Dispatches from the Creation Wars

1

Umm...how can anyone link Calvin, the founder of a repressive theocracy, with liberty? What liberty is there in the doctrines he formulated that hold that one's fate is completely determined before birth? Calvin was a brilliant and interesting man, but a libertarian of any sort he was not. Does Philips know anything about Calvin aside from his name? That statement sounds like something that would have been written by Pravda during Soviet days extolling Lenin for bringing "freedom" to Russia.

Posted by: Mel | June 26, 2009 9:42 AM

3

I searched for the term "father of modern liberty" on Google. I came up with only six links. The first is to the WorldNut Daily article. None of the others refer to Calvin, but rather to John Locke, John Wilkes or John Stuart Mill.

Posted by: Herod the Freemason | June 26, 2009 9:46 AM

5

I think it would be safer to call him a willful liar than an ignoramus

Posted by: rpsms | June 26, 2009 10:29 AM

7

Right. Because the doctrine of predestination premised on the concept of liberty. No wait ... I'm sorry, it's the opposite of liberty. My bad!

Posted by: The Science Pundit | June 26, 2009 10:39 AM

9

We're talking about people whose idea of freedom is "free from people whose ideas differ from mine." Let's hope this definition doesn't make it into dictionaries.

Posted by: Les Lane | June 26, 2009 10:49 AM

11

I'm waiting for heddle to chime in and tell us how we've misunderstood Calvin and quit being so mean to him.

Posted by: Eamon Knight | June 26, 2009 11:15 AM

13

Cue Heddle....

Posted by: JMax | June 26, 2009 11:20 AM

15

Burning at the stake wasn't mean enough for Servetus:

... the remarkably talented medic Michael Servetus, who held dangerously outspoken religious views. He expressed these ideas in his De Trinitatis erroribus (On the Errors of the Trinity) of 1531, a treatise that bluntly called for the abandonment of the cherished concept of the Holy Trinity. Arrested by the Viennese Inquisition in 1553, Servetus escaped to Geneva, the center of Calvinism, where he believed he would find sanctuary. ... But Calvin had no more liking for Servetus’s religious views than did the Catholics of Vienna. Instead of offering the man sanctuary, Calvin had him arrested, tried as a heretic, and sentenced to death. His execution is said to have involved a slow roasting on a spit that took two hours to kill him. {Footnote: Such an infamous act was made worse by the fact that at the time of his arrest, Servetus was on the verge of discovering the method by which blood circulates through the body, work that was some seventy-five years ahead of William Harvey’s breakthrough research published in On the Motions of the Heart and Blood (1628).}

- Michael White, The Pope & the Heretic: The True Story of Giordano Bruno, the Man Who Dared to Defy the Roman Inquisition

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 26, 2009 11:26 AM

17

I've concluded that the god described therein is a vicious space monster who terrorized earthlings for many years.

Scientology? ;o)

Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 26, 2009 11:56 AM

19

I believe the Calvinists claim rights to America's liberties because of the Calvinist doctrine of the "lesser magistrate" which states that when a power, such as a king or the RCC, usurps its proper "sphere" a lesser power has the right and obligation to overthrow the usurping greater power. This is why the regicides in the English Civil War thought it legal to execute King Charles, and is thought by the Calvinists to be at the heart of the ideas of the Declaration of Independence.

Posted by: JBB | June 26, 2009 12:28 PM

21

JBB - Hate to tell you this, but the English had twigged to that idea at least 250 years before Calvin's birth*. - DJ
_____________
*Calvin must have 'TARDIS-jacked' the Prez during one of the latter's jaunts to the 16th Century.

Posted by: DingoJack | June 26, 2009 1:00 PM

23

JBB - Having difficulty reading are you?
The English kings have been limited by the law for at least 750 years. Ever heard of the 'Magna Carta'? - DJ

Posted by: DingoJAck | June 26, 2009 1:07 PM

25

as were the ideas of separation of powers, limited powers and the origin of ruling power in the consent of the governed.

I don't see how separation of powers, limited powers, and consent of the governed could have anything to do with believe in an all-powerful God. And "consent of the governed" sounds much more like Locke that Calvin.

Posted by: Herod the Freemason | June 26, 2009 1:13 PM

27

JBB - Because Charles II was trying to claw back power for the monarchy. 'Absolutism' ring any bells? At least your grasp of how much Calvinism sucks is on firm ground. ;) - DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | June 26, 2009 1:37 PM

29

DJ- It was Charles 1, wasn't it? Anyway, history is always a bit difficult to assign cause and effect. I think the reformation, and especially the so-called second reformation introduced ideas from Calvin into general circulation that influenced the Scottish enlightenment even as the enlightment repudiated the Calvinism total program. You all appear to think the enlightenment ideas of Locke, Hume, etc had no relationship to the environment in which they grew. Perhaps you're right. I'm no historian. But, if modern Calvinists wish to attach themselves to enlightenment ideas, I think that's better than if they tried to channel Luther and Calvin.

Posted by: JBB | June 26, 2009 1:46 PM

31

JBB,

Sorry, but you're wrong about the English Civil War. It was effectively an Anglican vs. Anglican Battle over the power of the king versus the power of the parliament. Charles dissolved the parliament, I believe, 5 times leading up to the war. He instituted a number of policies that the parliamentarians saw as an attack on their power, taxes that they saw as illegal, and programs in the church that they thought were "back-sliding" towards the Catholic church.

Cromwell became a Puritan, so a Calvinist, but he didn't take over until well into the Civil War and did so militarily. In a sense, you could argue that Calvinistic anti-liberty co-opted an enlightenment parliamentary revolt.

Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 26, 2009 1:57 PM

33

Dogmeat: The Scottish aspects of the English Civil War don't entirely fit your description. But in the end limited monarchical government and modern liberties were born (after the English Civil war, the republic, the restoration and the glorious revolution of William and Mary.) But I think I will let you folks have the last word. Invigorating conversation, thank you! Jon- very interesting connections suggested there.

Posted by: JBB | June 26, 2009 2:06 PM

35

JBB - See my post above and apply to you too! :)
While I agree that cause and effect are difficult to assign to historic events, I'm not all that sure if The Enlightenment was caused by Calvinism* or in spite of it. - DJ

PS: Apologies if we got off on the wrong foot. Mea Culpa
____________
*'Calvinism', to me, applies to the more extreme forms of Protestantism found in Switzerland and Scotland. The Church of England, while Protestant, was far less dogmatic. The weakening of religious fervor in England, in my view (and like you, I'm not a professional historian either) was the proximal cause of the growth of 'proto-enlightenment' ideas and values, the bud of the later flowering, if you will. However, the country had a long history of independence of thought that was the root, IMHO, of the Enlightenment in England.

Posted by: DIngoJack | June 26, 2009 2:11 PM

37

"Freedom is Slavery"

I smell a new sitcom - Big Brother and Calvin, w/a special guest performance by the Religious Reich!

- Enigma

Posted by: TheEngima32 | June 26, 2009 4:07 PM

39

Does the debate end with Darwin being drowned in Lake Geneva or being burned at the stake or something?

Posted by: meltedrubbersoul | June 26, 2009 4:49 PM

41

@heddle
Anecdotal evidence
Selection bias
Inability to RTFA
The usual assumption that "Everyone believes like me"

Nothing new here.

Posted by: LanceR, JSG | June 26, 2009 5:00 PM

43

Heddle,

I have to ask, what does the comment regarding whether or not Calvin may have supported some aspects of astronomy have to do with Calvin (or Luther for that matter) not being individuals who espouse enlightenment ideals?

Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 26, 2009 5:19 PM

45

dogmeatIB,

I assume a positive correlation between a support for science and a support for enlightenment ideals. If that's wrong, color me unenlightened.

phantomreader42

So, heddle, does your cult consider it right or wrong to hunt down and murder a man over a matter of dogma? That is what Calvin did, after all. Do you think that was a good thing?

My cult considers it wrong. What Calvin did was not a good thing. You must have seen me post enough to know that I am virulently opposed to Geneva-like theocracies. Calling oneself a Calvinist does not mean you think Calvin is an infallible god--rather it is a convenient designation that would just as well be served by "Augustinian" or "Reformed" or "Jonathan Edwardsian" or "Lutheran" if the latter hadn't been claimed by, well, the Lutherans. By historical accident what "stuck" was "Calvinist." Calvinists do not think Augustine or Calvin or Luther or Edwards or Francis Schaeffer, singly or collectively, were infallible. Any more that I think Newton or Darwin or Einstein were infallible. This should be obvious.

Can even your phenomenal capacity for delusion twist such an act into support for liberty?

Can even your phenomenal capacity for missing the boat devise a fantasy world in which I made such a claim and so am obligated to defend it?

Posted by: heddle | June 26, 2009 5:42 PM

47

I always thought that the far right considered Reagan to be "the Father of Modern Liberty".

Posted by: Ex-drone | June 26, 2009 6:34 PM

49

dogmeatIB ,

I'll have to color you unenlightened then because everything that Calvin stood for in his acts and actions is in almost direct opposition to enlightenment ideas and ideals.

I guess that’s because you say so? Now I don’t really care whether Calvin had overlap with enlightenment ideals, or rather your version thereof. Of course Calvin predated the Enlightenment—he was more a child of the renaissance. Now I am no historian, amateur or otherwise, but I do recall learning (in secular public school) of a great synergy between the renaissance and reformation Protestantism which in turn had a profound impact on Western culture, and not limited to Max Weber’s Protestant Work Ethic ideas. Calvin and Luther (and the almost-reformer Erasmus) were, in effect, created by the renaissance. They were highly educated scholars who valued scholarship and who, by the very act of promoting reform, scholarly investigation, and private interpretation are, flawed as they may have been—and at times hypocritical (just like anyone else) —stout representatives of the Renaissance and to the extent to which it was the precursor, the Enlightenment.

Perhaps you imagine that even in the 16th century you were either like Richard Dawkins, or you were still medieval.

Fortuna,

Read carefully what I wrote. Namely that it was not obvious, as previous commenter argued in #28, that Luther was better representative of enlightenment ideals that Calvin. I gave an example of where that theory would seem to fail: Calvin supported science, Luther did not. At least to first order.

Maybe you are right that supporting science does not make you a True Scotsman Enlightenment Man™. However being anti-science would seem, at least to me, to be a clear negative. Therefore it is indeed relevant.

Posted by: heddle | June 26, 2009 7:02 PM

51

Perhaps you imagine that even in the 16th century you were either like Richard Dawkins, or you were still medieval.

Actually were I to live in 16th Century Geneva, I'd be dead, I'm technically Catholic, good old John would see to it that I either converted or died. Yeah enlightened ideals!

No, the enlightenment didn't develop in a vacuum, but to say that it derived from Luther or Calvin? The problem is, that such a claim is like claiming that the United States is a Christian Nation™ because the majority of the founding fathers were what one would nominally call Christians. Quite simply both are false on the surface of it and "note quite true" even if you get into the complexity of the issues and events. Erasmus does evoke some enlightenment ideas, but for the most part the enlightenment is empirical, observational, and scientific. It talks of liberties and rights, argues against arbitrary law, absolute rule, the divine right of kings.

If you look at the political aspects of the Enlightenment, perhaps Hobbes would agree with Calvin or Luther, but Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Voltaire? Heavens no.

You don't really have to look at the scientific aspects of the Enlightenment because their track records show that if the discoveries of the Enlightenment had challenged their religious authority, both of them would have cracked down in a heartbeat.

I mean really, the core of the Enlightenment is the establishment of reason as the foundation of understanding, politics, government, society itself. This challenges the very foundation of what Calvin and Luther stood for.

Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 26, 2009 8:21 PM

53

A guy I ran into here in Texas said Calvin is greatly revered in Texas as inventor of barbecuing.

I didn't buy that guy another beer.

Posted by: Ed Darrell | June 26, 2009 10:14 PM

55

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding why the idea that Calvin, Luther, et al were not responsible for clearing some land that became fertile for Enlightenment ideas.

It's likely that it was an unintended consequence that the idea that every male should be able to read the Bible for himself led some to read other books and to write their own.

Posted by: Donna B. | June 26, 2009 11:12 PM

57

Taz, 52

The post was #29, and I think you misread it.

You are right, I did misread it, and I feel like a jackass for doing so. I could have avoided this whole argument.

