of justice and mercy that jive with that, and a simple change to an amount of suffering that is somehow commensurate to the 'crime' would bring some coherence to this concept. God did not have to set it up as a binary situation; you could be punished by how far you are away from 'accepting Christ as your savior' even, from hating Christ to having sympathy for his ideas to living a Christ-like life (without accepting him) and receive different punishments, which would jive much better with purportedly what God has defined as 'mercy' and 'justice' in every other conceivable situation.
Posted by: Spartan | October 23, 2008 12:37 PM
"Goes doesn't change your mind, he just changes the desires in your mind."
And the blunt stupidity of Calvinism is revealed. At the risk of having someone (appropriately) snark about angels on the head of a pin, the problem with Calvinistic theology is that even within the admittedly loose boundaries of a debate that allows for causal-logic destroying miracles, it is illogical.
Calvinist theology, at least as explained by heddle, claims that because God knows everything that will happen, everything that will happen is God's will. It denies the logical possibility that God could know what will happen, and yet choose not to exert control over it. And while denying such an obvious logical possibility, it insists upon the truth of the logical impossiblity that you can have a free will that is actually determined by God.
I know, I know. Heddle will have a response that accuses me of not understanding Calvinist theology properly. I'll just pre-emptively respond that he doesn't understand anabaptist theology, which insists that for us to make a meaningful choice about whether to follow God or not, God had to give us free will.
If we accept the premises of (a) an ominscient and omnipotent God who (b) cares whether we love and obey him/her/shkler, then free will follows a lot more logically than Calvinism.
But that's ok--the nice thing about Calvinism is you don't have to think about it. Since you don't have any control over your own fate, it doesn't matter whether you think about these issues. And if God decides you're one of the poor fucks he's going to chuck into the eternal fires of hell no matter what you want, then there's no point in putting any thought into the sadistic bastard anyway.
Calvinism, bah! You've spewed it on here long enough without anyone challenging it (as opposed to just challenging you). I just thought it was time for someone to point out that heddle's Christian beliefs are not representative of the whole gamut. And in the view of many mainline protestant denominations, such as Methodists and Baptists, not just the anabaptists, Calvinism is complete rubbish.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 23, 2008 12:38 PM
McCain: Shape of "Joe the Plumber!"
Palin: Form of an ice bridge to nowhere!
I'm guessing the religious right have not read Luther's writing on "Temporal Authority."
BTW in the call-in section to our paper today, I learned that I am not a Christian because I'm against "God's candidate!" Maybe that's why I'm slumming with y'all;-)
Posted by: Rev. AJB | October 23, 2008 12:41 PM
If an omnipotent supernatural being changes my mind for me, it does.
Really Ed? And how does that work? Why would a supernatural being automatically take away free will by changing somebody's mind? What you are arguing has no basis in Christian belief, yet you arrogantly call my argument the stupid one. Maybe you should do your homework before going out on that limb. The Bible is very clear that God's will is that all should come to know him. If that is his will, then he must doing everything he can to convince people that he exists and wants to save them from sin. Since not all people become Christians, its pretty obvious that he doesn't always get his way. If he doesn't get his way, then obviously we all have our free will intact, because his attempts at changing minds doesn't always work. Get it?
Posted by: mroberts | October 23, 2008 12:42 PM
BTW in the Wonder Twins reference-I guess that makes W. "Gleek!"
Or maybe it would be Rush?
Posted by: Rev. AJB | October 23, 2008 12:43 PM
I can only tell you the explanation within my theology.
You need a new theology then -- preferably one that allows/encourages you to get your explanations from observable reality.
What I (we) would say is that there are many people who seek what they perceive God (or any god) offers--peace, harmony, meaning to life, something bigger than themselves, hope, etc. But that is not the same as seeking God.
Correction: it's not the same as seeking what YOU perceive as God. How do you know your perception is more valid than theirs?
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 23, 2008 12:44 PM
For macro systems the pedantic distinction between determinism and computibility are essentially irrelevant when the topic revolves around "free will". Yes, an omninscient entity could distinguish the two, but for an actor (i.e. individual) in such a situation there would be effectively no difference. Did I make choice Z because a small fluctuation in the initial conditions of the entirety of the universe, because a quantum fluctuation or because god tweaked my desire and I "chose" based on this biased desire. How would one practically distinguish between those cases in an empirical way?
Who's to say that the free will of the poets and muses is real? Why is it hard to accept that it might all be an illusion of an uncomputable, chaotic system.
As for having to propose an alternative model in order to criticize yours: again you should know that's not how we as scientists/rationalists work. Just because one doesn't have a complete theory of quantum gravity doesn't mean that certain models can't be ruled out. Yes, I know you (at least attempt to) appear to compartmentalize your work and spirituality because if you didn't you would see the conflict, but that doesn't mean the rest of us don't see the schism. Dance all you want around the "no true scotsman" and "god tweaks 'desire' but we'll define that as separate from 'free will'" -- you're fooling only yourself and those similarly indoctrinated.
Posted by: Don't Panic | October 23, 2008 12:52 PM
"What you are arguing has no basis in Christian belief, yet you arrogantly call my argument the stupid one"
yeah I think that's kind of the point - it has a basis in reality, not fantasy. Maybe a little concrete example will help:
If I'm thinking I like chocolate and god comes over and changes my mind so I don't like chocolate anymore, then I don't have free will. If you argue with me for 10 hours and convince me that I don't like chocolate, then I do have free will. Why? Because I don't have to listen to you and be convinced. On the other hand, god being omnipotent, there isn't anything I can do if he decides to change my mind.
Clearer now?
Posted by: Coriolis | October 23, 2008 12:54 PM
James Hanley,
My goodness, it's the most original, thought-provoking, devastating criticism of Calvinism evah! If all is determined, then why bother? Yikes! I never thought of that! Why, if you had been around from the beginning, your insight could have prevented Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, and Edwards from ever going down the predestination route. The time they would have saved, the anguish we would have avoided--if only someone with your brilliance had offered this previously undiscovered slam-dunk critique. Yours is truly a once in a millennium--nay once in every two millennia, intellect--at a minimum.
I am converted. Forget John Calvin, it's Charles Finney for me from this moment forward. Thank you Academician Hanley, thank you.
My goodness--now I'm having a Hanleyesque epiphany--do you know what else is wrong with Calvinism--get this--it's almost unbelievable how obvious it is now that Hanley has opened my eyes, but here you go: Calvinism is not fair! Gracious! the whole system down the tubes in not time flat.
Raging Bee,
Well of course I don't. But I'm arguing my position, not theirs. Is that concept difficult?Posted by: heddle | October 23, 2008 1:05 PM
I too am confused by the free will implications. I frankly never hear a decent apologetic explanation for intercessory prayer of any kind. But certainly prayers which go straight to the decisions of individuals, such as voting, would be an interference with free will, at least given my modest understanding of the whole business. I remain confused because I keep hearing this stuff from people who I assume understand the theology better than I. It must be obvious to them but to my ears its extremely discordant.
Posted by: Marty Steitz | October 23, 2008 1:08 PM
If I'm thinking I like chocolate and god comes over and changes my mind so I don't like chocolate anymore, then I don't have free will. If you argue with me for 10 hours and convince me that I don't like chocolate, then I do have free will. Why? Because I don't have to listen to you and be convinced. On the other hand, god being omnipotent, there isn't anything I can do if he decides to change my mind
Coriolis, you really need to brush up on your reading skills. Read my post again. You completely missed the second half of my post. I think I wrote clearly enough that there is no need to retype it.
Posted by: mroberts | October 23, 2008 1:08 PM
Reminds me why I shouldn't argue with mroberts. Not just an idiot, but a pompous idiot, and as feynman said, you can't deal with those. If you really think the rest of your post is a "proof" of free will, you need to relearn logic. Bah, who am I kidding, you need to learn something at all.
Posted by: Coriolis | October 23, 2008 1:20 PM
Don't Panic,
It is not hard to accept, in fact in a godless universe it is, I'd say, nearly inevitable and it also is what Provine essentially said--that free will is an illusion (he used "non-existent"). Now how unbelievers take that and reconcile it with accountability for one's actions is an impressive exercise in mental gymnastics, at least in any explanation I ever read.
Posted by: heddle | October 23, 2008 1:22 PM
Two comments:
1. I hate to do it but I'm going to give Bible Spice the benefit of the doubt in that I think she meant WHATEVER happens on 4 Nov. will be god's will and for the best.
