There is an a way of arguing from Calvinism to atheism. If the Bible is true, we have no libertarian free will (based on Calvinist arguments), but that means that God could have created us in such a way that everyone free does what is right, and everyone goes to heaven, but didn't. But a God who not only allowed sin, but also damnation, when God could just as easily have chosen their salvation is not a God worthy of worship. Hence, if the the God of the Bible exists, he is not worthy of worship (is not omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good), and hence there is no being in existence that satisfies this requirement. Therefore, atheism is true.
The closest I ever came to atheism was when I first encountered the biblical case for Calvinism. (I realize that someone will probably use this as the basis for an ad hominem argument against me. Remember, ad hominem is a fallacy.)
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2009/09/from-calvinism-to-atheism.html
Reppert's attack on the God of Calvinism is an ad hominem attack. He's trying to discredit the God of Calvinism by impeaching his character. Therefore, Reppert's attack on Reformed theism is a fallacy.
Geez, this:
ReplyDeleteBut a God who not only allowed sin, but also damnation, when God could just as easily have chosen their salvation is not a God worthy of worship.
is virtually verbatim what I've spent alot of time refuting at the Atheist Experience blog. Nice, Reppert.
Interesting that. No God that doesn't conform to my preconceived notions is a God worthy of worship. Creating God in one's own image is a dangerous idea indeed.
ReplyDeleteNo person who would try to impose a socialist agenda on America is worthy of my vote (I really firmly believe this, by the way, I do, I do!), therefore Obama is not the President of the United States.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if Victor Reppert will ever come to the realization that the "light" that Steve shines upon him and his writings is actually to Victor's benefit and for his edification.
ReplyDeletePersonal growth through being embarrassed. That's how Victor should view all these lengthy fiskings that Steve lays on him.
This was a possible argument that could be developed. I didn't say it was unanswerable. What I said was that the issue of predestination has apologetic implications, in response to someone who was wondering why I bothered with it. I do think Calvinism weakens the position of Christianity relative to the problem of evil. I wrote that post knowing that I would be away from the computer for awhile after that.
ReplyDeleteNot all of my criticisms of Calvinism are based on the moral objection. The moral objection, while I agree with it personally, doesn't do a whole lot to meet the Calvinist on his own terms.
I happen to think a substantial chunk of Scripture teaches that God loves every person, and desires the salvation of every person, and that a close analysis of the relevant terms in ordinary language you can't say that if you believe that God loves persons whom he reprobates, or that he desire the salvation of those he unilaterally reprobates.
Are people using the argument from evil against theism guilty of the ad hominem fallacy? They are arguing about a being which they contend does not exist, offering a reason why an omnipotent being, if it existed, would not be a good being. It would be nice to get rid of the argument from evil that way, (by making a fallacy charge) but I am afraid that won't work.
TUAD: Steve constantly misinterprets my comments, and reads stuff into them that aren't there.
ReplyDeleteNeal: Do you accept the definition of the term God as a being who is omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good. Is this what God is by definition? Because if you say this, that means that we have to know what the word "good" means before we can pick out who "God" is. If this is the definition of God, then we do have some preconceived properties that God has to have in order to be God.
ReplyDeleteIf "good" is "whatever God does or commands, and "God" is a being omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good," then we have a vicious circularity in our definitions.
Reppert said:
ReplyDelete---
I do think Calvinism weakens the position of Christianity relative to the problem of evil.
---
And yet you still have never even bothered to define "evil."
Reppert said:
---
I happen to think a substantial chunk of Scripture teaches that God loves every person...
---
So why is it that you only ever bother to quote three, never exegete them, and pretend that responses have never been given to the Arminian claims about those verses?
Reppert said:
---
Are people using the argument from evil against theism guilty of the ad hominem fallacy?
---
They're not defining the terms they use (kinda like you), and they're stealing capital from Christianity to even begin to make their argument. There is no good or evil without God (something you would realize if--go with me now--you bothered to define evil).
Reppert said:
---
It would be nice to get rid of the argument from evil that way, (by making a fallacy charge) but I am afraid that won't work.
