Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Various Possible Implications of the Open View

Forum Quick Jump

78 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 8/27/2002 4:01 PM (GMT -6)

BJS

If we grant that God has PARTLY settled the future through his unilateral will, I think we may lose the ethical and philosophical advantage that we claim over Calvinist-types, because as Meph points out, both views are then forced to trust in a mysterious "greater good" that we cannot understand.

Iconoclast

The Open View does not NEED to say the future is partly settled, rather, it OBSERVES that the future is partly settled based on biblical text and our common everyday experience – no different than the fact that the Open View OBSERVES that the future is partly open – this also is based on the plain meaning of the biblical text and our common everyday experience. We ALL actually believe this because we ALL actually base our actions on this assumption. To talk as though we do not believe this leads to all manner of confusion. I think it would be much more interesting to start talking about how our behavior would change if we decided to start actually behaving based on a belief that the future is fully settled OR the future is completely open. It is actually very hard to imagine any sort of rational behavior that one could engage in based on either of these assumptions. Either extreme results in the loss of all meaning.

What is mysterious about the “greater good” if God has PARTLY settled the future? Why wouldn’t a perfectly loving God settle a part of the future for us? Don’t we as parents want to unilaterally settle a part of the future for our children? Say – having enough money stored up that they can choose to go to college?

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 8/27/2002 4:12 PM (GMT -6)

Icon:

quote:
We ALL actually believe this [meaning the future being partly open] because we ALL actually base our actions on this assumption. To talk as though we do not believe this leads to all manner of confusion. I think it would be much more interesting to start talking about how our behavior would change if we decided to start actually behaving based on a belief that the future is fully settled OR the future is completely open. It is actually very hard to imagine any sort of rational behavior that one could engage in based on either of these assumptions. Either extreme results in the loss of all meaning.

I look at it this way. We generally live by NEWTONIAN physics in real life...even though we acknowledge all the WEIRD stuff that goes on in the quantum level. If we tried to live JUST like what occurs at the quantum level, we'd be going insane, right? In other words, we operate more PHENOMENOLOGICALLY than anything else. So, why can't we do this with the "openness" question? What would it matter if theological determinism were true, if we just continue to live like we do?

Wondering,

PS:Oh, by the way, we DO act as if the future is completely open. NONE of us live as if some end event is ABSOLUTELY unchangeable. Even the child of the parents who unilaterally WANT their children to go to college intuitively know that the fate their parents have decided FOR them CAN INDEED be changed if they so choose. To not think that the future is completely open (as far as possible self-efficacious change) WOULD entail fatalism.

PSS: It is imperative that we make a distinction here. When we say "partly settled, partly open" we are NOT referring to LIMITATION of freedom ala general constraints of reality! We are referring to settled HISTORICAL EVENTS in light of predetermination. Ain't that right, BJS?

Edited by - Mephi2K on 08/27/2002 9:21:56 PM

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 8/27/2002 5:51 PM (GMT -6)

Mephi

When I say that God "ordains" this evil, I am basically speaking of such as MEANS, not ENDS. Perhaps this is the problem that many people are having. Whenever God "ordains" evil, it's not just for the sake of evil to exist. It's always for a "greater good" reason. So, I would say that God would never want evil to occur JUST FOR EVIL'S SAKE. Here, we deal with the prioritization factor.

Iconoclast

Totally agree. Would you agree that this is sufficient then to be able to say that God is omnibenevolent? He NEVER allows or ordains evil except as a MEANS to a greater good.

I would guess that you would object to this based on a specific individual experiencing evil in a specific situation where chance led to a negative outcome – specifically – the Nazi Guard did NOT choose to feel convicted and rejected God.

I will try and deal with this in a second.

Mephi

My point is, however, that I don't see any consistent grounds in which an open view theist can assert that EVERY PARTICULAR INSTANCE of evil is the ultimate product of exhaustively meticulous orchestation and divine intention. That goes against OVT at its base.

Iconoclast

Agree.

Mephi

Now what's the difference between Calvinism and Open View, given these concepts?

In Calvinism, it would always be the case that any particular "evil" facts that emerge in reality were INTENDED to be main endpoints by divine final causality. Thus, implying that said evil fact was INTEGRALLY within the final cause of a given process such that the probability of it's occurance was brought infinitely near to 1 by God's divine agency. This would NOT be the case in open view theism.

Iconoclast

I am only capable of using MY experience and logic to process this. I can’t seem to find any experience or logic within myself where I can believe this and also believe that God doesn’t WANT specific evil results. To me this is “gratuitous” / “arbitrary” evil. I hear you saying that God operates by controlling everything in detail and therefore he “engineered” out a specific detailed plan – in which case my logic tells me that every evil was directly dictated by Him.

Mephi

Hence, the gratuitous evil would NOT exist at ALL in Calvinism...but WOULD exist in open view theism.

Iconoclast

What I hear is that the evil in Calvinism is “gratuitous” evil done by God and the evil in the Open View is “gratuitous” evil done by free will agents.

I hear you saying that in Calvinism God is powerful enough to control ALL details AND produce loving beings. In which case it begs the question of why He isn’t powerful enough to control ALL the details in such a way as there is NO evil and still produce loving beings? I just can’t come up with any hypothesis where this makes sense.

The Open View posits a reason why there is evil. Evil exists because it is a necessary possibility (implying chance) in order to produce loving beings. Loving beings are worth the risk of evil – even to the loving beings and the ones who choose against becoming loving.

In the Open View there is no such thing as “gratuitous” evil from the perspective of the person who the evil happens to. It is only potentially “gratuitous” from the perspective of the one doing the evil. Why? Back to your presumed objection above.

Even in the case of Zosia where the guard does not repent it can be said that this evil was NOT gratuitous to her. This gets back to Peirce’s essay on Chance. So long as the sum total of all the individuals who experience evil, in such a way as to show evil (those who are doing evil) its true meaning (its true horrible impact), brings about the Kingdom of God then each specific individual who experiences this evil participates in the whole AND IS NECESSARILY PART OF THE WHOLE due to the nature of the logic of probabilistic inference.

Peirce – from his essay on “The Doctrine of Chance”

But there remains an important point to be cleared up. According to what has been said, the idea of probability essentially belongs to a kind of inference which is repeated indefinitely. An individual inference must be either true of false, and can show no effect of probability; and, therefore, in reference to a single case considered in itself, probability can have no meaning. Yet if a man had to choose between drawing a card from a pack containing twenty-five red cards and a black one, or fram a pack containing twenty-five black cards and a red one, and if the drawing of a red card were destined to transport him to eternal felicity, and that of a black one to consign him to everlasting woe, it would be folly to deny that he ought to prefer the pack containing the larger portion of red cards, although from the nature of the risk, it could not be repeated. It is not easy to reconcile this with our analysis of the conception of chance. But suppose he should choose the red pack and should draw the wrong card, what consolation would he have? He might say that he had acted in accordance with reason, but that would only show that his reason was absolutely worthless. And if he should choose the right card, how could he regard it as anything but a happy accident?

…

Although probability wil probably manifest its effect in, say, a thousand risks, by a certain proportion between the numbers of successes and failures, yet this, as we have seen, is only to say that it certainly will, at length, do so. Now the number of risks, the number of probable inferences, which a man draws in his whole life, is a finite one, and he cannot be absolutely certain that the mean result will accord with the probabilities at all. Taking all his risks collectively, then, it cannot be certain that they will not fail, and his case does not differ, except in degree, from the one last supposed.

…

But what, without death, would happen to every man, with death must happen to some man. At the same time, death makes the number of our risks, of our inferences, finite, and so makes their mean result uncertain. The very idea of probability and of reasoning rests on the assumption that this number is indefinitely great. We are thus landed in the same difficulty as before, and I can see but one solution of it. It seems to me that we are driven to this, that logicality inexorably requires that our interests shall not be limited. They must not stop at our own fate, but must embrace the whole community. This community, again, must not be limited, but must extend to all races of beings with whom we can come into immediate or mediate intellectual relation. It must reach, however vaguely, beyond this geological epoch, beyond all bounds. He who would not sacrifice his own soul to save the whole world, is, as it seems to me, illogical in all his inferences, collectively. Logic is rooted in the social principle.

To be logical men should not be selfish; and, in point of fact, they are not so selfish as they are thought. The willful prosecution of one’s desires is a different thing from selfishness. The miser is not selfish; his money does him no good, and he ares for what shall become of it after his death. We are constantly speaking of our possessions on the Pacific, and of our destiny as a republic, where no personal interests are involved, in a way which shows that we have wider ones. We discuss with anxiety the possible exhaustion of coal in some hundreds of years, or the cooling-off of the sun in some millions, and show in the most popular of all religious tenets that we can conceive the possibility of a man’s descending into hell for the salvation of his fellows.