2. Shut up, heddle.
Posted by: Strider | October 23, 2008 1:26 PM
Depends on what you mean by 'accountability for one's actions'. If you refer to the way in which we punish people in society, the accountability doesn't have to go any further than the accountability of a dog who misbehaves. A dog pees on the rug and you slap it with a rolled-up newspaper; not because it deserves to be punished because it's a bad dog who has used it's free will, but because you are trying to 'correct' the behavior. People who commit crimes are punished to incentivize them to not commit further crimes and to protect others from them; doesn't matter if their criminal behavior is purely deterministic or free. Ain't that why they're called 'correctional facilities'?
Posted by: Spartan | October 23, 2008 1:38 PM
Spartan,
But of course it is only an illusion that you are correcting the behavior. In truth you are just playing an inescapable role as the cosmic differential equation unfolds. The atoms faithfully arranged themselves so that you'd be there, at that instant, correcting the dog or the criminal. And the dog's or the criminal's response is also built into the initial conditions. Or there's a bit of quantum indeterminacy, which means there's a veneer of unpredictability to their response that we label as canine or human free will, but is actually nothing more than Poisson statistics. Will this nucleus decay causing me to choose A, or will it not decay, and I'll choose B? Nobody knows. It's Schrodinger's cat Nihilism all the way down--unless you borrow some capital from the theists.
Posted by: heddle | October 23, 2008 1:49 PM
Reminds me why I shouldn't argue with mroberts. Not just an idiot, but a pompous idiot, and as feynman said, you can't deal with those. If you really think the rest of your post is a "proof" of free will, you need to relearn logic. Bah, who am I kidding, you need to learn something at all.
LOL. Coriolis, not my fault you missed it. Clearly, if God's will was that all people became Christians - as the Bible says - and we had no free will, then ALL PEOPLE WOULD BE CHRISTIANS. Clearly they are not, so people must have some element of free will. The fact that you resorted to stupid personal attacks makes it clear you have nothing left to say on this, so have a nice day.
Posted by: mroberts | October 23, 2008 1:56 PM
Heddle's defintiion:
Free will, in this view, is defined as "the ability to choose what you want, and the absence of being coerced by an outside, supernatural agency."
We must have different definitions of "you", "coerced", "choose" or maybe "and". I can't fathom how this makes any sense to you.
If the molecules that I'm composed of are what's causing me to act, how is that not me? And if God changes my desires (even though leaving me a choice), how is that not coersion?
Posted by: Odie | October 23, 2008 2:02 PM
You only need to borrow capital from the theists if you accept that without the threat of skydaddy's punishment people can't play nice. I.e. that humans are naturally dominated by their destructive/evil desires, and it takes constant vigilance to guard against them. I think most people find that playing nice is it's own reward, and hence you do what you think is good. I think most religious people are the same in this regard, but they probably think that skydaddy is necessary for other people to do the same.
And I'm especially surprised at this coming from a calvinist - full belief in the doctrine of predestination also removes the "daddy's gonna punish you if you're bad" part of religion. Of course calvinists have used various arguments to dance around it, I guess the earliest one is that being nice shows that you're predestined to go to heaven (I don't know if that's still the biggest fad). But even when they say this, the idea is still that once you're predetermined to go to heaven, even if you do evil, you're still going to get in (but if you're predestined to go in, you're not the type of person who's going to do evil, or so the argument goes). At least that's what I remember of Calvin himself, I have to admit I don't know how it's evolved from there.
Posted by: Coriolis | October 23, 2008 2:03 PM
Odie,
God can change me or you, but every choice is our own. I'm about to go teach my Astronomy class. I choose to go. God is not coercing me. Part of me would rather go get a cup of coffee. That is, in isolation I'd rather sit at the coffee shop, drinking java and shooting the breeze, than standing in front of 45 freshmen. (Let's assume.) However, given that my actual options, distilled to a minimum, are 1) Go drink coffee, blatantly skip class, and get fired, tenure or not or 2) Go teach the freshmen and keep my cushy professor's job, I'll chose what I want most, with no coercion from God. I'll choose option 2.
Posted by: heddle | October 23, 2008 2:10 PM
So when you are referring to God changing your desires, you mean that God helps you to understand long term benefits and consequences?
Posted by: Odie | October 23, 2008 2:18 PM
Coriolis,
Guard against them? Do what you think is good? I don't dispute this is what you do, in fact I'm sure of it--but this does not fit with a "free will is an illusion" model. It is borrowed capital from theism. Unless you can explain how free will is not an illusion in a godless universe, in which case what you suggest makes sense. But so far I have not heard an explanation of a real free will based on science.
Posted by: heddle | October 23, 2008 2:21 PM
Huh? It's not an illusion that we are attempting to correct the behavior, and if the behavior is not corrected, that's irrelevant to whether the dog has free will or is deterministic. If the dog doesn't pee on the floor because it now remembers I slapped it before, the dog is still doing what it wants (or hopes to avoid). Not following how the idea that everything's deterministic intersects accountability; you'll have to better define 'accountability for one's actions'. I thought you were saying that if free will is an illusion and everything is deterministic, how do we reconcile it with accountability for one's actions. In what scenario do we need to hold someone 'accountable' as opposed to taking rational steps to correct the behavior and protect others from it? It's not fair if we do what exactly if everything is deterministic?
And as soon as you show that theists have 'capital', which may follow when you show theism to be true, then I might look into borrowing some.
Posted by: Spartan | October 23, 2008 2:24 PM
There is also the chaos theory point of view mentioned by others above: there is no real way to determine whether we are deterministic but chaotic systems or agents with free will. How would you propose to tell them apart?
There's also directed randomness -- it seems to have worked well in biological evolution. If quantum uncertainty could be "amplified" to factor into decision making processes, there's no reason it wouldn't only be used when the thresholds for choosing two particular options are too close for a deterministic decision to be made. This, I think, makes sense as an explanation, but I'm biased against invoking quantum uncertainty in questions of free will.
Now your definition of free will has some iffy terms -- you've essentially passed the buck. What does it mean to "choose"? What does it mean to "want"? What would qualify as "supernatural" and by what mechanism does the "supernatural" interact with the "natural"?
My preferred means of reconciling materialism with free will is simply to acknowledge the paradox. Wave-particle duality is a paradox, but it's also true -- demonstrably true. It must have seemed like a pretty unsatisfying answer to those asking whether a photon is a particle or a wave, and yet it's the only answer that makes sense of the experimental data.
Similarly, from an "outside" perspective, we can be deterministic machines while from the "inside," we have free will. The nature of consciousness depends on the measurement being performed. Just because it's a paradox doesn't mean it's wrong.
Posted by: Dan L. | October 23, 2008 2:30 PM
No, heddle, you're not choosing option 2. God is cranking your desire to go to class up to "11" to the point of irresistiblity . He's omnipotent, so figures "why not micromanage?" It's just he likes to fuck with humanity a lot and so he does this kind of thing for some but not others. Those others he just like to grab when they die and say "Ha, ha, I so powned you" and drop them in the lake of fire. He's a right bastard that way.
Or alternatively, in the dog pees on the carpet scheme, you're been trained over time that actions have consequences. Trained in the same sense that one can "train" a plant to grow on a trellis -- no free will there -- by external forces (themselves not necessarily possessing free will).
Posted by: Don't Panic | October 23, 2008 2:34 PM
You can't honestly think that I expected to change your mind, right? I'm just tired of you presenting your Calvinist beliefs as if they're satisfactorily representative of Christian theology.
By the way, as to your inclusion of Luther--you've got him wrong. After my previous post, I went to lunch with some colleagues, including two Lutherans. I commented that I'd just been arguing with a Calvinist, and they burst out laughing at the silliness of Calvinism. And, as one said, Luther explicitly believed in salvation by grace through faith, which is not the same as predestination. So please remove one of the notables from your appeal to authority.
(Good god, a scientist arguing by appeal to authority. What is the world coming to?)
Posted by: James Hanley | October 23, 2008 2:35 PM
Yes heddle and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
All these arguments are irrelevant.
What Palin is trying hard to do, as much as you might like not believe it, is to encourage the Republican base (READ FAR-RIGHT, GUN TOTING NUTCASES) to get angry with Barrack Obama. Then, if something, unfortunate, should happen to the Democratic candidate, no doubt you would comfort yourself with the thought that it was "god's will" or some-such, right?
And if Senator Obama wins by 10 percentage points (as pretty much all polls indicate) that's god's will to, right?
Just lucky that god has a direct line to your brain isn't it? I mean it would be terrible if a majority of American voters cast their votes for, god forbid, the wrong candidate. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 23, 2008 2:38 PM
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires."
Susan B. Anthony
Posted by: WBPNYC | October 23, 2008 2:59 PM
I think Dan L. sort of answered the question you posed to me heddle, and it basically boils down to the fact that I perceive that I can choose what I want. You say that in a deterministic universe that's an illusion - and I would agree. But it's an illusion that is unshakable - there is no way that I can look outside of myself at my own actions and realize that I have no free will.
