 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Dogmatism, Pragmatism,and the power of belief | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 6:05 AM (GMT -6) |   | Message Go To Page 2 3 >>
Mephi2K
01/22/01 7:33 PM
Dogmatism, Pragmatism and the Power of Belief
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Room,
I've just been thinking and reflecting about this whole thing. The entire discussion. And I want to ask some questions before I get into the topic fully. Here they are:
******************************************
Questions:
1) Is there any reasonable way to falsify the claim that the idea of libertarian free will is true? If so, how?
2) Is there any reasonable way to falsify the idea of the exercise of love NECESSITATING libertarian free will? If so, how?
3) Is there any reasonable way to falsify the idea that free will is NOT compatible with any type of determinism? If so, how?
4) Is there any reasonable way to falsify the idea that God "changes his mind" in ultimate metaphysical reality? If so, how?
5) Is there any reasonable way to falsify the idea that God does not provides ALL the parameters that restrain Satan? If so, how?
***********************************************
I would ask that, for right now, only those who subscribe to open view theism answer this question, please. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE (ala James Brown LOL ) answer each question as thoroughly and specifically as you can. It is instrumental that for each question, it is imperative that you show HOW and BY WHAT MEANS the claims above can be falsified. There is a purpose to this...trust me.
After a while, peeps,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
01/22/01 11:44 PM
RE: Dogmatism, Pragmatism and the Power of Belief
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi2K: actually, that's what I count on you for...Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/23/01 12:05 AM
Thanks For The "Input"...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Writerdad,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
01/23/01 12:03 PM
RE: Thanks For The "Input"...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi2K: Thanks for the smile. I am actually intrigue by your proposition, but in all frankness I am not sure I am qualified to give such a proposition its due, nor am I sure I have the time (I have three kids to care for, you know). But I am glad you brought these questions up and I hope someone can. I hope you don't mind if I simply slide in now and then with questions and comments. While I admire you for bring up such questions, I think they may be too daunting for many such as myself. Still, thanks...I'm sure it will be fun, interesting and worth the ride. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/23/01 6:40 PM
Making Sure I'm Understood
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just wanted to clarify something here while I was at it. I want to make sure that everyone understands what I am asking. What I am asking is this:
For each of the ideas represented in the questions above, what would be the ways to prove those ideas to be untrue. For example, with the idea of libertarian free will. What would be the evidence that could be used to say that the idea of libertarian free will was NOT true or valid? I just wanted to elaborate on this unless anyone was confused on the original post. Please, guys, have at this one! Open view theists only, for right now please. Modes, I know you got this one...I'm waitin' on you, man.
Later On, Peeps,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/24/01 8:36 PM
Don't Leave Me Hangin', Y'all!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Say, I'd really like a reply here, y'all. Anyone at all...I'll even invoke the name of my favorite "pull-a-homie-out-da-fire" buddy again...
MODES??
(LOL )
Holla Back On The Cool,
Mephi2K
PS: You too, Doc...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
01/24/01 8:50 PM
RE: Don't Leave Me Hangin', Y'all!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's not leave Mephi talking to himself.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
01/24/01 10:45 PM
RE: Dogmatism, Pragmatism and the Power of Belief
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay Mephi, I'll nibble at the bait, just for a bit. (Notice: this is off the top of my head. Other ideas may come tomorrow after I sleep). I'll consider Mephi2k's questions in order.
1) Is there any reasonable way to falsify the claim that the idea of libertarian free will is true? If so, how?
Libertarian free will would be falisified....
a) if someone could prove that the idea of liberterian freedom is incoherent.
b) if someone could effectively argue that it doesn't undermine the classical doctrine of creation ex nihilo, salvation by grace, etc... to deny that GOD possesses libertarian freedom (if libertarian freedom is incoherent for humans, its incoherent to apply to God as well. C.S.Lewis once said, "Incoherencies don't become compliments just because we attribute them to God".
c) if someone could empirically demonstrate that we have good reasons for believing humans are free only in a compatibilistic sense.
d) if someone could show that we can render coherent our phenomenological experience of delibertation without appealing to libertarian freedom./
e) if someone could demonstrate that a theological/philosophical system that omits liberterian freedom has more explanatory power than systems with liberterian freedom (using Wesley's Fourfold criteria of "explanatory power" -- Scripture, tradition, reason and experience.
2) Is there any reasonable way to falsify the idea of the exercise of love NECESSITATING libertarian free will? If so, how?
a) Show that the role of contrary choice does not play a decisive role in our experience of love.
b) Provide a compelling analogy of a love relationship where the possibility of chosing against it was never possible. (In God of Possible I provide an analogy showing the opposite -- my wife receiving a computerchip that dictates her behavior without her knowing it. The analogy to the contrary must be more plausible than this).
3) Is there any reasonable way to falsify the idea that free will is NOT compatible with any type of determinism? If so, how?
a) Provide a plausible compatibilistic explanation for our sense that freedom is turning INDEFINITE POSSIBILITIES into SETTLED REALITIES.
b) Provide an analogy in which agent x exhaustively determines agent y (meaning, agent y's behavior can be exhaustively explained by agent x's intention) yet agent y is responsible for what they do, not x. (This would at least provide some meaning to the concept that God can predestine evil acts, but "in such a way" that people are responsible for doing what they were predestined to do.)
4) Is there any reasonable way to falsify the idea that God "changes his mind" in ultimate metaphysical reality? If so, how?
a)Show that the idea of change is logically incompatible with the idea of a supremely perfect being (this is the classical approach)
b) refute the Openness exegesis of those passages which say "God changes his mind."
5) Is there any reasonable way to falsify the idea that God does not provides ALL the parameters that restrain Satan? If so, how?
a) Show by Scripture or logic that God MUST or at least DOES provide all the parameters that restrain Satan. (I'm not sure what you mean here, Mephi2k. I at least would want to say that God sets all the parameters of Satan's behavior. But this is a PARAMETER, not a meticulous blueprint.)
There you go. Have at it!
Greg
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
01/26/01 9:45 AM
RE: Don't Leave Me Hangin', Y'all!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Meph, sorry to leave you hanging. Actually, Greg put his responses so well I feel that they should be dealt with before I take an independant stab at it. If you want something more to respond to from me that is actually more related than it might appear, check out my "and so it goes..." bar that I hum under the story thread...
Love ya man.
...your eyes will not notice the message below because it is a subliminal message...
...you are getting very sleepy...
you are falling into a vegetative state...
***subliminal message, Read "Johannes Climacus" today...***
...and suddenly you awake and forget everything! (except this tremendous urge, which overwhelms your sense of personal agency, to read more Kierkegaard...hm, where to start...Aha!)
LOL!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
01/26/01 10:12 AM
RE: Don't Leave Me Hangin', Y'all!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry 'bout the post-hypnotic suggestion, did it work by the way?
Meph, I think your questions are right on track in terms of where we need to go to resolve the most significant rift between the two (broadly speaking) camps engaged here. Once someone tackles Boyd's reply I will be ready to jump in. The best I can hope for is one of the following might occur:
1. you and LL will be able to demonstrate that we agency theorists are really not experiencing self-consciousness which possesses libertarian free will, or
2. we will concede that such freedom is actually unfalsifiable, as per the challenge.
or
3. We might demonstrate to you that we, and by extension, you are in fact free moral agents or
4. you might concede that free agency IS falsifiable, but you are unable to falisfy it convincingly.
