Victor Reppert said...
All of which goes to show that belief in determinism, with or without a predestinating God, is a profoundly unnatural belief.
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2009/12/two-motivations-for-evangelism.html#c8878580259617563204
Let's compare that assertion with polling data on where professional philosophers come down on the freewill debate:
The PhilPapers Survey was a survey of professional philosophers and others on their philosophical views, carried out in November 2009. The Survey was taken by 3226 respondents, including 1803 philosophy faculty members and/or PhDs and 829 philosophy graduate students.
The PhilPapers Metasurvey was a concurrent survey of professional philosophers and other concerning their predictions of the results of the Survey. The Metasurvey was taken by 727 respondents including 438 professional philosophers and PhDs and 210 philosophy graduate students.
http://philpapers.org/surveys/
Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?
Accept or lean toward: compatibilism (59%)
Other (14.9%)
Accept or lean toward: libertarianism (13.7%)
Accept or lean toward: no free will (12.2%)
http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
Question: if determinism is a "profoundly unnatural belief," then why do only 13.7% of respondents accept or lean toward libertarianism? Sounds like Reppert is profoundly out of touch with the philosophical consensus in his very own field.
if determinism is a "profoundly unnatural belief," then why do only 13.7% of respondents accept or lean toward libertarianism?
ReplyDeletePerhaps you have to poll the hoi polloi and not people who have done thinking on the subject of freedom and the will.
You go to professional philosophers to determine whether determinism is a natural belief? People who have had naturalistic determinism pounded into their brains from day one in grad school? You're kidding, aren't you.
ReplyDeleteMost of these people think there is no libertarian free will, because they think the mind is the brain, and since physical particles can't have libertarian free will, neither can we.
The kind of compatibilism they espouse is the kind espoused by people like Daniel Dennett in Elbow Room. That is, it's compatible with holding people responsible for their actions in a way that is aimed at modifying their behavior. I find out who's responsible for the action so that I can decide whose behavior I need to correct., or reinforce as the case might be.
The idea that we are, in some absolute sense, guilty before God for the things we have done, and liable to everlasting punishment for such misdeeds even though our actions are determined, ultimately, by divine choice, is a thesis that people like Dennett would find simply horrifying and barbaric.
You have to reconcile determinism with a very strong form of moral responsibility that most secular compatibilists would reject. You might want to try polling those philosophers on whether they accept the idea of retribution.
The hoi polloi, as Vytautas would call them (including introductory philosophy students), invariably accept libertarian free will. They have to be exposed either to naturalism or to Calvinism before they will even consider the idea that our actions are all determined.
Of course, Victor, when they are exposed to Calvinism, they are being exposed to what the Bible actually has to say about free will. Tell us, Victor, where does the Bible teach Libertarian Action Theory? That's really the bottom line here, Victor...the Bible vs. Victor. You think determinism is "unnatural." Okay, fine...the Bible says otherwise. I'll get my theology and philosophy of free will from the Bible, not Victor any day of the week.
ReplyDeleteReppert said:
ReplyDelete"You go to professional philosophers to determine whether determinism is a natural belief? People who have had naturalistic determinism pounded into their brains from day one in grad school? You're kidding, aren't you."
Me:
Of course, we could turn this around. Most people in the West (under the influence of Greek philosophy) might select libertarian free-will simply because of the cultural influences.
Saint and Sinner: Exactly. Indoctrination by culture is at least as pervasive and usually a good deal less conscious and reflective that indoctrination by a particular field of study. The average joe is likely to believe superficially in free will thanks to familiarity with the phrase "of his own free will" and exposure to the odd science fiction film... that doesn't make the belief itself "natural", except insofar as unthinking acceptance of cultural mores is natural for fallen humanity.
ReplyDeleteOf course, whether or not a belief is "unnatural" (rare? counterintuitive?) is a far less important question than whether or not it's true...
Of course, the "hoi polloi" have already been polled, and the polling doesn't seem to support Reppert's rather dogamtic claims.
ReplyDeletehttp://experimentalphilosophy.typepad.com/experimental_philosophy/2005/09/trying_to_test_.html
Furthermore, the hoi polloi, as well as introductory philosophy students, hold to many beliefs Victor and his colleagues must correct, semester by semester.
Lastly, it is a "natural" belief that we can earn salvation. Isn't that the point of the Bible? Doesn't sinful man think he can or must add to God's grace (if he even allows grace) if he is to be saved? Naturally, we are wired for law. We are, by nature, pelegians. That's why we need the gospel week after week. But of course, we would all rightly ignore the Pelegian who came to us and said, "All of which goes to show that belief in sola fide and sola gratia and solo Christo, are profoundly unnatural beliefs."