I think I got at this in my previous comments when I was explaining why free will is not violated *for yourself* even in a completely deterministic universe that you can calculate exactly. Even though it is violated for everyone else, from your perspective.
It's not a particularly satisfying conclusion in philosophical terms, but in practical terms I think it's fine. And it actually has a cute resemblance to the QM principle that measuring a system always affects the system - in this case, knowing what your future actions are calculated to be means that you can change them to something else.
Posted by: Coriolis | October 23, 2008 3:16 PM
And once again, the utter fucking stupidity of mroberts reveals itself in this comment:
Yet another ridiculous analogy from the absurd mind of mroberts. We were talking about God forcing a new opinion on us that we did not hold previously and suddenly you change to what "God's will" is. Which just means what he wants to happen. But there's an obvious difference between God wanting us to vote for X candidate and God changing our mind so will vote for that candidate. The only way God can change the outcome of a democratic election is by changing the minds of those who would otherwise have voted the other way (or, I suppose, by changing the ballots so what they voted for is not what ended up on the vote totals - but God doesn't do that sort of thing; Republicans might though). If you can't see why that violates free will, you are frankly too stupid to bother arguing with any further.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 23, 2008 3:20 PM
Ed, you obviously are still not getting it. Did you not say the following?
The only way God can do anything to change the election is to change people's minds, which pretty much destroys the notion of free will.
If one takes the phrase "change the minds" as outright replacing what is in one's mind with something else then I can see where you are coming from. However, that is NOT how that phrase is used, so you cannot fault me for taking your statement as written. When somebody refers to a changed mind, they typically mean that somebody or something convinced them of a different kind of thinking, not an outright replacement of thoughts and beliefs by a deity. Changes in thinking happen all the time without a loss of free will. If this was not the point you were trying to make, then maybe you should type your posts a little better, because it was more than reasonable for me to take it as written. I certainly don't deserve being called an idiot and stupid for taking it as such.
Posted by: mroberts | October 23, 2008 3:33 PM
mroberts said:
"If one takes the phrase "change the minds" as outright replacing what is in one's mind with something else then I can see where you are coming from. However, that is NOT how that phrase is used, so you cannot fault me for taking your statement as written."
Move the goal posts much? Keep shifting meaning around so your non-thinking magical bullshit fits. WOW amazing.
Posted by: WBPNYC | October 23, 2008 3:36 PM
What you're missing mroberts is that 'God is changing the election', so yes, God is replacing what is in their mind (or showing them something that would absolutely result in the person 'choosing' what God wants, which is the same thing). In order to do that, he wouldn't allow people to not 'change their minds' in order to accomplish the election outcome he wants, so they have no free will in this case. Are you suggesting that God is doing something and then hoping that what he has done will change the election, so that free will will be preserved?
Posted by: Spartan | October 23, 2008 3:40 PM
BRING BACK MICHAEL PALIN!
(Please, tell me SOMEone else gets that reference.)
Posted by: Laser Potato | October 23, 2008 3:44 PM
I see no reason to debate this further with mroberts. His comments are a perfect example of the kinds of mental gymnastics people have to perform to maintain the rationality of their irrational beliefs, and the intellectual dishonesty one must have in order to stick the landing. I'd have a better chance of teaching a card trick to a dog.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 23, 2008 3:52 PM
Yeah roberts, because god is the type of guy that's gonna sit down with you over some coffee and biscuits and talk for hours to change your mind over something.
Right. In my very first post I pointed out to you the difference between a person changing your mind, and a supposedly omnipotent, supernatural entity changing your mind. Which apparently went completely over your head.
And then you claim you're not an idiot.
Posted by: Coriolis | October 23, 2008 3:54 PM
mroberts singlehandedly disproves God's omnipotence:
Posted by: Adrienne | October 23, 2008 4:01 PM
James Hanley,
Then they are morons of biblical proportions. Luther actually wrote more supporting predestination than Calvin, much more, e.g.,
In matters of predestination Luther was, if anything, more Calvinistic than Calvin--who actually wrote quite sparsely on the subject.
Perhaps your educated friends don't know that Luther's successor,Philip Melanchthon, steered the Lutheran church in a different direction?
This is so bad, it's "not even wrong". You'll recall, although your friends don't seem to know, that there was a Reformation. You have attributed to Luther the very position that provoked him to a schism. The Roman Catholic Church proclaims "salvation by grace through faith." If that were Luther's position, there would be no need for the split. Luther proclaimed: salvation by grace through faith alone. The Reformation hinged on the "alone." Sola Fide. And of course Calvin agreed with Luther, on Sola Fide. This is completely compatible with Calvinism, which doesn't deny that salvation is by faith alone, it simply teaches that the required saving faith is a gift, not something mustered from within the heart of a unregenerate man.So my appeal to authority was to Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, and Edwards. You appeal was to a couple of dimwits who don't know the theology of the founder of their own church. I'll take that trade.
And why does my constant and faithful reminder that this is the Calvinistic position make you think that I am presenting it as the majority Christian view?
Posted by: heddle | October 23, 2008 4:04 PM
So how exactly does your god go about convincing people to change their minds, mroberts? Without actually just...*poof*...making them suddenly believe in ...well, whatever god wants them to believe in. Does God do this convincing to the human subconscious? Does God use subliminal advertising, perhaps?
Say that I think "A", and God actually wants me to think "B", and over time I come to the conclusion "B, not A!", but unbeknowst to me it was God who convinced me to think B. How does that differ from God actually *making* me just think B? How do I know that my rational thought process was somehow engaged in my choosing between A and B? (Just because the Bible says so isn't a convincing argument).
Posted by: Adrienne | October 23, 2008 4:09 PM
mroberts, you dolt, if there are two ways to read someone's argument and only one of them makes sense, DO NOT intentionally choose to argue against the other one. I'm sure Ed doesn't appreciate having his views turned into straw men. You can now start over again, you incompetent twit.
heddle, you poor, poor bastard...
"Free will, in this view, is defined as 'the ability to choose what you want, and the absence of being coerced by an outside, supernatural agency.'
That definition fits perfectly with the theological framework known as Calvinism, which certainly posits a omnipotent creator, Of course, you can define free will differently."
This is all a matter of controlling one's perspective. If we posit, and I know this is implausible but just go with it, that decisions happen due to the motions of individual atoms (i.e., a change in one atom can cause a decision to be made), then which of these scenarios more correctly represents freedom?
(1) God creates a deterministic/quantum universe (i.e., our universe) in which every atom proceeds in either totally random or totally determined ways, depending on which is appropriate at that moment. Tracing a specific carbon atom throughout time, we learn that, just now, the atom responsible for making me type this word reached the point in time where it moves such that I typed that word.
(2) Something other than God creates a deterministic/quantum universe (i.e., our universe), or one necessarily exists without beginning, in which every atom proceeds in either totally random or totally determined ways, depending on which is appropriate at that moment. Tracing a specific carbon atom throughout time, we learn that, just now, the atom responsible for making me type this word reached the point in time where it moves such that I typed that word.
Your scenario seems to be (1), which you call free. You seem to indicate that our position is (2), which I'll adopt for the sake of argument. Care to tell me how (1) is any different than (2) in terms of the freedom of my action? It should be obvious that this is a generalizable example, so if you can't give a compelling reason to differentiate (1) from (2) in terms of freedom, you have no case to make about God being necessary for free will. Now, obviously, we both agree that
(3) God creates some kind of universe or other, waits until just a few moments ago, and then miraculously moves things around in my brain in defiance of physics and my prior desires to make me type those words.
is not an acceptable example of a free action, correct? So we minimally agree that Ed has a point with this specific idea of Palin's, right?
Posted by: larryniven | October 23, 2008 4:13 PM
Think so huh? Looks like he may be doing just that in WV.
Posted by: Abby Normal | October 23, 2008 4:26 PM
larrynivin,
My position is not even remotely (1), which appears to involve some new age quantum mysticism. My position is that humans possess an immaterial soul by which they can make decisions that are not determined by the present material state of their brain. What kind of theist would I be, if it weren't so?
Posted by: heddle | October 23, 2008 4:28 PM
heddle - a smart one? A soul that's capable of making rational decisions requires a decision-making algorithm to do so, or else it's random. Whence do we get our decision-making algorithms? If God provides them fully formed, our actions are deterministic; if God provides them partially formed and lets the universe shape them somehow, they're just a mix of predetermined and random; and so on. You aren't helping yourself any.