Are we all willing to stick it out until one of these 4 things happen? Have I missed other reasonable "resolutions" to this debate?
I have posed the positions both positively (demonstration talk) and negatively (falsification talk). Is there a mediating position that meet our criteria (which are)?
As it stands, it seems that we will have to deal with this on logical terms because of the way that Meph phrased the challenge. Do we deal with it also according to our experience, Scripture, tradition? I bring this all up because it seems we have the caliber of partners present for quite rigorous dialogue, Let us work this through with one area of authority at a time so that it can be dealt with with as much clarity as possible. Boyd's response to Mephi incorporates at least Scripture, reason and experience. Shall we break it down as I have proposed or am I just wallowing in my desire for conciseness? Are Boyd's responses adequate to get us started? Need some feedback...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/26/01 1:43 PM
My Man Modes NEVER Lets Me Down!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes! BIG DAWG!!!! And you wonder why I always call on you? You are more dependable than Old Faithful, mi amigo! LOL As always, you exercise your penchant for discerning the heart of matters and synopsizing them in an acceptable fashion. I wanted to start slow with the questions but it seems like you've saved us a LOT of time of muddling through. BRAVO!!!! Though I found your resolutions perceptive indeed, I had a few tweaks to make. See what you think. [Note: These are going to be stated going on the assumption that Lion will participate in this discussion. If he chooses not to, it's completely understood. Please don't feel me presumptuous for adding your name to this, Lion ]
1) Lion and I will be able to demonstrate that human agency (which presupposes self-consciousness) does NOT necessitate the existence of libertarian free will...or...
as opposed to..
"you and LL will be able to demonstrate that we agency theorists are really not experiencing self-consciousness which possesses libertarian free will"
Tweak on #1:
The statement made in your number one says that the existential experience of self-consciousness is presupposed by libertarian free will. I think this is an assumption that must ITSELF be challenged. Human agency presupposes self-consciousness, by definition. It is not a mere assumption. Human agency is based fundamentally on the concept of choice. Human choice and volition is based upon cognitive reflection. Cognitive reflection is based upon self-consciousness (which Lion and I will argue is UNFALSIFIABLE) I hope that you can see my line of reasoning here. I believe that there is NO direct connection between the existential experience of self-consciousness and libertarian, using human agency and choice as the main criteria.
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.
as opposed to...
"we will concede that such freedom is actually unfalsifiable, as per the challenge"
Tweak on #2:
I found it necessary to distinguish the issues of "freedom" and the existential sense of that freedom. Many times, this is the problem that agency theorists in their argumentation get hung up on in their discussions with others. Unless you want to argue for a naive realism (Wonder why I was harping on it so much?) where an existential perception of something MUST directly coorelate to the complete ontological truth of said thing, this distinction MUST be made. Second, I think you will agree with me that the main issue here is the existential perception anyway. It is from this UNDENIABLE perception that I think that most libertarian free willers argue anyway. Unfortunately, they make a direct tie of the perception to the concept of "freedom" without acknowledging the epistemological stance that supports that.
3) You and Doc might demonstrate that all human beings are in fact "free" moral agents, in the context of libertarian free will by NECESSITY.
as opposed to...
"We might demonstrate to you that we, and by extension, you are in fact free moral agents"
Tweak on #3:
I think that all four of us (Lion, Doc, you and me) would agree that we are all free moral agents. The discussion goes deeper than that to the actual context in which we understand human agency and freedom as it relates to moral deliberation. From my understanding of the open view position, libertarian free will MUST be in place. No other type of schema for interpreting human choice is plausible! Therefore, libertarian free will is a nonnegotiable NECESSARY tenet of openness theology. So, it is not just mandatory that you demonstrate that human beings perceive that they are "free" in some sense. You must, I repeat, MUST demonstrate that this perception is ONLY intelligible and ontologically possible within the context of libertarian free will. Stated another way, you must demonstrate the links in thought from self-consciousness to libertarian free will such that libertarian free will is the NECESSARY corrolary of "free moral agents"
4) Lion and I might concede that the existential sense of freedom felt perceived by all human beings IS falsifiable, but we are unable to falisfy it convincingly.
as opposed to...
"you might concede that free agency IS falsifiable, but you are unable to falisfy it convincingly"
Tweak on #4:
This is just putting this question into perspective, given what has been said above. Agency is not the thing to be falsified, as I have shown earlier. I believe that we all agree about the existence of human agency. What needs to be falsifiable is self-consciousness and the corrolary, the EXISTENTIAL SENSE of freedom that human beings experience because of self-consciousness.
********************************************************
Modes says:
"Do we deal with it also according to our experience, Scripture, tradition?"
He brings up a good point. I say this we should BEGIN dealing with this from the vantagepoint of emphasizing experience and reason.
The reason why? I personally believe that, when you work it ALL back, the ultimate reason that openness theologians back the concept of libertarian free will at all is because they have a certain view of "love" in general and the love of GOD in particular (which, they think, MUST work by essentially the same paradigm) such that love CANNOT function outside of the existence of libertarian free will. Thus wanting to affirm their sense of God's love (per their presupps on "love" which include relational, reciprocal action), they affirm libertarian free will. It is this assumption that may be used in the hermeneutic of many open view theists, rendering the whole exegesis thing problematic. [NOTE: I come to this conclusion based on many things. And I'll place that all on my response to Dr. Boyd on the "Anthropomorphism Summary" thread later. ] We have to do deal with the epistemological assumptions THEMSELVES concerning with these things before we can effectively deal with Scripture without getting into all the usual problems:
1) Free will
2) Human agency
3) Love
To start all this off. It's probably best that we concentrate on the assumption that self-consciousness NECESSARILY mandates libertarian free will. If we can separate the undeniable, unfalsifiable from the deniable AND falsifiable, this will go a LOOONG way in establishing us.
Moroever, the conundrum that we have is that we cannot merely divorce reason and experience from our respective Christian theological frameworks and worldviews, which would necessarily include the central teachings (Scripture) and interpretations of those teachings (traditions). What we CAN do however, is recognize the linkages and see how one aspect effects all the others and recognize how to use each aspect of the Quadrilateral to accomodate the type of question being asked. In this discussion, I submit that we must primarily and cautiously proceed using reason and experience.
*********************************************
Other Justification For This Approach:
We have all been discussion, almost ad nauseam, the concept of anthropomorphism and what that entails. One thing that I think we ALL agree on now is that human beings necessarily interpret all things anthropomorphically. Based on this agreement, I believe that we can all see that the issue of "free will" is an issue that is ALSO interpreted anthropomophically. Since this is the case, we must us experience (because we experience the existential sense of self-consciousness) and reason (because that's how we interpret the implications of self-consciousness) as our main considerations.
[Digression: I think that one main jewel that was gleaned from the "Anthropomorphism" thread was that everyone acknowledged how pervasive understanding epistemological concerns actually are to the exegetical process.]
Modes, you were right that we needed to break it down. Man, you MUST be psychic cause I swear it seems like you are reading my mind at times. LOL If you or Doc disagree with any of this, speak up so we can lay all the groundwork. If there are no problems, I would let the 4 potential objectives stand as I have them.
Holla,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/26/01 8:18 PM
Just To Let Ya Know...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I figured I'd lay all my cards on the table and tell you what I think, and my hopes for this discussion. Hopefully, we will end up isolating ALL the significant presuppositions that are being brought to bear to the Scriptures for exegesis. THEN, we can examine whether those presuppositions are indeed 1) necessary, 2) workable, and 3) most applicable.