Now, it is not necessary for logicality that a man should himself be capable of the heroism of self-sacrifice. It is sufficient that he should recognize the possibility of it, should perceive that only that man’s inferences who has it are really logical, and should consequently regard his own as being so far valid as they would be accepted by the hero. So far as he thus refers his inferences to that standard, he becomes identified with such a mind.

This makes logicality attainable enough. Sometimes we can personally attain to heroism. The soldier who runs to scale a wall knows that he will probably be shot, but that is not all he cares for. He also knows that if all the regiment, with whom in feeling he identifies himself, rush forward at once, the fort will be taken.

Iconoclast

If it takes one hundred soldiers to storm a fort because 50 of them must get through in order to open the main gate and the expected probability is a 50% casualty rate in storming it, how can it be said that one of the 50 who was killed “gratuitously”?

Peirce

It may seem strange that I should put forward three sentiments, namely, interest in an indefinite community, recognition of the possibility of this interst being made supreme, and hope in the unlimited continuance of intellectual activity, as indispensable requirements of logic. Yet, when we consider that logic depends on a mere struggle to escape doubt, which, as it terminates in action, must begin in emotion, and that, furthermore, the only cause of our planting ourselves on reason is that other methods of escaping doubt fail on account of the social impulse (Iconoclast: see “The Fixation of Belief” by Peirce), why should we wonder to find social sentiment presupposed in reasoning. As for the other two sentiments which I find necessary, they are so only as supports and accessories of that. It interests me to notic that these three sentiments seem to be pretty much the same as that famous trio of Charity, Faith, and Hope, which, in the estimation of St. Paul, are the finest and greates of the spiritual gifts. Neither Old nor New Testament is a textbook of the logic of science, but the latter is certainly the highest existing authority in regard to the dispositions of heart which a man ought to have.

Iconoclast

What do you think?

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 8/27/2002 6:04 PM (GMT -6)

Mephi

Oh, by the way, we DO act as if the future is completely open.

Iconoclast

We all presume that the sun will come up tomorrow and continue to come up each day for the rest of our lives.

We all presume that the place we go to work didn't change locations in the middle of the night - else why do we not call? Of course that would presume that they didn't change their phone number - which means we would call 411 - of course which presumes that they didn't change directory assistance to 7483647378743874.

Now, I agree that the more we live the more we learn that most things are subject to change, however there are an enormous amount of things that are just fundamental constraints that we don't think will ever change - gravity, our ability to fly without some device and so on.

Basically we presume the basic constraints of our environment and we presume a certain level of continuity of different types of processes. Some are more open and some are more persistent. We all know that our future is partly settled in that we will die - we just don't know exactly when - we do know it is less than 150 years and we act as if it is not for many years to come.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 8/27/2002 6:19 PM (GMT -6)

Mephi

I look at it this way. We generally live by NEWTONIAN physics in real life...even though we acknowledge all the WEIRD stuff that goes on in the quantum level. If we tried to live JUST like what occurs at the quantum level, we'd be going insane, right? In other words, we operate more PHENOMENOLOGICALLY than anything else. So, why can't we do this with the "openness" question? What would it matter if theological determinism were true, if we just continue to live like we do?

Iconoclast

We only acknowledge the weird stuff of the quantum world because it has phenomenological meaning in certain situations. When doing gravity calculations for satellites quantum mechanics has no meaning. However Relativity theory does – it has phenomenological implications that must be taken into account or satellites tend to fall to earth more often. As we make chip densities smaller and smaller we will need to start accounting for quantum effects – we will (hopefully) at some point even use quantum phenomenon to build more powerful chips.

Everything we know about reality is simply a model – a set of beliefs that afford behavior. I agree with Peirce that the meaning of a belief IS what it does – what behavior it directs and affords – its phenomenology.

If theological determinism were true but did not lead us to any specific behavior under any known conditions then I don’t know what “true” means in reference to “theological determinism”. It is an idea that is neither clear nor relevant.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/27/2002 6:27 PM (GMT -6)

Icon, you began by comparing the Calvinists in the quote with Catholics who do something they believe is sinful. That feels very much like a blow-off. Like you just don't want to be bothered. On the Geistler thread Tom has a great quote of Docs. It says well that this takes more effort than you wanted to put into it. Don't look for easy, quick answers when comparing systems and traditions that grew up seaparate. (BUT IT IS EXCHANGE OF WITNESS BETWEEN THEM THAT WE ALL NEED. DON'T LESSEN THE EXHANGE BY BLOWING IT OFF. THAT IS MY POINT.)

quote:
In fact, I think Doc address this very issue in his reply to Ware in this Summer’s issue of JETS. Doc writes:

quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Second, one must be very careful about dismissing a position—to say nothing of breaking fellowship with a group of believers—on the basis of the implications they think follow from that position. After all, to many Arminians and open theists, the Calvinism Ware defends seems to deny the glory of God, the universal love of God, the wisdom of God, the urgency of prayer, the genuineness of God’s interactions with us, human moral responsibility, the need for missions, and many other things. Yet, since Calvinists themselves don’t deny these things, they are accepted as sisters and brothers in Christ. Arminians and open theists may judge them to be (fortunately) logically inconsistent, but we shouldn’t ascribe to them conclusions which we think follow from their position but which they themselves deny. Open theists would simply like this Christian and academic courtesy to be extended to us. Ware obviously can’t understand how we avoid the implications he ascribes to us. Fine, perhaps we are simply logical nincompoops. Or perhaps (as I believe), Ware has difficulty getting inside of a system of thought that is radically different from his own. But in either case, it seems misguided and unchristian to move to brand a position as “non-evangelical” because some can’t understand how they avoid certain negative implications they think their theology implies. Our explicit confessions of faith, not what others think logically follows from our confessions of faith, should be the basis of our fellowship.
-------------------------------------------------------

DOC SAID IT WELL.

But what is also needed is to spend some time with what those three were saying, to figure out for yourself what they mean. It takes time. And without it you can not do what Doc is saying above.

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 8/28/2002 5:14 AM (GMT -6)

Ok. Heeeeeere we go...

Icon(emphases mine):

quote:
We only acknowledge the weird stuff of the quantum world because it has phenomenological meaning in certain situations. When doing gravity calculations for satellites quantum mechanics has no meaning. However Relativity theory does – it has phenomenological implications that must be taken into account or satellites tend to fall to earth more often. As we make chip densities smaller and smaller we will need to start accounting for quantum effects : we will (hopefully) at some point even use quantum phenomenon to build more powerful chips.

Everything we know about reality is simply a model – a set of beliefs that afford behavior. I agree with Peirce that the meaning of a belief IS what it does – what behavior it directs and affords – its phenomenology.

If theological determinism were true but did not lead us to any specific behavior under any known conditions then I don’t know what “true” means in reference to “theological determinism”. It is an idea that is neither clear nor relevant.

This is what I'm hearing: If there is absolutely no way that we can apply the model of theological determinism in our lives, then the idea is not relevant. If this is what you are saying, cool. But I thought that I'd shown how it IS relevant to MANY people. It provides a great deal of existential comfort, shows how people can GENUINELY trust in God in ALL CASES to be in control, and so on and so on. And there is one praxis which I KNOW is affected by this belief: the distinctive nature of prayers to God. To the extent that one thinks a certain way about God's providential power (AND IS CONSISTENT!!!), to that same extent one will pray according to that model. Frankly, I have yet to hear open view theists pray CONSISTENTLY with their model...or interpret BAD EVENTS via their model. As many times as I have brought up the immense amount of ambiguity in 1) God's providential ability and 2)the ambiguity of painful, death-filled events (Do I even NEED to mention Sept. 11th again???), this seems to have NO effect on these areas at all. Why? I can only believe because both areas would have the flavor of heavy tentativeness instead of the surety that God CAN and WILL do something. I think you know what I'm talking about.

So, if you are talking about the pragmatic idea of truth in theological determinism, I do believe that it is there.

PS: To people who somehow think that theological determinism would necessarily skew people's sense of the urgency of prayer, uh, nope. The problem is that people are making the SAME mistake as theological determinists who become fatalists. They are making crucial mistakes that are ultimately inconsistent with the compatibilistic idea. Unfortunately, a LOT of people do this.

**************************************************

Icon:

quote:
Basically we presume the basic constraints of our environment and we presume a certain level of continuity of different types of processes. Some are more open and some are more persistent. We all know that our future is partly settled in that we will die - we just don't know exactly when - we do know it is less than 150 years and we act as if it is not for many years to come.

