 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/28/2001 4:44 PM (GMT -6) |   | Message
TGB
03/25/01 9:43 AM
Fatalism: The Test of Life
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question before us then is not, “Are divine sovereignty and human responsibility both true?” but rather, “If they are both true, is fatalism ruled out?” In short, does an affirmation of both necessitate that one live a nonfatalistic life? The answer to this last question is no.
Even if we grant that both divine sovereignty and human responsibility are true, why follow Mouw’s [ref. to Richard Mouw’s editorial in the Reformed Journal] advice to affirm human freedom and responsibility and hence live nonfatalistically, while at the same time continuing to affirm that God is sovereign? Could not a fatalist simply turn the tables and advise that we affirm God’s sovereignty and hence live fatalistically but at the same time continue to affirm that humans are nonetheless free and responsible? If the Calvinist were to challenge the fatalist by claiming that surely we must pick between fatalism and human responsibility, could not the fatalist dismiss this challenge as “either/or” thinking. If the Calvinist can hold that belief in divine sovereignty is compatible with a nonfatalistic lifestyle, why can’t the fatalist hold that belief in human responsibility is compatible with a fatalistic lifestyle? Or if the Calvinist were to ask whether it makes sense to affirm that we are responsible yet live fatalistically, could not the fatalist respond in kind: Does it makes sense to deny fatalism yet go on to affirm that God is really sovereign?
It would appear that the Calvinist and the fatalist are at a statemate, for the “both/and” [Mephi’s complimentarity] technique works both ways. Thus even if we grant the Calvinist that both divine sovereignty and human responsibility are true, this gives us no reason for choosing one way of life over the other. It is not enough to argue for both divine sovereignty and human responsibility. One also has to argue why the truth of both leads to a nonfatalistic as opposed to a fatalistic lifestyle. It is here where the both/and approach seemingly fails. [Randal Basinger, “Exhaustive Divine Sovereignty: A Practical Critique,” in The Grace of God and the Will of Man, ed. Clark Pinnock, (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1989).
I posted to Mephi recently that I thought three things (ought to) combine in our minds to confirm the truth of theological claim: exegesis, reason, and experience. I expanded on “experience” with the words “life,” and the phrase “making sense of life.” Mephi thought that letting experience into the truth-confirming process meant having an “unbalanced alliance to experience” that might lead us away from the truth. But it was only my contention that experience plays “a” role, not the only or even most important role, in deciding whether a theological claim is true. I thought Basinger’s comments hit upon the same point. Then, in the same volume, Rich Rice has a chapter entitled “Divine Foreknowledge and Free-Will Theism” in which he claims, “Every view of God should be evaluated in light of three criteria: the biblical evidence for it, the logical evidence that supports it, and its implications for personal religious experience.” There they are, the same three points I mentioned to Mephi: Exegesis, Reason, and Experience.
Any thoughts on Basinger’s comments regarding Fatalism?
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Mephi2K
03/25/01 11:16 AM
On Fatalism, Existential Experience, and Other Junk...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom,
First, let me say this. I think Basinger's stuff is incorrect.
This is the main point of the whole thing as I see it:
"It would appear that the Calvinist and the fatalist are at a statemate, for the “both/and” [Mephi’s complimentarity] technique works both ways. Thus even if we grant the Calvinist that both divine sovereignty and human responsibility are true, this gives us no reason for choosing one way of life over the other. It is not enough to argue for both divine sovereignty and human responsibility. One also has to argue why the truth of both leads to a nonfatalistic as opposed to a fatalistic lifestyle. It is here where the both/and approach seemingly fails."
Meph:
Alright!