***************************************
My PERSONAL Opinion (and that only):
This is preliminary, but this is what I personally find to be the best take to Scripture.:
1) God is what God is. God's worthiness is based on his 1) existence and 2) being creator of all reality. Not on how well he can work with free will...OR how meticulous his control is. Not how majestic he or morally good he is. Since God's worthiness is not in debate, we don't place any presuppositions on what God "must" be to be God.
2) We base how we conceive God to be on the testament of Scripture (which is INFORMED by reason, tradition and experience)
3) Genuine love is NOT based upon a system integrating naive realism and libertarian free will. (as I will argue later) Therefore, using God's love as a metanarrative for interpreting Scripture will NOT mandate having a system integrating naive realism and libertarian free will.
4) We compare Scripture with Scripture, WITH THE PRESUPPOSITIONS LISTED ABOVE.
I personally feel that once someone approaches the Scriptures with these suppositions, some interesting things happen. Actually, I believe that if my hermeneutical approach works, that open view theism is implasible or, at best, unnecessary. Anyway this is JUST my opinion, but I figured I'd let you know where I'm coming from. Consider this an addendum of sorts to my "Methods" stuff. Feel free to critique this thought if you like, but it's tied to what we will ultimately be discussing.
Peace,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/27/01 9:57 AM
Mephi's Response to Doc's Stuff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, Y'all!
Questions 4 and 5 have to deal specifically and strongly with Scripture. I suggest that we look at questions 1-3 and get those answered before we dive into 4 and 5. My reasons for that are stated on my "Modes" post in this thread.
************************************************
On to the Falsifiability Criteria by Doc:
Libertarian free will would be falisified....
a) if someone could prove that the idea of liberterian freedom is incoherent.
Meph: If I'm not mistaken, I think what is meant by this is "Illustrate that the tenents central to libertarian free will are logically inconsistent or incoherent, given its OWN basic premises and external information about human agency and freedom" I would accept it.
*************************************************
b) if someone could effectively argue that it doesn't undermine the classical doctrine of creation ex nihilo, salvation by grace, etc... to deny that GOD possesses libertarian freedom (if libertarian freedom is incoherent for humans, its incoherent to apply to God as well. C.S.Lewis once said, "Incoherencies don't become compliments just because we attribute them to God".
Meph: I believe that this is more of a description than a criterion, per se. What I mean is that this shows things that a plausible alternative to libertarian free will MUST incorporate to jive with the Christian worldview. I don't see how I have to show that God CANNOT have libertarian free will, though. Maybe you can explain the purpose of that to me…[Just thinking: Wouldn't it be kooky if later we found out that God was the ONLY logical person who COULD have libertarian free will in its truest sense was GOD?? Hmmm....]
************************************************
c) if someone could empirically demonstrate that we have good reasons for believing humans are free only in a compatibilistic sense.
Meph: First of all, recognizing that I am not arguing from compatibilism qua compatibilism. I will be arguing for the exercise of human agency within SOME type of deterministic schema. There's a difference. At any rate, as I will argue later, the thing that could be used empirically is the UNDENIABLE and UNFALSIFABLE existential sense of freedom that arises from self-consciousness. In other words, this won't do the trick to prove libertarian free will wrong.
**************************************************
d) if someone could show that we can render coherent our phenomenological experience of delibertation without appealing to libertarian freedom./
Meph: Ok. If you mean by this what I think you mean, this will work. Basically, I have to show that the phenomenological experience of the power of volition is possible and intelligible WITHOUT libertarian free will. I would accept this one.
**************************************************
e) if someone could demonstrate that a theological/philosophical system that omits liberterian freedom has more explanatory power than systems with liberterian freedom (using Wesley's Fourfold criteria of "explanatory power" -- Scripture, tradition, reason and experience.
Meph: I believe that answering this is merely an enhancement of the one above it. I would restate the thought. We should demonstrate that a system that is NOT libertarian free will has more explanatory power regarding self-consciousness, choice, and emotional capacity taking into account ALL that we happen to know about the human being currently. [This would include the reason and experience portions] Hmm..I guess this would work too...since we are working with theories here...
*************************************************
2) Is there any reasonable way to falsify the idea of the exercise of love NECESSITATING libertarian free will? If so, how?
a) Show that the role of contrary choice does not play a decisive role in our experience of love.
Meph: What is contrary choice in your view? Moreover, I think you are referring to the SENSE of "contrary choice" any human feels in the act of deliberation which would be another way of saying the existential sense of freedom felt by human beings. I think it could be restated thusly: Show that the exercise of love can exist WITHOUT the libertarian free will. Of course, we have to get our definitions straight for what "love" encompasses...and we have to do that later...but this seems pretty good to me.
*************************************************
b) Provide a compelling analogy of a love relationship where the possibility of chosing against it was never possible. (In God of Possible I provide an analogy showing the opposite -- my wife receiving a computerchip that dictates her behavior without her knowing it. The analogy to the contrary must be more plausible than this).
Meph: Hmmmm…I have a problem with this. As keen as I am on analogies, no matter how compelling they may be, SOMEONE can come along and say "Well it's only an analogy and they break down." (It's happened more than once) Analogies can be used to have the power of elaboration, BUT there must be a sound reason behind that analogy's use. At this time, I prefer to go straight to the reason now, and use the analogies to help explain my points. Anyway, the "love" discussion would be later.
**********************************************
3) Is there any reasonable way to falsify the idea that free will is NOT compatible with any type of determinism? If so, how?
a) Provide a plausible compatibilistic explanation for our sense that freedom is turning INDEFINITE POSSIBILITIES into SETTLED REALITIES.
Meph: I would modify this thusly: Show that the existential sense of freedom possessed by all human being of turning indefinite possibilities into settled realities IS compatible with ANY type of determinism. Accepted.
**********************************************
b) Provide an analogy in which agent x exhaustively determines agent y (meaning, agent y's behavior can be exhaustively explained by agent x's intention) yet agent y is responsible for what they do, not x. (This would at least provide some meaning to the concept that God can predestine evil acts, but "in such a way" that people are responsible for doing what they were predestined to do.)
Meph: See what I said on analogies above
**************************************************
SUMMING UP:
These are my evaluations are from the standpoint of this question:
"Does the statement presented act as a a firm basis for a reasonable falsifiability criterion for our discussion?"
1a=YES
1b=NO
1c=NO
1d=YES
1e=YES
2a=YES
2b=Not Really
3a=YES
3b=Not Really
Hope this is a response that you are looking for. Lion-Lamb may have different things to say, so be on the lookout for that. Catchya later!
In Christ,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/28/01 9:23 AM
Shall We Proceed?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, Modes, Doc, and everyone else? Do these falsifiability criteria seem ok to you? If not, what are the problems. I'm waiting on the go-ahead so I can start. I would be starting on 1a,d,e and 3a at the same time and doing them first. The "love" thing can wait. So whussup?