So, and Victor must admit this, his point is at best factually inaccurate, at worst it's entirely uninteresting; as the same claim could be made by all the works-based world religions as reasons to deny, or give the stink eye, to historic Christianity.
My claim was that determinism is unnatural. This was not designed to be a proof of much of anything, unless to establish a rather modest pretheoretical default advantage to libertarianism. However, was no one paying attention when I said that, of course, incompatibilism could easily be false for all that? Of course I have argued that some passages in Scripture do support LFW, but I'm not in any mood to rehash that. Yes, assuming you've done the biblical interpretation right, and you accept a strong enough version of inerrancy, then you have a successful defeater for the "natural" belief that determinism is false.
ReplyDeleteHere we go again with the agenda fallacy. Of course Reppert has an anti-Calvinist agenda, he is trying to point something out that seems to bear negatively on Calvinism, therefore it must be an attempted proof by Reppert that Calvinism is false, so we have to treat it as such and prove that it fails.
It reminds me of an exchange I had with Ed Babinski on Facebook in which I made the claim that either God exists or God does not exist, and if God exists, then the people who say that God exists are right, and the people who say that God does not exist are wrong. On the other hand, if God does not exist, then the people who say that God does not exist are right, and the people who say that God does exist are wrong. This requires, of course, some definition of God acceptable to both sides in the discussion, but that can be done. Babinski treated this as some sort of Christian apologetic argument, and started talking about a lack of proof of the resurrection and how my AFR didn't work. I had to point out about 6 times that this was something that someone like Dawkins and I agree on, and that I was responding to fuggheaded relativism, and not to any kind of naturalism. All because Babinski knew I was a Christian and was prepared to defend Christianity.
I do think once Calvinism is spelled out, most everyone has an inherent sense that this can't be right. But of course this could easily be chalked up to people "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness." So I wouldn't hang a case against Calvinism on these types of considerations. I was just observing that determinism doesn't come naturally to people.
With respect to compatibilism, the devil is in the details, and I do think that, for most people, the idea that our actions are determined by God is incompatible with the idea that we are liable to damnation by God for the things that we have done. But I think this proves little by itself, and said so from the beginning.
While Reppert choses to paint with that broad brush I'll simply offer more reasons why his claims are quite suspect . . . and never mind his ignoring the pelagian point.
ReplyDeleteGreg Boyd uses the exact same type of argument to point out that the Bible assumes the future is open, unsettled (Boyd, Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, pp. 17-18). Boyd claims that when we think of “deliberating,” we presuppose that the future is open, not settled (and if it is open, God does not know it).
Robert Kane, no compatibilist, has also pointed out the natural problems common man has with indeterminism Thus:
"The first step is to question the intuitive connection in people's minds between ‘indeterminisms being involved in something’ and ‘its happening merely as a matter of chance or luck’ (Kane, Robert. "Libertarianism." Four Views on Free Will. Fischer et al., 33).
Any libertarianism worthy of the name, i.e., one that can do the job of grounding responsibility and control, is certainly not a view that mis "natural." No, rather it is a sophisticated and detailed philosophical thesis.
For these reasons Reppert should repent in sackcloth and ashes. :-)
I don't think there's any need for sackcloth and ashes at this point. The primary point of my counter-post was to challenge Steve's claim that the fact that most philosophers accept compatibilism is not evidence against the claim that compatibilism, or determinism, is unnatural. I argued that professional philosophers constituted a poor evidence base for that kind of claim, since those people have a strong inclination to be philosophical naturalists, and on the assumption that naturalism is true, it is hard to make sense of libertarian free will. Does anybody want to defend Steve's claim that an opinion poll of professional philosophers is a good evidence base against my claim that determinism is unnatural? No?? Because I haven't seen any arguments to that effect, in defense of the actual original post. Of course, the claim may be uninteresting. I have already indicated how considerations of what is natural to believe can be defeated by a biblical argument. So can we please put away that canard of The Infallible Holy Word of Almighty God vs. Reppert's (wicked) intuitions. What Steve chose to do was to challenge my claim that determinism is an unnatural belief by using professional philosophers, most of whom are philosophical materialists, as an evidence base.
ReplyDeleteOf course, there are pretheoretical intuitions going in various directions here. However, there are significant intuitions that push against any claim that we don't have libertarian free will. Libertarianism is a philosophical development which I believe makes the most sense of our pretheoretical intuitions. I also think that when it comes to the kind of freedom necessary for moral responsibility, we have to clarify what we mean by moral responsibility, and when we do, I think there is a strong natural disposition to reject Calvinism.