Seeing Eye Chick, #54

Predestination negates free will. DUH

Here are two statements, each thought by those who make them to be obvious game-over-man show-stoppers, spoken with extreme confidence in spite of being absolutely nothing more than a display of massive ignorance on the subject at hand:

1) Predestination negates free will. DUH. ^*

2) Evolution can't be right--what good is half an eye? DUH.

These are, when rated for their intellectual merit, about the same.

An interesting thing about predestination, about half the unthinking critics will offer 1) as its perfect refutation, while the other half will offer:

3) Well then, you might as well just do whatever you
want! DUH.

which is more or less the exact opposite.

-----------------
^* As a sincere question, from someone who first hears about predestination, it is quite legitimate: Doesn't that negate free will?.

Posted by: heddle | June 27, 2009 7:36 AM

59

Servetus was sentenced to death by slow burning because of his “heretical” view that the Trinity was false – not biblical – and that the church should return to the Gospels and early church fathers. How many Enlightenment figures would Calvin have felt compelled to send to similar fates? How many American founding fathers – including Jefferson, the principle author of the DOI – would he have relaxed* if he’d been in a position to do so?

As for science, I'm sure that he would be OK with any "science" that produced answers that substantiated, or at the very least didn't contest biblical truth as he saw it. The opposite of science. At least the kind of science that relies on empirical evaluation of material occurrences to produce reliable data-based answers and not on supernatural explanations derived from biblical devination.

Calvin was a fierce denier of the rights of conscience and free expression of ideas and to think otherwise is typical Christian magical thinking. The Liberty that he sought was the Liberty to think as he and his brand of Christian orthodoxy allowed. In the America colonies this experiment in theocratic governance was tried and it failed. The result is a nation governed in a manner that guarantees the rights of conscience in a way that Calvin, or Luther, would despise and that is easily traced back through attempted Christian appropriation to the ultra-heretical, pagan Greeks.

*a term of the Christian inquisition indicating the most severe form of punishment for thinking….um, I mean heresy – roasting alive**. Talk about your euphemisms.

**OK, technically a person could earn the option of being strangled or having their throats slit before the burning so as not to suffer the flames. My bad.

Posted by: jimmiraybob | June 27, 2009 11:02 AM

61

The weird thing is, I'd actually like to see a real discussion between Calvin and Darwin, taking their actual opininons on science and religion into account.

I think it's highly likely that Calvin would have conceded the point on evolution had he lived 300 years later. The main reason I think think is that this is precisely what he did with the Genesis-challenging science of his time, which was astronomy. To Calvin, there was no contradiction between observations that there was no "water above the firmament" and Genesis, because Genesis only dealt with how the universe appeared:

Moses describes the special use of this expanse, “to divide the waters from the waters” from which word arises a great difficulty. For it appears opposed to common sense, and quite incredible, that there should be waters above the heaven. Hence some resort to allegory, and philosophize concerning angels; but quite beside the purpose. For, to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. [...] The assertion of some, that they embrace by faith what they have read concerning the waters above the heavens, notwithstanding their ignorance respecting them, is not in accordance with the design of Moses. -- John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis

Posted by: Pseudonym | June 28, 2009 12:54 AM

63

Heddle,

To save time, our entire body of debate prior to today. ;)

James

Posted by: James Hanley | June 28, 2009 9:15 PM

65

James Hanley:

Great idea.

heddle:

To save time, my entire body of crude, anti-KKKristian invective, prior to today.

Posted by: democommie | June 29, 2009 6:13 AM

67

spoken with extreme confidence in spite of being absolutely nothing more than a display of massive ignorance on the subject at hand:

Well, when I pursued this with you months ago the only thing I was massively ignorant on is your particular definition of 'free will'. (And of course instead of clarifying or refuting this massive ignorance (methinks you know exactly what the very obvious contradiction is), you instead just mock it instead of, you know, providing some substance).

I'll lay out the tiresome statements again:
1a) "All you have to do to be saved is accept Jesus as your savior"
1b) You can only be saved if God has predestined you to be saved
2) God did not choose me to be one of the elect
3) Therefore, I have no free will as far as my own salvation and there is no possibility that I can be saved
x) You disagreed with the possibility, I believe, that God sees what we will do and believe in our lives and determines our salvation based on that, as you thought it violated the definitions of predestination and the 'elect'.

Last time this was brought up, you responded with 'oh no, no time for a discussion of free will' (but of course there's time for substance-less mocking), and directed me to a post of yours where you strain the definition of free will and define it as the robotic following of what we desire most at any particular moment (you didn't say anything definite on whether we have any true free will regarding what we desire). Can you provide at least an equivalent number of sentences that you just spent mocking this massive ignorance that has some substantive explanation as to how I have free will regarding my salvation if God has not predestined me already?

Posted by: Spartan | June 29, 2009 10:04 AM

69

You're kidding, right?

Yes, I realize it's a lot to ask, but I'm apparently part of the group, 'unthinking critics', despite going down this path before with heddle only to find that it's difficult to get him to the point where the rubber hits the road. I would think since my simple question is most likely 'massively ignorant' that heddle should have no trouble dispensing with it with significantly less text then he's already put in to his quite-pompous-yet-argument-free declarations contained in his last post.

Posted by: Spartan | June 29, 2009 12:33 PM

71

Spartan,

Can you provide at least an equivalent number of sentences that you just spent mocking this massive ignorance that has some substantive explanation as to how I have free will regarding my salvation if God has not predestined me already?

Sure, as always I will remind you that Calvinism does not violate free will if by "violate free will" you mean: a person's will is coerced by an external agent, e.g., God. God does not force anyone to choose him, or prevent anyone from choosing him.

You (and anyone else) are perfectly free to choose God. You simply won't, out of you own free will, if you are not elect, for the very simple free-will reason that you don't want to.

It is a model with determinism, but only self-determinism. You are a slave, but not to a puppet-master God, but to your own desires.

For those who do not like that model of the free will, I invite you, in just as few sentences, to explain your model of free will, and what makes it "free-er", and how choices are mode withing the model.

James Hanley,

so he's effectively arguing by changing definitions.

And so, what is you definition of free will? And how do people make decisions in your model?

And contra his repeated claims (wishful thinking?), there are still large proportions of American Christians who don't buy into the un-biblical predestination bullshit.

Which would be a proper rebuke if I ever claimed Calvinism was the majority position. Alas, I have mentioned on numerous occasions that it is the minority position. But don't let the facts get in your way--I mean, why start now?

Now, on the subject of predestination, are your guffawing (and I believe invented) Lutheran friends finally ready to defend their claim that Luther did not support predestination, or are you still full of shit?

Posted by: heddle | June 29, 2009 3:38 PM

73

God does not force anyone to choose him, or prevent anyone from choosing him.... You (and anyone else) are perfectly free to choose God. You simply won't, out of you own free will, if you are not elect, for the very simple free-will reason that you don't want to.

Given your rule 1b, which I think I've correctly paraphrased from previous comments of yours, "simply won't" means "simply can't". If God predestines the elect, and doesn't look forward in time to see if I will choose him or not, then I cannot choose him, by your definition and rule. I may be incorrect, but I'm speaking from the oft-heard statement, 'it's your responsibility to choose God because you have free will', which may not reflect your beliefs. Yet I *can't*, not just *won't*, as that is not a valid possibility given God's selections. I know your religion wants it to be my responsibility, but it doesn't follow; choosing God is not a choice period, and thus I have no free will in the matter. It's simple logic.

For those who do not like that model of the free will, I invite you, in just as few sentences, to explain your model of free will, and what makes it "free-er", and how choices are mode withing the model.

I have to agree with Hanley that you're using a different definition of 'free will' than the typical one. At some level, your challenge to 'explain your model' is irrelevant; just because free will may not exist doesn't mean we can't talk about the concept. Pegasi don't exist but that doesn't mean it's valid to talk about eagles as if they were pegasi and then when called on it demand that evidence of winged horses be produced as a response.

As far as a model, that's easy, and I have one that jibes with Christianity I think. According to your religion, we all possess souls which are of supernatural or possibly divine origin. I assume you agree that God has *true* free will, and is not bound by the 'choose to do only what you want most' circular logic. Thus we can choose freely, regardless of our desires, for the same reason God can, our spirit. Ta-daaa!

Posted by: Spartan | June 29, 2009 5:08 PM

75

Hanley and Spartan,

Neither of you present a model of free will. You present a circular definition-- Free will is the ability to choose freely. You provide no mechanism for the choice, no dynamics. Why do I choose against my desires? No explanation. How do I choose against my desires? No explanation. How do I choose at all? No explanation.

Take twins with identical IQs, educations, and upbringings. One chooses God, the other doesn't. How did that happen in your model? Your model has no explanation. One simply chose God because she did, the other didn't choose God because she didn't. The Calvinistic model has an explanation: God regenerated one--and that one, with her own free will, chose God. It may not be a pleasing model, but it is a model.

And why is God changing you desires, which then makes you choose differently, a redefinition of free will? Do we not, constantly, work on the desires of our children? And when they choose in accordance to those desires we helped to instill, are they not choosing on the basis of their free will? What God does, according to the Calvinist, is the same--except he is more effective. He doesn't ever fail at changing the desires of the elect.

Posted by: heddle | June 29, 2009 5:27 PM

77

LanceR, JSG,

So, still no evidence, no substance, no argument, no data, no anything--just the cheap "logical fallacies" mantra of the moron.

Posted by: heddle | June 29, 2009 5:32 PM

79

Are your guffawing (and I believe invented) Lutheran friends finally ready to defend their claim that Luther did not support predestination,or are you still full of shit?

Ahh, feel the Christian love! In one sentence you call me a liar ("invented" friends) and say I'm full of shit. I want to get back to that nastiness in a moment with a rather serious question, but first, about my Lutheran friends.

I didn't invent them. I'll be rough and tumble, mean, nasty, and insulting when arguing with you or anyone else, but I will never lie or make things up out of whole cloth. That's my promise. I went to lunch after arguing with you online one day, commented on free will and Luther, who I had believed did not support free will, and two of my friends who grew up Lutheran quickly argued against me (and you) that he did indeed believe in free will.

Later, on this blog, I asked Rev. AJB, a Lutheran minister, if he believed in free will. He asserted that he did. (And where is he? I miss the good Rev!)

Now I don't claim to be an expert on Luther, and I never did. What I said, and what I stand by is, I take these Lutherans more seriously on the subject of Luther than I take a Calvinist. Guess what, if the subject was Calvin, I'd take you more seriously than I would take a Lutheran, unless and until they could show me a reason to believe that they had superior knowledge and weren't just using a biased interpretation that supported what they wanted to be true. Put yourself in my shoes--who should I believe, you or them? Your insistence on your own superiority in Lutheran theology just isn't sufficient grounds on which to accept your claims, not because it's you, but because no one's personal claims of superior knowledge can be taken seriously without some other way to verify it.

I don't doubt you can find some Lutherans who believe Luther didn't believe in free will. And I can find some Lutherans who do. Stalemate. Proves nothing. And I can't force my friends to get into a debate with you.

Now, as to your insults. My level of nastiness was to accuse you of wishful thinking (and mea culpa, you haven't claimed a majority of Christians are Calvinist). You response is to call me a liar and to call me full of shit. That's quite an increase in the stakes. I remember growing up singing a song that went, "And they'll know we are Christians by our love." Perhaps you Calvinists are different than we evangelicals were, but I sure wouldn't know you were a Christian by your love. You're certainly not good at turning the other cheek.

Now I'm not going to say that Christians are supposed to be perfect, or that using the word shit is automatically a sin. But I will say that if you're the model of a Christian, I'd never join your church. I'd be happy to sit through a sermon listening to Rev. AJB, and if I was down south I'd be honored to go to church with kehrsam. But you remind me precisely of the type of intolerant hateful Christian who caused me to quit going to church. The type who pretends to know all the answers, and is proud of their theological soundness, but who find it beneath them to bless those who curse you. You're a clanging cymbal, nothing more.

P.S. I'm sure you're familiar with Arminianism, which argues that men have the ability to resist grace, so I'm puzzled by your question about another definition of free will. Perhaps I'm missing something, but surely you already had to know the essentials of my rebuttal? The one thing you've wholly convinced me of is that you're well read, so I would not expect, and am not convinced of, lack of familiarity with that subject on your part.