Posted by: larryniven | October 23, 2008 4:40 PM
Perhaps not--but now you are placed in the position of asserting how a supernatural soul must operate in order to further your argument. I have nothing to contribute to that rabbit trail.
Posted by: heddle | October 23, 2008 4:46 PM
heddle,
No, Luther was objecting to the Catholic Church's emphasis on works.
Sorry if I don't take the word of a Calvinist over the word of Lutherans when it comes to understanding Luther. I suspect, however, that Calvinists have interpreted Luther in a way that is supportive of their own beliefs, because he's just close enough to make that possible. But really, I do think the Lutherans understand their guy better than you do.
Your "constant and faithful" reminders of the Calvinist position annoy me because many readers here don't have as much background, and I worry that they will take your uber-arrogant pronouncements about Christianity as representative of what Christians as a group believe. I just want to let them know that, even if they disapprove of all religions, that there are various schools of thought within Christianity, and your variant is actually a distinctly minority view.
Beside which, I just think Calvinism is, as I noted before, bluntly stupid. Theologically it posits the most perverse Christian vision of God, and a blasphemous one at that--a God who creates people he has no intention of saving. Although I am agnostic myself, I am quite happy that I didn't grow up being taught that God is a sick sadistic fuck. And make no mistake, no matter how brilliant you think Calvinist theology is, many of us non-
Calvinists distinctly do see it as positing a perverse God.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 23, 2008 4:47 PM
Sheesh. Doesn't anyone listen to the Doors anymore? "You cannot petition the Lord with prayer!"
Posted by: barkdog | October 23, 2008 4:47 PM
heddle, are you joking? You expect to be able to say, "I believe in souls and I don't need to explain how they work, so piss off"? Why can't I just say, "I believe in free non-souled actions and I don't need to explain how they work, so piss off"? If this is a presidential debate, maybe we could get away with that level of absurdity, but truth-centric argumentation doesn't work that way, actually, so if you could provide any little bit of detail as to how your scenario is actually better - and I mean "better," not just "more in violation of Occam's razor" - maybe I can begin to take you seriously. Otherwise, you can please take your hand-waving bullshit somewhere else.
Posted by: larryniven | October 23, 2008 4:55 PM
James Hanley,
Exactly (well, close enough), hence the incredible emphasis on the small word alone. But the Catholic church does not teach salvation by works, it teaches salvation by faith, with works of penance required when you sin, lest you possibly lose your salvation. Thus it does not teach alone But the RCC would have no trouble affirming "salvation by faith" which is what you claimed was Luther's position.
I plead guilty to assuming that Ed's readers are smarter than you do.
Not because we like the idea--I'd prefer it if God saved everyone. It's because of what we read in the bible:
If you see a credible, non-Calvinistic way out of that, publish it.
What was all that about an appeal to authority?
Posted by: heddle | October 23, 2008 5:05 PM
James - Re your comment referencing Calvinist theology where the rational thinker that analyzes that ideology is forced to conclude that God is "perverse and sadistic" and more so than other Christian theologies.
While I would agree the rational thinker is forced to concede that point about Calvinism, I am not aware of any Christian theology where the rational thinker ends up believing much better. Every Christian theology I've studied all forces one to conclude that God is A-OK with human suffering and actually constructed a universe where immeasurable suffering by the innocent would be inevitable - the more liberal notion conceding suffering only in the here and now and non-liberal with eternal suffering in Hell for the majority of people.
So while you slam Calvinism and rightfully so, I know of none that can escape the notion that God wants humans to suffer if you logically work through the assumptions that are made on behalf of their understanding of the nature of God.
Of course I've had Christians pooh-pooh my notion and make their claims. But their claims are so shallow you can easily swat those down in a couple of minutes.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 23, 2008 5:08 PM
larryniven
I do believe in supernatural souls, and I don't know how they "work", so what else am I supposed to say? The bible is silent on the mechanism by which we make moral choices.
That's your, um, choice.
Posted by: heddle | October 23, 2008 5:12 PM
"I do believe in supernatural souls, and I don't know how they 'work', so what else am I supposed to say? The bible is silent on the mechanism by which we make moral choices."
Ohhh - I see, now. It's not that you know how we make free choices and therefore your belief is justified, it's that you DON'T know how we make free choices and therefore your belief is justified. That's fine: I believe in compatibility between determinism and free will, but don't bother asking me why. I'll just tell you I don't know and then my belief will be just as rational as yours.
Give me a break...
Posted by: larryniven | October 23, 2008 5:16 PM
DingoJack:
I had exactly the same reaction, but decided it was too sick to say out loud. You're a sick bastard, DingoJack -- not that there's anything wrong with that.
Posted by: CJColucci | October 23, 2008 5:17 PM
I may have ignored the most important part of heddle's post, Lutherans' emphasis on "salvation by grace through faith alone."
For those who don't know, one of the principles of Calvinism is "Unconditional election," which means God chooses who to bring into heaven for eternity based on his mercy alone, and it is not based on an individual's merit or faith.
Another principle is "Irresistible Grace," which means, if God has chosen you, you cannot resist his grace. (Of course you won't want to; because it's irresistible, you'll suddenly want that grace.)
Lutherans believe you can reject God's grace, and that you can receive it by asking for it. That's just not too damn Calvinistic. As good ol' Wikipedia puts it (yeah, I'm being lazy, I won't complain if you flame me on my use of sources),
So heddle, not being Lutheran, nastily criticizes my Lutheran friends for not understanding their faith as well as he does from his Calvnist perspective, but in fact he has it wrong. Maybe you should try being right before being nasty, DH.
(Of course Lutherans baptize their kids at birth, so from my anabaptist perspective, they're doing it all wrong, too! Sorry, Rev AJB.)
Posted by: James Hanley | October 23, 2008 5:23 PM
heddle:
I wouldn't demand a disquisition on how souls "work", but I am curious about the mechanism by which your immaterial soul interacts with the physical brain in such a way that it eventually generates the nerve impulses that move your legs and propels you off to teach your class. Surely that should be explainable.
Posted by: Alex | October 23, 2008 6:28 PM
heddle
OK, heddle. You quoted Paul. I've always thought the focus on Paul as the source of theology was bizarre. He wasn't with Jesus, and he wasn't the one whom Jesus announced would be the rock upon which his church was built, and yet so many Christians, most of the protestants I know at least, spend more time focusing on the words of Paul--who wasn't there--than on the words of Jesus. So herewith, the words allegedly from own mouth, which seem a good foundation for Christian theology. That is, all you have to do to be saved is to believe in Jesus.
Sounds here like righteousness alone will get you into heaven.
So how could God will that only some are the elect, if it is not his will that any of his sheep should be lost?
Again, Jesus says it's about belief, not about unearned grace.
Not much evidence of irresistable grace here.How's that for a credible non-Calvinistic way out. Seriously, you had to know it would be easy. If you had posed some insuperable challenge, there wouldn't be so many non-Calvinistic theologians. Insofar as theological debate goes, you tossed me a softball. I mean, you didn't really think that one verse would stump me, did you? And I'll put my quotes from Jesus up against your quote from Paul, because it's Jesus who was supposed to be our savior, not Paul.
Now throw me a hardball.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 23, 2008 7:33 PM
If I have it wrong, which is always possible, you have not even come close to proving it. You are talking about the modern Lutheran church--which we all agree is not Calvinistic at all, and in some cases liberal to the point of not being recognizable visa vis anything concerning the Reformation. That aside, the question remains: does it, even the conservative branch, reflect the theology of Luther in all matters, especially in the area of soteriology (as opposed to say, a view on the sacraments)? I (and others) contend that it does not--this is of course an ongoing debate between the Calvinists and some Lutherans. But read Luther--on soteriology-- he is very Calvinistic. As I said, he wrote more on predestination than did Calvin. This is a historic fact. You are presenting as evidence what 21st century Lutherans believe. I'm presenting what Luther wrote in the 16th century defining his actual believes. (For example, his commentary on the Book of Romasns) Clearly you understand that churches drift. There are plenty a modern Methodist church that would make John Wesley vomit in his mouth--you cannot accurately demonstrate what Wesley believed by examining the doctrinal statement of a random, modern Methodist church.
By the way, you wrote something earlier which is demonstrably false:
Nonsense. I for example, attend a Reformed (Calvinistic) Baptist Church. The historic confession of the Baptist church, the London Confession, is as Calvinistic as the definitive Calvinistic Confession, the Westminster Confession used by the Presbyterians --it fact it is a copy, differing only in the section on Baptism. The Baptist Church drifted away from Calvinism, and it is presently drifting back--Calvinism is growing within the Baptist Church, the Southern Baptist Seminary under Al Mohler is Calvinistic. The most famous Baptist Preachers of our day, John MacArthur and John Piper, are Calvinistic. The most famous Baptist preacher of all time was Spurgeon, you cannot find anyone more Calvinistic:
The ties of the Baptist hurch to Calvinism are broad, deep, continuing, and growing.