Let's delve into what fatalism is, ok? I've done this before, so I'll just restate. Fatalism is a belief that all things are predetermined and as such are inevitable. With this, fatalism (DISTINCT FROM PREDESTINATION) does NOT necessitate any type of causal linkage. In other words, there is some type of mysterious element that is the EFFECTIVE cause for the ends spoken of. For example, if it was FATALISTICALLY asserted that you, Tom, would be buying me Starbuck's coffee tomorrow at 3:15, it wouldn't matter if you PURPOSEFULLY chained yourself to you house in Beirut and gave away ALL of your money prior to that. Bottom line, at 3:15, you would MYSTERIOUSLY find yourself buying me coffee at 3:15 tomorrow. See what I'm saying? The problem is that most people CONFUSE predestination, determinism, and fatalism all into ONE concept. (This is VERY, VERY, VERY frustrating because it's rife with many Christian theologians)
On the contrary of the example given above, predestination NECESSITATES casuality and OPERATES by causality. This is ONE thing to sharply keep in mind. So, note this well:
FATALISM IS NOT DETERMINISM! FATALISM IS NOT PREDESTINATION! Moving on...
*******************************************************
The Simple-Minded Fatalist
What one has to understand is that the ONLY thing that a fatalist can do is have a FEELING of submissiveness to existence. Kinda like the Stoics. But there's an issue here. Check this skit that illustrates the problem.
Mephi: So you are a fatalist, right?
F: Yep.
Mephi: So you believe that all things are predetermined and therefore nothing you do really matters?
F: Yes.
Meph: Ok. So what do you do as a result?
F: Well, I basically just let things happen and don't try to change anything, because I can't change anything anyway.
Meph: Hmmm...when you say that you "just let things happen", don't you really mean that you MAKE THE CHOICE to just let things happen? and don't you mean that you CHOOSE not to try to change anything?
F: Uh, what do you mean?
Meph: Check it out. On the basis of what you believe about reality, you have DECIDED to just let things happen. There is some cognition and VOLITION going on here. Do you understand what I'm saying?
F: Well, yes. But those are just THOUGHTS. They are not actions.
Meph: So, are you saying that THOUGHTS can't be any part of a line of causation?
F: Well, how can they be? Thoughts don't MAKE things happen.
Meph: How can you say that? We've already established that your thoughts have CAUSED you to "just let things happen" and not to attempt to change anything. So, that OBVIOUSLY shows that thoughts are in SOME way a part of lines of causation.
F: Well, now. I guess I can see that.
Meph: Now, let's take your thoughts to their logical conclusion. We have already seen that at the most FUNDAMENTAL level of your self-understanding, you CANNOT deny that your cognition and choice GENUINELY made things happen, right?
F: Well, yeah...
Meph: Well, doesn't this TACITLY deny the premise that you can't change anything?
F: Huh? What do you mean?
Meph: If you were to decide that you actually CAN make a difference, then what would you be doing?
F: I'd probably be trying to make a difference somewhere.
Meph: So, at base, your cognitive framework about reality determined your choice to do nothing. If you had a different idea, then you ADMIT that you would be doing different things.
F: Yes...
Meph: Then this completely goes against the view that you cannot change anything. Surely you see this!
F: (Looking very interested) Hmmm...that's quite interesting. It does seem to go against the idea that we cannot change anything.
Meph: Indeed. See, pal, people CHOOSE to be fatalists. But because people don't understand that cognition is WITHIN the rubric of causation, they don't understand that their very choice to BECOME fatalists are TACIT evidences that they cannot live with that belief consistently.
F: Oh, my! Then as a human, thinking being, I CAN NEVER live as a consistent fatalist?
Meph: Friggin aye!
***************************************************
Hopefully, you see what I was trying to say. WAAAAAAY back in the "Dogmatism" thread...
"2) You will concede that human cognition about its own actions and existence (self-consciousness) is axiomatically accepted as prima facie true by human beings, and as such, the EXISTENTIAL SENSE of freedom that arrives from this is both unfalsifiable and yet, undeniable."
This, Tom, is why I made this statement. There is NO WAY for a thinking human being to DENY the existential sense of freedom. To attempt to do so is to, at the same time, AFFIRM it. Therefore, it is UNFALSIFIABLE and UNDENIABLE. Now what does this mean? Let's go back to the statement made:
"Thus even if we grant the Calvinist that both divine sovereignty and human responsibility are true, this gives us no reason for choosing one way of life over the other.