Posted by: James Hanley | June 29, 2009 5:40 PM

81

Ugh, I wanted to quit for the night. ;) But...

Neither of you present a model of free will. You present a circular definition-- Free will is the ability to choose freely.

Um, what else would free will be? The ability to choose freely? It's not a circular definition by any means. "The ability to choose, by one's own volition, between alternative courses of action" is the subject we're talking about. Free will is the name we give that ability.

You provide no mechanism for the choice, no dynamics. Why do I choose against my desires? No explanation. How do I choose against my desires? No explanation. How do I choose at all? No explanation.Gee, sorry I didn't write a full dissertation on the subject of free will. You ignore the substance, and wholly quit on making a defense of your own claim, in order to complain that I didn't write a complete analysis on a blog? Seriously? Anyway, I wrote that we sometimes have conflicting desires. And, anyway, these are psychological questions, not theological ones. Even if we were wholly ignorant of the answers it would not provide one iota of support for your claims, unless you want to make a god of the gaps argument.

Take twins with identical IQs, educations, and upbringings. One chooses God, the other doesn't. How did that happen in your model? Your model has no explanation. One simply chose God because she did, the other didn't choose God because she didn't. The Calvinistic model has an explanation: God regenerated one--and that one, with her own free will, chose God. It may not be a pleasing model, but it is a model.

What an astonishingly thoughtless claim. My model presupposes that humans have different life experiences, even identical twins. That's a pretty strong empirical assumption. To take an easy example, let's say that both twins marry, one has several healthy children and lives to a very happy old age with his beloved spouse, while the other watches a psychopath kill his wife and infant child. Are you seriously going to argue that this couldn't influence one's belief in god, or desire to follow god?

And quite frankly, your argument that "god chose the one and fucked the other over" sounds like a cop out. It amounts to "the world is complex and hard to understand, I think I'll just say 'god did it' and quit trying to fathom it all." Not to mention that it portrays a god who is psychopathic in his decisions about the future of his creations. If I was the chosen twin, why would I want to follow a god who said my twin brother had no chance at heaven, through no fault of his own? God would have to force me to have the desire to follow him, because I sure as hell wouldn't willingly love such a sick demented being.

And why is God changing you desires, which then makes you choose differently, a redefinition of free will? Do we not, constantly, work on the desires of our children? And when they choose in accordance to those desires we helped to instill, are they not choosing on the basis of their free will? What God does, according to the Calvinist, is the same--except he is more effective. He doesn't ever fail at changing the desires of the elect.

What an analogy! We struggle to shape our kids desires and often fail. God doesn't need to struggle to shape our desires--he can do it just by thinking it--and he never fails. Why, it's just the same, but fundamentally different!

What an epic fail of analogical argumentation.

God can just force us to have a desire. But with our children, all we can do is try to shape their desires, and we often fail. Actually, the analogy works to support free will as I have described it. Sometimes we don't do what god wants us to do. Thanks for playing right into my argument.

f I could actually just cause my child to desire something, and then she did, you would call that free will? More so than when I give my daughter my views, she sees another view on television, hears another view from friends at school, and then choose among them? What would you call the latter, if not free will?

Posted by: James Hanley | June 29, 2009 6:16 PM

83

You present a circular definition-- Free will is the ability to choose freely. You provide no mechanism for the choice, no dynamics. Why do I choose against my desires? No explanation. How do I choose against my desires? No explanation. How do I choose at all? No explanation.

That's not a circular definition; it *is* the definition, again whether it is possible or not. Why are you terming the ability to do only what you want most a 'choice'? No explanation. How do you know that no one can choose what they don't want, beyond circularly defining 'want' as what we do? No explanation or mechanism as to how you would determine that. I never asserted that we even have free will; Christians do.

True or false: God has true, 'circularly-defined' free will, unbound by anything. What is the explanation or mechanism by which he can truly choose things that he doesn't most desire? I'd bet your 'answer' will be to retreat behind God's inscrutability, and so I'll just say that free will is likewise inscrutable.

You seem to be saying the following:
1) You can't choose God unless God predestined you to.
2) I am one of many who have not been predestined
Given that, your 'therefore' is:
3) "You (and anyone else) are perfectly free to choose God."

If you switch the terms used here to anything else, the contradiction is obvious, agreed? Let me try this then as I assume it's where you're going: what is it about God that allows him to violate this logical deduction? Explanation and mechanism would be preferred if possible.

Posted by: Spartan | June 29, 2009 6:24 PM

85

On Calvinism among Baptists, here's an interesting bit from an online Baptist mag called "The Christian Index." It affirms heddle's claim that there is some Calvinist influence in the Baptist church today, but clearly suggests that it is a minority movement that is at odds with the traditional theology of the Baptists. It also demonstrates clearly that there is a different theological understanding of free will (consonant with the one I used) that heddle is either purposefully ignoring, or of which he is inexcusably ignorant.

Reformed Theology, often called Calvinism, is proliferating in certain circles. A recent article in The Christian Index by Dr. Bill Harrell discouraged Baptist involvement in the movement. For such he has come under attack...

From the perspective of an interim pastor who has followed a covert Calvinist pastor I want to appeal to any Calvinist inclined pastor to be open, honest and clearly state and interpret for a Pastor Search Team or congregation considering him what he believes.

I support the appeal of Dr. Harrell that if a pastor is a Calvinist he should either go to a church given to the doctrine or start his own church but not try to inject this concept into an established Baptist church.Election is clearly taught in Scripture. It is the definition given it that confuses persons.

Most Baptists believe in election when defined as God, having the sovereign right to do so, gave man a free will to choose his or her eternal destiny depending of his or her faith in Christ. To limit it to mean God sovereignly predetermined who goes to heaven and who goes to hell has long been held by most Baptists to be untrue.

Predestination is taught in the Bible. Again, it is what is meant by the term that cases confusion. The root word, proorizo, was a surveyor’s term meaning to mark off a boundary. Before Creation God marked off a boundary, Christ, and predetermined all who are “in Christ,” the boundary, would share His destiny. Ephesians 2:8,9 along with John 3:16 and many other verses tells how one gets in the boundary.

Foreknowledge is a Biblical principle...There is no time in eternity; with God everything is in the perpetual present tense. Therefore everything being in the present tense God knows it. Knowing a thing in advance does not mean you make it happen

The issue here is not whether this writer is correct in his interpretation of scripture, but that he is applying a standard of free will that is standard, but which heddle pretends not to know.

Posted by: James Hanley | June 29, 2009 6:34 PM

87

By the way, heddle, please tell me your interpretation of why god isn't a psychopathic bastard to create some people with the express intent of frying their asses in hell for eternity, and giving them no chance to avoid that fate? That is the standard Calvinist interpretation (minus the flowery language), isn't it?

I promise not to argue the point, because I just want to hear the defense of it, rather than argue about it. My position's already clear, I'm sure.

Posted by: James Hanley | June 29, 2009 7:14 PM

89

I'm a little unsure of this, but I'll have shot at it - heddle's idea of free will is one where his god magically makes you believe in him and everyone who his god does this to then follows/worships his god; no ifs, buts or maybes.

Everyone who is elected worships God and everyone who worships God is elected. I'm not 100% sure, but is that not some kind of circular argument?

I can't see the difference between this 'election' and 'compulsion' - are there any examples of where someone who's been 'elected' has chosen not to follow God? What about ex-Christians? Are they still 'elect' who are choosing not to follow god, or has God 'unelected' them?

I'm kind of hoping that it doesn't turn out to be that anyone who's an ex-Christian never really was a Christian - since that kind of convenience always makes me think of eating haggis whilst enjoying a glass of Glenmorangie and listening to the Bay City Rollers.

From what I've read in this thread, heddle also seems to be relying on a variation on the 'gap' argument creationist/IDers are so fond of, only his god is the 'god of the free will' gap; if someone can't explain free will to his satisfaction then the answer must therefore be his god.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 29, 2009 8:22 PM

91

heddle,

You're confusing the theology of free will with the psychology of free will. From a materialist standpoint, there indeed may be no such thing as free will. But the moment you start working from a materialist stance you can't say anything meaningful about theology, since god is quite clearly non-material. So once again, you fail miserably.

What my example of the twins showed is that there could be causes of rejecting god that weren't caused by god's forcing of the desires of the person. You claim it was determistic, but that was you reading something into it that wasn't there. The experiences led one twin to evaluate the world differently, and he came to different conclusions. Nothing in that story necessarily states either determinisim or free will--as the story is written, either is possible. But because you're consistently dishonest in the way you debate people, you set up the game so that any explanation that's not god is automatically deterministic.

That is, you created a false dichotomy, because you're really lousy at logical argumentation, and dishonest to boot. And you created that false dichotomy by conflating theology and materialism. I'm perpetually amazed that someone with an advanced degree in physics, and who has read so widely in theology, could be so pathetically bad at logic. I suspect, although obviously I cannot prove, that you're not so bad as a general rule, but that you've got a bias that is blinding you on this particular topic.

As to "love," no I don't mean you blow smoke up people's ass. But I don't think thre's a person on Dispatches who would believe you when you say you love us. I think you're one of those fakes who finds it easy to love humanity from a distance, but not easy to love individuals.

I'm reminded of my daughter's swim coach, who has a bible verse tatooed on his chest, but plays favorites with the little kids and treats some of them like shit. He talks a nice religious line about love, too. But if it's a lot easier to get it tatooed on your chest than to actually live it, consider how much easier it is to just talk it than it is to actually live it. Believe what you want about yourself, but compared to the other regular Christians here on Dispatches, you're the only one who consistently strikes me as a real hypocrite.

Anyway, we're going around in circles again. So I'll drop it here. Shorter Hanley, all our arguments up to this point.

Posted by: James Hanley | June 30, 2009 9:02 AM

93

James Hanley:

Unfortunately the steak is currently, well, let's not get into that.

As for fine brandies. I would recommend that you try a superior armagnac. I would recommend that I try one, too, but I have to drink the cheap stuff. One advantage of drinking armagnac (or whatever intoxicant you deem suitable) is that heddle MIGHT make a little more sense if you're "faced". ;)

Posted by: democommie | June 30, 2009 9:13 AM

95

Hanley,

But I don't think thre's a person on Dispatches who would believe you when you say you love us. I think you're one of those fakes who finds it easy to love humanity from a distance, but not easy to love individuals.

Are you an adult?

Posted by: heddle | June 30, 2009 9:42 AM

97

Are you an adult?

You simply have no humility apparently, or sense of hypocrisy. That's all you can pluck out to respond to of what Hanley wrote? Is it really too much for you to acknowledge when you're dead wrong, ya know, like a mature adult? Here's an example of some prime grade-A heddle bullshit (don't be offended by that; that's just the way we talk where I grew up):

heddle says and quoted Hanley:

Oh I saw it, it just wasn’t a good answer. You wrote:

(Hanley):
What an astonishingly thoughtless claim. My model presupposes that humans have different life experiences, even identical twins. That's a pretty strong empirical assumption. To take an easy example, let's say that both twins marry, one has several healthy children and lives to a very happy old age with his beloved spouse, while the other watches a psychopath kill his wife and infant child. Are you seriously going to argue that this couldn't influence one's belief in god, or desire to follow god?

To which heddle responded:

Which means people do not “really” have the free will of the type you claim—rather they are slaves to their experiences. Switch the twins about, and their choices flip too. Your free will is deterministic.

What a load; what you say it 'really' means does not follow. Do you really not know what the word 'influence' means? (Hint: it does not mean 'determine'). No, in Hanley's model, if you switch the twins around you don't know their actions flip too; the different options merely are weighted differently between them, and those weights are obviously evaluated when the twin makes a free choice. Nothing he said leads inevitably to your conclusion. But yes, ignore all that and respond to something irrelevant, just like you ignored the accurate pegging of your position as a God-of-the-gaps-in-free-will argument by another commenter above.

Posted by: Spartan | June 30, 2009 11:15 AM

99

Hi, new to the discussion. Democommie pointed me here (thanks!). I'm a former seminarian with a MA in Biblical Studies from a prominant Methodist Seminary, and I've been atheist for three years.