Alex,
If that were explainable I'd go to Stockholm and wait for my prize. Or at least leverage it for a gazillion dollar Templeton grant.Posted by: heddle | October 23, 2008 7:34 PM
From Michael Heath
Michael, from my perspective, partly yes on the first claim, but no on the second, which is not a necessary consequence of the first.On the first claim, I think it's impossible to deny that God created a universe where human suffering is inevitable. Whether suffering by the innocent is inevitable is more debatable, but I would come down on your side. But as to whether God is A-OK with that suffering, I am sure nearly all Christians would disagree, and would say that the suffering breaks God's heart (so to speak). But knowing--as he must, being omniscient--that there would in fact be such suffering, then the necessary conclusion then is that if he's not exactly OK with it, he certainly is willing to hvae it happen. That is, for reasons we can't understand, God is willing to create sentient beings whom he knows are in for a lifetime or eternity of torment. That's disturbing enough to have moved me to agnosticism from faith.
But the second claim, that God wants humans to suffer, doesn't necessarily follow. Willingness doesn't equal desire, so as a matter of logic we can't infer that God has any desire for us to suffer.
Of course we also can't logically infer that he doesn't want us to suffer. There is the uncomfortable plausibility that a God, assuming there is one, is just as psychologically damaged as any of his creations (c.f., Greek mythology).
Posted by: James Hanley | October 23, 2008 7:52 PM
Heddle,
Wow. What an astonishing amount of hubris!
And in case you didn't notice in the Southern Baptist church, it was taken over in the '90s by radical conservatives with an ahistorical vision of Baptist doctrine. They were adopting American fundamentalism, ala Jonathan Edwards, as an innovation in Baptist thought. That they could find old quotes from former Baptists to make it appear there was a linkage is not surprising--you quote the Bible enough time and any other Christian can cherry pick quotes to make it look as though you can agree with them. Let me just say, in a rather strange journey in my life, I was baptized Southern Baptist, and was a member of a Southern Baptist Church attended by a number of professors and students (current and former) from Golden Gate Theological Seminar. They were aghast at what the radicals were doing to their church, and regularly protested at their ahistorical approach to Baptist thought.
So for two reasons I don't buy your claim in that post. One, the Baptists I knew who were students and professors of Baptist thought disagree with what you say. Two, the hubris of a person with belief X claiming that "really, all these other people are also descended from belief X, and I know their real beliefs better than they do" is so evident and overwhelming that it's impossible to take you seriously. A Calvinist Baptist claiming to understand Luther better than Lutherans do, and criticizing me for thinking the Lutherans might have a better idea--that sounds an awful lot like creationists saying they understand evolution better than the evolutionists do. And you haven't given me a reason why I should accept that you might understand the founder of their sect better than they do.
However, we do have resident expert on Lutheran thought on these boards, who unfortunately hasn't joined us to set at least one, if not both, of us straight. If the Rev AJB, for whom I have much respect (being a hoosier, like me, he must be upright and honest) says I'm wrong about Luther and Lutheranism, I'll make the requisit mea culpa. (But I'll still stick to my guns about free will.)
Posted by: James Hanley | October 23, 2008 8:09 PM
John Hanley,
And you know a Calvinist who disputes this? I don't. We could dig into what belief means, it certainly means more than intellectual assent, but nevertheless no Calvinist would dispute that whoever believes is saved.
Exactly the opposite. Jesus is pointing out the futility of your righteousness, described elsewhere as "filthy rags". Your righteousness would have to exceed that of the Pharisees, used here (in a rare if ironic positive light) as examples of the best law abiders. And they aren't good enough to merit salvation. This will never happen--you need Jesus' righteousness--which can not be earned, but is given by grace. Textbook Calvinism here.
You quoted Matthew 18:14. That's a good Calvinist verse. In context:
Sheep are used as a metaphor for believers (My sheep hear my voice). This passage is the P in the Calvinistic Acrostic TULIP: Perseverance of the Saints--or the doctrine that you cannot lose your salvation.
And about Mark 16:16, you wrote:
And again I say, Calvinism does not dispute that all who believe (in the sense the verse means) are saved. The question is, who will believe? You blasted Paul out of the NT--what about Peter:
Finally, you have the parable of the sower, but I'm not sure I even see the point you are tying to make. This is no refutation of Irresistible Grace--it is a discussion of the obvious fact that the gospel is a universal call (command) to all men, but many reject it, some after first giving it a test ride. That has nothing to do with the question of whether or not those who are of the elect can resist the offer.
Piss poor. Not only did you sweep Romans under the carpet, you coneveniently skipped some of Jesus' sayings. Such as:
Now, what does draw mean? Does it merely mean encourage, or entice, or woo? No, it means compel. The same Greek verb is used in two other places, where it is translated as drag rather than draw:
Paul and Silas were not "encouraged" or "enticed" or"wooed" or "invited" into the marketplace. They were compelled. Likewise no one comes to Jesus unless the Father drags Him. He compels them with a new heart, one that is desirous of Him.
And then there is:
Do you want some more?
Posted by: heddle | October 23, 2008 8:22 PM
Re: heddle | October 23, 2008 11:50 AM
Versus:
I conclude that in the latter case the Calvinistic God is still beaming his grace phasor at the mother, preventing her from her true desire to nuke her baby whenever it annoys her.
The naturalistic explanation that primate mothers who kill their young don't contribute a lot to the gene pool over time seems better to me.
Whether or not I have free will (which I don't know), it also seems comprehensible to me that a complex creature like myself could and probably would evolve without self-knowledge of all the internal, materialistic processes which produce its decisions. After all, we have no nerves which monitor our brain functions (searching neuron A for memory X; searching neuron B ... - it would only slow us down).
Posted by: JimV | October 23, 2008 8:28 PM
You can say that a hundred times, each time forgetting to point out that you are comparing modern Lutherans to what I am presenting, the historic Luther, based on his writings. You have to at least attempt to demonstrate that your modern Lutheran buddies are aligned with Luther's actual teachings, not just that their church bears the name "Lutheran". I think most of Ed's readers will allow that modern Lutherans just might have deviated somewhat from Luther.
Yes. And through sneaky efforts I modified the seminal Baptist Confession from the 17th century so that it was textbook Calvinist. I hope nobody noticed. And I redacted all of Spurgeons's sermons, to make him look like a Calvinist. That way the 19 or 20 modern Baptist Calvinists can claim that Baptists were, historically, Calvinist. But you saw right through that ruse, you old dog, you.
Odd how an ahistoric vision can be based on an affirmation of the oldest and best known Baptist confession. But I see your point--there are no Calvinist Baptists--except the ones that are, and they are bad people so they don't count.
Yes I would be interested to hear his opinion on whether Luther was Calvinistic on soteriology. But I am also prepared to continue posting Luther's writings on the subject--something you seem to have neglected.
Posted by: heddle | October 23, 2008 8:35 PM
Heddle, I see you put the words of Paul before the words of Jesus, and twist the meaning of Jesus' words "to believe." In the church I grew up in, you'd be considered in desperate need of salvation.
But, of course we could argue this for eternity without convincing the other, so putting out more cherry picked quotations (which we both did, and which I happily admit we both did) won't accomplish anything.
I just wanted to make this point, and I think I successfully have: Calvinist theology is not self-evidently the one true and correct theology, and is far from a necessary interpretation of the Bible.
Believe what you wish. By all means. This is, after all, a free country. But please stop being such an ass as to believe that there is no reasonable dispute about Calvinism.
You do remind me, vividly, of the people who finally caused me to leave the church. Insufferably arrogant, secure in their christian superiority, condemnatory of all who differed in their interpretation.
Since you like the words of Paul so much, please re-read First Corinthians 13:2. Like all of the Christians I've ever met who had such absolute certitude that they had the true knowledge of biblical meaning, you give every evidence of utterly lacking what is called for here. From your posts I sense meanness, spitefulness, and arrogance, but never the one thing Paul calls for, in which case you are, as Paul says, nothing. But, then, if you are in fact one of God's elect, I guess it doesn't matter, and Paul was wrong--you don't need love because God has chosen you for his own mysterious reasons, none of which involve you deserving it.
(Of course that can be turned around on me, but then I no longer claim to be a Christian, but an agnostic. It was quite a relief to stop pretending to love idiots, assholes, and other Christians who lied about loving idiots, assholes, and each other.)