Friggin UNTRUE! Existential experience ITSELF gives us the reason for choosing one way of life over the other. NO fatalist can CONSISTENTLY live as a fatalist qua fatalism. NONE! This has been proven to be an absurd philosophical position from the longest. One still has to CHOOSE to be a fatalist, which PRIMA FACIE, denies what it tries to assert. Remember what Modes kept saying? He believes that free will is true because there is NO OTHER WAY that he could live. I COMPLETELY understood what he was saying and why he was saying it. THAT's why I wanted to rightfully separate the CONCEPT of libertarian free will from the EXISTENTIAL SENSE of feeling freedom. Feel me? Thus, I would argue that ON THESE GROUNDS, one should live according to the concept of human responsibility BECAUSE THERE'S NO OTHER WAY TO LIVE!
Moreover, the quote says:
"Thus even if we grant the Calvinist that both divine sovereignty and human responsibility are true, this gives us no reason for choosing one way of life over the other. It is not enough to argue for both divine sovereignty and human responsibility. One also has to argue why the truth of both leads to a nonfatalistic as opposed to a fatalistic lifestyle. It is here where the both/and approach seemingly fails."
LOL. No, it doesn't fail, as hopefully, I've shown to you. For more information on this, PLEASE, dear reader, check out my use of the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle on the "God's Freedom" thread. This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
Now, here's the problem that I have with naive realistic worldviews. They DIRECTLY LINK this existential UNDENIABLE feeling of freedom with the ULTIMATE METAPHYISCAL REALITY. Again, this is patent NAIVE/COMMON SENSE realism, and one that has been disputed philsophically for YEARS. These type of realists want to say that their existential experiences are DIRECTLY what reality IS. (Tom, do you see why I mentioned the OVERemphasis on experience?) This is problematic, to say the list. Naive realists laud the test of life, but do so with DIFFERENT EXPECTATIONS because of their epistemological position.
**********************************
Thoughts On Basinger's Idea:
I would submit that Basinger possibly hasn't thought out what fatalism actually IS, what it states, and how it works out with respect to the human psyche. I would ALSO assert that because of this, he comes to some INCORRECT conclusions. In short, I disagree and think his idea is EXTREMELY wanting.
I hope all this was clear.
In Christ Always,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TGB
03/26/01 6:20 AM
RE: On Fatalism, Existential Experience, and Other Junk...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Meph! Your comments indented.
Fatalism is a belief that all things are predetermined and as such are inevitable…
And Calvin allowed for events which were not so determined?
…With this, fatalism (DISTINCT FROM PREDESTINATION) does NOT necessitate any type of causal linkage. In other words, there is some type of mysterious element that is the EFFECTIVE cause for the ends spoken of. For example, if it was FATALISTICALLY asserted that you, Tom, would be buying me Starbuck's coffee tomorrow at 3:15, it wouldn't matter if you PURPOSEFULLY chained yourself to you house in Beirut and gave away ALL of your money prior to that. Bottom line, at 3:15, you would MYSTERIOUSLY find yourself buying me coffee at 3:15 tomorrow.
I’m a novice at philosophy, Mephi, so be patient. But I don’t think there is such a thing as “fatalistic assertion.” Fatalists, I assume, would all agree that it’s impossible to know ahead of time what one’s personal fate is. So your assuming to KNOW ahead of time that my FATE included buying you coffee at a specific time, a fate I would then attempt to challenge, sinks your analogy.
What one has to understand is that the ONLY thing that a fatalist can do is have a FEELING of submissiveness to existence. Kinda like the Stoics. But there's an issue here. Check this skit that illustrates the problem…
Your skit doesn’t work in my view. Zeno and his Greek buddies would never agree to it. They actually did believe that if you COULD do something about a situation you SHOULD. The were very industrious people. But I LOVE your attack on this poor guy! You sound just like an open theist, arguing on the basis of LIFE and EXPERIENCE that one cannot live consistently as a fatalist!