Waiting on the Green Light,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/29/01 9:32 PM
Installment #1: The Implausibility of Libertarian Free Will
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Modes, Doc, and Others,
If you guys don't mind, I'll take the silence as assention to my modifications of Doc's stated criteria. In this installment, I will attempt to show that libertarian free will is inconsistent with its OWN purposes and implausible, given the Christian worldview by pointing out these factors in order:
1) Dr. Boyd's conception of libertarian free will is based essentially upon a concept called "voluntarism." (He is consistent with libertarianism in this, by the way)
2) Libertarian free will qua libertarianism is inextricably linked to simple indeterminism and is DISTINCT from agency theory.
3) Libertarian free will is, by definition, incompatible with the concept of a "self-determining" being.
4) Libertarian free will is incompatible with the open view of God and His nature.
*******************************************************
SECTION #1
First of all, what is voluntarism? Here is a definition:
any metaphysical or psychological system that assigns to the will (Latin: voluntas) a more predominant role than that attributed to the intellect.
Breaking it down, voluntarism essentially states that the center of will can and does act INDEPENDENTLY of any and all other factors, including the intellect. It insists that the will itself, and NOTHING but the will, is the total cause of its volitions. Put another way, this asserts the full autonomy of the will.
I believe that Dr. Boyd has made statements on this board that clearly demonstrate that he believes in the autonomy of the will qua voluntarism. I will paste Dr. Boyd's comments to my questions here. In the "Does God Know Subjunctive Truths?" thread, I noted Doc's statements about free will being COMPLETELY independent of all factors that may bear upon it, internal OR external. This was his answer to me on the matter in his 12/18/00 6:44 AM post.
"Meph: [In Open Theism, unacceptably] 'God can have complete, exhaustive knowledge of a person's... --biological makeup --psychological makeup --historical background (including FULL family tree type stuff and all previous experiences and mental states of the person) --emotional makeup --spiritual makeup --mental capacity --internal interplay between makeups --limitations with respect to all the makeups --reactivity to various stimuli in any given environment, integrating the aforementioned criteria, etc... ...and yet, unexplainably, that same person may make a decision that God could NEVER effectively predict would happen with 100% accuracy.'
Boyd: Yep [with certain qualifications -- irrelevant for right now] ... There's this little thing called FREE WILL. What it means is, given all circumstances (just as you delineated them] the agent could do otherwise." (Emphasis Boyd's)
The vague qualifiers aside, I hope that all readers can clearly see that Dr. Boyd is asserting that the will is completely autonomous and free of any and ALL forces that may bear upon it, internal AND external to all agents. Doc affirms that the human will was such that it could function even CONTRA to all forces bearing upon it. This, ladies and gentleman, is tacit indeterminism and voluntarism at work. At the risk of being redundant, I want to say it again. Dr. Boyd is saying by his statement that the will is FREE such that, given ALL circumstances that I listed that could bear upon the agent, said agent could STILL make a contrary decision negating all those forces.
*********************************************************
SECTION #2
Formal libertarian free will deals with the dictum of Universal Causality and it's interrelation with human choice. The Universal Causality rule is as follows:
a)Every event is a cause.
b)Every cause is an event.
True libertarians conceive of the free act as an event that corresponds with the person's intentions, YET happens without a cause. They do this in adhering to the UC principle. Notice that this is technical indeterminism. That events can happen without cause. Check this out! See how voluntarism fits RIGHT into the the indeterministic paradigm? Because the will is FULLY autonomous and independent of all factors external AND internal to the agent, the will exerts the force of choice literally ex nihilo with NO cause whatsoever! The will is the center of decision outside of anything else.
Here's where it gets tricky. Many philosophers saw long time ago the problems with indeterminism and flocked to what is now called the "agency theory" First of all, we have to understand something very important. Agency theory is DISTINCT from libertarian free will qua indeterminism. How? Agency theory basically changes the Universal Causality formula such that agents can be causes:
a)Every event is a cause
b)Every cause is either an event OR an agent.
At face value, this seems to fix the problem for libertarians. We get to affirm our deeply held belief of free will and still cohere with general causality. However, upon deeper inspection we note something VERY important. Agency theory allows for a self-determining being to exist, BUT this being would be COMPLETELY influenced to the point of determination by the combination of BOTH internal and external factors. Why do I say this? Because at the heart of the matter, the agent is nothing more than a sentient self with the power of will. Modern psychology tells us that there IS no self outside of the internal and external factors that compose that self. The ESSENCE of a being is a substantial force upon that being's power of will. For example, all of the things that make Mephi who he is includes the sum of my experiences and ontology. No doubt about that. This would include my:
--biological makeup
--psychological makeup
--historical background (including FULL family tree type stuff and all previous experiences and mental states of the person)
--emotional makeup
--spiritual makeup
--mental capacity
--internal interplay between makeups
--limitations with respect to all the makeups
--reactivity to various stimuli in any given environment, integrating the aforementioned criteria, etc...
(From my 12/18/00 2:35 AM post)
As an agent, my decisions come from my self (which has been composed by these factors) and it's INTERACTION with external factors (like temptation and what have you) I cannot escape from this. Neither can anyone else. Have you ever heard that pithy statement "No matter where you go, there you are." or "The only person that you can never get away from is yourself."? The paradigms behind these two statements are the same. Psychologically, people have to realize that though they may try to change geographical locations or external situations, they will STILL always deal with the same problems IF their problems are internal. What am I saying? An agent will ALWAYS be conditioned according to his or her essence and composition. It can be no other way. This is exactly what A=A (the law of identity) means! Agency theory works with the concept of SOFT DETERMINISM, not indeterminism which is within libertarian free will.
Let me say this. It is here that I believe that things get unfair. Libertarian autonomy of the will assumes voluntarism, almost by definition. However, most libertarians want to assert allegience to agency theory of human volition, which CANNOT assert autonomy of the will IN THE LEAST. Completely contradictory.
************************************************************
SECTION #3
A self-determining being is a being such that it's center of will is controlled by the self. Kinda self explanatory, huh? At any rate, as you've probably already guessed, if autonomy of the will qua libertarian free will is true, then the self can NEVER be said to determine itself. The center of will rules, NOT the self. Remember, the components of the self are DISTINCT from the will according to Doc and libertarianism as a whole.
The Main Point:
To posit a self-determining being by the suppositions of libertarian free will is self-contradictory. Moreover, to posit agency theory is mutually exclusive from positing the complete autonomy of the will. Therefore, to say that agency theory backs the autonomy of the will is also inconsistent.
*************************************************************
SECTION #4
Now we have what I think is my most powerful argument for this whole thing. I ask you to please read this carefully and thoughtfully.
Let's take the Biblical view of God. The most key thing that I believe open view theists say about God is that He IS love. What they mean by this description is that God's NATURE is such that He cannot do things that can be considered unloving or cruel. Restating this, what is being said is that
God's emotional NATURE bears weight upon his power of WILL such that He CANNOT do unloving, cruel, or malicious acts.
Now notice two things. First of all, isn't the sentence above saying that God's center of will is COMPLETELY DETERMINED (NOT merely "influenced") by His loving nature? It sure seems like it to me. If it was merely influenced, then He, using his intellect and motivation, could actively will to do malicious and evil acts. And that's unacceptable to the open view, so we'll scratch that. But how can God truly be "free" according to libertarian free will if His power of will is completely determined by ANY factor, including a loving nature? According to open view theist suppositions, He couldn't be described as free, now could he? Hmmmm...