Posted by: James Hanley | October 23, 2008 9:23 PM
A final comment (because I, admittedly, am an ass). Calvinism reminds me of the great line from Futurama:
Posted by: James Hanley | October 23, 2008 9:26 PM
John Hanley,
That's utter bulltshit. I do not condemn anyone who disagrees with my interpretation. I just spent six years in NH, before moving to VA, in church that was not doctrinally Calvinist, and got along with all, just fine, thank you. Anyone who debates me on theology will acknowledge that I always and readily admit (a) that I could be wrong and (b) our salvation does not depend on either of us getting out theology right. You are confusing my being willing to give a vigorous defense with being arrogant.
And I'll remind youyour very first sentence:
You had no intention of an academic exchange--you simply wanted to express your disgust with Calvinism. I was more than happy to point out the many places you demonstrated that you didn't know what you were talking about. And yes, it was indeed more fun because you started the conservation as a jackass rather than an intelligent person.
Posted by: heddle | October 23, 2008 9:42 PM
I see where you're coming from and the logic of it, but I wonder if the situation is different because we are talking about God. If a non-psychologically damaged God has no desire for us to suffer but is willing to let us suffer, I have trouble not concluding that he is not omnipotent or omniscient; he apparently could not come up with or create a reality where he achieves whatever he wants from our existence without us having to suffer. It would seem then he's either bound by some other and I'd assume greater 'law', wants us to suffer because it does achieve some purpose within the restrictions God must follow, does not care that we suffer (maybe this is what you mean, it does retain his omni-ness except possibly 'benevolence'), or doesn't exist.
Maybe in the ultimate scheme of things 'suffering' is irrelevant to God and the universe, but it's odd, if we are made in his image and thus we resemble him in some ways, that God has so closely tied in our conscience and/or soul the almost instinctive connection between suffering and morality. The set up that God has put in place (eternal suffering for some) is not just alien
to any concept of 'good' we use, it's almost in direct opposition to it. If I believed in him, I'd wonder if that isn't some kind of test, where God challenges you after death, 'You really believed that crap that in all My Goodness I'd allow eternal suffering? That's what you gleaned from the morality that Heddle said I gave you?'.
Posted by: Spartan | October 23, 2008 9:56 PM
The only way God can do anything to change the election is to change people's minds, which pretty much destroys the notion of free will.
Leaving aside mrobert's deliberate least-generous interpretation of this quote, I'd say the bigger problem with praying to God to change the election is the idea that an omnipotent and omniscient being can be swayed by pleas. As the late great Carlin once said, "What's the use of being god if every run-down schmuck with a two dollar prayer book can come along and fuck up your plan?"
[And to those planning to be dismissive here, yes Carlin was being facetious and irreverent, but that does not mean he lacks a point.]
Posted by: AL | October 23, 2008 10:12 PM
My earliest memory of exposure to Calvinism was a conversation about it by the George C. Scott character in the movie "Hardcore". It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now. (Writer/Director Paul Schrader was raised a Calvinist)
The best part is Season Hubley's response to him: "At least you get to go to heaven. I don't get shit."
Posted by: Rick R | October 23, 2008 10:18 PM
James wrote:
I've got thick skin;-)
Been away from the computer most of the day and will need to read posts closer before I comment more.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | October 23, 2008 10:55 PM
What God will do if anything is He'll send a 2nd flood on account of being tired of all this shit S.P. spouts all the time.
Posted by: gregoryspeck | October 24, 2008 12:29 AM
How about if God sends a tsunami to wipe out the Godless perverts in San Francisco, LA and Seattle etc- handing the electoral cotes for those states over to the conservative-voting inland areas?
That'd be consistent with free will, right?
Posted by: Ian Gould | October 24, 2008 12:58 AM
CJColucci - Don't worry, here "bastard" is a affectionate epithet so I'm not offended.
Note how all these "worthies" jump straight to questions of "free will". Dime-store theology, they hope, will crowd out the clearly voiced 'dog-whistle'. Perhaps it's because it's been done here before that I heard it and denounced it straight away.
Be very, very careful America. :( -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 24, 2008 1:20 AM
heddle,
Out of curiousity, are you calling me John to get my goat, or because you're incapable of reading the name that is attached to every single one of my posts?
Why Calvinism is Dumb
In a nutshell, here's why I say Calvinism is dumb.
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life." Paraphrased: "If you believe you will be saved."
It's a causal statement, so in logical form: "Belief --> Salvation."
But Calvinists say "those who are saved will believe, which in logical form is: "Salvation --> Belief."
If you can't even get your causal arrows straight, how smart can you be?
But not only do you pervert the very words of God, you then proceed to build your theological edifice not on the words of Jesus, but on the words of Paul, the one guy who never traveled with Jesus and listened to him. Free will theology puts Jesus's words as the cornerstone, Calvinist theology puts Paul's words at the cornerstone. From a Christian perspective, that sounds pretty stupid to me. And piling quote upon quote from Paul's letters--many of which are taken more literally than a sensible person would take them (he was a bit hyperbolic at time, it's a good writing technique), or divorced from the context of his writing--won't impress me much.
Baptists and Calvinists
Your insistence that Baptists, rightly understood, are Calvinist, intrigued me, as it was so contrary to my experience as a Southern Baptist. I found this book, God So Loved the World: Traditional Baptists and Calvinism by Fisher Humphreys and Paul Robertson. Apparently there's quite a lively debate going on among Baptists about whether they're really Calvinistic or not, and these guys say not. And I think they're right, for the reasons noted in this review of the book (http://www.christianethicstoday.com/Issue/035/God%20So%20Loved%20The%20World%20-%20Traditional%20Baptists%20and%20Calvinism%20By%20Fisher%20Humphreys%20and%20Paul%20Robertson_035_20_.htm) by a New Orleans Baptist Seminary theology prof.
He says,
And also,
And he quotes the authors of the book as saying
This is the Baptist thought I was taught when I got dunked, and it comported well enough with the theology I learned growing up, and then briefly as a religion major. Had I blundered into a Calvinistic Baptist Church, I would have asked them what the hell the point of Baptism was for a Calvinist!Anyway, you made the claim with such certainty, but it is just as certainly a claim that is contested by a number of Baptist theologians. So given that my experience in a Southern Baptist congregation is supported by these authors, I'm inclined to find your argument thought-provoking at best, but very far from being at all convincing. It simply sounds like an odd twist on Baptist beliefs to me. Again, cherry picking--particularly cherry picking the fact that the first Baptist congregation came out of a Calvinist congregation (explaining your big point about a similar creed), but ignoring the different path they took on the question of free will in their actual practice and the development of their doctine.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 24, 2008 1:27 AM
Spartan,
Good questions. That's why Christianity remains so troublesome to me, and I remain agnostic--I share your arguments and have no response that leaves me with a satisfactory vision of God.
Dingo,
I am a worthy, dammit! And my theology is dollar store theology--clearly worth 10 times as much as mere dime store theology.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 24, 2008 1:32 AM
James Hanley - In these tough economic times all the theological stores are forced to discount just to pull in the punters. :)
However I still think all you worthies are missing the obvious point here. It's not belief, salvation, quotes or labels, it's about a dangerous, coded call-to-arms from and for the right-wing lone gunmen of America. -DJ
"God's cool with it, you betcha {nod, nod. wink, wink]."
Posted by: DingoJack | October 24, 2008 2:16 AM
James Hanley,
Why did I call you John Hanley? I have no clue--just some weird screw-up. Apologies.
Posted by: heddle | October 24, 2008 4:27 AM
James Hanley,
But of course, nothing I actually said is disputed by the quotes from this book. I said that Calvinism is growing within Baptist circles. Your quotes confirm that. I said that historically the Baptist church was Calvinistic, and evidenced by its London Confession and the well documented writings and sermons of early Baptists. Your quotes do not offer any evidence to refute that. Your quotes have some anecdotes of students who are "reconverted" but of course anecdotes can be countered with anecdotes--but I won't bother. The history here is somewhat transparent--virtually all of Protestantism including the Baptists shifted toward the Arminian view with the largely Arminian evangelism of the American west.
Also, the book is correct in that there is a big debate (though dying in the last five years or so--the writing is on the wall) within the Southern Baptist Convention--and at the risk of generalizing it is the old guard lamenting the rise of Calvinism among the young. At one time Calvinism was described as the worst problem facing the SBC. I would say the language has changed, because the numbers have so grown among the young. What cannot be overestimated is the influence of Calvinists like John Piper. His intellectual approach is enormously popular among young Baptists. Finding a Reformed Baptist among 20-something Baptists is not at all unusual. I am not even mildly surprised when a young Baptist tells me he is a Calvinist (although they often use "Reformed" or "Doctrines of Grace" rather than Calvinist.)