The first thing that happened when I cross-posted my comment on Dangerous Idea was that a Calvinist commenter said he agreed with my claim. Of course, I don't expect him to give up Calvinism because of this, and my argument wasn't even designed to do that.
Although there are pretheoretical intuitions, I also think that by the time you ask all the questions you need to to tease them out of people, you end up giving them something of an education in the philosophy of the free will problem.
I think most, or at least many converts to Calvinism can think back to a time when they first thought about Calvinism, and thought this was just wrong, and then they became persuaded that Scripture taught it, and so they became Calvinists.
I have some sympathy with the claim that my claim here is boring. However, Steve challenged it in a way that I thought was demostratably misguided. So I responded back. And somehow, people thought that this was an argument against Calvinism.
either God exists or God does not exist, and if God exists, then the people who say that God exists are right, and the people who say that God does not exist are wrong. On the other hand, if God does not exist, then the people who say that God does not exist are right, and the people who say that God does exist are wrong. This requires, of course, some definition of God acceptable to both sides in the discussion, but that can be done.
ReplyDeleteYou call this an argument against Calvinism????!
"..determinism doesn't come naturally to people."
ReplyDeleteI agree. Because we are by nature natural, or sensual.
"So can we please put away that canard of The Infallible Holy Word of Almighty God vs. Reppert's (wicked) intuitions."
Why do you want to put away the Bible? I think that's very odd indeed.
The truth is where it's at. And the Word is truth. How awesome is that.
Interesting post and comments.
Victor,
ReplyDeleteNevermind Steve's claim. You started it with the post about what is "natural." And it is *that* claim that I'm addressing. You've lost track of the dialectic.
But for the record, your response to Steve was flawed for reasons previously pointed out. You and your collegues constantly correct the naive views of incoming philosohy students. The intial, intuitive, and common sense beliefs they come to the university with are many times not the ones they leave with. But hey, if you think your point about "naturality" is really something to consider, why not publish a journal article against naive realism using that argument? You can even use the bit about incoming college freshmen!
So can we please put away that canard of The Infallible Holy Word of Almighty God vs. Reppert's (wicked) intuitions.
ReplyDeleteNo, because you call yourself a "Christian philosopher." In the end, therefore, it comes down to you vs. the Bible. So, I'll ask again...where does the Bible teach Libertarian Action Theory?
Further, you,in your original post mentioned a "predestinating God." Where else shall we look to find such a God if not the Bible. You're not an apologist for Islam are you?
Of course Reppert has an anti-Calvinist agenda, he is trying to point something out that seems to bear negatively on Calvinism, therefore it must be an attempted proof by Reppert that Calvinism is false, so we have to treat it as such and prove that it fails.
Victor, one of your chronic problems is that you can't keep track of your own words when you're the one who wrote them, or do you have your students pose as you?
You are the one who wrote:They have to be exposed either to naturalism or to Calvinism before they will even consider the idea that our actions are all determined.
We didn't write that. YOU did, Victor. YOU were the one making an invidious comparison. We tend to respond to what our adversaries write as they write it. If you can't keep track of your own words, we'll just have to do that for you.
You call this an argument against Calvinism????!
ReplyDeleteNo, he doesn't.
Why do you want to put away the Bible? I think that's very odd indeed.
That is not the way English grammar works.
So, I'll ask again...where does the Bible teach Libertarian Action Theory?
He's already said
Of course I have argued that some passages in Scripture do support LFW, but I'm not in any mood to rehash that.
He *has* laid out his views on this before, and you can't really expect him to argue every point about everything in every discussion...
Steven: That was not an argument against Calvinism. That was an argument against fuggheaded relativism. I thought I said that.
ReplyDeleteIf I were arguing at this moment that Calvinism is false, then of course we would have to consider biblical evidence. That isn't the topic here. I've said over and over that if I were to establish the claim that LFW is a natural belief, this would be at best a defeasible supporter for Calvinism absent other sorts of evidence.
ReplyDeleteDonsands here says that determinism doesn't come naturally to people, and explains it because we are sensual. What I want to point out is that he has *agreed with me* on the only point I have been trying to defend in this entire discussion.
ReplyDeleteI wrote: They have to be exposed either to naturalism or to Calvinism before they will even consider the idea that our actions are all determined.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think this is a proof that Calvinism is false? Why in blazes does this justify creating an anti-Calvinist argument out of all of this? I was making an observation about students who encounter the free will question for the first time. I think I should know, I teach philosophy. Doesn't mean it's true, lots of students espouse ethical relativism, which I am at some pains to attack every chance I get.