I hate to side with Heddle, but most of the Baptists I know find safe ground in Calvistic systematic theology. I know that isn't hard evidence, it's just an observation. I never cared for Calvinist ideology when I was a believer, so I'm unaware of the maze they have to walk through in order to get themselves to understand it. Frankly, growing up and even when I was in seminary, Calvinistic pre-destination or whatever you call it (the "P" in TULIP if I recall) always "felt" to me like someone was trying to ram a square peg into a round hole unnecessarily. I could not imagine what it must have been like to proselyte Calvinism when it first took off - that must have been a verbal nightmare for early Calvinist missionaries.

However, I do recall one of my theology professors (I had to take a couple theology courses to graduate, otherwise it was mostly history/archaeology and Hebrew/Greek linguistics), stating that there is a "modern" Calvinism and an "Olden Days" Calvinism. The latter is now referred to as "Calvinian" by those who espouse it. I also recall him saying that Calvin's systematic theology lacked the full-blown TULIP that people think it has today, and that "Calvinians" and Calvinian scholars generally concur that TULIP is a modern invention in an attempt to summarize Calvin's (very complex) systematic theology, and also concede that it over-simplifies to the point of error. I starkly remember my professor saying that, and he was generally quite fair to all religious views. From my reading here, I think we're seeing people who aren't Calvin scholars trying to debate Calvin as if they know his systematic theology with a post-graduate level of expertise. So logically there will be some misunderstanding.

However, Heddle, even though you provide us with a lot of pleasure and something to talk about beyond our own musings, and that you present a counter-point that is often fun to read (and laugh at), your audacity and tone does not strike me as professional or something akin to what I would think of as "Jesus meek and mild." I am past my mid-life point (according to the actuarial tables), and in my years of learning new things and changing lanes a few times (I'm also an accountant/economist), I know how to spot someone who is excited about the things he has learned, has the propensity to memorize and present (seemingly) convincing argumentation, and then willingly walks into a firefight to flex his muscles. I admire you for your tenacity, but I also think that your newfound hobby of dropping conversational hand grenades and pissing people off does little to further your message ("The Great Commission"). In a word, you are galvanizing our atheism/agnosticism by your non-plussed displays of pseudo-logic. So in a twisted way, I guess all I can say is: keep it up, and thank you.

Posted by: David J | June 30, 2009 11:37 AM

101

DavidJ,

Your professor is partially correct. "TULIP" is a gross simplification of Calvinism. The most obvious point being that TULIP does not address, at all, Calvin's Covenant view--which is a huge component of his theology. To first order the difference between Presbyterian Calvinists and Baptist Calvinists is that the former tend to accept all of Calvin's theology while the latter accept TULIP but not full-blown Covenant Theology, or Calvin's view of the sacraments.

He is wrong, however, if I understood you correctly, in stating that TULIP is (a) not a proper subset of Calvinism--it is, and (b) that TUILP is new--it is not. It dates from the Council of Dort in 1619 as a response to the five points of Arminianism (Remonstrance). Unless 1619 is what he means by new.

Again, TULIP is a proper subset. Calvin certainly taught on each letter of the acrostic. You can take each letter, find the standard proof texts Calvinists use, then look up Calvin's writing on those particular verses and see that he writes the party line.

I think we're seeing people who aren't Calvin scholars trying to debate Calvin as if they know his systematic theology with a post-graduate level of expertise. So logically there will be some misunderstanding.

But which you can't explain--the misunderstanding that is--you just "feel" that you need post-graduate seminary experience. Calvin (and Luther) would have disagreed--they both supported the Reformed idea of the perspicuity of scripture.

In a word, you are galvanizing our atheism/agnosticism by your non-plussed displays of pseudo-logic.

Yeah yeah, I'm the antichrist driving people away from the church. Im sure if I had stated "Mr. Hanley, those are very interesting thoughts, let me tell you where I humbly beg to differ and please don't be offended by my difference of opinion, which I'm sure is due to my ignorance" that you'd all be at bible study.

Boy, you people are a bunch of thin-skinned sissies.

Posted by: heddle | June 30, 2009 12:03 PM

103

Im sure if I had stated "Mr. Hanley, those are very interesting thoughts, let me tell you where I humbly beg to differ and please don't be offended by my difference of opinion, which I'm sure is due to my ignorance" that you'd all be at bible study.

Maybe not, but we'd take you more seriously as someone willing to argue in good faith as an adult.

Boy, you people are a bunch of thin-skinned sissies.

...says the guy who either runs away or resorts to name-calling the minute he's asked to acknowledge a fact or argument that doesn't fit into his rather cramped doctrinal lockbox.

Posted by: Raging Bee | June 30, 2009 12:22 PM

105

Spartan,

does God have true free will to do what he doesn't desire most?

I don't know, the bible is silent on the question. It only speaks of human free will. I can only comment on the attributes of God as they are presented in the bible.

As far as god of the gaps, well you have plenty of examples of how successful that has worked as an explanation for anything that can actually be empirically verified.

OK, tell me your scientific model of free will that can be tested. How it can be demonstrated that human free will is not self-deterministic in the manner I proposed?

you haven't shown that two truly identical twins cannot make different decisions, even if what they want most is identical.

I have provided a model, one that states that we are slaves to our desires, which says that in such a circumstance, were it possible to control experimentally, they would make the same choice. If they both wanted the same thing in the same circumstances they would make the same choice. That is what my simpleminded model states. You, on the other hand, state that even under those circumstances they might choose differently--with not even a simple-minded explanation. There has to be something--is it quantum fluctuations?

Where is God even necessary in your free-will definition and model?

So is my view God of the gaps or not? If God is not necessary for my version of free will, then how can it possibly be fairly characterized as God of the gaps? You can't have it both ways.

Anyway, he is necessary because, as the result of the fall, nobody desires God. They may desire the things God has to offer, but nobody has a genuine desire for God. That really is the fall. So without God our own vaunted free will has us in a really bad place--dead in our sins.

Posted by: heddle | June 30, 2009 12:43 PM

107

They may desire the things God has to offer, but nobody has a genuine desire for God.

Care to describe a meaningful and verifiable difference between the two?

Posted by: Raging Bee | June 30, 2009 1:15 PM

109

David J,

I'm not talking about what Calvin or Luther taught, I'm talking about the debate on what Calvinism means - a well-versed, academically trained Calvin scholar would (most likely, although I don't know for sure)find your take on it distinct from what he has found within Calvin's writings.

That is probably the the most egregious appeal to authority I have ever seen, if it can even be called that. You don't even bother to name an authority--you just assume that an authority, wherever he may be found, would disagree with me. You don't even bother to say where I am wrong, and then make an appeal to authority--you simply "feel" that I must be wrong.

I'm just pointing out that this discussion does not appear to me as one that could be found in (high) academic circles, but yet it has taken that form of timbre and direction.

And this is a convincing argument that it is wrong?

Clearly you haven't been to many professional physics seminars--and I assume you would allow that such discussions are examples of "high academic circles"? The timbre of this discussion is mild compared to many physics talks I've attended, where yelling and shouting and name calling are not uncommon--and where later those same people might have a beer together with no hard feelings.

I'd like you to state what your purpose is. Do YOU have a model for the outcome of these discussions? If so, what is it? And don't just provide definitions.

I like discussion, the give and take. There are some commenters on here, like Ed, DuWayne, Michael Heath, Wowbagger, Spartan, Henry Neufeld and some others with whom I may never agree, but who are quite smart and whose arguments are interesting. Isn't that the same as for most commenters on this or other blogs? And I generally go to blogs where I disagree with the regulars because I find it boring to always be among the like minded. I do not come here to proselytize, that I do elsewhere, though I'm always happy to share the gospel with anyone who is interested.

And yes, I have a model for the outcome of these and all other blog discussions: To first order, nobody will change their position or cause someone else to change their position; they just have fun making their points.

Posted by: heddle | June 30, 2009 3:23 PM

111

That is probably the the most egregious appeal to authority I have ever seen, if it can even be called that.

...says the guy who routinely bases a totally nonsensical worldview on nothing but a few passages in a single book compiled by a committee and officially declared "Holy" several centuries ago.

There's nothing more hilariously hypocritical than a doctrinaire Bible-believer complaining about "appeals to authority."

Posted by: Raging Bee | June 30, 2009 3:48 PM

113

First, predestination is an antithetical position to the foundational concepts of the enlightenment. The concept behind the enlightenment, above all else, is reason. Rational thought as the foundation for government; empiricism, observation, logic, as the foundation for science; free and open discourse, discussion and debate, as the foundation for philosophy and literature.

An indisputable, pre-established life established by an intervening God is antithetical to the Deistic interpretation of the universe that is integral to the enlightenment. Deists generally disagreed with with the trinity, the supernatural "Jesus as God" interpretation of Christianity, they opposed a literalist interpretation of the Bible and did not see the Bible as the source of all authority ... Calvin opposed (or would have opposed) all of these positions. Realistically if enlightenment philosophy had anything to do with Calvin, then the Calvinist church today would be closely associated with the Unitarian church.

Politically/government philosophy, the enlightenment directly opposed the very type of government that Calvin established, a theocracy. While Calvin did talk about civil government, he still established that authority should come from the church (a position he put in practice), and stated rather clearly that the people should accept whatever sort of government God saw fit to put over them, again a position directly in opposition to "when in the course of human events..."

--------------------------------

As to the notion of predestination and free will. I'm sorry, but like much of Christianity, it is counter-intuitive and illogical.

1)You can't have free will if you don't have choice.
2)You don't have choice if you don't have access to all of the options and knowledge of all of the consequences of the decision.

None of us know if God even exists let alone what the actual criteria are for salvation. There are literally thousands of different interpretations within Christianity itself let alone other belief systems. If we don't know the consequences of our choices, we aren't making fully informed choices therefore we have no free will. This is especially the case if you have someone who is predestined not to be saved because, no matter what their choices may have been, the option was never available to them.

If, in addition to the lack of full disclosure, all of the options are not available to all those making the "choices," you have a doubly unfair un-"free" situation.

Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 30, 2009 4:21 PM

115

Im sure if I had stated "Mr. Hanley, those are very interesting thoughts, let me tell you where I humbly beg to differ and please don't be offended by my difference of opinion, which I'm sure is due to my ignorance" that you'd all be at bible study.

No, probably not at bible study, but I would be less inclined to think that you're a hypocrite. That is, I'd be at least marginally more inclined to think that perhaps there really is something to Christianity, rather than finding support for the belief that it's all a fraud. It's certainly surprising to me that you have an all-or-nothing view of the matter, and have no interest in having a marginal influence. Frankly, I'm not sure I'm familiar with any other Christians who care so little whether others see Christ in them. Is it because as a Calvinist you're non-evangelical? An honest question there, not snark. Given my background in an evangelical church, your behavior is puzzling to me, and I'm trying to make sense of it.

Back to the business about models. I admit that we don't know what causes people to choose. But there are two possibilities in my model: (1) people respond to events with free will, or (2) people respond to events deterministically, so that what appears to be free will is just a chimera.

Obviously the truth could be (1) even if we don't yet understand the mechanism. You're a scientist, so you know that's a correct statement. The sun was operating by fission long before anyone figured out that mechanism, organisms were evolving long before we figured out natural selection, etc. You're trying to claim that my inability to specify the mechanisms falsifies the model, which is really bad methodology. The fact is that we have empirical evidence of people apparently making free choices, so a cautious acceptance of the model while we try to figure out the mechanisms is not ridiculous. It's certainly not as ridiculous as claiming, "you don't know the mechanisms, therefore it's god."

However, personally I lean toward a belief in (2). But that's a materialist position, not a theological one, and you keep conflating the two. An egregious logical error, to be sure. Free will theology says people can make their own choices about whether to accept god or not--as theology, that does not require a material explanation. To demand from me a material explanation of a theological argument is fundamentally dishonest, because you are not about to provide a material explanation of your theology.

But let's accept (2) for a moment, and say that free will is entirely chimerical. In what way does that support your argument? It's only a model of how the stimuli of the material world affect behavior, and says nothing about supernatural stimuli. Assuming that I make no choices out of free will because each action is the deterministic consequence of a complex sequence of causality does not provide any support for the argument that the causal factor is god. Nor, of course, does it disprove god as a causal factor; it's simply irrelevant to it in either way. And in fact it doesn't even rebut the theological free will claim--we could be entirely deterministic in our actions except for our choice to follow god, if god wanted it that way. I think that undeniable fact demonstrates how foolish it is to try to base a theological argument on a materialist structure.

Granted, above I fell into the trap of trying to materially justify free will as a theological position. We both went that direction, and it simply was an erroneous approach.