Ok. I made sure to put this in the post above this one(all emphasese mine)...

Ok. If when you are talking about a "'partly' settled future", you mean a future PARTICULAR, HISTORICAL EVENT about reality supposedly being predetermined by God such that God will make absolutely sure that it WILL occur, then yes, open view theism IMPLIES the idea. Why? Because what you are talking about deals with God having sufficient unilateral power to do such a thing...and open view theism proposes that God has such level of unilateral power.

and...

Oh, by the way, we DO act as if the future is completely open. NONE of us live as if some end event is ABSOLUTELY unchangeable. Even the child of the parents who unilaterally WANT their children to go to college intuitively know that the fate their parents have decided FOR them CAN INDEED be changed if they so choose. To not think that the future is completely open (as far as possible self-efficacious change) WOULD entail fatalism.

and...

: It is imperative that we make a distinction here. When we say "partly settled, partly open" we are NOT referring to LIMITATION of freedom ala general constraints of reality! We are referring to settled HISTORICAL EVENTS in light of predetermination. Ain't that right, BJS?

On this part, I stopped thinking in Pierce terms, because Pierce has a certain idea of what "event" means that is distinct from the way that many people commonly use the word today. Moreover, I said HISTORICAL event to make sure this was understood. I said all this because I know that there is a difference in way of conceiving the concepts of "partly settled, partly open" One way is to conceive of it in LIMITATIONS OF FREEDOM in which decisions are made. This basically means that I can't just up and decide to become a middle aged white man from Jersey JUST by thinking about it. Nature won't let me do that. Therefore it is "settled" (via the dispositions that are relevant) that I will not change into said white man by sheer decisive fiat. Now, the OTHER WAY it to conceive of it in terms of ETERNALLY SETTLED (via preordination) HISTORICAL EVENTS. That some historical events can be so "settled" via God's unilateral power and control. This basically means that if God decides that 10 days from now, he wants me to buy 2 dozen Krispy Kreme donuts for my kids, and God wants that "settled", he can very well do things to do so. See the difference?

NOW...what I was saying was simply this: in thinking of the SECOND conception of the "partly settled, partly open" idea, no healthy human being ACTS as if certain historical events in the future are settled beyond possible change. Even the most ardent fatalist can't truly be consistent with his fatalism at ALL levels. Why? Because he doesn't have the knowledge necessary to do so. We intuitively know that no matter HOW CERTAIN we think future events are, they are ALWAYS open to change via some occurance. For example, some people use the old "plane ticket" idea as a partly settled thing. But check it out. We all know that flights get cancelled, appendices rupture, etc. There are MILLIONS of things that can prevent a person from actually making their preappointed flight. This intuitive understanding that we live by is what I'm talking about. We live as if the future is open before us within our limitations of efficacy. We don't live like particular historical events are UNCHANGEABLE.

Does this show where I'm coming from?

***************************************

I'll do another post for the other stuff.

Holla,

Edited by - Mephi2K on 08/28/2002 10:15:02 AM

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 8/28/2002 6:06 AM (GMT -6)

Next stuff.

First of all, thanks for posting that stuff, Icon. I didn't have a chance to read "The Doctrine of Chance"...but I did read his stuff on his ideas of causality and causation, his triadic concepts, probability and other stuff. That's why I used his specific terminology on that other stuff. That said, let's move on.

****************************************

Icon:

quote:
I am only capable of using MY experience and logic to process this. I can’t seem to find any experience or logic within myself where I can believe this and also believe that God doesn’t WANT specific evil results. To me this is "gratuitous" / "arbitrary" evil. I hear you saying that God operates by controlling everything in detail and therefore he "engineered" out a specific detailed plan : in which case my logic tells me that every evil was directly dictated by Him.

Ok. This is where we get into PRIORITIZATION of "wants". Surely, if you've talked to a Calvinist about predestination, you will hear about this, in some way. It ties to what was said above (which you agreed with):

He NEVER allows or ordains evil except as a MEANS to a greater good.

See, the fact remains that THOUGH God may do this, he still is "willing" that a PARTICULAR evil act occur that lies on the causal line towards the "greater good" God would WANT specific evil events, but ONLY as means to fulfilling his intended goals...which WOULD be the "greater good" God wouldn't want particular specific events to happen JUST SO THEY WOULD HAPPEN.

So, of couse, if you believe in theological determination, you HAVE to believe that God is the source of the primary "final cause" of every instance of evil...but only because every instance of evil is within a PROCESS whose final cause is about a "greater good" Feel me?

****************************************

Icon

quote:
What I hear is that the evil in Calvinism is "gratuitous" evil done by God and the evil in the Open View is "gratuitous" evil done by free will agents.

In theodicy, gratuitous evil is conceived from the perspective of DIVINE REASON emerging from divine INTENTION. For any X particular occurance of "evil", was there, in some way, a GOOD (actually GREATER GOOD) REASON behind God either ordaining or allowing X. For gratuitous evil to exist then, it must be possible that X evil event can occur from something OTHER THAN a divine reason for it's occurance. Remember what Doc states in SPE about chance. Chance is there when there are FACTORS for a particular event, but no overarching REASON for said event. This can only really occur in some NON-deterministic system. If theological determinism is assumed, then EVERY X evil occurance would have divine reason behind it.

But you, Icon, IMO, seem to be thinking of "gratuitous" as arbitrary (dealing with WILLS). This is not the conception I am dealing with.

********************************************

Icon:

quote:
I hear you saying that in Calvinism God is powerful enough to control ALL details AND produce loving beings. In which case it begs the question of why He isn’t powerful enough to control ALL the details in such a way as there is NO evil and still produce loving beings? I just can’t come up with any hypothesis where this makes sense.

Right. Hence, one of the problem of evil issues with the God within the theological determinism framework. If God really COULD HAVE created a utopian society and STILL have a type of love that He desires...WHY DIDN'T GOD DO IT? Heh. Trust me, it's possible to come up with a scenario that explains this. (I have.)

But this is why Calvinism may be so problematic to some people. The assumption is that God, being all-good, would do EVERYTHING IN GOD'S POWER to eliminate evil while still having loving beings. To say that God could have done this but didn't causes some people MAD problems...like yourself, yes?

********************************************

Icon:

quote:
The Open View posits a reason why there is evil. Evil exists because it is a necessary possibility (implying chance) in order to produce loving beings. Loving beings are worth the risk of evil – even to the loving beings and the ones who choose against becoming loving.

Hmmm. The open view posits a reason that is according to their presuppositions about God's nature, the nature of love, and the nature of freedom that ends up trying to get God off the hook for the gross evil in the world. NONE of these presuppositions NEED be accepted. If one were to posit that MAYBE God would be satisfied with beings who DIDN'T have a significant locus of untouched, self-determining power...then things would radically change. But, of course, all the nasty rhetoric about mechanical relationships, "robots", and what have you get thrown into the mix. So God COULDN'T want that...now could he? Sheesh...LOL!

********************************************

Icon:

quote:
In the Open View there is no such thing as “gratuitous” evil from the perspective of the person who the evil happens to. It is only potentially “gratuitous” from the perspective of the one doing the evil. Why? Back to your presumed objection above.

Even in the case of Zosia where the guard does not repent it can be said that this evil was NOT gratuitous to her. This gets back to Peirce’s essay on Chance. So long as the sum total of all the individuals who experience evil, in such a way as to show evil (those who are doing evil) its true meaning (its true horrible impact), brings about the Kingdom of God then each specific individual who experiences this evil participates in the whole AND IS NECESSARILY PART OF THE WHOLE due to the nature of the logic of probabilistic inference.

This is what I hear you saying, in general:

As long as there is an opportunity to bring MEANING (especially KINGDOM meaning) from an "evil" event, the event is never gratuitous. Pierce's idea of Chance bolster this.

I would add to this that you could even say, using Pierce's concepts, that this "opportunity" space actually is the product of some DIVINE PURPOSE in that God may have the "final cause" of desiring morally free beings to choose life-affirming attitudes over life-denying attitudes. Because this opportunity exists in EVERY INSTANCE of moral evil, then regardless to WHAT CHOICES were actually made, God's final cause would still prevail. (This goes hand in hand with the free will and soul-making ideas)

HOWEVER...

1) Hopefully, you see that the way that you are using "gratuitous" is not the way I'm using it.

and...

2) One would have to assume a wider divine final cause that would encompass the instances in a paradigmatic fashion. (Like above) The problem of evil would raise again once you said that PARTICULAR evil events could be the endpoints of divine final cause. Open view theism (and NOT process theology) does this implicitly.