---
Maybe that's why we show atheists who use the problem of evil must assume Christianity in order to try to refute it, that they have no basis for declaring anything good or evil within their own worldview, and that they are internally inconsistent--which while being fallacies are NOT the ad hominem fallacy you apparently think is the only one we would use.
Victor said:
ReplyDelete---
If "good" is "whatever God does or commands, and "God" is a being omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good," then we have a vicious circularity in our definitions.
---
If "good" is "some other standard that God must uphold" and "that standard" is something objective to God, then we have a vicious circularity in our definitions. Namely, you cannot define that objective good without referencing that objective good, which means that everything you claim as a weakness against Divine Command Theory strikes your own theory too.
Which is probably why you never bother to define your theory, because if you let it remain nebulous then you can pretend nothing can assault it.
If God is not the definition of good, then what is Reppert? If you cannot answer this then you cannot even begin to talk about good and evil.
Victor said:
ReplyDelete"Neal: Do you accept the definition of the term God as a being who is omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good. Is this what God is by definition? Because if you say this, that means that we have to know what the word "good" means before we can pick out who "God" is.
Let me get this right. You think "good" can be known apart from God? Is it a higher standard than God?
Victor said:
If this is the definition of God, then we do have some preconceived properties that God has to have in order to be God.
Which raises the question. Where do those preconceptions come from? The Israelites at the foot of Mt. Sinai had their own preconceptions about God too. They came out in the form of a very lovely golden calf.
Victor said:
If "good" is "whatever God does or commands, and "God" is a being omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good," then we have a vicious circularity in our definitions.
When you are talking about ultimate presuppositions, you can't avoid circularity. If there were some other standard you could appeal to in order to validate those presuppositions, they wouldn't be presuppositions would they? That other standard would be your presupposition. But then if you want to avoid circularity, you then need yet another standard, ad infinitum. Everyone whether they know it or not engages in that kind of circularity.
Do you accept the definition of the term God as a being who is omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good. Is this what God is by definition?
ReplyDeleteYes
Because if you say this, that means that we have to know what the word "good" means before we can pick out who "God" is.
1. You chose a theological, catechical definition. Do you believe these were made apart from Scripture?
2. Nonsequitur, for reasons I personally addressed.
Victor Reppert: "TUAD: Steve constantly misinterprets my comments, and reads stuff into them that aren't there."
ReplyDeleteI suppose. But then again, don't you think the argument cuts both ways, and that Steve could say the same thing about you?
Also, Steve may just be cutting you off at the pass, so to speak, in assumed anticipation of the direction or destination that you're heading to. People do that all the time. And you probably do the same thing too.
Anyways, misinterpretation could have two sources: The reader and/or the writer. Maybe the writer doesn't write clearly which then causes the reader to misinterpret.
Eg., like when Peter Pike asks you to define your terms, terms like "love". If a writer doesn't define terms, and the reader misunderstands what's written according to the writer, then whose fault is that, really?
Victor,
ReplyDeleteYou said “a God who not only allowed sin, but also damnation, when God could just as easily have chosen their salvation is not a God worthy of worship.”
In the very same post you say ad hominem is a fallacy. And you recently defined the ad hominem fallacy as: “We commit the ad hominem fallacy when we think that considerations about a person ‘refute’ his or her assertions. Ad hominem is Latin for ‘to the man’ indicating that it is not really the subject matter that is being addressed, but the person.”
So you’re trying to refute Calvinism by attacking the character of its God. Explain how that avoids the ad hominem fallacy.
In order to commit the ad hominem fallacy, there has to be an issue independent of the character of the person which is being addressed by an argument, and then the argument has to shift attention from the person-independent issue to the person.
ReplyDeleteSo for example, if you are trying to argue
A) Bill Clinton's moral character is deficient
then it's not ad hominem to talk about Monicagate.
If on the other hand, you are arguing
B) Clinton's reasons for supporting health care reform are inadequate
then zipper problems, stained dresses, and wagging index fingers are irrelevant.