Was the bible written to the common man or the semi-compatiblist?
This is part of an ongoing discussion on determinism... (Paul, me, Paul, me, Paul)
Paul: Dan acts as if I said the common man think the term choice doesn't present genuine access to alternative possibilities. Thus he is arguing against a point I never made.
I did bypass this because despite Paul’s point here, he provided several counters to my argument that the dictionary rules out determinism. But if Paul admits the common man thinks of choice as libertarian, he should address the fact that the bible was written by common men and to the common man (i.e. to the people of Israel and the church, not the semi-compatiblist) and it uses the terms choice and choose.
The problem with Paul’s Princeton dictionary entry is that it references alternatives. Dictionary.com defines alternative as:
1. a choice limited to one of two or more possibilities, as of things, propositions, or courses of action, the selection of which precludes any other possibility: You have the alternative of riding or walking.
2. one of the things, propositions, or courses of action that can be chosen: The alternative to riding is walking.
3. a possible or remaining course or choice: There was no alternative but to walk.(link)
Alternatives can be chosen. This is why I argued that a predetermined choice entails an impossible possibility and inalternate alternative.
In the dictionaries 'possibilities' are vague. Dan seems to eisogete "genuine access to" into all the definitions.
I don’t recall using the term “genuine access to”. Dictionary.com defines possible as that which can happen or be done. (link) Again, if determinism is true, given the causal forces at play, I cannot choose or do counterfactuals.
As for not advancing the discussion, it’s true I go no further than to show determinism is unbiblical.
Comments
Take care!
JNORM888
Typo!
JNORM888
I agree with you strict determinism is not biblical: certainly not in line with the JC of the Beatitudes. Then I hold (perhaps slightly heretical) that omnipotence itself should be questioned (that's the best way to avoid the "problem of evil", and related problem of miracles), as should zionist-Calvinism itself (that's not to say we should all march to La Misa each week--maybe once or twice a year).
I looked at the side of your blog and noticed you had looked at a blog of “Turretinfan” who had written a blog article titled: “Choice and the Common Man”. That got my curiosity so I checked it out. “Turretinfan” provides a perfect illustration of how the necessatarians are out of touch with what the common person believes about free will. The vast majority of people hold to what is called in philosophy the “libertarian free will” position. Now the necessitarian may not like this fact or reality, but for them to claim that this is not true (or that the common person holds to the necessitation of all events so that we never ever have a choice) is both misleading and dishonest.
Let’s use the words of “Turretinfan” as an example of the dishonesty of necessatarians.
He writes:
“When I talk to people (average, ordinary people) they mean by choice just what Calvinism teaches about what choice is: people picking from among various options. They normally don't impose much of a philosophical framework on it.”
He is correct about the ordinary person not imposing much of a philosophical framework on it. They don’t need to because almost everybody knows and understands (and shares the common belief) that when you speak of making a choice you are choosing from alternatives that **are** available to you. Put another way, if you choose the pie as your dessert at the restaurant you also could have chosen otherwise and could have chosen the ice cream instead. That is what the ordinary person means and thinks of when they speak of having and then making a choice.
Notice “Turretinfan” even knows this (unless he is intentionally misleading with words, which is certainly a possibility with a necessitarian) when he writes: “they mean by choice just what Calvinism teaches about what choice is: people picking from among various options.” Oh really, that is news to me. In fact they don’t mean what the calvinist means by “picking from among various options.” Because they believe that each of those "various options" is accessible and available to them when they make their choice: while the necessitarian believes the opposite, that those other options are not accessible and available to the person, in fact for the necessitarian they are impossible for the person.
Return to the restaurant example, when the server comes up to you and tells you about the lunch specials of the day and asks if you would like to choose one. What is the server assuming in this situation? First, they are assuming that you understood them to mean that **any and all** of the alternatives that they presented to you are possibilities which were both available to you and which you could choose (not simultaneously but you could in fact “pick from among various options”). Second, they are assuming that you hold the same assumption, that you, like the server, believe that you can choose or pick whichever of the possibilities that you want to pick/choose/select. Third, they are assuming that you are going to pick one of the alternatives not all of them. Fourth, though you will pick only one alternative, you could have chosen otherwise and picked another alternative instead (and the choice was up to you). The assumptions could be multiplied and this would be easy to test, just ask the server next time that you eat out: questions about these assumptions and they will all be confirmed. Now that will be easily confirmed at restaurants, but the examples of this kind of thinking among ordinary people could be multiplied almost endlessly (And we should note, if the necessitarians are right that all of our actions are necessitated so that we never ever have a choice, then all of this common and common sense thinking is false).
Now that is the real world, where most people hold to libertarian free will and do not hold to the necessitarian view. But what if you were a necessitarian (i.e., you believed that you make choices but never have choices, that your every action, including the choices you make are predetermined and necessitated so that you have to do what you do and it is impossible for you ever to do otherwise than what you were determined to do). So the server comes up to you and says that, say there are five choices, five lunch specials for you to choose from. If all events are necessitated then you don’t have access to all five lunch specials. You have access to, and you will select, only the one possibility which has been necessitated for you. Now is that the view of the ordinary person on the street? No, and anyone who suggests that is lying about things.