Now you've done precious little arguing in support of your own model, focusing instead on attacking mine. Let's assume now that I've agreed that Calvin's theology of predestination is true. Whether it allows for free will is a separate question. I claim that it does not, on the basis of the logical argument that

if g is the sole cause of x, and x necessarily causes y, then g is the ultimate cause of y.

If that's true, then god is the cause of our will, and it is not free as you claim.

Unless you can satisfactorily rebut that, I don't see the logic of your argument that predestination allows for "free" will.

Posted by: James Hanley | June 30, 2009 4:45 PM

117

Incidentaly, heddle, if all you care abaout are Bible verses, and not actual spiritual experiences, there's plenty in the Bible that flatly contradicts your asinine claims about free-will-when-God-lets-you-use-it. In the Prodigal son story, for example, the title character's father didn't wave a wand to "regenerate" him before he chose to come back home and start anew; he chose to do so when he realized his original choices had got him nowhere, and he could have made that decision at any time, without having to wait for his dad to "regenerate" him. Furthermore, it's pretty obvious that in that allegorical tale, the "regeneration" comes AFTER the choice to repent, not before, and happens AS A RESULT of that choice.

So once again, even on stirctly Biblical grounds, your "theology" is about as ass-backwards as a theology can get.

Posted by: Raging Bee | June 30, 2009 4:56 PM

119

How could you possibly decide to choose what you don't want? What would be the basis--unless you choose randomly

OK, I could write a long essay on choice and decision-making. Frankly, it's clear to me that heddle's not familiar with the field, and as a physicist there's no necessary reason he should be, so that's not a slam. But there is in fact a large literature that answers this question. Just to note a couple of things briefly: (1) If one is ambivalent between alternatives, then choosing randomly is in fact an appropriate decision-making method. (2) One could choose things one doesn't want because we don't always get to choose single outcomes, but must accept a mixed bag of outcomes, some desirable, some not, and we must make estimates of the relative benefit-cost ratios.

But more importantly, heddle has fudged the question. He's now acting as if the real question about free will is whether we choose what we prefer or not. But nobody has seriously argued against that--the question is where our preferences come from.

Heddle says the preference for god or against god is implanted by god. Everyone so far except him denies that this allows for free will (see my g --> x --> y argument above).

If preferences are endogenous, as rational choice theorists treat them for modeling purposes, then it becomes logical to talk about free will, at least for purposes of modeling behavior, if not as a technically accurate description of human decision-making.

Of course heddle is a physicist, rather than a social scientist. Since his objects of study indisputably do not have a will of their own, perhaps it's his disciplinary bias that's distorting his view of humans. After all, I'm sure he's aware that we social scientists all have physics envy, so surely the physics view of the world must be the appropriate way to do social science, too. (Just kidding! a little interdisciplinary razzing; no serious intent behind it!)

Posted by: James Hanley | June 30, 2009 5:18 PM

121

Free Will: you always choose what you want most, all things being considered, at any given instance.

I wouldn't call that a definition technically; I'd call that your model. My definition of free will is: you can choose whatever you want, unrestricted by anything except what you can actually do (I can't choose to fly). Whether or not that is possible is a different question, but I do think that is what most people are questioning when they ask, 'Is there such a thing as free will?'. I don't know if we have free will or not. I'm trying and I'm sure failing to focus on what Christians assert, that we have free will, and what you specifically say, that 'free will' is what you term the choice-less following of our greatest desire.

There are no alternatives, but that doesn't mean you aren't free to choose.

That makes no sense to me. 'Choose' implies alternatives, and to say I must do what I want most is not freedom, which you almost agree with with your figure of speech 'slaves to our desires'. Slaves aren't free. What 'choice' does anyone make that has no alternatives?

You are free to go out tonight and shoot 100 children. But you won't because you are a moral person. You have the free will to make such a choice--nobody is stopping you or forcing you-- But you won't make it--because you are morally incapable of committing such an atrocity. You have both free will and a moral inability.

False. Yes, 'nobody' is stopping or forcing me, but 'something' is forcing me in your model, namely my involuntary greatest desire. I see no meaningful difference between someone else forcing me and an uncontrollable, irresistable, internal compulsion forcing me. You have defined a deterministic sequence and laws that determine everything I do, just like natural laws. I see the discussion of, 'you won't choose to kill 100 children unless something changes your desires like a brain injury' to be analogous to 'a ball you drop out the window will fall down unless the moon's mass increases by a factor of a zillion in an instant and then the ball will fall up towards the moon'.

No unregenerate man desires God. God regenerates the elect, enabling their desire for Him. Once regenerated, a man irrevocably choose God, and those who choose God are saved.

You would have to be "reborn" before you could make such a choice. Same with choosing God--you have to be changed before you can choose God.

Let me see if you see even how I am confused by this, because I think you obviously contradict yourself. Your causal sequence starts with God enabling my desire and from that point I'm essentially saved as the other sequence of events you've listed follow *without exception* from that. Do you agree at this moment, right now, assuming I stay unregenerate which seems to require God doing something to alleviate, I *do not* have free will to desire God? (Let's leave aside if possible that I think you'd object to my making this sound like it's all God's doing, despite the fact that we are essentially automatons under your model) I think you'd say, 'oh, you can choose God, you just won't. Well, if you truly know that I won't that means the same as I can't; you have eliminated the possibility with your own axioms, and by definition, I cannot choose it under any circumstances. It's not that I won't choose to fly home from work today under my own power, it's that I can't and it would be absurd to say I have free will regarding that decision. Just as you have defined that I cannot desire God->be saved in my current state and thus have no free will in that decision either. I know we're largely talking past each other at this point, but I am interested as to where these analogies specifically break down.

Posted by: Spartan | June 30, 2009 5:42 PM

123

Now you are applying your comment only, it would seem, to theology conferences and the like.

Okay, well you universally applied your physics experience across all academia, which is not a legitimate experience transfer in the least bit. I'm telling you that in professional religious circles, your observation of a "friendly tussle" (complete with bloody noses and all - incidentally I never made friends with assholes like that) doesn't apply. If anyone is moving the goal post, you are right - it is ME, but in a more relevant direction.

Regardless, and this is my opinion, your presentation and debate over Calvinism is novel to me. Although I will admit that in my experience Baptists are generally more belligerent in their defense of issues than, say, Methodists or what have you (you did say you were Baptist, right? If not, I apologize). Anyone else notice this about Baptists too?

And why the profanity? It doesn't fit the Xian idiom. I'm sure I'm not the only one to cry hypocrisy, I'm just curious. Do Christians cuss now? I know you don't represent all believers (thank FSM for that!), but as one who purports to know his stuff, I would also anticipate that you wouldn't engage in swearing. Or are you only a lukewarm Xian? If Xians are cussing now, a lot has changed in the three years of my absence... Maybe I'll go back! Wait.... no.

Posted by: David J | June 30, 2009 5:47 PM

125

On the contrary, I am extremely evangelical. ...Although I guess If you think evangelism by being polite is preferred over presenting the gospel and helping people in need, then, yes, by your standards I am non-evangelical.

No, I accept your claim to be evangelical, even though evangelical Calvinism puzzle me a bit. For me to dispute your claim of being an evangelical would be to indulge in the no true scotsman fallacy, as well as being extremely ungenerous.

But you present yet another false dichotomy. I never--and you know this--suggested politeness as an alternative to presenting the gospel and helping people in need. But certainly a bit of humility and politeness coincident with the others I would personally argue for as an important part of one's witness. Our disagreements about the best approach to witness is something on which reasonable people can disagree, of course. But your dishonest use of imputing a false dichotomy to me is not. It's a despicable approach to argumentation, a form of lying about your opponent's claims.

if g is the sole cause of x, and x necessarily causes y, then g is the ultimate cause of y. . Bingo. Let g = God, x = regeneration, and y = “one to choose God” and the fit is perfect. However, the “choosing God” part is still there—a conscious choice was still made. And yet the conclusion is correct—God is ultimately the cause for anyone choosing God.

No, you did not satisfactorily answer this. You changed two definitions. You changed x from "desire for god" to "regeneration." I think, off the top of my head, that one is acceptable, although I retain the right to recant that if I think better of it. At best it's an example of being very sloppy, since I previously defined these terms.

But y you redefined from "free will" to "conscious choice" and that is not the same thing at all. I could be very conscious that I am choosing that about which I have no alternative.

And even if we accept "conscious choice" as an acceptable synonym for "free will" you have not come close to explaining how it is free, given that it is determined by god. That is what we keep asking you, and you keep ducking that question. Once again, you have made only an assertion, not an argument. What a stupid fucking halfwit! (He said, in the spirit of the fighting physicists, but meaning no personal attack.)

As I wrote to Spartan, the key element is the idea of moral inability. A moral inability doesn’t negate free will even as it precludes certain choices. In the movies, when someone says “I just can’t do it” when faced with some difficult choice at odds with their ethics or morality, they are acting out a great truth. There are some choices that are impossible for a person to make, even though he has free will. An unregenerate man choosing God is such a impossible choice--that is, according to Calvinism.

No, this still doesn't work. The person making the choice you speak of has an endogenous preference, whereas in your model the desire for god is an exogenous preference. They're not the same thing at all. Let's follow your example through a bit more. Say the person is faced with the difficult choice, and says, "I just can't do it." Then god implants a desire to do it, and the person says, "I can do it, and choose to do so." Is that person then acting out of free will? Or has he been manipulated by god to act in a way that is different from what his endogenous preferences would have led him to act?

Face it, as a moral philosopher, you suck eggs. Stick to physics.

Posted by: James Hanley | June 30, 2009 6:07 PM

127

dogmeat, I always love you, man!

Posted by: James Hanley | June 30, 2009 6:14 PM

129

Hanley,

Face it, as a moral philosopher, you suck eggs. Stick to physics.

Heh! on that we can agree,

Posted by: heddle | June 30, 2009 6:28 PM

131

There is a famous statement attributed to Luther, which may be apocryphal:

I've seen that quote in 16th-century German, so it's probably original.

On the other hand...

"Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?"
-- John Calvin, alluding to Ps. 93:1, in his Commentary on Genesis

And contra his repeated claims (wishful thinking?), there are still large proportions of American Christians who don't buy into the un-biblical predestination bullshit.

What? It is biblical.

Problem is, so is everything else.

Posted by: David Marjanović | June 30, 2009 7:17 PM

133

Uh, oh, Bee. You and I are agreeing again. Don't know about you, but I'm a bit worried that it's one of the signs of the apocalypse. ;) And neither of us has been regenerated yet, just degenerated!

Posted by: James Hanley | June 30, 2009 10:03 PM

135

Whew - for a moment I thought I had been kidnapped by aliens and my mind altered. I would never have associated Calvin with liberty (nor can I associate him with anything good at all). Thankfully the later part of the article generally reaffirmed my beliefs on Calvin.

Posted by: MadScientist | June 30, 2009 11:42 PM

137

democommie,

I'm not a scientist or a theologicalistic philosophist but I think I can say with about gigamegazillion% accuracy that the chance heddle will a.) admit he is wrong or b.) admit that the possibility that he is wrong even exists, is 0 to the batrillionth power. Do I have to show my work?

Yes you do. Or...

How about a bet? If I can find posts on this blog and on pharayngula and on pandas thumb and on "after the Bar Closes" and finally on my own blog-- where I demonstrate either (a) or (b)--that's all those blogs, not just one, will you donate $50 to the charity of my choice? We will find someone to verify the donation.

Oh noes, I'm a gambler too--probably "just the type of Christian" that drove some of you away from the church!

Posted by: heddle | July 1, 2009 8:50 AM

139

I mean about predestination and freewill.

I've seen you admit to being wrong before, heddle. It's just that it's never on anything substantive as far as I can tell.

As for driving me away from the church, not hardly--logic helped achieved that goal and as, many of us are well aware, logic does not trump your "faith".

I can understand why some folks would be upset about you insulting and denigrating the words of people who attempt to argue with you, in ares where you have demonstrated your intellectual superiority, because, after all, that IS unchristian behavior. You take it to another level, by consistently denying that others--who seem, to most commenters here to be your intellectual equal (or better--can know or understand your thoughts or the meaning of biblical scripture.

I think you're an arrogant, sanctimonious pedant whose pride, not "faith" is the prime driver for your combativeness.