********************************

Let's keep it moving!

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 8/28/2002 6:38 AM (GMT -6)

Side stuff. Let me state this boldly here. All things considered, I don't see the seemingly VAST amount of advantages of one view over the other, as far as distinctively Christian ideas. Both views end up running into exegetical problems. Both views have some existentially unsatifying consequences...if one takes the time to really think 'em all out. And BOTH views end up using some type of "greater good" idea to attempt to balance things out.

Now, why would I choose open view theism over Calvinism at this point in my theological development, if that's the case?

Simple. I dig process theology. A lot. A WHOLE lot. I think that it allows for the world to have a fair amount of autonomy from God. It makes a whole bunch of friggin sense. But process theology REALLY doesn't have the wherewithal to allow for a SPEAKING. ACTING God. I don't means guidance towards aims or non-sensory perceptions. I mean like God saying "Hey, Dwayne" and I can say "Hey, God" back. I mean a God that can "zap" you, as it were, with experiences that are BEYOND you ability to create. Process theology can allow for extraordinary phenomena to occur, but it would ultimately be based on HUMAN ACTIVITY always working with divine intent. It would truly be the case that God had NO hands (OR LIPS) but ours. (So much for "pillars of fire" and all...) This just doesn't jive with my personal experience of what I call God. Take away a speaking, acting God and I have no reason to be BELIEVER. The God of the Philosophers would suit me fine...and PROCESS philosophy would suit me fine. But I can't deny my experiences...and though I can admit their ambiguity, I personally feel that I have warrants to believe that I HAVE experienced a speaking, acting being outside of myself who may ACTUALLY be the Creator of the Universe. And, in the context of my experience, I relate to that Creator as the Risen Christ. Therefore, this is where my commitment is.

So...

I think that open view theism is as close to process theology as I can get while affirming that God has the unilateral ability to SPEAK and ACT to people without the AID of people (the experience of which is the backbone of my faith ala Abraham)

Just being real.

Hootie hoo,

Edited by - Mephi2K on 08/28/2002 11:54:06 AM

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 8/28/2002 3:05 PM (GMT -6)

Mephi

NOW...what I was saying was simply this: in thinking of the SECOND conception of the "partly settled, partly open" idea, no healthy human being ACTS as if certain historical events in the future are settled beyond possible change. Even the most ardent fatalist can't truly be consistent with his fatalism at ALL levels. Why? Because he doesn't have the knowledge necessary to do so. We intuitively know that no matter HOW CERTAIN we think future events are, they are ALWAYS open to change via some occurance. For example, some people use the old "plane ticket" idea as a partly settled thing. But check it out. We all know that flights get cancelled, appendices rupture, etc. There are MILLIONS of things that can prevent a person from actually making their preappointed flight. This intuitive understanding that we live by is what I'm talking about. We live as if the future is open before us within our limitations of efficacy. We don't live like particular historical events are UNCHANGEABLE.

Does this show where I'm coming from?

Iconoclast

Gotcha. Would you agree that a plane ticket (and a strong desire to use it) causes us to ACT as though this aspect of our future was settled even though we would say, “barring extraordinary event”? And I would add – even if the particular flight got canceled we would just jump another one – what serious difference does it make whether we leave at 9:00 or 1:00. And isn’t this similar to God saying that the Messiah will come. He didn’t say exactly what day or year it was – just that He was going to do it. The future was partly settled in the sense that God was going to bring this general set of events to pass at some point. And isn’t this similar to to saying that the future is partly settled in the sense that the Messiah will come again. And wouldn’t we say that the ultimate Christian faith is to act as though the future is settled in terms of our salvation?

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 8/28/2002 4:48 PM (GMT -6)

Al

But what is also needed is to spend some time with what those three were saying, to figure out for yourself what they mean. It takes time. And without it you can not do what Doc is saying above.

Iconoclast

Help me out Al. I think what those three are saying is crystal clear. They are denying Calvin’s statement that God has determined everything. The cat analogy is exactly what Calvin was saying. Why is this not so? I think those three simply disagree with it because it makes no sense to them in a particular context. Calvinism is a very useful belief in certain contexts and those folks want to hold on to it for those benefits. It is very useful when we want to relieve our anxiety about who is in control and what might happen to us but it is a very inconvenient belief when we start getting practical about free will questions.

To me it is like the question whether an electron is a particle or a wave. Calvinism says very clearly that it is a particle – everything is totally determined. Unfortunately certain situations show us clearly that an electron behaves like a wave – people really have libertarian free will. I don’t disagree that some people who identify themselves as Calvinists choose to behave in certain situations as though people really have libertarian free will. What confuses me is that those same people insist that an electron is REALLY a particle. As though it even has meaning to say that since something behaves in certain instances as a particle that it IS a particle.

What I see is that Calvinism by insisting that determinism is absolute forces all other thought to try and revolve around this concept even when it is clearly contradictory. Thus we get all sorts of strained concepts regarding free will. To me this is similar to when we somehow decided that the Sun goes around the earth. Next thing you know we are inventing all manner of inordinately complex concepts trying to explain the motion of planets – epicycles upon epicycles. Why do we insist on holding on to this concept of determinism at all costs? If we believe that God is love and that God is omnipotent why so much fear? It certainly doesn’t solve the problem of something bad happening to us.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 8/28/2002 5:31 PM (GMT -6)

Mephi

This is what I'm hearing: If there is absolutely no way that we can apply the model of theological determinism in our lives, then the idea is not relevant. If this is what you are saying, cool. But I thought that I'd shown how it IS relevant to MANY people. It provides a great deal of existential comfort, shows how people can GENUINELY trust in God in ALL CASES to be in control, and so on and so on.

Iconoclast

Actually, I thought you were asking what it would mean if a person ACTED based on the Open View concept of free will but believed theological determinism was a true concept.

I basically answered THIS question as saying that in this case the person didn’t REALLY believe in theological determinism – it is to them an unclear and irrelevant belief.

I totally agree that theological determinism does have some pragmatic value. It is hard for me to think of any belief that persists for long to NOT have any pragmatic value to the person – otherwise why would you bother. There has to be some payoff I would presume.

Mephi

Right. Hence, one of the problem of evil issues with the God within the theological determinism framework. If God really COULD HAVE created a utopian society and STILL have a type of love that He desires...WHY DIDN'T GOD DO IT? Heh. Trust me, it's possible to come up with a scenario that explains this. (I have.)

But this is why Calvinism may be so problematic to some people. The assumption is that God, being all-good, would do EVERYTHING IN GOD'S POWER to eliminate evil while still having loving beings. To say that God could have done this but didn't causes some people MAD problems...like yourself, yes?

Iconoclast

To me the test of a model of reality is threefold:

One) Does it fit the known facts.
Two) What action does it afford and are these actions consistent with our understanding of “best practices”.
Three) Is it elegant. Is it a platform for new discovery or is it so strained and overbuilt that it is like a house of cards – it can’t take a single new concept or a new fact may tear it to pieces.

Calvinist doctrine seems very strained to me. I don’t doubt that we can “make it fit” for the most part – and many practicing Calvinists have. However, my sense is that they do this by simply having a set of somewhat disjointed beliefs. I think of “mystery” in any model as simply two disjointed beliefs that we can’t reconcile but that we use depending on the circumstance. Quantum mechanics and Relativity theory are disjointed beliefs. But quantum theorists don’t for a second deny relativity theory and relativity theorists don’t deny quantum theory. And they both know when one theory works better than the other.

Calvinist doctrine is extremely strained to me because it seems to deny any meaningful notion of chance. This leads to all sorts of strained concepts seeking to cope with an enormous amount of phenomenon that we deal with every day.

To me the Open View is only strained in the area of “natural evil”. Mephi, what exactly are the unsatisfying consequences of the Open View for you other than “natural evil”?

Process theology deals with “natural evil” but is strained in the area of God being able to do whatever He wants. I think there is a lot to be said for process theology but I don’t understand it well enough to say much.

My sense is that the road to the resolution of “natural evil” within the Open View framework lies in the direction of a fuller understanding of how the stolen knowledge of good and evil affects our sense of “meaning”. My intuition is that “natural evil” is a concept that has become enmeshed with “moral evil” and that once these concepts are untangled we will have much better insights on this issue. I do think that a full resolution will require concepts from “process” thought.