Second, doesn't the italicized statement above contradict the Doc's conception of libertarian free will completely? According to libertarian free will, God's power of will should SUPERCEDE his loving nature, by definition, such that decisions could be made that would completely go AGAINST God's loving nature. Remember, we are talking about the COMPLETE autonomy of the will. This means that the will is NOT bound to the ontology of the being at all. This was quite similar to the conception held by Dun Scotis and his pupil William of Ockham concerning God. The implications of this are as follows:
-- God's center of will is NOT subject to his ontological nature
--God's all-loving nature does NOT insure that all of His choices will be of a good and loving nature
--God's center of will is arbitrary, NOT to God's nature but to itself, meaning even GOD can't control His own center of will.
--This all occurs at the highest metaphysical level
Now remember, this is NOT the classical theist God that I am positing here. It is the God per open view theism suppositions. A God in time, A God of supreme Love, all that...
From my vantage point, you are between a rock and a hard place.
The Rock:
You say that God's will IS completely autonomous from His nature such that God effectively COULD do unloving and cruel acts if His center of will so chose them. If you do this, then your Omnibenevolent, All-loving, concept of God is destroyed. God would basically be a Nietzchean Overman of sorts, but he could NOT be called "all-good."
The Hard Place:
Say that God's center of will is COMPLETELY determined by His ontology such that it is impossible for Him to do evil, cruel, or malicious acts. If you say this, then your concept of libertarian free will doesn't apply at even the HIGHEST ontological level, God himself. Therefore, according to open view theism suppositions, it CANNOT apply to humanity either.
Hmmm...oh, and before you try to posit God's will "partially" being determined and "partially" being autonomous, just know that it won't work. If God's center of will is even minutely autonomous, then there is a chance that God's center of will can act CONTRARY to His nature, rendering calling Him "all-good" without meaning!
Given that I think I know most of you, I don't think that you will go William of Ockham's route that easily. So, it looks like you have to admit that libertarian free will is FALSE, given your open view theism suppositions about the nature of God and reality.
********************************************************
CONCLUSION:
I think that I have demonstrated those things that I had stated. I believe that I have shown without doubt by Dr. Boyd's statements that his conception of libertarian free will is indeed consistent with TRUE libertarianism qua indeterminism and autonomous free will. I believe I have shown that libertarian free will is QUITE distinct from agency theory. I also believe that I have libertarian free will is completely inconsistent with the idea of a "self-determining being" of any type...AND is inconsistent with human agency as a whole. Last but not least, I believe that I have shown the incompatibility of libertarian free will with respect to God, UNDER OPEN VIEW THEISTIC SUPPOSITIONS. For all these reasons, I submit that libertarian free will is logically contradictory and completely implausible for the human species under the Christian open theist worldview. I await any and all criticisms of my thinking here. Thanks, peeps.
Just chillin',
Mephi2K
PS:
Doc, you made notes like...
"[In Open Theism, unacceptably]..." and "[with certain qualifications -- irrelevant for right now]"
on the Subjunctives thread stuff that I quoted. If you want to clear that up, I think now would most definitely be the time. If you do NOT hold to liberarian autonomous free will, then doesn't that mean that 1) you do NOT believe in libertarian free will and 2) that you admit that human agency is indeed compatible with SOME type of determinism [soft determinism, in particular]?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/30/01 3:47 AM
Installment #2: The Unfalsifiable Existential Sense of Human Freedom
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Room,
I'm up working on a class project (Language Acquisition class), so I figured as a break, I'd do this on the side...(Why am I such nite owl? On the weekends, I work overnights and I check the board from work. hehe...I'm a friggin machine!)
In this section, I will incorporate a little bit of 1d from Doc's falsifiability thing: I have to show that the phenomenological experience of the power of volition is possible and intelligible without libertarian free will. Here I plan to demonstrate these things effectively:
1) Self-consciousness is an axiomatic assumption that cannot be denied.
2) The existential sense of freedom comes as a direct effect of self-consciousness
3) Because the existential sense of freedom is a "side-effect" as it were, of the undeniable existence of self-consciousness, it is prima facie unfalsifiable.
4)If libertarian free will were true, it's existence would violate the existential sense of freedom possessed by human beings.
**************************************
SECTION #1
My friend Modes kept referring me to Soren Kierkegaard's work "Johannes Climacus" I don't think that he will mind me using some of his quote as I haven't read the book yet myself...
"For me, I believe that I have free will because I can live no other way. Kierkegaard makes this very point with his pseudonym Johannes Climacus, who decides to obey the philosophers instead of joining them. He decides to truly attempt to "doubt everything" as per the Cartesan dictum. Rather than concluding that the only thing he cannot doubt is that he is doubting (as Descartes concluded) he concludes that doubting is hard work! He has to really work at continuing to choose to doubt! He finds, then, that the act of thinking a certain way, that moment of choosing to do it really, is what he cannot deny. To DO the thinking is to involve oneself in the activity, it is existentially trying. Such participation requires choice which, of course, presupposes free will."
Mephi:
I want to use this. Though some philosophers say that Descartes didn't go as deep as he should have with his thesis, I personally think that he still made an important discovery when he brought out as his "I think, therefore I am" thing. Bottom line, he couldn't as a reasonable person doubt his powers of self-consciousness and self-reflection. This is an important first step. Doubting aside, Descartes showed that the assumption of self-consciousness was an axiomatic basis of the entire rational process. It's one of those things that is called axiomatic for two reasons. First of all, it's prima facie self evident. Just speaking about it defines it for you. Second, it UNFALSIFIABLE and UNDENIABLE. Think about it. If anyone tries to deny self-consciousness, they AFFIRM it at the same time. There is a story of a philosophy class in a New York university. After a point made by the professor, a student gets up and says "Professor, how do I know that I really exist?" The professor lowers his glasses as he looks at the student and with a smile asks "And whom shall I say is asking?" LOL A riot! Do you get what the professor was trying to say? To try to deny the concept of self-consciousness, you have to first affirm it by even positing the question! I hope that all this makes my point well. Self-consciousness is an axiomatic assumption that is unfalsifiable and undeniable.
******************************************
SECTION #2
Ok. I want to make this VERY simple. Any type of willful choice presupposes that one has the capacity to evaluate between various options. This evaluative process incorporates reflection and SELF-reflection. The self-reflection is a consequence of the self-consciousness. Moreover, it couldn't be possible without it. Think about it, y'all. One of the first aspects of self-consciousness is the ability to separate the idea of the self from the environment. It is around this ability to distinguish the self from the environment that gives us the basis for our SELF-CONCEPT. Freedom is, at base, nothing more than the establishment of boundaries such that individuality is kept intact and protected from being assimilated into a homogenized system. When we separate ourselves from our environments via self-consciousness, we are exhibiting a fundamental sense of freedom that cannot be denied. To deny it would eliminate the sense of self. Follow me, y'all? Again, the exercise of self-consciousness produces the existential sense of freedom as a NATURAL by-product at it's base!
Note what Modes says about good ol' Johannes:
"He finds, then, that the act of thinking a certain way, that moment of choosing to do it really, is what he cannot deny. To DO the thinking is to involve oneself in the activity, it is existentially trying."
Mephi:
This is a great example of what I'm talking about, in the realm of choice. To do the thinking really IS to involve oneself in the activity, as Modes' says. Johannes couldn't separate himself from the activity even if he wanted to. Why? Because it is HE that is making the choice. Self-consciousness is foundational to any sense of freedom and choice. And it couldn't be otherwise. I hope that this is CRYSTAL clear.