It is also worth noting that the SBC is not all there is--there are plenty of Baptist churches not in the SBC. For example, I have never belonged to a SBC member church.
You did get one thing right. The logical cause and effect is reversed in the two viewpoints. Arminians: belief->regeneration; Calvinists: regeneration->belief. I would think "different" is a better word than dumb, followed by a discussion of the two views, but I see your style is to use argument enders like "see, it's dumb." One thing is clear. Your dismissal of Paul would not sit well with the Baptists you are defending from the disease of Calvinism. Virtually none of the SBC churches would argue: "Paul--ehh forget Paul, who was he?" They would accept each and every one of Paul's epistles as inspired scripture. They would accept his apostleship, and accept that the words of the apostles, being commissioned by Christ, are binding and authoritative. They would say that anyone taking the approach that the words of the apostles as they occur in scripture can be treated at best as suggestions are committing grave error. Instead of saying that Paul's words don't matter, say in Romans 9, they attempt to make the case that what Paul wrote does not mean what the Calvinists say it means. That an honest approach--not like your approach (let's ignore Paul.) Finally, I have already demonstrated that Jesus' own words form part of the "proof text" of Calvinism. You didn't address just two that I presented.
Posted by: heddle | October 24, 2008 5:14 AM
Hey Heddle! Now that you are here, and you brought Palin up, perhaps you woudl be willing to write one of those comments you are so well known for in defense of the separation church and state, and about how relates to the Palin candidacy.
Or, since we all kinow what you ar elike, you could come up with a really clever non-sequitur to dodge that question.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | October 24, 2008 7:52 AM
Isn't that just as big cop-out as you're accusing the naturalists of making? I wasn't asking for a theory presented to the same level of detail as modern QED, but surely you (or other smart theists) have some guesses. At what scale does this interaction occur? Do soul/matter interactions conserve energy in the material world? What experiments can we design to detect this interaction between the immaterial and the material here on the material end? Are these experiments being done?
Posted by: Alex | October 24, 2008 7:55 AM
Valhar2000,
Yes I am, like my Baptist forefathers, strongly in favor of Separation of Church and State, as our host pointed out to you here. As such, I am greatly dismayed by Palin's calling on Dobson's court for his blessing.
But to clarify, advocating separation of church and state does not mean that I wouldn't like to see a Christian in office. All things being equal, I would always give preference to a Christian. (Yes I know Obama is a Christian.)
Is Plain advocating a theocracy? I'm not aware that she was. If she were, I'd be leading the charge against the ticket.
Posted by: heddle | October 24, 2008 8:11 AM
I think it's time to threadjack this thread back ON topic.
I'm pretty sure that what the ImPalinator really wants is a Dieboldian Gambit on 11/04/08 and a message to McStain on 01/22/09 to "GOD called and said "Come on up to the house!"".
That's at least as believable as all of the silly notions of a micromanaging omniscient omnipresent and omnipotent GOD that still requires that we adore him. Sounds like what got King George the Worst into his present situation.
Posted by: democommie | October 24, 2008 8:13 AM
Alex:
Scientists only require proofs for knowledge, not for beleif; I thought that had been made abundantly clear by heddle, previously.
Posted by: democommie | October 24, 2008 8:26 AM
mroberts:
Hi. At the end of the day, though, the only way that God could sway the vote through the changing of people's minds is by God talking to people himself. If God were to make it so that more conversations were had between Republican converts who spoke well and nonconverts than would have been the case without his intervention, he would be tampering with human behaviour and thus free will by making these conversations happen. And it would have to be through cogent argumentation that God won the nonconverts over. It would be a pretty sorry example of free will if the converts caved because they were being addressed my the omnipotent force of the universe.
We'll see if that happens.
Posted by: ron brown | October 24, 2008 8:27 AM
Sure, but heddle is claiming a physically measurable effect of the existence of an immaterial soul - to wit, he ends up going to class rather than continuing to sit in a coffee shop. Neurobiologists claim that they can trace this gross physical action all the way back to physically measurable impulses in the brain. Heddle is also claiming that these impulses cannot be physically deterministic - and since deterministic effects are physically measurable, departures from determinism should also by physically detectable (we've already detected it at the gross level according to the above). Finally, if the influence of immaterial soul is indistinguishable from deterministic effects, then determinism by itself would be sufficient to explain free will - a position that heddle has already rejected. Therefore, even if the actual mechanism of the soul itself is completely ineffable, this boundary where determinism ends should still be detectable by material means.
I am aware that there are plenty of very smart people who have deep Christian beliefs in an immortal soul who have puzzled over this - Sir John Eccles (winner of the 1963 Nobel in Medicine) most notably. I am not aware that any of them have come up with anything testable.
Posted by: Alex | October 24, 2008 9:21 AM
Rick R
Funny, I was thinking of that movie too, but a different quote. After Scott's character explains his theology, Hubley's porn star says "Wow, and I thought I was fucked up!"Posted by: Taz | October 24, 2008 9:25 AM
Heddle wrote- "I am greatly dismayed by Palin's calling on Dobson's court for his blessing."
Why? Anyone who thinks Dobson (and the rest of the RR Thugs in Charge) didn't have a lot of say in McCain's choice of running mate, really hasn't been paying attention.
Why the hell else did he pick her, if not to placate the loons?
Posted by: Rick R | October 24, 2008 9:29 AM
Taz- LOL!! I forgot about that! Best line in the whole movie...
Posted by: Rick R | October 24, 2008 9:37 AM
My favorite pop culture Calvinism reference is from Mystery Science Theater in the episode Cave Dwellers,
It was those little "I wonder how many people got that?" quips that made MST so hilarious.
Posted by: heddle | October 24, 2008 9:43 AM
That's what I mean about perverse intepretations. You take an intepretation that, while dubious, is not logically excluded, and you claim it is logically required. The gulf between "not excluded" and "necessary" is vast, yet unrecognized by Calvinists.
Also, you've completely failed to rebut my demonstration of your perversion of the logic of John 3:16. You say, "of course Calvinists believe that the saved believe in God," but you know full well I wasn't saying they didn't. I was talking about the causality of Jesus's statement. You call it merely a "different" way of viewing it, but failed to deal with my claim that you have reversed the arrow of causality. The very clear implication of Jesus's statement is that belief is causal of salvation.
Now let's go back a bit to this, where I quoted the parable of the sheep and you rebutted it:
This is a good example of how Calvinists make bizarre interpretations. This passage clearly states that a sheep/believer can wander off, so that the shepherd/God must go looking for him to bring him back. But Calvinists don't believe the elect can wander off, so the emphasis is put on a particular intepretation of the wors "not willing" to mean, "God does not allow it to ever happen," even though that is completely at odds with the meaning of the story.And then there's your weak response to the parable of the sower. The relevant part is
In response to which you say: But the parable explicitly says that some who believe fall away. Apparently your interpretation is, "sure, they may have believed, but they weren't of the elect." But once again you make a very particularized, and frankly very tenuous, intepretation that is not at all a necessary consequence of the text itself. It's a convenient intepretation that allows you to fit this parable into your Calvinist framework. As is your claim that the parable means "the gospel is a universal call to all men." On what basis could it be a universal call to all, when not all are even given an opportunity to go to heaven.This is the truly perverse aspect of Calvinism--a universal call that is available only to some. The reason it has so often been called a heresy is that it posits a God who has created some people with the full intent of damning them to eternal torment in hell.
See, heddle, you mock me for not presenting a new critique of Calvinism that you haven't heard before, but why would you expect that I could? The point is that there are numerous critiques of Calvinism, and that you haven't satisfactorily rebutted them. As I said, I don't expect to be able to convince you Calvinism is wrong. But if you honestly think that your defense of it has been remotely compelling, you're a tremendous fool. Your defense has been exceptionally weak, claiming that God's desire to draw us near, and the impossibility of being able to draw near to God unless God wills it, is proof that God in fact does not will it for many people.
And the Calvinist insistence on the importance of divine grace because none of us deserve salvation or can earn it, doesn't even begin to undermine free will theologies. In the free will theologies, God has made salvation a gift to all of us undeserving sinners, and then given us the option of taking it or leaving it. There's nothing about earning it or deserving it, just accepting or rejecting what is freely given.
On one point I do agree with you: My view of Paul is unorthodox. It's not that I think his letters are not valuable, but that they should take a distinct back seat to the gospels in biblical interpretation. When you begin your defense of your theology with Paul, rather than with Jesus, the blasphemy bells start ringing in my head.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 24, 2008 10:01 AM
"Blasphemy bells?" Isn't that what atheists ring at their gatherings? Or is that what shopping-malls start ringing around, oh, October?