Too much fun…

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/28/2002 6:58 PM (GMT -6)

Icon, this is making no sense to you. This is because you are demanding that those in that tradition think the way you assume that they have to think. You are assuming that they have to use your epistomology. And they don't. Rightly this is so because Calvin himself did not let himself be bound by the laws of Scholasitic logic. He used it; but was not its slave. And he gladly departed from it when it led the wrong way. Some of the "Calvinism" that you have been exposed to is a product of something analogous to Scholasiticm, and that would be "Idealistic Common Sense." (I'm no expert in this; but here's a link: theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1980/v37-1-article6.htm and www.markers.com/ink/pkrightr.htm ) I'm not versed in it. But having been around Reformed folks now for about fifteen years, and seeing the lay of the land through their eyes, there is a huge difference between a Dutch Calvinist and the products of Princeton.

You simply can't assume that a culture different from yours has to think the way you assume they must. They don't. And Calvin didn't.

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 8/28/2002 9:22 PM (GMT -6)

Mephi

quote:

This is what I hear you saying, in general:

As long as there is an opportunity to bring MEANING (especially KINGDOM meaning) from an "evil" event, the event is never gratuitous. Pierce's idea of Chance bolster this.

I would add to this that you could even say, using Pierce's concepts, that this "opportunity" space actually is the product of some DIVINE PURPOSE in that God may have the "final cause" of desiring morally free beings to choose life-affirming attitudes over life-denying attitudes. Because this opportunity exists in EVERY INSTANCE of moral evil, then regardless to WHAT CHOICES were actually made, God's final cause would still prevail. (This goes hand in hand with the free will and soul-making ideas)

HOWEVER...

One) Hopefully, you see that the way that you are using "gratuitous" is not the way I'm using it.

Iconoclast

Mephi’s # One) I am confused. Let me try and be very explicit in how I am using it and maybe you can tell me what I am missing:

Gratuitous = unjustified, for no reason, unwarranted, unnecessary

There are two potential kinds of evil:

One) non-gratuitous evil = evil that was caused to prevent more evil (“greater good”)
Two) gratuitous evil = evil that was caused for an unjustified reason

Ah…is that the problem - my definition of non-gratuitous evil presupposes the existence of gratuitous evil? Because to me: “Greater good” = “prevent more evil”

Thus:

quote:

Mephi

Hence, the gratuitous evil would NOT exist at ALL in Calvinism...but WOULD exist in open view theism.

Means to me that since Calvinism does not contain gratuitous evil it only contains non-gratuitous evil. Which to me means one of the following:

One) That ONLY God causes evil and ONLY non-gratuitous evil at that.
Two) That God ONLY causes non-gratuitous evil and that humans ONLY cause non-gratuitous evil
Three) Null case – evil has no meaning - NO ONE commits any evil at all

Three) Null Case - evil has no meaning: this is really an absurdity since the very statement presupposes that evil has at least the meaning of being gratuitous and non-gratuitous. Therefore Calvinism implies that God causes the gratuitous evil also or it implies that evil has no meaning.

Two) humans ONLY cause non-gratuitous evil: my experience is that humans are NOT capable on their own of ONLY causing non-gratuitous evil therefore any evil humans commit must be non-gratuitous evil caused by God. Therefore Two collapses into One.

One) ONLY God causes evil and He ONLY causes non-gratuitous evil: which means that God causes ALL evil since there is no gratuitous evil. This is a contradiction because our premise is that evil has the meaning of being gratuitous and non-gratuitous. Thus Calvinism implies that all gratuitous evil is done by God or that there is no such thing as evil.

The only other path I can think of taking here and not at the outset contradicting our premise of there being gratuitous and non-gratuitous evil is to suggest that ALL evil that actually occurs is evil done by God in order to prevent a potential evil that some agent is trying to cause. A potential evil that has never and will never actually occur. Which means that this agent is causing God to cause ALL actual evil. Now if this agent is actually God then we are back to God causing gratuitous evil and if this agent is not God then by the mearest intention this agent can get God to commit evil for him. Which we would have to say is an ACT of actual evil – and gratuitous at that – therefore we have just contradicted our premise that all evil is non-gratuitous evil.

I am not sure how to NOT presuppose gratuitous evil in the definition of non-gratuitous evil. Is this the problem or is it something else?

Mephi

and...

Two) One would have to assume a wider divine final cause that would encompass the instances in a paradigmatic fashion. (Like above) The problem of evil would raise again once you said that PARTICULAR evil events could be the endpoints of divine final cause. Open view theism (and NOT process theology) does this implicitly.

Iconoclast

I am confused again. Are you saying that open view theism DOES imply that PARTICULAR evil events could be the endpoints of divine final cause? If not, then I agree. If so, why do you think this?

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 8/28/2002 9:44 PM (GMT -6)

Al

Icon, this is making no sense to you. This is because you are demanding that those in that tradition think the way you assume that they have to think. You are assuming that they have to use your epistomology. And they don't.

Iconoclast

I would really appreciate it if you could be more explicit and illustrate this for me.

Perhaps I can suggest some possibilities. Peirce suggests that there are 4 methods to coming to a belief:

One) Tenacity. Which is simply choosing to believe something and holding on to it no matter what other data comes your way.

Two) Authority. Which is choosing to believe what an authority tells you.

Three) A priori reasoning. Which is assuming certain basic truths and reasoning from those.

Four) Scientific method. Which is the process of taking what you already believe and using data and logic in a process of determining more accurate beliefs through convergent evidence through and within a community of inquirers. This method would include taking an authoritative source like the Bible and using this method to comprehend what the authoritative source is saying.

My intent is to operate out of number Four. If you are saying that these other folks are using One, Two or Three then I certainly agree with you that I will continue to be confused. And I also agree that they have a right to operate out of those methods. At the same time I am under no obligation to use their methods to determine my beliefs nor do I plan on it.

On the other hand, if you are saying that I am violating some principles of method Four – that I am being closed minded or something, by using the Tenacity method for example, then please let me know how am I doing that and I will seek to change.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 8/29/2002 2:34 AM (GMT -6)

[Meph: We generally live by NEWTONIAN physics in real life...even though we acknowledge all the WEIRD stuff that goes on in the quantum level…What would it matter if theological determinism were true, if we just continue to live like we do?

Doc: Seems to me, Meph, that no one lives or ever has lived, or ever CAN live, like NEWTONIAN physics told the whole story. As Icon has argued, we all LIVE like the reality is partly settled and partly open, something NEWTONIAN physics denied. This is why you are right to point out that, on the level of praxis, it DOESN’T fundamentally matter if theological determinism is true. We don’t and can’t LIVE this way. But then, if you accept the pragmatic criterion of truth, there is no reason to accept that it IS true. Yes, there are some existential BENEFITS from believing theological determinism (e.g. security, comfort), but benefits are not the same thing as ACTIONS. The question is, How can a person choose to ACT in such a way that they illustrate the belief that their ACT has been predetermined? The very process of deliberating between options illustrates the conviction that it is UP TO YOU to decide… which further illustrates the belief that NOT EVERYTHING is up to you to decide (viz. That the future is partly settled).

Iconoclast: If theological determinism were true but did not lead us to any specific behavior under any known conditions then I don’t know what "true" means in reference to "theological determinism". It is an idea that is neither clear nor relevant.

Doc: I agree with your general point, Icon. But I think it has to be more nuanced. One could say that theological determinism DOES lead to specific behaviors in certain circumstances… like encouraging people to trust God’s wisdom in the face of tragedy, crediting God alone when circumstances are fortunate, etc… But a person can’t make decisions – the most fundamental thing persons do – in such a way that they can illustrate their deterministic belief.

Meph: And there is one praxis which I KNOW is affected by this belief: the distinctive nature of prayers to God. To the extent that one thinks a certain way about God's providential power (AND IS CONSISTENT!!!), to that same extent one will pray according to that model. Frankly, I have yet to hear open view theists pray CONSISTENTLY with their model...or interpret BAD EVENTS via their model.

Doc: Ain’t tracking with you here dude. Seems to me that all who engage in PETITIONARY prayer pray as though theological determinism were NOT true. They of course have a different THEORY about their activity (God ordained the end through the means of my prayer), but they pray AS THOUGH thing hung on what they do. It may be true that many open theists are not consistent with their openness faith in praying… but, on the other hand, it may be that what you suppose are the consistent implications of an openness position are not. E.g. I’ve heard a gazillion times that open theists can’t consistently pray for someones salvation, since salvation implies free choice. But the objection assumes that the only kind of power one can pray for is CONTROL. If you think in terms of INFLUENCE, it makes perfect sense to pray for someone’s salvation – and safety, and health, etc…

Meph: Both views have some existentially unsatifying consequences...if one takes the time to really think 'em all out. And BOTH views end up using some type of "greater good" idea to attempt to balance things out.