****************************************
SECTION #3
I want to use this as an example to note what I am about to say. First of all, Modes says something important:
"For me, I believe that I have free will because I can live no other way."
I would wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Do you guys remember the example I keep giving about the idiot fatalist who makes the DECISION to not do anything to accept his fate? It works by EXACTLY the same paradigm. The misguided fatalist cannot deny his ability to choose, no matter HOW he tries to do so. It's almost like a human being truly trying to think in solely NON-human categories (and we've talked about the nonsense of that perspective) Because of how we are made, our self-consciousness and corresponding existential feeling of freedom from the exercise of that self-consciousness is as natural to us as breathing. To deny it would be to deny our humanity to a large extent. I think this is why so many people clammor for "free will" It seems built into human beings to be "self-determining" beings. And THAT's why it's hard as all get out to get people to understand that there are MECHANISMS behind this existential intuitive feeling within humanity. Far too many people are content to just let it stand as it is without critically analyzing it. (Scottish common sense realists were really known for this) They rightly sense the undeniability of the SENSE of existential freedom, but they don't separate the sense of existential freedom from the logical epistemological and ontological paradigms through which they think that sense emerges. (Tsk, tsk...) At any rate, I will use a logical formula to illustrate that the existential sense of freedom is unfalsifiable
Given this: "Self-consciousness is both unfalsifiable and undeniable.",
1. All NECESSARY effects of self-consciousness are both unfalsifiable and undeniable.
2. The existential sense of freedom inherent in human beings is a necessary effect of self-consciousness.
Therefore, 3. The existential sense of freedom inherent in human beings is both unfalsifiable and undeniable.
*************************************
SECTION #4
This last part may be unnecessary, but I'll do it real quick. Recall what we've already said about libertarian free will as it applies to the autonomy of the will. If libertarian free will were true, then this would mean that the will could assert itself CONTRA the self. Imagine yourself making completely random decisions at various times during the day. No matter how hard your SELF tries to rein your will in, it would ALWAYS fail. Now is this coherent with how we perceive ourselves? At the mercy of our very wills? Heck, no. We intuitively perceive that our WILLS are at the behest and mercy of our "selves", hence the term "self-determining being" Libertarian free will would screw with all of this. Nuff said.
*************************************
CONCLUSION:
I think I've made a good case here, too. You guys take your time with this...cause it's pretty pivotal. If libertarian free will is implausible and the existential human sense of freedom is NEITHER falsifiable NOR based upon a libertarian free will scheme necessarily, there is little need to go further with the "love" thing. If Installments 1 & 2 have indeed been persuasive, then I must insist that libertarian free will CANNOT be used as a valid supposition for biblical interpretation in the open view. I await more comments. Peace, crew!
Your brother in Christ,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
01/30/01 10:14 PM
RE: My Man Modes NEVER Lets Me Down!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tweeks are cool, those notes I shot off were more indicating a direction I think we shouldbe moving in than offering precise proposals…
Let me first apologize for the fact that I cannot keep up the fast pace… I will be present probably a couple of times per week, but that's about all I can manage…
Back to your proposal:
I find the tweek of #1 in adequate, here's why:
Of course human agency can be described which does not possess libertarian freedom. What I am after is the fact that we all experience our selves, self-concsciously (which we both seem to grant "self-consciousness" that is) exercising libertarian freedom. I would need you to expain why I (and I suggest you) experience what you say is illogical or even impossible…
And of course, we would need to deal with this first in terms of experience. If you cannot do it on that basis, it does in fact count as a strike against you, though not the final arbitor. We would then ask the same question in the light of the other various authorities…
Regarding your comments on #1: "Human choice and volition is based upon cognitive reflection" This is quite wrong. We are not refecting because we are self-conscious, we choose to reflect on something. Reflective thinking takes work and dedication, integrity, etc. And so I maintain, choice preceeds reflection. You cannot jump into your system from nowhere, you must choose to think about it.
Your tweek #2 reflects the same problem, you still want to have us thinking without choosing to think. No dice. sorry. I prefer my statement. Much simpler and if we get clear on #1 we should both be able to affirm my #2. I can appreciate the sense of your comments on #2 more than your actual rewriting of it…
#3 and #4 are fair enough, let's go with yours…
Do you suppose the doc is willing to do the hard stuff? I don't have any formal philosophical training (I see the doc has a degree in philosophy, that would help here…) so this will be hard work for me…meaning SLOW, not impossible.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/30/01 11:07 PM
On Tweaking the Tweaks...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Modes, my ace,
You say:
Of course human agency can be described which does not possess libertarian freedom. What I am after is the fact that we all experience our selves, self-concsciously (which we both seem to grant "self-consciousness" that is) exercising libertarian freedom. I would need you to expain why I (and I suggest you) experience what you say is illogical or even impossible… And of course, we would need to deal with this first in terms of experience. If you cannot do it on that basis, it does in fact count as a strike against you, though not the final arbitor. We would then ask the same question in the light of the other various authorities…
Mephi:
If you notice the #3 with which you accepted, I explain the libertarian free will is a NECESSARY supposition of the open view. I constructed #1 with this in mind. In other words, for a consistent open view theist, human agency MUST be understood and expressed ONLY in terms of libertarian free will. If human agency does NOT necessitate libertarian free will, then that has big implications. First of all, it means that human agency is NOT incompatible with at least SOME type of determinism. Next this would open human agency to be allowable within the realm of predestination. This is very important to note...and important to the later discussion. I'm dealing specifically with the experience to which you refer in the #2. If you notic, #1 corresponds to #3 and #2 corresponds to #4.
*************************************
You say:
Regarding your comments on #1: "Human choice and volition is based upon cognitive reflection" This is quite wrong. We are not refecting because we are self-conscious, we choose to reflect on something. Reflective thinking takes work and dedication, integrity, etc. And so I maintain, choice preceeds reflection. You cannot jump into your system from nowhere, you must choose to think about it.
Mephi:
Well, Modes, amigo. I think I'm quite right. I think that you may have misunderstood the statement. I'm sure you'll note as you read Installment #2 what I'm saying. The activity of choice presupposes certain things. One of theses is OPTIONS. Options are available such that a person can choose from among them. These are the objects upon which the agent reflects. But you forgot a VERY important step. Options are NOT chosen arbitrarily according to human agency. Options are decided between by an agent BASED ON the self-reflection of an agent. An agent's consideration of his/her needs, wants, and desires ASSUMES cognitive reflection. See what I'm saying? Ask yourself this question: How could anyone make a deliberate choice WITHOUT cognitive reflection of some type? This is fundamental to Piaget's Cognitive development theory AND Albert Bandura's concept of the reciprocal influence of behavior, personal, and cognitive factors. I assure you, I'm right on the money with this one. I think it should stand.
*******************************************
You say:
"Your tweek #2 reflects the same problem, you still want to have us thinking without choosing to think. No dice. sorry. I prefer my statement. Much simpler and if we get clear on #1 we should both be able to affirm my #2. I can appreciate the sense of your comments on #2 more than your actual rewriting of it…"
This essentially goes with this:
"What I am after is the fact that we all experience our selves, self-concsciously (which we both seem to grant "self-consciousness" that is) exercising libertarian freedom. I would need you to expain why I (and I suggest you) experience what you say is illogical or even impossible"
Mephi:
What's this "thinking without choosing to think"? Let's not get stuck on Johannes, ok? Don't miss the point of the tweak itself. We are not talking about the cognitive ACT. We are talking specifically about the existential SENSE of freedom. This is very important! Even Dr. Boyd highlights (as expected) the PHENOMENOLOGICAL EXPERIENCE of human freedom. So do many other libertarians:
From Doc Boyd:
d) if someone could show that we can render coherent our PHENOMENOLOGICAL EXPERIENCE of delibertation without appealing to libertarian freedom.
a) Provide a plausible compatibilistic explanation for our SENSE that freedom is turning INDEFINITE POSSIBILITIES into SETTLED REALITIES.