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 24, 2008 10:26 AM
The only break from pure determinism is quantum uncertainty.
Horseshit.
Go read something, anything, on Chaos.
Posted by: Graculus | October 24, 2008 10:28 AM
Graculus ,
I think you better read. (FWIW: I have taught grad classes on Chaos, so you better know your shit before challenging me on this topic.)
Once again: Classical Chaos is completely deterministic. But it is not predictable, because no computational machine can accommodate the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions. However, the same initial conditions always, always, always lead to the same final state. That's determinism.
To have true indeterminacy in chaos theory, you need to introduce QM. Hence my point stands.
Posted by: heddle | October 24, 2008 10:37 AM
Well, if you suck as a candidate and have nothing to offer the electorate, what else can you do but pray for a miracle? ...if you believe in that shit.
Posted by: Matt | October 24, 2008 10:48 AM
heddle, when you say "no computational machine can accommodate the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions", are you saying it's a matter of computing power, or are you saying it's axiomatic that no such machine will ever exist?
Posted by: Taz | October 24, 2008 10:50 AM
James Hanley,
That's exactly right. There are many examples of that. There is Simon the Magician in Acts who believed and was baptized, only to fall away and be excommunicated. (And, as legend goes, to initiate the Gnostic heresy.) There are the demons described by James--even they believe, James writes, yet they tremble. And most frighteningly of all, there are those whom Jesus warns us are believers but will nevertheless hear those horrible words: "I never knew you." Theologians, Calvinists and non-Calvinists, have recognized, down the ages, that in spite of the plain meaning of John 3:16 there are some--possibly many, who believe but are not saved--because when the NT as a whole is examined, it becomes clear that "belief" does not mean just simple intellectual assent. (Again, even the demons believe.) One popular model of a saving belief or saving faith includes three components: 1) Notitia which implies knowledge of the gospel content. And 2) Assensus which is the intellectual "I believe!" assent and 3) Fiducia which relates to conviction and passion--it is the idea that the gospel is not only true, and that it is not just that Jesus is real, and not just that I had better follow His commands because God is watching, but also that His commands are good. Now Calvinists are somewhat more relaxed than this--it is the Arminians who are more prone to demand some four-step algorithm to attain salvation--so for Calvinists this is at most normative. We recognize the great Calvinistic verse: God will have mercy upon who he will have mercy (not upon who jumps through the correct hoops.) Calvinists recognize that it is entirely possible that God might save anyone--even people who have not heard the gospel--and of course dead babies. (Everyone is a Calvinist when it comes to dead babies.)
That is the problem with your attack on Calvinism. You are arguing with a caricature. Your misunderstanding of Calvinism is at odds with John 3:16. It's at odds with the idea that some people believe but are not saved. But that's your caricature of Calvinism, not Calvinism.
Aside: John 3:16 is in fact a fairly strong verse in favor of the Calvinistic doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints. It states: if you believe, you have eternal life. If in truth you can lose your salvation, then here was a golden opportunity for that point to be made, for the verse could have read, and should have read in a truth-in-advertising way: if you believe at the time of death, you have eternal life.
Again, your are arguing against a distortion of Calvinism. Calvinism certainly teaches that the elect can wander off, backslide, fall into grievous sin, whatever you want to call it. But it also teaches that they will not be ultimately lost--that through the sovereignty of God they will be restored, which fits the parable perfectly. There are other sayings of Jesus, since you don't care for apostles, that say the same thing:
Now that's a juicy passage. V26 has the Calvinistic cause and effect: you do not believe, because you are not in my flock as opposed to the Arminian: you are not in my flock, because you do not believe. And it has the strong view of God's sovereignty which is the definitive characteristic of Calvinism: My father has given them to me as opposed to, say, they believed, and so My Father has allowed them to come to me. Finally it has the perseverance of the saints: No one can snatch them away (A good verse to remind any Christians who fear the New Atheists, why they don't have to fear the New Atheists.)
No you make a point, and I'll paraphrase so correct me if I'm wrong, that none of these verses "prove" Calvinism. I'd agree. It is the weight of all of a scripture that, in my opinion, makes the case. Individual passages or verses can just be suggestive, as this one (rather clearly, I'd say) is.
I don't know how good my defense is and I am almost certainly a tremendous fool. However, I never said God doesn't will it for many people. On the contrary. I'm post-millennial. We are the most optimistic of all Christians. We fully expect heaven will be crowded, not empty. John, in his vision of heaven, saw uncountable numbers of people. There you go again, arguing against something that, whatever it is, is not Calvinism.
Posted by: heddle | October 24, 2008 11:32 AM
Taz,
No such machine will exist. That is, if you give me a computer with any finite precision I can find initial states whose differences are too small to represent, and yet if the dynamical system is run forward in time, those initial states will evolve in different ways (meaning to states that are far apart in phase space), because the definition of chaos is that those differences will grow exponentially--which will always win the war. So for the (infinite) set of states whose initial conditions map to one finite representation on a finite computer, the computer has no predicitive power.
Posted by: heddle | October 24, 2008 11:48 AM
Palin and Dobson pray that God do their will? Whatever happened to, Not my will but Thine. To, "I shall not want."
Posted by: Lettuce Spray | October 24, 2008 11:54 AM
Heddle - just a friendly reminder. The headline reads "Palin: God will help us win"
this headline relates to your post how exactly? -DJ
PS Quantum computers can represent an infinite combinations in each bit, and, because of entanglement, do not entropically diverge. (At least in theory) :)
Posted by: DingoJack | October 24, 2008 11:57 AM
Well, I'll leave it at that. You think I am attacking a caricature of Calvinism, but you have failed to convince me that it is a caricature. And to the extent you do believe each of us is one of the elect, as you seem to imply, you're not a true Calvinist, so perhaps you're living a caricature of it.
Each of your interpretations of the verses I have used is not even mildly persuasive, as each seems to ignore basic logical methods of interpretation, and flit instead to a fantastical intepretation.
You may not know how good your defense is, but the fact that I find it flatly laughable ought to be a good hint. If Calvinism is a defendable theology, I wouldn't know it from reading your arguments.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 24, 2008 12:01 PM
DJ,
C'mon, it's never my fault. I'm just a troll. If people feed me, who's to blame?
Posted by: heddle | October 24, 2008 12:27 PM
Heddle - yeah, yeah and the dog ate your homework. :D -DJ
"Fat trolls are happy trolls. Make 'em cry!"
Posted by: DIngoJack | October 24, 2008 12:34 PM
Posted by: Taz | October 24, 2008 1:45 PM
Taz,
Well, I think you can say that if there is no QM, there is no lower limit. With QM there might be a lower limit, the Planck length--which might represent ultimate precision--but at that point you have introduced QM and determinacy is lost.
That's just an off the cuff response.
Posted by: heddle | October 24, 2008 1:54 PM
This only appears to make sense because "will" and "want" are not the same word in English (anymore). I'd say free will is not the ability to choose what you want, but the ability to want anything.
You do know that many dispute the idea that we have free will in the first place, don't you? This means that simply positing as an axiom that we have free will and then asking for an explanation of how it works is not defensible. First you must show that we really do have "the free will of the poets and muses".
Right.
The first quote applies, but the second utterly doesn't. That's because it uses the 1611 sense of "want", not the 2008 one, which would have been "will" in 1611 (and still is in, say, German or French -- goes back all the way to Proto-Indo-European at the minimum). "I shall not want" means "I won't suffer the lack of anything". To stay within the parable the psalm makes, it means "I'm always going to have enough green grass to munch".
It doesn't seem to be falsifiable either, though.
Posted by: David Marjanović | October 24, 2008 2:07 PM
I have to side with heddle in that the world is deterministic without QM. Even if chaos sounds like it should be, well, chaotic, all it really means is that you aren't defining your initial conditions well enough, and it's a problem of your computer, not reality. Stat mech is also supposed to be an approximation in the limit of N->infinity, but there is no claim that you couldn't calculate the same results from basic principles with an infinitely powerful computer. At least according to classical physics, the world is deterministic.
QM, is another story, and there is a good reason for why there are so many quotations along the lines of "If you think you understand it, you don't".
Posted by: Coriolis | October 24, 2008 3:25 PM
David M. wrote
To be fair, neither is my theological argument, nor any theological argument I know of. And that's the fundamental problem with theology--it is inevitably untestable. So heddle takes his exceptionally foolish theology on faith, I take my exceptionally wise and insightful theology on faith, and we both insist that if you don't share our faith you are doomed to hell--but on what basis can we choose? I make irresistably persuasive arguments that his theology is illogical, but clearly that has no bearing on the validity of my theology.Posted by: James Hanley | October 24, 2008 6:31 PM