Doc: With Icon, I’m not sure of the "existentially unsatisfying" consequences of Open Theology… unless you mean by "existentially unsatisfying" something like "things about reality we wish were not so." AS to the "greater good" idea, there’s a world of difference between saying that FREEDOM IN GENERAL is allowed for a greater good (viz. Love) and saying EVERY SPECIFIC EVENT is allowed for a greater good.

Icon: I totally agree that theological determinism does have some pragmatic value. It is hard for me to think of any belief that persists for long to NOT have any pragmatic value to the person – otherwise why would you bother. There has to be some payoff I would presume.

Doc: There is pragmatic payoff. But there is no way to deliberate between options such that one illustrate sa belief that determinism is true. This, I think, is the pragamatic problem of determinism.

Icon: To me the Open View is only strained in the area of "natural evil". Mephi, what exactly are the unsatisfying consequences of the Open View for you other than "natural evil"?

Doc: FYI, the only open theist I know of who completely endorses my take on "natural evil" is me. My view of natural evil is not distinctly openness. An Arminian could accept it with no problem (I know of a few who have). Having said this, I AM RIGHT!

At some point, Icon, I’d like to here your model of "natural evil" – why it is an integral part of life (as you said in the Taoist thread).

Icon: My intuition is that "natural evil" is a concept that has become enmeshed with "moral evil" and that once these concepts are untangled we will have much better insights on this issue.

Doc: Actually, I’m one of the few who enmesh "moral evil" with "natural evil." I deny the distinction. For MOST Christian theologians, "natural evil" is NOT evil, and is considered very distinct from "moral evil."

Icon: (To Al) Perhaps I can suggest some possibilities. Peirce suggests that there are 4 methods to coming to a belief:Tenacity; Authority. A priori reasoning. Scientific method.
My intent is to operate out of number Four.

Doc: Calvin operated more out of #2 (the Bible) but, I think, also with a good bit of #1 and #3. Yet, I can’t for the life of me see how this different approach to truth affects anything you or anyone has said about Calvin specificially or theological determinism in general. Al, what are you talking about?

Blessings

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 8/29/2002 3:39 AM (GMT -6)

Sweet! Doc's on!

Doc:

quote:
Seems to me, Meph, that no one lives or ever has lived, or ever CAN live, like NEWTONIAN physics told the whole story. As Icon has argued, we all LIVE like the reality is partly settled and partly open, something NEWTONIAN physics denied. This is why you are right to point out that, on the level of praxis, it DOESN’T fundamentally matter if theological determinism is true. We don’t and can’t LIVE this way. But then, if you accept the pragmatic criterion of truth, there is no reason to accept that it IS true. Yes, there are some existential BENEFITS from believing theological determinism (e.g. security, comfort), but benefits are not the same thing as ACTIONS. The question is, How can a person choose to ACT in such a way that they illustrate the belief that their ACT has been predetermined? The very process of deliberating between options illustrates the conviction that it is UP TO YOU to decide… which further illustrates the belief that NOT EVERYTHING is up to you to decide (viz. That the future is partly settled).

Some things. First, I would argue that there is a way to view theological determinism that DISTINGUISHES it from strict determinism. It is my belief that this is a big problem that people are having. In the theological determinism I'm conceptualizing, it's NOT NECESSARY to posit that the timeline is one big "whole" [I'll explain it later. It's cool!] Second, it seems that we keep kicking the same rock as far as living out determinism. This is what we live:

We do things and cause actions that significantly impact future events.

Now hear this...this is ALL that theological determinism needs to say! That our actions can influence the future. THIS is how we live. See, you guys over and over keep asking the WRONG question. You ask: How can a person ACT as if their lives (and all actions within) are predetermined? How about asking this: What does a system of theological determinism say about human action FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE...and does that cohere with the way that we live? NOW, we have something. Because all a deterministic system need say is that human beings can impact the future states of reality by their present actions...and this DOES cohere with how we live. The question you guy keep asking would have more potency if it were like this:

Can a person live as if they ultimately had NO say-so in their own futures?

See, THIS is really what you guys are trying to say. Because we all know darn well that NO ONE could ever live like this. It's like one of those self-evident things where ATTEMPTING to deny it affirms it. All human activity PRESUMES that we believe that we can impact our own futures. And this is where the confusion comes in. Theological determinism NEVER states that people have NO say-so in the own futures. Not by a long shot. That's FATALISM...which is DISTINCT from determinism! LOL Yes, my good people. Holla at this. People who believe in libertarian free will want to say that unless human beings are not PRIMARY SOURCES of causation, then being secondary causes don't count. This is nothing more than an assumption that has no real reasoning behind it! Just because theological determinism affirms that humans are not the FINAL (ultimate) CAUSE of their own actions to impact the future doesn't preclude that they are not EFFICIENT causes, impacting the future. And all that one needs to cohere with our experience is to say that human beings are AGENTS who act as determining factors in their own futures. And theological determinism can say that!

So, let me restate:

We CANNOT live as people who truly believe that we don't have ANY say-so over our futures. This would violate a fundamental belief about the world and ourselves. But this is NOT what theological determinism states. Theological determinism ALLOWS for people to have say-so over their futures AS EFFICIENT CAUSES that are necessary, but not sufficient for the job...and that's all that's necessary to cohere with our hardcore beliefs about life! So, a person CAN live according to the belief in theological determinism CONSISTENTLY

[Digression: Let me go on record saying that I think this is the most MISUNDERSTOOD FACET of Calvinism and the theological determinism that undergirds it! AAARRRRGGHHHHH!!!!!]

Whooooo! This should do it....right? YEAH!

Now, let's add something...Doc says:

quote:
Yes, there are some existential BENEFITS from believing theological determinism (e.g. security, comfort),...

and...

quote:
One could say that theological determinism DOES lead to specific behaviors in certain circumstances… like encouraging people to trust God’s wisdom in the face of tragedy, crediting God alone when circumstances are fortunate, etc…

SHO you right! So, NOW that we see that a person CAN consistently live with a belief in theological determinism, in that it DOES cohere with experience, wouldn't these nice little existential cookies REALLY look good to someone? I ask ya...

**********************************************************

Doc:

quote:
Seems to me that all who engage in PETITIONARY prayer pray as though theological determinism were NOT true. They of course have a different THEORY about their activity (God ordained the end through the means of my prayer), but they pray AS THOUGH thing hung on what they do. It may be true that many open theists are not consistent with their openness faith in praying… but, on the other hand, it may be that what you suppose are the consistent implications of an openness position are not. E.g. I’ve heard a gazillion times that open theists can’t consistently pray for someones salvation, since salvation implies free choice. But the objection assumes that the only kind of power one can pray for is CONTROL. If you think in terms of INFLUENCE, it makes perfect sense to pray for someone’s salvation – and safety, and health, etc…

If what I've said above is true, then it would make perfect sense for people who believe in theological determinism to pray for things, now wouldn't it? So, for the record, petitionary prayer is COHERENT within a theological deterministic framework. But that's not what I want to deal with here. I think you know what I mean when I talk about open view theists praying inconsistently. Many of them pray according to a view of divine providence that DOESN'T EXIST in the open view system. They often pray as if it was merely a matter of asking God and having faith in God for things. But, as I've clearly shown before, in the open view system, there is MUCH MORE to it then that. MUCH more ambiguity to note. This would be the ideal prayer in the open view system:

God, we ask that you do AS MUCH AS YOU CAN DO for X situation, IF IT'S YOUR WILL.

Let's break this down.

"God...:
That's who we are talking to. Asking for divine help.

"we ask you that you do...":
Petitionary prayer from us. Brings in the "spiritual say-so" element.

"...AS MUCH AS YOU CAN DO...":
The biggie. This acknowledges the TENTATIVENESS of God's possible response. This make the prayer aware that it is GENUINELY possible that God, who CAN have influence, may STILL not be able to pull it off. Creational factors may be limiting God to a really bad degree that day. [Note: This is IMPLICIT in the open view schema!]

"...for X situation...":
The context of the petition

"...IF IT'S YOUR WILL.":
This is the other crucial factor. Given that we don't REALLY know exactly what God could want for any given situation, we really don't know if God would even WANT to do what we are asking. And the assumption is that God probably won't do something if God really has something else planned.

But there is a corrolarry to this, that goes right along with open view suppositions:

God, if it's NOT your will to do what I'm asking for X situation, perhaps my prayer can CHANGE YOUR MIND to answer it anyway.

Is this NOT implicit in the whole relationality thing? That our prayers may change God's intentions about things? That even if God has a plan all laid out, we can STILL influence God to do what WE want? I would think so.