(Emphases mine)
As I mention in my 2nd installment and in the tweak itself, it is imperative that we separate the existential SENSE of freedom from the act of free choice and freedom per se. They are NOT the same thing. Again, I think that my tweak should stand...unless you are going to be arguing for a naive realistic system. And that would be a whole different story (and pretty hard for you to do, frankly.) So, I say it needs to stand as is.
******************************************
Do you understand where I am coming from? If not, let's work on it. But check out the Installments first, ok?
Thanks for replying!
Your friend,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/31/01 7:04 AM
Note to the Doc: Your Participation Is Requested, My Dear Doctor!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dearest Dr. Boyd:
Modes said:
"Do you suppose the doc is willing to do the hard stuff? I don't have any formal philosophical training (I see the doc has a degree in philosophy, that would help here…)"
Mephi:
I really thought about what Modes said. It would be pretty important to the discussion for you to participate, Doc. Not only because you do have a philosophy degree, but also because you are a "big hitter" in the open view theism movement itself. If anyone should have the necessary replies to these challenges, logic would indicate [Word to Dr. Spock from "Star Trek" hehe... " ]that it would be you. I understand that you teach and pastor a church, so of course you can't do this a lot. But I really ask you to hop on this. I think these statements are formidable, if not damaging, to what I perceive as one of open view theism's chief suppositions, libertarian free will. [NOTE: As my statements indicate, an implicit critique against naive realism is involved as well] As I've stated in my 2nd installment, if libertarian free will cannot be maintained as logically consistent or coherent as a viable outlet of human freedom, then it cannot be used as a presupposition for Christian theologizing. And THAT would be a hard blow, I believe, to the open view. So, Doc, are you down for this or what? Just let Modes and I know so that I know how we can proceed.
Oh, another question. I notice that this board is also part of Open Theism's website. Is there any way that we could get William Hasker, John Sanders, or anyone like that to answer to some of these questions too? That would be really tight. Basically, I think this is a chance to truly illustrate how "reasonable" open view theism is and to provide answers that "satify some minds" out here, per the Christus Victor room motto.
Again, I am NOT challenging your exegesis just yet. I want to go to what I feel is the more pervasive problem first: the presuppositions. Thus, I ask that we deal with that first. What would REALLY be helpful is if you could provide us with a short list of those presuppositions for us to examine like Modes asked us all before. I did so, and it seemed to help. By FORMALLY stating your suppositions, it would be easier for me (and everyone else here) to see if my argumentation is off track or on target. I think that you pretty much know your suppositions and can articulate them well.
********************************************
Mephi's Ideas of Open View Suppositions:
These are what I percieve to be the chief presuppositions of Open View Theism:
1) Libertarian free will:
This has to be in place as I see it because it is the ONLY system of human freedom that truly allows for the "subjunctive truths" that you were talking about, the genuine possibility for God to have probabilistic knowledge, AND it is the only way that the human will can have AUTONOMY such that God cannot know or deduce human actions with certainty, to the respect that He may even deduce WRONG. It is a non-negotiable from my point of view.
2) Naive realism:
This has to be in place based upon the 1st one. First of all, it is constantly argued that a simple reading of the test, referring to God's emotional and psychological states give DIRECT information of his actual ontology. Furthermore, for the argument of our intuitive sense of freedom to have ANY real impact, it MUST be asserted that this intuitive sense of freedom has DIRECT correspondence to the way things MUST be in the highest metaphysical level.
3)The Nature of Love:
THIS is the biggie. This is what I believe is the MAIN reason. As I have stated before, I truly think that if this wasn't in place, there would not necessarily be a need to argue the first two suppositions here.
The first dimension of this assumption is relational. What is being presumed is that for love to be "genuine" there MUST be relationship and reciprocity between two COMPLETELY free agents, namely, God and humanity. This relationship CANNOT be determined in any way otherwise it is not genuine. There MUST be a real chance that, despite ALL of God's potential actions and knowledge, human beings can make choices a)contrary to God's wishes and desires b)and even contrary to what God PREDICTS could happen. [Note: Surely, you can see that this PRESUPPOSES libertarian free will]
The second dimension of this assumption deals with God himself. What is being presumed is that love CANNOT be such that the willful allowance of evil acts WITHOUT some form of "greater good" (I am using this term cognizant of the popularized use of the word "good) behind it. In other words, a "loving" being cannot be said to be behind gross acts of seemingly gratuitous evil, either ALLOWED or specifically DECIDED. In other words, as your answer to my "Study Question" thread indicated, God 's actions should conform to your "moral wiring", which acknowledge causality. This is implicit in this question you ask:
"Provide an analogy in which agent x exhaustively determines agent y (meaning, agent y's behavior can be exhaustively explained by agent x's intention) yet agent y is responsible for what they do, not x. (This would at least provide some meaning to the concept that God can predestine evil acts, but "in such a way" that people are responsible for doing what they were predestined to do.)"
Mephi:
The implicit thing here is that if Agent X is ULTIMATELY behind Agent Y's deviant behavior then, by your inference of causality, Agent X must be, in some way, responsible (perhaps even more so than Agent Y) What I get from this is that a "loving" being cannot EVER be the "Agent X" that allows or causes evil acts to be done by other agents UNLESS it is for a greater good THAT COULD LEGITMATELY BE CALLED A "GOOD" ACCORDING TO HUMAN STANDARDS OF THAT TERM.
[[[Note: This has to be made plain. As Gordon Clark has well noted and as I have stated before, it is easy to say that the "greater good" equals God's will. But that would mean, as some of the people here have noted that God's will may WELL be distinct from what HUMAN BEINGS perceive as "good" Thus, the "greater good" MUST be such that if any human being with decent moral wiring were to HEAR the reasoning of the "greater good", that human would say that the evil actions for that greater good were JUSTIFIED. (Subnote: It should be noted that we are presupposing a fundamentally UTILITARIAN moral system here as opposed to Kant's categorical imperative or something like that where the ends NEVER justifies the means.) I realize that this makes it WIDE open for some people to assert that we won't find out the "greater good" until we get to heaven. (I HATE that copout...sigh...anyways) However, this is still the implication that we need to take.]]]
How does this all work out in open view theism, as I see it? God COULD NOT, I repeat, COULD NOT ultimately be behind all evil acts AND be a God of Love, as most open view theists define "loving" To say so, one would have to radically define what "all-loving" actually means. Am I right? Thus it is easier to say that God created a fundamentally "good" world where naive realism and libertarian free will are TRUE. In this world, the "free agents" are able to make decisions unpredictable and unwanted by God. This would explain the existence of the vast evil in the world to a great extent and how it's NOT God's fault, but it's OUR fault.
*********************************************
Let me make this plain. For open view theism to work, I believe that ALL of the suppositions noted here MUST be in place. If but ONE of these suppositions is shown to be logically contradictory or flat out false then, the ENTIRE system is defunct. (Just like any good scientific theory. ALL of the links must work, not just most of them) Notice that this doesn't take away any sense of mystery. Mystery may still play a HUGE part here, but these 3 suppositions are such that they are relatively easily discerned and necessary to the system as a whole. I contend in my first 2 installments that libertarian free will is FALSE and needs to be chucked from the mix.
**********************************************
Summing up,
Having said all this, I really hope that you can participate, Doc. I think a lot of people here, both open view and non-open view, would be interested to see what you have to say on these matters. IF you do actively participate, I ask that you would post your formal suppositions OR at least critique my perceptions of your suppositions such that it is clear to ALL readers exactly what your suppositions are. Again, that is what we are dealing with in this section. So, Doc, are you down or what? Are you willing to help this trek that some of us seekers are finding ourselves on? This is the motherlode, sir. Some would say that this is "throwing down the gauntlet" Me? I think I'm just asking an fellow Christian, who is also an wonderful minister and prolific theologian, to clarify and elucidate his position on open discussion. Holla back, my esteemed Doctor...
Your Fellowservant of Christ and fellow seeker of truth,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/31/01 12:29 PM
This May Help Inform Our Discussion!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just thought of something. On the "Theological Q&A" page here on Christus Victor, Dr. Boyd has a section that asks this question:
IS FREE WILL COMPATIBLE WITH
PREDESTINATION?
(http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=516)
I wanted to place it right here in the context of this discussion to contrast what he's saying with what I'm saying...
Question:
Isn’t “freedom” simply our ability to do what we want? And if this is so there seems to be no incompatibility between saying that a person is “free” on the one hand, but predestined (or at least foreknown) by God, on the other. But why do you say that freedom is not compatible with either predestination or foreknowledge?
Boyd's Answer:
Many Christians define “freedom” as the ability to do what we want, while maintaining that what we “want” is nevertheless determined by factors beyond our control. This position is often called “compatiblism” because it asserts that freedom and determinism are compatible. I believe compatabilism is philosophically problematic for the following four reasons.
First, this understanding does not adequately account for the fact that humans experience themselves as self-determining agents. The act of deliberating between possibilities (i.e. making a decision about something) presupposes that we experience ourselves as genuinely possessing the power to do otherwise.
For this reason, we experience our future as being to some extent open to our determination. We experience ourselves as turning several possibilities into one actualities by creatively bringing about a state of affairs that was not there before and was not necessitated by anything that was there before.
[Mephi's Note: Do you all see how much he relies on the EXPERIENCE that human beings have of existential freedom? Do you see why I felt that this was so important? His answer already assumes naive realism with respect to the EXPERIENCE of existential freedom and the ontology of reality. PLEASE NOTE THIS WELL]
Second, compatibilism does not adequately account for our experience and understanding of moral responsibility. Assigning moral blame or credit to a person presupposes that they could have done otherwise. We intuitively excuse a person from blame for a morally reprehensible behavior if they could not have done otherwise because of chemical inducement, insanity, genetic defect, self defence, etc.
When such factors are not present, however, we intuitively believe that people are responsible for their reprehensible acts for they could have and should have done otherwise. On the basis of our experience of our own self-determining freedom, we assume that other agents to some extent transcend antecedent causal conditions and genuinely create a state of affairs with their decision for which they are morally responsible. Hence compatiblism is counter-intuitive regarding our basic assumptions about morality.
[Mephi's Note: AGAIN, he relies upon human intuition and experience. Note this well, please Put this together with how Doc said earlier that free will was essential such that even crucial aspects of the self could be denied by the act of an agent's will.]
Third, compatibilism is inconsistent with the classical doctrine of God. Christians generally believe that God is free in the sense that, concerning any action that God could choose to do, God could have done otherwise. For example, the Church has always held that God created the world freely. Not only did God do what he wanted to do, but he could have genuinely done otherwise. Not even his own eternally loving nature compelled him to create the world. Indeed, if God’s decision to create the world was only free in a compatibilist sense, then God’s decision was as necessary as God’s character, thus the world must be as eternal as God. The Church has historically rejected this conclusion.
So too, the Church has always held that God freely chose to save humanity. Again, God’s choice to save humans was not only consistent with what he wanted to do, but God also could have done otherwise. The Church’s historical understanding of the free transcendent Creator, in other words, has been that God possesses freedom in a libertarian sense. God is self-determining.
[Mephi's Note: Notice that Doc doesn't deal with the ALL-LOVING aspect of the choice of what KIND of universe to create. He only deals with God having the ability to choose or NOT to choose to create. In the act of creation, he is very self-determining (and THIS would be according to agency, not libertarian free will) But what about the KIND of creation he could create? I guarantee you that both Classicalists AND Open view theists would say that it would be impossible for God to create a universal hell-type reality BECAUSE God's loving nature would prevent him from doing that. See what I'm getting at? Self-determining agency and libertarian free will qua libertarianism are at odds.]
If compatibilism is true, however, humans never experience this sort of freedom. Indeed, most compatibilists argue that libertarian freedom is unintelligible. If their arguments are granted, then they must apply to God as well—with all the negative consequences to the traditional doctrine of God compatibilist freedom would entail. If we are free only in a compatibilist sense, then we have no analogical basis for conceiving of God as free in a non-compatibilist sense. Or, to come at it from another direction, if we can meaningfully assert that God has non-compatibilistic freedom, then we must grant that humans also experience an analogous kind of freedom.
[Mephi's Note: Notice what he says here. "If compatibilism is true, however, humans never experience this sort of freedom." This is patently incorrect and THAT'S why, Brother Modes, I took such pains to distinguish between libertarian free will and the existential SENSE of freedom inherent in all human beings. Without the distinction being made, libertarians play off this continuously! Moreover, remember Dr. Boyd's claim here. If libertarian free will is unintelligble to humanity, than it must be so for God as well. And he then restates it saying that if libertarian free will is true for God, then "we must grant that humans also experience an analogous kind of freedom" If you notice on my 1st Installment, the 4th section, I give a devastating critique, showing that given open view suppositions of an all-loving God, libertarian free will CANNOT be true for God, thus neither can human beings by extension. Hmmm...]
Fourth, compatiblism intensifies rather than resolves the problem of evil. If creatures are only free in the sense that they can sometimes do what they want even though their wants are determined by antecedent causal factors; and if, ultimately, all contingent being can be traced back to the one source of being; then, it follows, all actions performed by creatures have their origin and explanation in God! And, assuming God is all good and all powerful, this creates an unresolvable problem, for creatures are capable of gratuitous evil.
[Mephi's Note: AHA! Now remember what I was talking about the suppositions about a LOVING God. LOL This is exactly what I was talking about.]
On the basis of these four reasons I argue that libertarian, self-determining freedom is more philosophically and theologically sound than compatabilism. While libertarian freedom is not compatible with predestination, it is compatible with Scripture.
Mephi:
Ok. I am assuming that these are the words of Dr. Boyd. If so, then these should reasonably convey at least some of his position. I want every reader to note EXACTLY what he says and how that correlates with my two current Installments! Modes, I think you can now see more reason why I made the "tweaks" that I did. Moreover, hopefully, all readers can see exactly how damaging my critiques are to Boyd's whole system. But we still have time and room for Doc to clarify his position. It's on you, Doc!
In Christ,
Mephi2K
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:00 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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|