Athletes compete, physically, against one another and sometimes things go beyond the limits of good sportsmanship. Schoolboys can, and do, have disagreements that become heated and can lead to fisticuffs. Adults engaged in the pursuit of knowledge? Not generally. Your assertion that people who insult one another and even assault one another physically, in the course of arguing for their positions on various matters scientific or theological--and then get together for a beer or two afterwords--strikes me as exactly what a bully would say about his victims, while magnanimously standing them to a round of cocktails.

Posted by: democommie | July 1, 2009 9:33 AM

141

Heddle has indeed admitted he's wrong on occasion -- provided, of course, that gratuitous insults and ignoring carefully-written responses are counted as admissions of wrongness.

I can find any number of posts where I have explicitly stated that my biblical interpretations could be wrong.

Admitting you "could" be wrong is not the same as admitting that a specific point made by someone else is correct and a specific point of yours has thereby been refuted.

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 1, 2009 10:35 AM

143

heddle:

Way too busy to do this today. This, though, is precisely what you seem to love doing. Burying the opposition with demands that they look for your inconsistencies in previous posts and comments.

The fact of the matter is that you never back down from a staked position, except in the most superficial manner. You piss and moan about others being ugly to you and yet are, consistently nasty to anyone who asks YOU to provide the least snippet of genuine evidence for YOUR GOD's actual existence or for any proof that YOUR bible is a.) Inerrant or B.) Authored by divinely inspired writers.

Your comment @118:

"What you see as a lack of respect I see as an honest and even extremely friendly way to interact. It's like when we were kids: you could be playing ball in the schoolyard with your best friend and get in a fist fight and end up getting or giving a bloody nose. An hour later you were best friends again."

You said, "it's like" thereby making the comparison that your style of argument is similar. What you see as " an honest and even extremely friendly way to interact" is typical of someone who will use whatever force they can muster to "persuade" someone to their view, regardless the soundness of their actual argument.

I used to work in the legal department at Verizon and your behavior is emblematic of the machinations of a lawyer who papers the hearing/courtroom with motions to delay, obfuscate and otherwise impede the progress of the opposition.

You are an arrogant, pompous shcmuck; you would be all of those things, even if you were correct in your assertions about your invisible friend and his sociopathic promoters.

Posted by: democommie | July 1, 2009 10:47 AM

145

democommie,

This, though, is precisely what you seem to love doing. Burying the opposition with demands that they look for your inconsistencies in previous posts and comments.

Nice deflection. But I am not asking you to find inconsistencies in my posts. I am asking you to substantiate your claims, such as in #140 where you asserted that I consistently deny that others can understand scripture or my thoughts.

You piss and moan about others being ugly to you and yet are,

Again, where? Just in the last few posts you have called me: arrogant, sanctimonious, pedantic, prideful, a bully, nasty, pompous, a schmuck, and and obfuscating lawyer. Where is my pissing and moaning?

You have made multiple assertions about me which you are refusing to back up. That I never admit being wrong or even admit the possibility of being wrong. That I consistently deny that others can understand scripture or my thoughts. And now that I piss and moan about others being nasty to me.

I don't suppose you'll start backing up these claims?

Posted by: heddle | July 1, 2009 11:07 AM

147

I must have told Hanley or Spartan or David J or dogmeat or Wowbagger

Yay! I do exist!!! Ya wont answer my questions or reply to my comments on this thread, but I exist ... warm and fuzzies...

Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 1, 2009 11:48 AM

149

dogmeatIB,

Ya wont answer my questions or reply to my comments on this thread, but I exist ... warm and fuzzies...

I answered you on several occasions, such as #45 and #49.

I did read your previous comment #113. It contains no question marks that I detected. It was a perfectly fine and cogent representation of you views, but I failed to see the need to respond. The first half was about the enlightenment, but I already admitted to Taz in #57 that I misread the post regarding Calvin, Luther, and the enlightenment:

You are right, I did misread it, and I feel like a jackass for doing so. I could have avoided this whole argument.

which ended my participation. I had only argued that Calvin was probably more "enlightened" than Luther--but since nobody actually had stated otherwise, contrary to what I first thought I read, it was pointless.

The rest of your post, #113, gives your opinions on Calvinism--and I believe my positions on the matter are well known.¹

-------------------------
¹ And they (my positions, that is) could be wrong. In fact, in every statement that I make, ever, carries the implied disclaimer: This is my opinion, and I might be wrong. I am aware that people like Hanley and democommie are religious (no insult intended) about pointing out how they might be wrong, why it is explicit in all of their posts I reckon, but I often forget--because of the faulty assumption on my part that unless someone claims "I am 100% certain of this" that one can assume that they understand that they might be wrong. I will try to live up to their high standard of constantly reminding us that their opinion might be wrong--but since I'll certainly fail, I issue this blanket acknowledgment.

Posted by: heddle | July 1, 2009 12:28 PM

151

Ah, heddle, love the fake humility, and the insults veiled as compliments. Once again, others are inferior to you because they're basically more decent people? To my way of thinking, quite bizarre. But just where do you get the idea that I constantly include explicit disclaimers that I could be wrong? I try to do so when I know I'm treading in an area of non-expertise, so that I don't falsely convey the impression that I am claiming expertise (which I see as basic decency), but otherwise, I challenge you to find an example. You're just making stuff up (arguing dishonestly yet again--a persistent habit with you) in order to make your veiled insults.

As to your, "blanket acknowledgment," don't you yet realize that we all think you're just copping out by being so non-specific? "Sure, I could be wrong about some unspecified thing, but I won't admit on any specific thing that I might be wrong."

Why not start by admitting that you made a non-sensical argument in the following, wholly importing a claim of "conscious" (or "free") choice" without making any logical demonstration for it?

If g is the sole cause of x, and x necessarily causes y, then g is the ultimate cause of y.

Bingo. Let g = God, x = regeneration, and y = “one to choose God” and the fit is perfect. However, the “choosing God” part is still there—a conscious choice was still made. And yet the conclusion is correct—God is ultimately the cause for anyone choosing God.

If you are indeed capable of admitting error, please begin by admitting the error of failing to provide even a hint of logical support for the claim that y is in fact a free choice. Or are you going to cop out on "free" and continue to substitute "conscious," which is not the same thing at all? And will you tell us whether that move was intentional or an error? I don't see any options except it being either dishonest or sloppiness. Were you hoping we wouldn't notice the substitution of a different concept than the one you claimed to be defending?)

P.S. See if you can find the ways in this post in which I admit the potential for error and invite correction, without having to do so explicitly. It's fairly easy to do, and if you ever made the attempt, you could avoid--if you actually wish to--the criticism to which you keep objecting.

Posted by: James Hanley | July 1, 2009 1:30 PM

153

Hanley,

Why not start by admitting that you made a non-sensical argument in the following, wholly importing a claim of "conscious" (or "free") choice" without making any logical demonstration for it?

Now that is a "have you stopped beating your wife" kind of framing. I can not "start" something that I have already done—which is admit defeat if a case warrants such an admission.

This case does not.

I’ll remind you, my definition of free will was:

You always choose what you want most, and you are a slave to your desires.

I have stated, ad nauseum, that in my view that our wills are self-determined—and that they are free only in the sense that for any given choice we make we are not being directed by an external agent.

That said—that being my model—then the statement y (Choose God) is indeed a free choice in my model. It is self-consistent. Unless you can show my model of free will is wrong and that your model (whatever it is) is correct—which you can't because it is unfalsifiable, then all you really do is to demonstrate that I am not self consistent. If you can do that I will gladly admit error and thank you for the correction.

Furthermore I said explicitly, to Spartan, in #124, that with his definition of free will what I consider free choices would not be free choices. I wrote:

I will concede that if your definition of free will is: you can actually choose things that are not, at that moment and in those circumstances, your strongest inclination, then there is a free will "problem."

I'll say it again to you: It is quite possible that, given your definition of free will, that y is not a free choice.

However, since you have not presented an actual model of free will, have not explained how someone could choose anything other than on the basis of "that’s what they want most" (my model), and you have only defined free will to more or less mean that you can make a choice for any or no particular reason-- without explaining how that might be possible, I don't feel any need to concede that you have any better insight to free will than any one else: me, Jonathan Edwards (whose model of moral inability I co-opted) or William Provine and others who claim external determination (essentially we are a differential equation, slaves to the universe's initial conditions.)

Posted by: heddle | July 1, 2009 2:02 PM

155

What makes people think that Christians cannot cuss?

Posted by: King of Ireland | July 1, 2009 3:03 PM

157

I have stated, ad nauseum, that in my view that our wills are self-determined—and that they are free only in the sense that for any given choice we make we are not being directed by an external agent.

But you have agreed that they are being directed by an external agent. You agreed with me that god (g) determined our desires (x) which determined our choice/will (y). Logically, then, g determined y. Yet you deny the necessary conclusion of that logic, and contradict yourself by saying that g doesn't cause y.

That said—that being my model—then the statement y (Choose God) is indeed a free choice in my model. It is self-consistent.

How is both including an external agent and denying an external agent internally consistent? How is saying g determines x which determines y, but g does not determine y internally consistent?

I’ll remind you, my definition of free will was:
.
You always choose what you want most, and you are a slave to your desires.

There are two issues here. The first, and to me the relevant issue, is whether this definition allows for free will. I have explained why that claim is contradictory, and you have failed to provide a logical refutation of my argument.

The second issue is whether you even have an adequate conception of decision-making. While this is not strictly relevant to what I see as the important question, there are two reasons to address this: (1) You clearly have some pride in this definition, and appear to think it's either self-evident or intellectually sophisticated; and (2) addressing its weakness as a decision-making model helps explicate what defense there is for the existence of free will.

Your understanding of decision-making as "he preferred it most so that's what he chose" is sophomorically simplistic. It's about as sophisticated as anything I might say about physics (it's about atoms and stuff, right?). There's a broad and intersecting literature from decision theory (drawing from math, econ, and pol sci) and cognitive psychology about this. In a nutshell, choice is far more complex than "he chose what he most wanted."

For example, Herbert Simon wrote a lot about "satisficing" behavior. This undermined the traditional economic logic of "maximizing" behavior. Among some economists the concept of satisficing remains unpopular, because we can objectively determine if behavior is maximizing or not, but there's no way to determine what level of consumption counts as satisficing, it's all internal to the subject. Yet the theory has won over most economists, if grudgingly, because it seems to be how people actually behave. So what causes an individual to determine that he has reached the satisficing level? There may be a complex interplay of value judgments going on internally, but we cannot know what they are or how they function. It could be free will, or it could be complexly deterministic. We have no way of knowing which it is. But since the decision-maker is clearly not maximizing--meaning their real preference would be to have more of something--and they are choosing to satisfice instead of maximize, then their decision-making process, however it actually functions, satisfies your demand that free will must allow for people to choose what is not their top preference.

Put another way, we have empirical evidence that people do precisely that. Working out the mechanism is important to a greater understanding of the process, obviously, but only a fool completely rejects empirical evidence due to current inability to understand the mechanism. (And, of course, the reverse is true. Only a fool would completely accept the empirical evidence without understanding the mechanism. But as I have never made a strong argument for the material reality of free will, I haven't made that error.)

And even if it is true that people as a general rule choose what they most want, the fact that they have the ability to choose something else suggests it's not as deterministic as you would like to think. It really wouldn't matter why they would do this. Whether people chose randomly, or were simply irrational, had a propensity for risk, etc., it would falsify your claim. In fact, because your claim is a strong claim--people do it this way, and will not do otherwise--any counterfactuals blow your claim out of the water.

Granted that you're not a social scientist, I don't intend to criticize you for not knowing this field. Obviously, perhaps regrettably, the days are long past when any of us can be a renaissance style jack-of-all-intellectual-trades. Nevertheless, there is a much deeper understanding of choice than the gross model you supply, and that body of work seriously undermines your approach.

I don't feel any need to concede that you have any better insight to free will than any one else:

This is funny, as I explicitly stated previously that I doubt the existence of free will as a material matter.

And what I have been asking you doesn't require any insight into free will itself. It's a matter of logic and language.

So far you've ducked and dodged around actually answering the question, so I'm going to put it to you one more time: If god determines the desire, and the desire determines our choice, how can it be said that god does not determine our choice?

Posted by: James Hanley | July 1, 2009 5:26 PM

159

You (and Hanley) are mistaking vulgarity for belligerence...