Now, putting all this together, what do we have? We have a situation where God will only grant prayer requests:

---IF God can really do it within the BROAD NATURE of his self-limitation via the world he created

---IF God wants to

or...

---IF God DOESN'T ORIGINALLY WANT TO, God changes his mind because of our petitions.

Now, I ask you. Do many people pray with this stuff in their heads about God? Do they REALLY think all these things...and the implications within? Moreover, do they REALLY understand all the ambiguity involved even IF the state that they wanted for situation X really DID obtain?? Do people really take to heart that God can FAIL to bring things to pass that He GENUINELY wants to do...but is thwarted by his METAPHYSICAL self-created boundaries??? Heck, no, they don't.

*****************************************************

Doc:

quote:
With Icon, I’m not sure of the "existentially unsatisfying" consequences of Open Theology… unless you mean by "existentially unsatisfying" something like "things about reality we wish were not so."

Ok. Equal time for the Calvinists. They could say the same thing about the "existentially unsatifying" implications of theological determinism. Ain't that right?

*****************************************************

Doc:

quote:
At some point, Icon, I’d like to here your model of "natural evil" : why it is an integral part of life (as you said in the Taoist thread).

oooh, THAT'll be fun. Maybe I can help!

*****************************************************

Oh, I'm having SO much fun. But I have to say this again. Just because I think it's so important. Forgive the redundancy.

We CANNOT live as people who truly believe that we don't have ANY say-so over our futures. This would violate a fundamental belief about the world and ourselves. But this is NOT what theological determinism states. Theological determinism ALLOWS for people to have say-so over their futures AS EFFICIENT CAUSES that are necessary, but not sufficient for the job...and that's all that's necessary to cohere with our hardcore beliefs about life! So, a person CAN live according to the belief in theological determinism CONSISTENTLY

If I'm wrong, I'm open to change. Sweet! Good to see you, Doc.

Holla,

Edited by - Mephi2K on 08/29/2002 08:41:02 AM

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 8/29/2002 3:48 AM (GMT -6)

Yo, Icon (and folk). I will definitely get back to the whole "gratuitous evil" thing, but if you don't mind, I'd REALLY like to home in one my claim here:

We CANNOT live as people who truly believe that we don't have ANY say-so over our futures. This would violate a fundamental belief about the world and ourselves. But this is NOT what theological determinism states. Theological determinism ALLOWS for people to have say-so over their futures AS EFFICIENT CAUSES that are necessary, but not sufficient for the job...and that's all that's necessary to cohere with our hardcore beliefs about life! So, a person CAN live according to the belief in theological determinism CONSISTENTLY.

To me, if what I'm saying above is granted as possibly being valid, then we have something major. Most of the time, the INTUITIONAL argument is the strongest against the idea of determinism. The whole "we can't live that way" thing. I'm thinking that possibly I can SINK that boat...and believe me, it's an important boat to sink!

So, how about we ALL work on this one for a while. Again, if I'm wrong, hopefully, it won't take that much to show me. Let's let's dirty, people!!

Rarin' to go,

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/29/2002 5:27 PM (GMT -6)

Icon, I'm not going to try and pin you down. That's not my goal. The dignity and freedom of those you seemed (to me) to have impune is what had my attention. I had said: "You are assuming that they have to use your epistomology."

You offered Pierce. That won't be helpful.

The matter is found in how the "Common Sense" philosophy of American Presbyterianism (as in the history of Princeton Univ.) resulted with many in the merge of a human centered and a God centered (This one does not resemble in my eyes the "Authority" you mentioned ("choosing to believe what an authority tells you.") A guy named Van Till (a major player) is in-between, taking conservative positions but adopting a merge-ing epistemology. But the bedrock tradition, before this modification, and the status of Reformed tradition back across the ocean (where the parents and grandparents-or they themselves--of the quoters I posted were catacumized is very much outside of the rationalistic tradition that seems to have shaped much of the American scene.)

You tread theology much like a science. It is not. One critic of the Princeton tradition also wrote an essay on theology and pistology. his point -- I remember him telling us as a faculty -- was that we can not study God; but we CAN study our worship of God. HE treats theology different from you.

My point. These three folks do not tread theology like you. Don't insist that they do.

(Better to call the strawman "theological determinism" --Tom's words -- than "Calvinism." Calvinism is something else. Its older than America's Common Sense or the Enlightenment influences in Scottland.)

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 8/29/2002 5:56 PM (GMT -6)

Yes Meph, its nice to spare again. Here’s my jabs.

1) Meph: We do things and cause actions that significantly impact future events. Now hear this...this is ALL that theological determinism needs to say!
How about asking this: What does a system of theological determinism say about human action FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE...and does that cohere with the way that we live?

Doc: Meph, how on earth can you define determinism in such a way as to leave out the crucial ingredient – namely, that our impacting the future is DETERMINED? Dude, EVERYBODY says "we do things and cause actions that significantly impact the future events." So if EVERYBODY says this and believe it, AS YOU ADMIT, then it surely can’t be all DETERMINISTS are saying.

2) Meph: All human activity PRESUMES that we believe that we can impact our own futures. And this is where the confusion comes in. Theological determinism NEVER states that people have NO say-so in the own futures.

Doc: You missed my point. My argument is not that a determinist can’t believe that their actions impact (in a efficient cause kind of way) the future. My argument is that they CAN’T DELIBERATE about the action they choose to take in such a way that they ILLUSTRATE their believe that their choice is already determined. WE BELIEVE, as evidenced by our action (of deliberation) that it is UP TO US to decide… and this is the very thing determinism denies.

3) Meph: People who believe in libertarian free will want to say that unless human beings are not PRIMARY SOURCES of causation, then being secondary causes don't count. This is nothing more than an assumption that has no real reasoning behind it!

Doc: Well, I’m not sure what you mean by "don’t count." But if you mean "not morally responsible," then I’d appeal to every decision every jury ever made about a criminal as evidence that there IS real reasoning behind it. If you can prove a person isn’t the PRIMARY source (of course, determinism denies they are ANY source), to that extent the person is found INNOCENT.

4) Meph: Theological determinism ALLOWS for people to have say-so over their futures AS EFFICIENT CAUSES that are necessary, but not sufficient for the job...and that's all that's necessary to cohere with our hardcore beliefs about life! So, a person CAN live according to the belief in theological determinism CONSISTENTLY

Doc: They can’t CHOOSE consistent with the believe that they are merely efficient causes. I stick to my claim that in the VERY ACT OF DELIBERATING we ACT as though "it is up to us." We are the SOURCE of our decision. Try to deliberate between options evidencing an opposite opinion!

5) Meph: The whole "we can't live that way" thing. I'm thinking that possibly I can SINK that boat...and believe me, it's an important boat to sink!
Doc: Do you now see what I’m getting at with the "live this way" claim?

6) Meph: They [open theists] often pray as if it was merely a matter of asking God and having faith in God for things. But, as I've clearly shown before, in the open view system, there is MUCH MORE to it then that. MUCH more ambiguity to note.

Doc: True enough Meph. But a) our praxis never encompasses the ambiguity of reality, in any arena. And there’s a reason for this. Action is definitive. But our grasp of ambiguity, by definition, is not. We ALWAYS act, and think, on a selective slice of reality, not reality as a whole. For there’s no other way to act. B) I find that thoughtful open theists DO tend to incorporate the ambiguity of reality more into their prayer life, but not necessarily in the prayer itself. You see the sophistication of someone’s attitude toward prayer in how they respond afterwards more than you see it in the wording of their prayer. For example, if a prayer is unanswered, do they say something like "well, God’s timing is the best timing"? Or do they say something more like, "who knows. Maybe the person just resisted God’s influence."

7) Meph. (Open theists praying to God) "...AS MUCH AS YOU CAN DO...": The biggie. This acknowledges the TENTATIVENESS of God's possible response.

Doc: I think the prayer of an open theists is rather more inclined to believe that prayer allows God to do more. Its not like God is doing LESS than he can do until we beg him. Its that, by God’s own design, our agreement with God on matters and our conversing with him about it OPENS UP DOORS for God’s influence that otherwise would remain closed. He wants to rule WITH us, not just OVER us.

8) Meph: Now, I ask you. Do many people pray with this stuff in their heads about God? Do they REALLY think all these things...and the implications within?

Doc: Our life is like a storefront. Our theology is like its backroom warehouse. We don’t put everything we have in the warehouse on the storefront. We put what is necessary at the time. But its important to have a full warehouse, for unless you have it there, you can’t pull it out to the storefront when its necessary. Prayer is a storefront activity. Its not appropriate to try to haul the entire warehouse in.