But regardless of whether or not one may actually LIVE consistently as a fatalist (I’d agree with you one cannot), this was NOT Basinger’s point. His point is that people DO often times adopt fatalistic worldviews, worldviews which in themselves warrant their living fatalistically, but which ought to be dumped when experience shows them incapable of “making sense of life.” Exactly Basinger’s point. You continue to insist that compatibility can be lived, that it explains our “existential sense” of freedom, but I haven’t seen this.
This, Tom, is why I made this statement. There is NO WAY for a thinking human being to DENY the existential sense of freedom. To attempt to do so is to, at the same time, AFFIRM it. Therefore, it is UNFALSIFIABLE and UNDENIABLE.
But every thinking human being would also reason that their experience of freedom includes the power to the contrary. Look, Mephi, do this--existentially remove the power to the contrary from all deliberations, from your consideration of all options, then tell me how one “goes about” deciding between them. Describe existentially what it means to deliberate freely between two options, one of which I also believe to have been “unconditionally” and “efficaciously” predetermined for me by God. How do I DO that? Everything about existence as I know it tells me that power to the contrary is the one thing that gives meaning to our existential sense of freedom. Our belief that when we deliberate between alternatives we’re facing REAL alternatives (either one of which we were equally free to follow) defines universally what the “existential sense of freedom” is. Without it there IS no existential sense to speak of.
But I love your reasoning. You sound like Doc!
THAT's why I wanted to rightfully separate the CONCEPT of libertarian free will from the EXISTENTIAL SENSE of feeling freedom.
Now you don’t sound like Doc! Libertarian free will is NOT simply a concept, it’s an experience. Try deliberating meaningfully with it. I’m sure that when Modes says he can’t live without his sense of freedom, he means “libertarian freedom.” The very “existential sense of freedom” you rightly seek to establish as legitimate is what also tells us we are not truly free unless we’re free to do other than we do.
Now, here's the problem that I have with naive realistic worldviews. They DIRECTLY LINK this existential UNDENIABLE feeling of freedom with the ULTIMATE METAPHYISCAL REALITY. Again, this is patent NAIVE/COMMON SENSE realism, and one that has been disputed philsophically for YEARS. These type of realists want to say that their existential experiences are DIRECTLY what reality IS.
Mephi, I apologize for being so inept as a philosopher, but again it seems to me that your claim that power to the contrary should not be included as a necessary part of our existential sense of freedom fails. Beyond our existential sense of freedom you posit not a complimentary truth, but an opposing truth claim (i.e. all our choices are unconditionally and efficaciously predetermined). Our sense of freedom tells us we genuinely face options and therefore are responsible for the choices we make. And this is naïve unless we further admit that these choices are predetermined?
Complimentarity means that what I see as a square from my two-dimensional perspective is from God’s extra-dimensional perspective actually a cube. So the truth from God’s point of view may be fuller, but it compliments my point of view. It fills it out without denying it. But this is NOT what compatibilism does. Compatibilism posits not a fuller complimentary truth from God’s perspective, but a competing truth claim that expressly denies the truth of our existential senses. What from our perspective appears to be a free choice is from God’s point of view predetermined and inevitable. This remains to me an incoherent claim. The question then is “Is power to the contrary a genuine part of our existential sense of freedom. You claim it is not. Describe to me then what it’s like existentially to deliberate between two alternatives, one of which you believe is predetermined and the other you believe yourself incapable of choosing in any event.
I think there’s one reality Mephi. And that’s God’s. If something is fixed and predetermined from his view, then it’s fixed and predetermined, period, and my existential senses are illusory. For our choices to be free and self-determined from OUR perspective, for our existential senses regarding freedom to be true at all, they have to be so from God’s perspective as well. For what is true from God’s perspective IS true in all possible worlds and dimensions. We live in part of God’s reality, not a separate reality.
I’m a lousy philosopher, Mephi. Doc, Modes, GDG (the only other member with three caps in her name like me), guys, wanna comment? I might be digging OV’s grave if you leave me much longer. I’m just shooting from the hip here. I started this thread hoping others would jump in so I could watch! Never dreamt I’d have to say anything.