I have made such comments any number of times. If that is belligerence, so be it.

Oh yeah. You can't make this shit up. I love it.

Posted by: David J | July 1, 2009 6:16 PM

161

King of Ireland,

The question isn't about swearing, per se. It's really about whether it's appropriate for a Christian, in the context of discussing Christianity, to say swear at his debate opponents (you're full of shit, you're an asshole, and the like). And whether when that same person says, "no really, I love you and would do anything for you (except stop swearing at you)," we ought to believe that person or whether it is legitimate to suspect him of hypocrisy.

My personal take on the first question is that it's not appropriate, and my take on the second question is that it is legitimate to suspect the person of hypocrisy.

Now if he just said, "Oh, damn, I made a serious typo in my last post," or "I guess I was being an asshole," then, no, I wouldn't find it particularly un-Christian.

Posted by: James Hanley | July 1, 2009 6:27 PM

163

Hanley,

I suspected you would weasel out with the cowardly "bad analogy" argument.

Implanting the desire in the child is not a deterministic process, it's probabilistic. God's implantation of desire is deterministic.

Irrelevant. Red Herring. Diversion. Cop-out. And I say that with all due Christian charity. I don't care if my anecdote is a one in a million case. It is a plausible story, and the analogy can be thought of pertaining to just that one case.

The problem with attempts to use the parent-child analogy to explain god, an approach that's all too common, is that the analogy doesn't have a close enough fit. The parent is not omniscient or omnipotent as god is. The parent cannot with absolute certainty determine that the child will have the desire, as god can do.

Irrelevant. Red Herring. Diversion. Cop-out. And I say that with all due Christian charity. The analogy didn't demand an omniscient parent. Only the reasonable scenario that that a parent can, on occasion, instill a desire in a child, and the child will then make a choice that he wouldn't have without the parent's effort. Yes God will do it infallibly, but that doesn't mean the parent can never succeed.

I've made that objection above to your use of this bad analogy, you've failed to demonstrate that the analogy isn't fatally flawed.

The analogy is certainly up to the task of making my point. But you choose to hide behind the "bad analogy" blunt instrument.

It's not just moral philosophy where you suck eggs. This whole business of logical argumentation seems far outside your skill set.

Right back at ya, big guy. Maybe you could get some lessons in Rhetoric from Ed or Michael Heath. I'll assume that I'm a lost cause--but you being the Social Scientist and all, you should do better.

Wowbagger,

A straightforward question for heddle: to your knowledge, has anyone received what you refer to as your god's 'grace' and chosen not to follow him?

Yes, there is the idea of Common Grace--that all men receive a measure of grace--the withdrawal of which is described as "heart hardening." Thus Pharaoh was not as evil as he could of been, because of God's restraining grace, until such time as God withdrew it. Of course, I could be wrong.

Non-Calvinists have the related concept of Prevenient Grace, which is sort of "just enough grace" scalar field that, when combined with some post-fall vestigial goodness allows a person to free-will choose God with no intervention from God. It's a nice idea that I don't buy--and they never explain why some people don't make the choice--was the Prevenient grace not quite sufficient (how unfair for them) --or was their natural depravity just a wee bit too great (how unfair for them) or did they read one of my comments (how unfair for them)? Who knows?

But in any case, all Christians, I would say, at least all major theological camps, would claim that all men receive grace from God, but not all men follow God.

Posted by: heddle | July 1, 2009 7:25 PM

165

All I have to say, after reading through to 161, is that Heddle's idea of Free Will is nonsensical and seems to be the thinking of slaves. I've heard varying things on hypnosis, so I don't know if this is apt, but I am reminded of the posthypnotic suggestions put into people on the stage, where they do something when the trigger word is said. According to Heddle, this would be an example of Free Will, since, at the moment of the action, the person was not being coerced, even though the "desire" was implanted in the subject.

How can anyone live with this kind of cognitive dissonance? Seriously, why do I think of Orwell when reading his convoluted arguments?

Posted by: Badger3k | July 1, 2009 7:44 PM

167

Wowbagger,

Since your assertion is that free will exists and that your god elects those follow him - and that the two concepts are compatible - then it must be possible for someone who has been 'elected' to choose not to actually accept that.

Where is that written in stone? You can't claim that as manifestly true unless you have a model of free will that allows for people to choose what they don't want. Do you? If so how does that work? If you can't devise a way that people can choose what they don't want, then you tacitly agree with me that people always choose what they do want. All that is left is for God to change someone so that they want him and viola, that person chooses God. If that is not a free will choice, then no choices are, because all choices are determined by what we want. An ad plants a desire for me in a product I never even heard of before. I buy the product. Without the desire being planted, I wouldn't have. Did I choose from my free will? I say yes.

If you can show that people can choose what they do not want, then you have proof that my model of free will is incorrect. All you can do in the meantime is claim that my model is wrong--an maybe it is--but the charge has no teeth.

Hanley,

You can screech all you want about "hiding" behind the bad analogy argument, but when you come up with a bad analogy, you should expect that.

I would expect it, if I did, but the analogy is fine--you had no answer for it--you didn't even try--you just declared "bad analogy, game over man." Very cowardly and dishonest--but that's that's what I've come to expect from you.

Posted by: heddle | July 1, 2009 10:01 PM

169

All that is left is for God to change someone so that they want him and viola, that person chooses God. If that is not a free will choice, then no choices are, because all choices are determined by what we want.

Great, yes, then no choices are free will because all choices are determined by what we want, I agree. The key word is 'determined', we have no true free will. So doesn't that just take us back to the question of why God punishes people for something they have absolutely no control over? Who or what is responsible for our wants?

You say "anyone is perfectly free to choose God". Seriously, tell me how do I do that in your model. How would I go about changing what I want most? How do I make myself want to change what I want most? You really don't think this is absurd? Your soul is also restricted by this rule and also never has more than one choice?

Posted by: Spartan | July 1, 2009 11:15 PM

171

You can't claim that as manifestly true unless you have a model of free will that allows for people to choose what they don't want. Do you?

Er, are you kidding? Of course I do - all the time. I want a Porsche 911 Carrera 4S. I could have one, but to do so I'd have to sell my house and/or go into ridiculous debt to do obtain it. And I'm not prepared to do that.

So, despite the fact I want the car, I don't endeavour to do what is required to have it. I choose to have something that I don't want - i.e. not having a sweet car.

Which is the point I'm getting at. Why is your god any different from my Porsche? Wanting something and choosing it are two different things. Like I said upthread, even if it were shown beyond any doubt that your god exists I would not willingly bow down before such a creature; I would have to be compelled, either by force or manipulation.

And that's not free will. Free will would be the freedom to tell your god to jam his election in his third corn-chute because, if the bible is true about what he's done, he's an asshole of the first order.

Oh, and this:

If you can't devise a way that people can choose what they don't want, then you tacitly agree with me that people always choose what they do want.

Why do I 'tacitly agree with you' if I can't 'devise a way'? Just because I can't explain why your model doesn't work doesn't mean that your assertion is correct by default. That's bald-faced god-of-the-gaps bilge.

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 2, 2009 12:03 AM

173

James Hanley:

You said:

"The problem with attempts to use the parent-child analogy to explain god, an approach that's all too common, is that the analogy doesn't have a close enough fit. The parent is not omniscient or omnipotent as god is"

heddle, who is, I'm beginning to think, omniscient himself, of course shoots down your argument by saying, if not in so many words, that you just fail--as do all of us who do not have his advantages of "election" and superior intellect--to understand that though his analogy is imperfect it's close enough. This is based, to some extent on biblical verse, according to heddle. Well, that takes care of your argument, as it would anyone's. After all, if the analogy is based on the inerrant words of a book authored by an invisble skydaddy then you know it's gotta be valid.

When you're dealing with someone who equates an invisible, unknowable, infallible, triple "O" GOD with visible, knowable parents and talks about how they and their actions are similar enough to make the equation work, well, you know you can't win.

Posted by: democommie | July 2, 2009 6:55 AM

175

Anna,

However, had I never been encouraged to play tennis by my mother, I can assure you I would have never chosen to pick up a racket on my own.

That is free will by my model. You never would have done it without something external affecting your desires. But that external agent did dot coerce you into your decision.

Posted by: heddle | July 2, 2009 8:49 AM

177

You, through normal parenting planted a desire for something in your child. The child at some point chooses in accordance with that desire. Was that a free choice? You steadfastly avoid that simple question.

Under your model, I'd say no, there are no free choices period. If I grant your model, then I see a difference in your analogies. Presumably, I think, a parent's implantation of a desire would have competing desires so that there potentially could have been another 'choice' made, maybe to go out on a date instead of to the classical concert. With God, there are no competing desires, so his implantation of a desire is coercion, in that once that is done there is only one possible outcome. So, the question becomes who or what has set the rule that God is what everyone wants the most once he implants that desire? I'd say that most likely comes from God himself.

You've criticized my potential 'model', if we even can call it that, that we may be able to make choices we don't want and that it's not purely deterministic as yours is, because I cannot provide a mechanism and don't know how it works and relies on unknowns, which is a fair criticism. However, I don't see yours as an improved model, as the determination and measure of our desires and the process by which we are internally ranking them is totally unknown and absent in your model, and again I'd say involuntary. There really is no purpose to even discussing our actions separate from our wants; one irrevocably determines the other so we might as well merge them.

You insist that everyone is free to choose God. There are some people alive right now, probably including myself, who are not one of the elect; that has already been determined. Again, given that, how do the unelect choose God? You're not using the phrase, 'everyone is free to choose God' to refer to the fact that we don't know who is elect and who is not so we might as well *assume* that everyone is free to choose God are you? It doesn't change the reality of the situation, that the unelect are not free to choose God.

Posted by: Spartan | July 2, 2009 9:21 AM

179

James Hanley:

You've misspelled Mr. Kehrsam's last name and he will not only say you've not made the slightest attempt to rebut the heddleian analogy, but he will probably never speak to you again, in this or any other fora. Oh, wait, my bad, not everybody is like that.

But, be that as it may, your error in spelling means that none of the rest of your comments can be trusted as you probably made many more egregious (but largely undetectable) mistakes in logic, faith and, um, er, other stuff, too.

Posted by: democommie | July 2, 2009 10:48 AM

181

heddle

That is free will by my model. You never would have done it without something external affecting your desires. But that external agent did dot coerce you into your decision.

But I would have never done so on my own if it were my choice without her influence. It wasn't my desire or will, it was my mother's. Although I chose to do it, doesn't mean that I had free will in doing so. How can will truly be "free" under influence? If the options are limited or specified than it isn't really free is it?

Posted by: Anna | July 2, 2009 12:47 PM

183

NOW, heddle is being picked on. James Hanley, you are such a bully!

Posted by: democommie | July 2, 2009 1:10 PM

185

heddle, I honestly don't think I'm that well-liked here. I argue pretty ferociously with people. So I honestly did not intend to choose only people who would like me. But I see the reason for your concern and accept it.

So why don't you propose a source of objective observers, and we'll go for it. The wager will be whether your statement that I "didn't even try" to answer your analogy. You say you don't want it to be based on that language, but it's your own words! If you don't think your own words are a good basis for the wager, perhaps you should admit that your words are false.

You claim I have a problem with dishonesty, but you haven't pointed to any specific examples. I, several times, pointed to specific examples in which you argued dishonestly, creating false-dichotomies, etc., and when I called you a liar I pointed to a specific example. You just make vague unspecified claims of dishonesty, which is pretty pusillanimous itself (good word, I believe it's the first time I've been called that!).

I'm not running, and I'm not insisting on being surrounded by friends (I've never made friends on Pharyngula, by the way. I don't read it much, and I get shit on there for being a libertarian. I was told by a couple readers to go away.) So you propose a place where neither of us has either friends or enemies--neutral ground--and let's see if we can convince them to settle our wager.

Come one, you challenged me on being afraid to "fight" without friends around. I'm more than willing to do so, are you?

Sounds to me like you're making excuses to run from the challenge. Shall I resort to my junior high years and start making chicken noises?

Posted by: James Hanley | July 2, 2009 1:17 PM

187

I still don't see how you can have free will if you don't have full disclosure?

Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 2, 2009 1:45 PM

189

I am using that phrase to mean exactly what anyone would take it to mean: that nobody nowhere, unelect or elect, nobody is ever prevented by anyone else, by God himself, or by any other coercive force, from choosing God.