Think about it. Enjoying the dialogue. Others?

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 8/30/2002 3:19 AM (GMT -6)

This is GREAT STUFF!!!! So fun.

How about this, Doc? I think that much of your argumentation would work in your post...if I were positing STRICT determinism. In strict determinism (which can really be seen in behaviorism), it's really hard to see how our choices could come from US in any meaningful way. However, if we don't posit STRICT determinism, but the theological determinism that I talk about on another thread, much of this problem goes away. This will help specify:

Doc said:

quote:
You missed my point. My argument is not that a determinist can’t believe that their actions impact (in a efficient cause kind of way) the future. My argument is that they CAN’T DELIBERATE about the action they choose to take in such a way that they ILLUSTRATE their believe that their choice is already determined. WE BELIEVE, as evidenced by our action (of deliberation) that it is UP TO US to decide… and this is the very thing determinism denies.

I hear you saying that the act of deliberation (or self-determination) PRESUPPOSES our belief in the openness of the decision to be made. That there is NO fate, but what we make, as it were. I got this. However, if my idea of theological determinism works at all, this idea is PRESERVED. How?

1) We DO feel the openness of the future because, metaphysically speaking, the future IS open and unmade.

2) We DO feel self-determination because the choices DO originate from our "dispositions", which are the ULTIMATE seat of who we are.

So, let's use your idea: Human beings can't make acts of deliberation while PRESUPPOSING that the outcome is determined such that 1)it's not "up to us" and 2)the future is already set. Fine. Given my concept here, then my view still works. Right?

************************************

Doc:

quote:
a) our praxis never encompasses the ambiguity of reality, in any arena. And there’s a reason for this. Action is definitive. But our grasp of ambiguity, by definition, is not. We ALWAYS act, and think, on a selective slice of reality, not reality as a whole. For there’s no other way to act.

I hear ya. This goes back to the commitment discussion. In order to DO something, a decision has to be made. It is possible to so focus on the ambiguity as to NOT make any decisions. This just won't do. Understood.

**************************************

Doc:

quote:
I find that thoughtful open theists DO tend to incorporate the ambiguity of reality more into their prayer life, but not necessarily in the prayer itself. You see the sophistication of someone’s attitude toward prayer in how they respond afterwards more than you see it in the wording of their prayer. For example, if a prayer is unanswered, do they say something like "well, God’s timing is the best timing"? Or do they say something more like, "who knows. Maybe the person just resisted God’s influence."

How about: "Who knows? Maybe a demon botched the works because their wasn't enough prayer cover. Maybe someone resisted God's influence. Maybe an angel didn't do their job (like in "This Present Darkness" or something) Etc, etc."

See, the issue is that when there are more options like this, people tend to take the one that's the least existentially problematic for them. Think about it. Open view theists could STILL say "God's timing is the best timing" if they wanted to...and they could feasibly say it as MUCH as they wanted to. Same way with the "resisting influence" idea. But we see that we're, more or less, just GUESSING according to what makes us feel better about it. But, in the end, we're just revealing more about OURSELVES than about the situation itself.

***********************************

Doc:

quote:
I think the prayer of an open theists is rather more inclined to believe that prayer allows God to do more. Its not like God is doing LESS than he can do until we beg him. Its that, by God’s own design, our agreement with God on matters and our conversing with him about it OPENS UP DOORS for God’s influence that otherwise would remain closed. He wants to rule WITH us, not just OVER us.

All this is understood. However, this doesn't really touch my issue. The issue is not about God's INTENTION, but about God's EFFICACY in doing things providentially. See, it's possible that the requisite spiritual "help" from human beings is THERE...and God STILL can't bring things to pass because of other creational factors. Since this is a true possibility, then the question of God's efficacy in a situation cannot be reduced to our exercise of "spiritual say-so" See what I mean?

*******************************************

Doc:

quote:
Our life is like a storefront. Our theology is like its backroom warehouse. We don’t put everything we have in the warehouse on the storefront. We put what is necessary at the time. But its important to have a full warehouse, for unless you have it there, you can’t pull it out to the storefront when its necessary. Prayer is a storefront activity. Its not appropriate to try to haul the entire warehouse in.

But I thought that prayer was one of the things that showed us what we REALLY believed about God and the God/World relation. I remember someone saying that authentic prayer can reveal the TRUTH of one's theology more than any formal statement of faith that they can write. You can tell a lot about one's theology by their manner of prayer. And my main contention is that some of the prayers that I hear from open view theists betray a MUCH STRONGER SENSE of divine efficacy then their view may truly allow for. VERY much so.

**************************************

This is SWEET. Keep it movin,

Yeah,

timlings
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 130

Posted 8/30/2002 1:06 PM (GMT -6)

Here's some more thoughts for y'all.

I've been thinking through what's been said on this thread, and this is about all I can come up with.

(please correct me) Meph, you are saying that the OV implies that, due to factors of creation and free-willed agents and stuff, God is limited from doing what he wants. Most Arminians would agree to this, that God's will doesn't always happen because not everything is predestined etc. But Meph, you got further, by saying that the extent of this is bigger than most OVers acknowledge. Thus we have gratuitous evil.

A couple of things I would want to say in response to this.

a) God, in giving out some of his power to his created beings, has only gone so far. Even though humans and spiritual beings have quite a lot to wield , it doesn't really match up to God's. God's still got it in hand.

b) I think there is a difference between indiviual levels and an overal level. God's will may be thwarted in someone's life, but God will still work with that. Like with Pharoah. If he had gone along with God, he would have been used. But instead he hardened his heart to what God wanted to do, but God still got his way in the end. It's kinda like God gets the last laugh.

c) I also keep coming back to the bit in James where it says "Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you." We're meant to take part in the battle in the heavenlies, which may incur losses. But in all this, we are meant to have an attitute of trust in God. Are we able to say that, even though life may go pear-shaped around us, if it's what God wants for us, we're okay with it (ala Jesus in garden of Gethsemane)?

I fear this may be not relevant, so I'll do some quoting instead.

meph: I remember someone saying that authentic prayer can reveal the TRUTH of one's theology more than any formal statement of faith that they can write. You can tell a lot about one's theology by their manner of prayer.

Tim: Definitely! Our faith boils down to relationship, and a relationship can be seen evaluated by it's quality of communication. Or something.

Meph: And my main contention is that some of the prayers that I hear from open view theists betray a MUCH STRONGER SENSE of divine efficacy then their view may truly allow for. VERY much so.

Tim: Well, maybe. But then Jesus goes and says some crazy stuff like "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven." Hmm. Doesn't Jesus understand the limitations?

But there we go.

lots of

love

Tim

Edited by - timlings on 08/31/2002 04:28:10 AM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/30/2002 1:28 PM (GMT -6)

I'm not up to speed. But, for fun...

quote:
God, in giving out some of his power to his created beings, has only gone so far. Even though humans and spiritual beings have quite a lot to wield , it doesn't really match up to God's. God's still got it in hand.

"Giving out some of his power" sounds like MAGIC. Do we get to help with Providence too? Just asking!

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 8/30/2002 8:54 PM (GMT -6)

4) Meph: Theological determinism ALLOWS for people to have say-so over their futures AS EFFICIENT CAUSES that are necessary, but not sufficient for the job...and that's all that's necessary to cohere with our hardcore beliefs about life! So, a person CAN live according to the belief in theological determinism CONSISTENTLY

Doc: They can’t CHOOSE consistent with the belief that they are merely efficient causes. I stick to my claim that in the VERY ACT OF DELIBERATING we ACT as though "it is up to us." We are the SOURCE of our decision. Try to deliberate between options evidencing an opposite opinion!

Iconoclast: So, our very behavior of deliberation between different goals (final causes) betrays our true belief that we can actually choose our goals, and therefore influence our behavior. Do ALL people in the "community of inquirers" act this way? How would we act if we did NOT believe that we can actually choose different goals? And how can we be said to be responsible if cannot choose between different goals - say, serving God or serving ourself? Also, Doc, what do you mean by "deliberate between options evidencing an opposite action"?

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

timlings
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 130

Posted 8/30/2002 11:35 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
"Giving out some of his power" sounds like MAGIC. Do we get to help with Providence too? Just asking!

Ok, what I meant was...

God is all powerful, in that all power to do anything originates from him. But he has delegated some of this power out to his creation, hence why humans can create new things (such as beautiful paintings, cars, babies etc.), and can have an impact on the world (for good or for bad).

But you're right, 'power' does have magical connotations. Perhaps I'm more used to hearing it in the context of Foucault than D&D...

love

Tim

78 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:46 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual