In response to my post:
When someone doesn't get you (or more specifically doesn't understand compatibilism), Valentine's Day Edition:
@aspin3 going by "All for His Glory" responded:
Francis, as a compatiblist, what is ONE. Just ONE thing that a full theistic determinist would believe God decreed/determined that you would not agree with? Just one.
What you mean really is an illusion of choice and illusion of free not free to do other than God decreed/determined and no other alternative options available except that which God decreed/dtermined.
I respond:
As I said, Sot101 doesn't understand compatibilism. I assume this is why aspin3 is asking this question this way. Compatibilism is not a different level of determinism. One could be a compatibilist who rejects determinism, and likewise one could be a determinist who rejects compatibilism. Compatibilism is holding to thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. Sometimes the compatibility is expressed in terms of the compatibility of determinism and moral responsibility. I'll focus on the "free will" definition.
Considering the two different categories of "Determinist" in contrast to "Libertarian" and considering the question of Compatibilism in contrast to Incompatibilism, there are potentially four different positions among theists (I'm excluding atheists from this discussion).
1. Determinists who affirm Compatibilism
Determinists who affirm compatibilism say that God has determined human choices, and God's decree ultimately establishes the human choices that are free as free. (There could also be non-free human choices, but free human choices are free human choices because God decreed that they would be.)
2. Determinists who affirm Incompatibilism
Determinists who affirm incompatibilism say that God has determined human choices, therefore human freedom is, at most, just an illusion.
3. Libertarians who affirm Compatibilism
God has not determined human choices, but if God had done so, they would still really be human choices.
4. Libertarians who affirm Incompatibilism
God has not determined human choices, because if God had determined them, they wouldn't really be human choices.
Nearly all Provisionists (if not all) fall in camp 4, whereas nearly all Calvinists fall in camp 1 and certainly Westminster Confession of Faith Calvinists are in camp 1. There are probably some folks who fall into the category of Calvinist (broadly defined) who are in camp 2, but it is not the position of the "leading" Calvinists of the last 500 years. I don't know of anyone who holds to camp 3, though presumably someone could.
Now, to the question posed:
"what is ONE. Just ONE thing that a full theistic determinist would believe God decreed/determined that you would not agree with? Just one."
The difference between incompatibilist determinists and compatibilist determinists is not that we (compatibilists) believe God decreed different things. The difference is that we think God's decree established human freedom, rather than preventing human freedom.
And to the argument offered:
What you mean really is an illusion of choice and illusion of free not free to do other than God decreed/determined and no other alternative options available except that which God decreed/dtermined.
Claiming that free will is merely an illusion is an incompatibilist position. There might be some Calvinistic folks who hold that, but as mentioned above, it's not the usual position and it's certainly not the Confessional position.
Compatibilists say that there is a real sense in which people are free to do other than God decreed/determined, but that they inevitably will do what God has decreed/determined. For example, I have the ability to write a different blog post, but I freely wrote this blog post, just as God decreed I would freely do.
Likewise, compatibilists acknowledge that "other alternative options are available," but they simply insist that free humans will go with the option that God has decreed in advance they will freely select.
-TurretinFan
2 comments:
Note the error Francis makes and does not even address. Will lay it out here really plainly. As he stated compatibilists believe that God decrees/determines every thought, desire and action. They also believe man has freewill and makes choices. Let's play this scenario out to see how consistent that is.
If God decreed for Bob to do X can Bob do other than x? The answer when God decreed/determined everything meticulously is of course NO. Bob CANNOT do A, B, C, D or anything BUT X. Was Bob free to do other than X. AGain the answer is no. He was free to only do X and God decreed His desire to do X.
To go on further you will note by the very definition of choice it requires AT LEAST two possible alternatives. Since the only alternative available to Bob is X and none other. Therefore as I stated in my question Bob has an illusion of choosing but by definition He does not have a choice and did not make a choice.
Bob also has an illusion of freedom but was not free to do other than what God decreed for him to do.
Lastly, to address Francis sluffing off the difference between hard determinists and compatibilists, he is correct, teh underlying assumptions and what happens and what the result is, is EXACTLY the same. That being God decreeing everything meticulously. The difference is that compatibilists add another layer of fallacy and illusion to it by pretending that man has the freedom to choose and actually makes choices. Hard determinists are consistent determinists. Compatibilists are inconsistent determinists and try to cover it up with paint and whitewashing the reality of it.
Would like to address the exact words Francis used here. Again note the fallacy of it:
"Compatibilists say that there is a real sense in which people are free to do other than God decreed/determined, but that they inevitably will do what God has decreed/determined. For example, I have the ability to write a different blog post, but I freely wrote this blog post, just as God decreed I would freely do.
Likewise, compatibilists acknowledge that "other alternative options are available," but they simply insist that free humans will go with the option that God has decreed in advance they will freely select."
A real sense in which people are free to do other than God decreed/determined? That is a misrepresentation. You can ask anyone and I ask Francis right here. Can there EVER be the situation where man WILL or CAN do different than what God decreed. The answer if he is being truthful will of course be NO. If he were to admit man can do other than what God decreed then he is saying God's decrees do not always come about. But notice the wording he used. There is a "real sense" which is a complete fallacy.
TO the second paragraph note how he said that there are other alternatives as well. Again a fallacy. They can do nothing other than what God decreed. Unless you hear Francis say they can do other than God decreed in reality he is painting a fallacy. He uses the example of being able to write another blog post. If God decreed him to write this blog post that is what he will write. He says that he is just freely willing to write it. The question to ask him is if God decreed his will as well. To be consistent of course he will have to say yes. So God decrees that He can only do that but he decrees that he will like to do that and is willing to do that. As for the freedom, again, free to do what other than what he has been decreed to do. I hope you are able to see the philosophy and slight of hand wording to try to marry theistic determinism to scripture and what we all know is true.
Post a Comment