I have to raise a point of frustration, and I'm beginning to see what Raging Bee said with his Orwell reference about abstractions and common sense as applying to your argumentation. You continually stick to phrasing this whole issue extremely specifically which makes it 'sound' somewhat okay. When someone confronts you with the necessary implications of what you said phrased differently, you either ignore it or just repeat it back the way you prefer. I have made an effort to address the way you have phrased the issue, by entertaining the notions of 'coercion' and 'moral inability', but I honestly do not feel that you have returned the favor.

Let's one more time start with your words, 'everybody is free to choose God', and I'm sincerely trying to lay out each logical step, not to bore you, but to see if I can get you to say 'aha, this deduction is not correct' so I can get some clue where you are coming from. I am going to divide the set of 'everybody' into the elect and unelect. This now leaves us with two statements: "The elect are free to choose God" and "The unelect are free to choose God". The first sentence is obvious, but you are either pretending the second sentence doesn't even exist, and insist on phrasing it as 'the unelect are not prevented by *anyone* or any *coercive force* from choosing God. By definition, the unelect cannot/will not choose God, it is impossible. If they can, please explain this obvious contradiction. If they can't, which I think is obvious, then to use your phrasing, something must be preventing them and they are not 'free' to choose God. I think you'll say it's not that they 'can't' it's that they 'won't' because they don't want to. Why don't they want to? Because God has not implanted the desire for him, and until he does that which he's not going to do for the unelect, they cannot want to. How can we say 'the unelect are free to choose God' when God by *your* rules has eliminated that possibility? You are saying that it is valid to say that someone can 'choose' the impossible. You have just invoked, "I am using that phrase to mean exactly what anyone would take it to mean", and I am very confident that almost anyone would take the statement 'the unelect are free to choose God' to mean that it is a possible alternative and can happen. Yet it is implicit in the definition of 'unelect' that it cannot happen.

Posted by: Spartan | July 2, 2009 2:01 PM

191

The only alternative that I can see, other than a pure denial of free will, is to argue that you can make choices contrary to your strongest inclination. But personally I don't see how that is possible. Suppose I have a choice between A and B, and, all things considered, I prefer A. How can I choose B?

If my strongest inclination is contrary to the choices given (based on outside influences), than choosing either means I am still choosing against my will. What is the difference with picking from options where your choice is limited to picking something you don't desire?

Posted by: Anna | July 2, 2009 2:34 PM

193

And that is precisely the mistake you are making--the demand that ability is required for free will.

I see that as a mistake you are making actually. I am only dealing with the logic of your statements, but I think you keep introducing 'moral inability' as a way of putting a very narrow definition on the word 'free'. The models of free will are irrelevant given the absolutes that you have given, 'God must implant the desire and you will then have no option but to desire him'. That statement operates exactly the same under either model, as it is purely deterministic.

The existence of such impossible choices does not negate free will.

It does negate free will as far as freely willing yourself to make those impossible choices. Do you think, "I am free to choose to fly home under my own power by flapping my arms" is valid and makes sense? You seem to be defining 'choice' as anything anyone can dream of doing.

Choosing God for the unelect is just another example of a choice that is impossible--but not because the freedom of the person was negated.

'Negation' is irrelevant; the person was and is never 'free' to do the impossible. It seems so abundantly obvious that a 'choice' must be within the realm of possibility, and that 'free' necessarily implies that it could actually happen.

"Anyone can choose God" (do you see this as a different statement from 'everyone is free to choose God'?)
"You cannot choose God unless God chooses you first"

Substituting in 'those whom God has not chosen' since it is a subset of 'anyone' leaves us, "Those whom God has not chosen can choose God", which is the exact opposite of your axiom above.

Posted by: Spartan | July 2, 2009 2:49 PM

195

You are free to choose God in the sense that nobody (except you, yourself) is stopping you.

That's not what you said before, which was that you can't "choose God" unless, and until, God "elected" you to do so.

Tell you what, heddle -- why don't you get some sleep, try to figure out what you actually believe, and then get back to us?

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 2, 2009 3:56 PM

197

Why is "God" even worried about all of that lame crapola? Dumbest thing I ever heard of.

Posted by: 386sx | July 2, 2009 4:09 PM

199

That is, I avoided examples that were physically impossible, and provided examples that were morally impossible, like for me to choose to stop loving my wife.

I disagree that there is such a thing as 'morally impossible'; it's simply a bald assertion you are making about yourself, yet there are ample examples of people ceasing to love their wife, to use your example, and I presume some of them could have also said that it was impossible for them to do so. Without question your wife could do something so heinous that you would cease to love her. To clarify and say that you are only talking about right now given your current desire configuration that you cannot stop loving your wife is equivalent to saying that anything that doesn't actually occur is impossible which again absolves us of any responsibility for choosing or not choosing God. I see no justification for splitting up the set of the impossible; the relevant thing in this conversation about the impossible is that it cannot happen or be chosen, for all accepted definitions of 'impossible'. To say something is an impossible choice is exactly the same thing as saying it is not a choice, and 'not' negates the word 'choice'.

You are free to choose God in the sense that nobody (except you, yourself) is stopping you.

What is this 'in the sense' crap? Of what possible relevance is this statement when it is entirely subordinate to the fact only the elect can choose God? 1)I am free to choose God in the sense that nobody except myself is stopping me, but 2)I cannot choose God anyway because he hasn't chosen me. In what scenarios does clause 1 override the all-encompassing clause 2?

You keep coming back to internal vs external as if that makes any difference, and seem very careful to say 'nobody'; how about just 'nothing'? You've already said exactly what 'thing' is preventing me from choosing God: the fact that God has ordained the law that no one will desire God unless God injects that desire first, and he hasn't injected that desire in me. Even though he hasn't injected that desire in me, according to you I 'am free to choose God', even though it's not possible for me to become one of the elect. Because what's important when we talk about 'freedom' is whether someone else is preventing me, but if it's just something inside me that prevents me from doing something and that I have no control over, I'm still 'free' to make choices I can't make because I'll never want to. Gotcha.

Feel free to respond or not heddle, I understand if you don't, the thread's stretched my mind if nothing else. If anyone except heddle understands what he is saying and thinks it makes sense, I'd be interested in how you'd explain it. I'm no logician but I deal with the ruthless adherence to logic of computers daily, and this is some reasoning I am not following given the propositions and the normal definitions of the words being used.

Posted by: Spartan | July 2, 2009 5:12 PM

201

Heddle @188,

Are you now saying that I did at least try to address your analogy?

You now seem to be running from your own words, but you won't man up and just admit you were wrong?

Could you please explain how I am dishonest for wanting to make a bet on your own words, where I am explicitly not putting words in your mouth? The example which you gave, in which someone dishonestly represented the argument, is not at all what I'm suggesting, because I'm suggesting that someone judge your own words. Frankly, I think you're being a chickenshit if you don't either stand up for your words or admit they're wrong. Saying, "objective readers would understand I didn't really mean it" is a cop out, a way of avoiding taking responsibility for your own statements.

But, let's take your counterproposal here:

If you think it is worthwhile--you creepy narcissist-- then if we can agree on the wording and judges, then I'll take the bet. I would want a) to explain, neutrally, the model of free will I have been discussing, because the context is important and b) not the question "was the analogy addressed" but rather "Given the context of argument, what grade would you give the analogy and the attempt to rebut the analogy?"

Can we place a side-bet on whether neutral observers think I'm a creepy narcissist? ;) Seriously, though, I am willing to allow you to explain your model, as long as I get to explain my criticism of it. We both make our best arguments. Fair enough?

But, if I accede to your demands for a change in the question, are you willing to put up anything in response? I'm still willing to go $100-$0 on the original question, but it seems to me that if I'm generous enough to let you shift the grounds of the bet, you ought to put up something. It doesn't have to be an equal amount--I'm still confident enough that I'll gladly put more on the line than you do.

So the practical questions are:
1) How do we find some judges we can both agree are impartial?

2) What is the basis for determining the victor? I infer from your post a suggestion of a grade for each of us. Shall we go with whomever gets a higher grade (A beats B, beats C, etc.), or just a straightforward, "whom do you think has the better argument"?

3) Shall we try to get 3 judges, to avoid ties, even though that increases our difficulty in finding impartial judges?

Cordially,

James Hanley

Posted by: James Hanley | July 2, 2009 9:04 PM

203

James Hanley:

This impartial judging gig, will it pay good money?

Posted by: democommie | July 2, 2009 9:32 PM

205

Democommie,
Sorry, I don't think heddle will agree that you're impartial enough. You've been too nice to me lately, but maybe if we go back to our old ways. ;)

Spartan,
That those are no compatible statements seems obvious to me as well. If you're missing something, I certainly don't think it's obvious, as I, Badger3k, Raging Bee, DogmeatIB and Democommie have all missed it, too. It beggars imagination that we'd all miss something that's actually obvious.

And it seems probable that if there was a point that was non-obvious, but nevertheless real, he could have brought at least one of us to see it.

So I would encourage you not to hold your breath waiting for this mythical obvious point to show up.

Posted by: James Hanley | July 2, 2009 11:29 PM

207

24 hours since heddle agreed to the wager (#188), and 17 hours since I agreed to his suggested terms (#201), and no word from heddle. The 4th of July weekend is upon us Americans, so perhaps he's got other things going on. But a word of confirmation would be helpful if he intends to follow through rather than skipping out on it.

Does anyone else want to wager on whether heddle goes through with the wager?

Posted by: James Hanley | July 3, 2009 2:16 PM

209

I would like to volunteer to be an impartial judge of this inane religious claptrap. I vow to be fair a balanced judge of the idiotic religious hoo-haw malarkey.

Posted by: 386sx | July 5, 2009 12:01 AM

211

James Hanley:

Finding three impartial judges, of heddle, on this blog will make Diogenes' traipsing about with his lantern seem like much less of a wild goose chase.

It apparently took heddle two days to concoct his latest comment; in fairness you should be given the same latitude in rebuttal.

"You completely missed the boat. When I say it is impossible for me to choose to stop loving my wife, I mean in the circumstances as they exist. Just like it is impossible for an unregenerate person to choose God in the circumstances he faces. Of course, things can happen to change out desires. The unregenerate man can be regenerated, and I learn horrible things about my wife. When faced with the two horrible choices you present I’ll choose the one according to my stronger inclination—just as I’ve been saying."

Ooooh, wait, I think I've heard this one. Situational ethics. I believe this is similar to the argument used by heddle to say that GOD's commands to kill folks were perfectly appropriate for the time, but aren't anymore, but, that heddle would still kill folks, dutifully (and joyfully?) if commanded by GOD. Um-hmm.

Posted by: democommie | July 5, 2009 7:47 AM

213

For some reason that link seems not to work properly. Clicking on my name in this comment, or here should work.

Posted by: James Hanley | July 5, 2009 11:32 AM

215

Hanley,

You know what? Forget it. You've worn me out. Uncle. I didn't even read your last post. If you want to set up your wager, however you like, since I said I would, I will, but contact me by email: heddle@gmail.com. I'll no longer be a commenter on Dispatches.

I have weaned myself from Panda's Thumb, evolutionblog, and Pharyngula because commenting there ceased to be fun. Now it has happened here as well, so I am also signing off this venue.

Ed: thanks for playing host for so many years--it's been enjoyable, until recently--and as always I commend you on your faithfulness to your principles.

To others I have had great discussions with over the last few years: DuWayne, Taz, Michael Heath, Wowbagger, Kehrsam, Tulse, Spartan, Henry, dogmeat, SLC and many others, I bid you aloha.

Posted by: heddle | July 5, 2009 3:36 PM

217

Heddle has called me full of shit, an SOB, a creepy narcissist, and a creepy little turd, just in this thread, but he's the victim? So much for "no crying in physics" (comment #140).

He's run away from three blogs, and now he's running from a fourth...but apparently his departure here is my fault, and no reflection on his own character.

And now he wants to throw up his hands and let me set up the wager "however I like," meaning he wants to give himself the opportunity, when he loses, to whine that I set it up unfairly.

Posted by: James Hanley | July 5, 2009 8:33 PM

219

James Hanley:

I hope you are conversant with whatever process we just witnessed, because the "dread threadpirate mroberts" is back!!

Posted by: democommie | July 5, 2009 11:52 PM