quote:

---

Yo. I ain't a pro, but I'll try to answer this. Been here, done this, in a way.

As I see it, this person basically is going the compatibilistic route under the generally corresponding idea of "free will" Basically, he's saying that it's stupid to say that someone can just have the power to arbitrarily CHOOSE against 1) their own mental states and 2) their own substantial character development. This would be tantamount to decisions just spontaneously popping up from nowhere. So, to a compatibilist, as long as any given choice emerges IN SOME WAY from the person, freedom of volition exists...and that's all one can ask for anyway.

But here's the thing. Open view theists are NOT saying anything like this. First of all, they are not making the notion that the power of choice is INDEPENDENT of human mental states. They would AGREE with compatibilists on this score. But here's the problem. Compatibilists are approaching the whole things PSYCHOLOGICALLY while the chief open view presupposition is approaching this from a more METAPHYSICAL vantage point. How so? Open view theists say that a person cannot be said to be free unless the origin of choices PRIMARILY emerges from said person...and not from ANY OTHER force or being (including God). This introduces the metaphysical claim of a crawlspace that allows for ontological distinction from God facilitated by a locus of EFFICACIOUS AUTONOMY from God. The seat of the human essence. Compatibilists, on the other hand, basically say that even though human decisions can emerge PRIMARILY from God (via exhaustive definition foreknowledge and its implications), since the decisions emerge SECONDARILY from the human's mental states and desires, those decisions can be considered "free" in the meaningful sense that we phenomenologically understand. Therefore, NO metaphysical crawlspace for ontological differentiation is deemed necessary.

What's the drive, though? Simply this. Open view theists want to say that the God/human relationship is reciprocal at the most FUNDAMENTAL level of reality. Our interactions are not merely phenomenological FOR US...but also existent for God as well. And the only way to do that logically is to posit the "crawlspace" of freedom. Compatibilists cannot do this, and therefore cannot TRULY say that God/human relationships are authentically reciprocal ON ALL LEVELS.

So, what do I think? first of all, I empathize with your friend. I once thought like he did about the understanding of human freedom ala compatibilism. And I couldn't get what open view theists were saying, either. It took me lots of time, much reading, incessant questioning, and loads of posting to come to this understanding. Simply because what I've just detailed isn't really spelled out succinctly in any STRICTLY "open view" literature. Doc, by far, comes the closest by positing his Six Theses where the first is "Love Requires Freedom"...but in back of this statement (which is often still misconstrued), Doc has done mad philosophical work and analysis that UNDERGIRDS this statement sensibly...and distinguishes it from the compatibilist conceptualization. It was only after getting a bit of that that I came to understand what I've just now told you. This isn't to say that the suppositions of open view theism are true. This is to say that they do indeed logically work out.

Does this help?

Holla,

---