Paul: Nevermind Steve's claim. You started it with the post about what is "natural." And it is *that* claim that I'm addressing. You've lost track of the dialectic.
ReplyDeleteBut for the record, your response to Steve was flawed for reasons previously pointed out. You and your collegues constantly correct the naive views of incoming philosohy students. The intial, intuitive, and common sense beliefs they come to the university with are many times not the ones they leave with. But hey, if you think your point about "naturality" is really something to consider, why not publish a journal article against naive realism using that argument? You can even use the bit about incoming college freshmen!
VR: My claim was that determinism is not a natural belief, at least for people in our culture. If you ask someone who believes in God why God permits sin and suffering, they invariably come back with something about God allowing free will. Then, I have to explain to them the compatibilist theory of free will, according to which God could have created the world in such a way that everyone freely does what is right, and usually I get stares of incomprehension when I do that, at least at first.
People come to college believing in God and sometimes have that belief shattered.
Steve's point is that it is FALSE to say that determinism isn't natural. So any discussion of the claim that if determinism were unnatural, what would follow from that is off-topic, other than it might provide a default advantage for libertarianism absent any good arguments one way or the other.
Does the Bible address the question of whether it is natural for us to believe in determinism? In what verse, I wonder.
"My claim was that determinism is not a natural belief, at least for people in our culture."
ReplyDeletei. That's not exactly what you said.
ii. Show me the survey, or is this another intuition you have?
iii. I cited a survey which seems to undermine your claim.
"If you ask someone who believes in God why God permits sin and suffering, they invariably come back with something about God allowing free will."
i. Really? So I must not be "someone?"
ii. You're confusing your sample groups. Maybe many philosophers or those who have thought a minute on the issue would say this, but it's been my experience that most Christians fall back on "mystery."
iii. Also, many wonder why God would "allow" free will given all the evil that would result, so the merrit the above answer has becomes a wash for them. Many times they struggle with it for much of their life. That may be why one of the biggest conversion groups to Reformed theology are elderly Christians. That's what happened with my mom. When real big problems hit, many a Christian has found comfort and peace and answers in Reformed theology. Speaking for myself, I was raised in a church but never believed the Arminian stuff they taught me. Indeed, that was one of my objections to Christianity as I understood it (as it was presented to me). So I never was inclined towards Arminianism or "free will" as a "solve all." So in my case, the weak God and the contradictory views of free will and foreknowledge were a reason for me to reject Christianity . . . until someone explained Calvinism, that is.
iv. And furthermore, many come across the limitations of this view in a hurry.
"Then, I have to explain to them the compatibilist theory of free will, according to which God could have created the world in such a way that everyone freely does what is right, and usually I get stares of incomprehension when I do that, at least at first."
I don't get it? You present them with your straw man, caricature, and unsophisticated and ill-thought-out objection to Calvinism, that's been addressed ad nauseum, and you get stares of incomprehension? Go figure. I get those same stares when I explain your view to people.
"People come to college believing in God and sometimes have that belief shattered."
I'm not clear on what work this is doing.
"Steve's point is that it is FALSE to say that determinism isn't natural."
i. It very well may be.
ii. Or, it could be difficult to determine and so we should avoid making such claims.
iii. And, if it is, so what? Works righteousness is natural, the gospel isn't. The gospel is foolishness on man's terms, apart from a God's eye view.
"Does the Bible address the question of whether it is natural for us to believe in determinism? In what verse, I wonder."
i. It very well may do so indirectly.
ii. Suppose it doesn't, what of it? Again, I'm struggling to see the point of much of your response here. Indeed, you've left many of the things I've said unaddressed; things that directly bear on your claims.
What I would present would not be an objection to Calvinism, but rather an explanation of what Calvinism clearly entails, assuming a marriage to libertarian free will. Of course it entails that God could have created the world in such a way that everyone freely does what is right. What the Calvinist objects to is the idea that God should have done it that way, if he could have.
ReplyDeleteSteve picked up on the unnaturalness claim that I made and thought it was an objection to Calvinism, and so responded to it. I was basing my judgments mostly on what I see as widespread, though not, I suppose, universal, pretheoretic, naive belief in free will, found in introductory philosophy classes but also elsewhere. It was backed up by another commentator on my site, who said:
Gordon Knight: Students in my classes tend to like free will, but there are also some determinists. What I do not find is any compatibilists.
When I was talking about the principle of alternative possibilities and was careful to say this is controversial, they look at me like I am crazy "Isn't that just what it means for someone to have free will"?
I think your case is rather unusual as people go, Paul. I think most Calvinists become Calvinists for biblical and theological reasons in spite of initial intuitions to the contrary, and I have heard Calvinists say just that. The first Calvinist I ever got discussed the subject with in any detail, my community college logic instructor, certainly viewed it in this way.