Gotta run,
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Mephi2K
03/26/01 7:57 AM
Paging Modes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd agree with Tom. Say, Modes. Wanna holla at this for a minute? I think that you already know some of the stuff that I was going to say in reply, so how about YOU say some things before I do.
If you would, put some particular emphasis on this statement in your response:
"For our choices to be free and self-determined from OUR perspective, for our existential senses regarding freedom to be true at all, they have to be so from God’s perspective as well.
You know what's up...
Meph
PS: Anyone else can answer, of course. I'm just calling my caped crusader to save the day. LOL
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TGB
03/26/01 10:08 AM
Paging Doc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi-
How do you reply so quickly?
1) I just got back from taking my kids to Rocky & Bullwinkle, so I can't possibly say anything meaningful right now.
2) I feel like you and Modes are setting me up.
3) If you can call on Modes, then I wanna call on Doc. Calling Doc! Calling Doc!
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
ModesofThought
03/26/01 11:53 AM
RE: Paging Doc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom, If there is a set up under way, I am unaware of it...I will need some time to get back at this, probably this afternoon sometime. I haven't been following this thread, so I have some reading to do...
Blessings to you both.
Mephi, check your email. (FYI for the curious, my email to Meph is completely unrelated to my responding here...)
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TGB
03/26/01 11:27 PM
RE: RE: Paging Doc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry all-
I double-posted, so I erased this one!
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
TGB
03/26/01 11:28 PM
RE: RE: Paging Doc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes-
The “setting me up” thing was a joke!
Just a point of clarification. I said this already but don’t want it to get lost in my last lengthy post. I agree with Mephi that it’s practically impossible to live consistently as a fatalist. But it does not follow from this that a person may not adopt a fatalistic worldview/theology that would warrant his attempting to live fatalistically, in which case one would hope his inability to LIVE what he BELIEVES would encourage him to find something else to believe. That was Basinger’s point I think. He wasn’t arguing that determinists ought to live fatalistically, or that one could succeed at living so even if he tried. He was simply arguing that determinism suffers from the same weakness as other fatalistic worldviews in that as a system it fails to provide logical, systematic reasoning for not attempting to live fatalistically. Mephi concentrated all his energy on proving it impossible to live fatalistically (which I’m sure Basinger would agree with—I don’t think he’s THAT slow Mephi) but failed I think to recognize that people often times BELIEVE fatalistically even if they can’t consistently LIVE fatalistically. That is, proving that people can’t live fatalistically doesn’t prove they don’t often believe things that warrant their living fatalistically, nor does it prove that determinism does not encourage an attempt at fatalism.
Later,
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Mephi2K
03/27/01 12:58 AM
Patience, Meph...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ooh, man! C'mon, Modes. Get yer 2 cents in, for real. Tom is tempting me WAY too much with his comments here. But I don't want too get ahead of myself. Put that cape on and get in here! LOL
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
03/27/01 1:14 AM
Patience, Meph...MORE Patience, Man...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Mephi concentrated all his energy on proving it impossible to live fatalistically (which I’m sure Basinger would agree with—I don’t think he’s THAT slow Mephi) but failed I think to recognize that people often times BELIEVE fatalistically even if they can’t consistently LIVE fatalistically."
My fingers are SO twitchin'. Oh, Modes?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
03/27/01 12:23 PM
RE: Patience, Meph...MOR E Patience, Man...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who cares if your fingers are twitchin'...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
03/27/01 3:03 PM
RE: Patience, Meph...MOR E Patience, Man...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dang! This a kick'n discussion! I'ma just gonna sit back and listen in for a while. Whew! Hot diggity!
Brandon-chill'n
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TGB
03/29/01 6:16 AM
RE: Patience, Meph...MOR E Patience, Man...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi-
People feel either that you're clearly correct and that there's no hope in trying to convince me, or visa versa. Oh well.
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:54 AM (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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|