Next “Turretinfan” brings up the issue of coercion or being forced against your will to do something:
“If I ask them, "What if someone forces you to pick A?" They would reply that this isn't really a choice. Of course, that's because there's compulsion involved.”
He’s right that the ordinary person on the street can distinguish between being coerced (forced to act against your will) and acting freely (not being forced against your will). But don’t stop there, the ordinary person when they say someone is acting freely means that the person could pick any of the five lunch specials, they are not forced or EVEN NECESSITATED to pick the selection they end up making. You see it is not enough to merely say that my action was not coerced against my will, so I was acting freely. If my action was necessitated, though I did what I chose to do, I was not acting freely because I had to do what I did and it was impossible for me to do otherwise. The ordinary person on the street understands and recognizes that if my action was necessitated, then I had no choice, I had to do what I did and could not have done otherwise and I DID NOT HAVE FREE WILL AS ORDINARILY UNDERSTOOD.
“Turretinfan” continues:
“I could go further with the nuances (such as the fact that people buy advertising because they think they can influence choices), but the bottom line is that generally speaking every "average Joe" I speak to has roughly the same answers to the questions about choice, and they all line up either exactly with what Calvinism teaches about choice, or awfully close.”
This is simply not true.
The “average Joe” is not a necessitarian, does not believe that they never ever have a choice, that their every action is necessitated so that they have to do exactly what they do, does not hold to necessitarian views of free will and choice. And the last line is particularly false: the views of the “average Joe” do not “all line up either exactly with what Calvinism teaches about choice, or awfully close.” I am not an old person and I certainly have not witnessed the interactions of every human person. But I have been around the block, I have been in many different situations and cultures, and I can say that the vast, vast majority of people do not have views on choice and free will that are in any way, shape, or form “what Calvinism teaches about choice, or awfully close”. No, it is not close at all, the differences are complete opposites, mutually exclusive, completely diametrically opposed. The “average Joe” does not hold to necessitarian views on free will and choice. Most “average Joes” when confronted with necessitarian views find them to be completely false, completely ridiculous, and even amazing that a normal and sane person could even think that way.
I forgot where I read it, but I once read a necessitarian saying that “human nature is Arminian” in its views of free will and choice”! Now why would they state such a thing if “Turretinfan’s” statement (“generally speaking every "average Joe" I speak to has roughly the same answers to the questions about choice, and they all line up either exactly with what Calvinism teaches about choice, or awfully close”) were true? No, if you read the necessitarians, they often attack the “average Joe” (including the average Christian who is not a necessitarian) for their “false” understanding of free will and choice (usually arguing that the common understanding is false and unbiblical). In order to explain the “wrong view” of “average Joes” that are not Christians, the necessatarians blame this on them being against the bible, against the necessitarian teachings. In order to explain the “wrong view” among Christians, the necessitarians blame these believers for being pelagians, semi-pelagians, Arminians, molinists, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and blame it on their rejection of necessitarian teachings. And again if you listen to most necessitarians they will tell you that they have got it right and the vast majority of everybody else has got it wrong when it comes to the proper understanding of free will and choices.
“Turretinfan” is out of touch with the teachings of his own group, the necessatarians don’t believe that the average Joe holds the same views on free will and choice that they do. That is not true at all.
Robert
...are generally little wannabe Mussolinis: like that squeaking clown Paul Manatos on Triablogue. Anyone who thinks all religious questions are akin to like working out Aristotelian syllogism should either be kicked out of theology (and philosophy for that matter. Frege sort of updated all that old term logic).
For that matter, determinism as a philosophical problem is not the theologian's discussion. It's arguably not even philosophical, but concerns bio-chemical matter: and is a posteriori.
I'm not down with the ecumenical liberal christians, but one shouldn't mistake the Roody Guiliani catholic-right (even ones hiding in calvinist clothes) as representing the message of the New Testament.
Let's assume this is true - ity's not been my experience, but let's assume it.
Like when they hear the gospel?
Most "average Joes" think they can earn their way to heaven.
Thus salvation by grace alone is out of touch with the common man.
Does have any weight ****WHATSOEVER**** in thinking the gospel false???
The answer here is "No."
So, even granting the point, it should never serve as a premise in accidentalist's arguments for accidentalism.
I know of Roger Olson. But who are the others.
thank you.
Donald
Sorry for the delay. It's been a crazy week. I would check out the "books" section of the links and books page on SEA.
link
I personnally recommend Witherington, Picirilli, Cottrell, Walls adn Dongell, Stanglin, Osborn and Abasciano.
God be with you,
Dan
Always a pleasure to find another SBCer.
God be with you,
Dan
BTW, that should have been Osborne with an "e" as in Grant Osborne.