I've said over and over that, in the last analysis, I may well be making a boring claim. So long as you think you have biblical and philosophical arguments for your position, you can agree with me that it's unnatural (though the extent and significance of the unnaturalness is something even I am unsure of), without great epistemic damage to Calvinism. The main reason I bothered to respond to Steve was I thought he had a bad argument against my original statement. This is kind of a side issue in the overall controversy concerning Calvinism.
"Of course it entails that God could have created the world in such a way that everyone freely does what is right. What the Calvinist objects to is the idea that God should have done it that way, if he could have."
ReplyDeleteAnd you're sure to tell them that this world that the Calvinist God could have made would be a morally inferior world to the world containing redemption, right? I wonder why would they give you incomprehensible stares? What Christians are you talking to that think God should make morally inferior worlds, worlds without Jesus, worlds without salvation, worlds without redemption. Sounds like the problem is your circle of friends.
"Steve picked up on the unnaturalness claim that I made and thought it was an objection to Calvinism, and so responded to it. I was basing my judgments mostly on what I see as widespread, though not, I suppose, universal, pretheoretic, naive belief in free will, found in introductory philosophy classes but also elsewhere."
Widespread? Based off what sample group? Widespread compared to what? I still want to see the sociological studies. I gave some that disagree, and my own experience tells a different story. So I'm not even to the point of granting you claim. Without the studies it's bestw e all remain agnostic on this claim.
As far as what Steve was picking up on, wasn't it your invidious comparison that made people wonder if you weren't critiquing Calvinism --- which you do quite often, and is probably your second most critiqued position at your place.
"I think your case is rather unusual as people go, Paul. I think most Calvinists become Calvinists for biblical and theological reasons in spite of initial intuitions to the contrary, and I have heard Calvinists say just that."
i. Many Christians may become Calvinists because of that.
ii. I wasn't a Christian then, so why think my case unusual, unless you think atheists take serious biblical theology?
"I've said over and over that, in the last analysis, I may well be making a boring claim. So long as you think you have biblical and philosophical arguments for your position, you can agree with me that it's unnatural (though the extent and significance of the unnaturalness is something even I am unsure of), without great epistemic damage to Calvinism."
The situation is worse. I think I have common sensical, philosophical, psychological, and theological reasons not just *for* Calvinism but *against* libertarianism.
"The main reason I bothered to respond to Steve was I thought he had a bad argument against my original statement. This is kind of a side issue in the overall controversy concerning Calvinism."
I don't think so, and the only response you had to his response was to employ something like the no true scotsman fallacy.
VICTOR REPPERT SAID:
ReplyDelete"Steve picked up on the unnaturalness claim that I made and thought it was an objection to Calvinism, and so responded to it."
I "thought" it was an objection to Calvinism? What's that supposed to mean? That it wasn't really an objection to Calvinism? That I just read that into it? Reppert's statement was in the explicit context of Calvinism. Here's the original thread:
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2009/12/two-motivations-for-evangelism.html
Both the body of the post and his subsequence comments are in reference to Calvinism.
"Steve's point is that it is FALSE to say that determinism isn't natural."
Actually, that wasn't my point. My point was simply that when 86.3% of representatives in his own field reject libertarianism, then his appeal to a natural belief in libertarianism is prima facie implausible. How could he possibly prove such a thing?
"I was basing my judgments mostly on what I see as widespread, though not, I suppose, universal, pretheoretic, naive belief in free will, found in introductory philosophy classes but also elsewhere."
How could that anecdotal evidence possibly establish a "natural" belief? Reppert is talking about college students with at least 18 years of social conditioning under their belt.
And what if, instead of modern-American students, this was a bunch of 18C Puritan American students?
Come on VR it was obvious I was joking
ReplyDeleteYes, the original context was an argument in which I explicitly said that Calvinist don't need to see this as a problem, and probably wouldn't. People do use arguments like this against Calvinism. I think Calvinism undercuts one motive for evangelism, but in my latest post I indicated that there were two motivations that remain intact, as opposed to just one as I had originally indicated.
ReplyDeleteSteven: It wasn't obvious to me that you were, especially when Calvinists can absorb my point if they want to and use it on the side of Calvinism.
ReplyDeleteWait a minute here. Steve says
ReplyDelete"You made that statement in an explicit discussion of Calvinism," and it is supposed to follow from that that "That statement is a criticism of Calvinism?" Especially if you read that last line of the original post, which says that you can agree with the point and still be a Calvinist, and that Calvinists need not see this as a problem.