Monday, January 18, 2010

Water seeks its own level

A friend of mine recently asked what, if any, impact the belief in causal determinism (or lack thereof) has in practical day-to-day living. Here’s my answer:

Well, one example to the contrary is this:

I never locked my doors.

This was because I believed that men had no free will and that not only were all things determined, but that they were causally and directly brought about by God. So that, if someone were to break into my house or steal my car, or even if I or someone I loved were to become ill, such an event or circumstance would be directly caused by God himself so that any interference would be bad and wrong.

As you know, this view didn’t serve me very well practically...My car was stolen, keys still in the ignition.

My hope is that my account would serve as a warning or at least a speed bump for pastors who teach these sorts of things. Ideas have consequences.


http://reasontostand.org/archives/2010/01/18/how-does-a-belief-in-causal-determinism-influence-how-one-lives#identifier_3_871

I suppose the most charitable construction we can place on this objection is that “Reason to Stand” is a hoax blog. Wes is really an undercover Calvinist, posing as a libertarian, to make freewill theism look as ridiculous as possible by raising transparently comical objections to Calvinism.

If, on the other hand he’s serious, then he may be in need of round-the-clock supervision. At the very least he should be patted down for matches lest he hurt himself.

i) Calvinism doesn’t take the position that all things are “directly” caused by God. That would be occasionalism, not Calvinism.

While it’s theoretically possible to be a Reformed occasionalist, that’s hardly an implication of Calvinism. Mainstream Calvinism has a robust doctrine of ordinary providence. Indeed, Calvinism is famous–or infamous, depending on your viewpoint–for its robust doctrine of ordinary providence.

As such, God ordinarily brings things to pass through natural agents and agencies. How could anyone with even a glancing knowledge of Calvinism not know that?

It sounds as though Wes got his notion of “causal determinism” from watching reruns of Final Destination 1.

ii) Not locking your doors is just as much of a choice as locking your doors. If he thinks that “causal determinism” prevents him from making choices (or “influencing the outcome”), then it would equally prevent him from not locking his doors.

After all, if it’s causally determined that he will lock his doors, then he can’t leave them unlocked. And if it’s causally determined that he will leave his doors unlocked, then he can’t lock them.

So why would his former belief in “causal determinism” bias him to leave his doors unlocked rather than locking them all the time, or locking them sometimes but not other times?

iii) Likewise, if “causal determinism” prevents him from influencing the outcome, then how could he “interfere” with the outcome even if he tried? Conversely, if he tried, then wouldn’t his attempt be causally determined? If he succeeded in locking his doors, then that would be causally determined–but if he failed to lock his doors, then that, too, would be causally determined.

Indeed, even if he merely toyed with the idea of locking his doors (or not), his idea would also be causally determined.

So why does he imagine that believing in causal determinism points him in any particular direction? How does such a belief bias his course of action or inaction?

iv) Also, as a friend of mine remarked (tongue-in-cheek), “I never locked my doors when I held to a view of causal indeterminism because I believed that events could occur randomly, without any sufficient reason, so there was no point locking the doors anyway.”

9 comments:

  1. I had that conversation with an acquaintance once. He found the idea that God predetermined his actions offensive and declared he would sabotage God by sitting still on a chair doing nothing. I tried to point out that if he did this, his sitting and doing nothing would have been what God predetermined, so he hadn't "escaped" anything. He didn't get it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Would you characterise V Cheung's view as 'occasionalism', as you've said here?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Proper links would be appreciated.

    "So why does he imagine that believing in causal determinism points him in any particular direction? How does such a belief bias his course of action or inaction? "

    Are you saying that beliefs don't affect actions? This was the heart of the question posed by my friend. (Who is an atheist and has no problems believing in causal determinism.)

    Why would a belief in causal determinism lead to such silly actions as not locking your doors?

    Well, why would you lock your doors, take medical precautions, or do anything to prevent or plan for the future when your core belief is that God causally controls all things and your actions don't matter in the end anyway?

    I think the answer is clear, you think your actions do matter.

    This means you don't really believe that you are a mere puppet on a string. The best you can hope to do to avoid this logical paradox is an appeal to mystery (like John Piper) in order to maintain your Calvinistic view of sovereignty (which is characterized by a belief that God causally brings about all that happens).

    It's funny how Calvinists tend to think their beliefs, when carried out to their logical conclusion, sound silly. Perhaps you would have an easier time accepting these beliefs as "reformed" if I were to use the proper amount of "God told me to" and "I was just placing my faith in God" language.

    The truth is that I did couch my belief in all kinds of "Christianeese" and in the end it did me no good whatsoever because the underlying belief in causal determinism was completely false.

    ReplyDelete
  4. WES WIDNER SAID:

    “Are you saying that beliefs don't affect actions?”

    Irrelevant. The question at issue is not that general connection, but your specific, fallacious inference regarding “causal determinism.”

    “Why would a belief in causal determinism lead to such silly actions as not locking your doors?”

    Why would you draw such a silly conclusion? If “causal determinism” is true, then actions have consequences inasmuch as actions generate a cause/effect relations.

    If you lock your doors, that has the effect of inhibiting a criminal from stealing your car or breaking into your house. Conversely, if you leave your doors unlocked, then that has a different effect.

    In “causal determinism,” human beings are also determinants. Their actions or inactions have causal consequences.

    “Well, why would you lock your doors, take medical precautions, or do anything to prevent or plan for the future when your core belief is that God causally controls all things and your actions don't matter in the end anyway?”

    i) If you lock your doors, God is in control–and if you don’t lock your doors, God is still in control.

    Belief in divine control doesn’t logically bias you to do one thing rather than another.

    ii) It would only be futile to lock your doors if you knew in advance that God had “causally determined” you to leave your doors unlocked. Since, however, you don’t know what future God has causally determined, belief in the general proposition of a causally determinate has no bearing on your deliberations–inasmuch as you don’t know the specifics.

    iii) Moreover, “causal determinism” doesn’t prevent you from attempting to lock your doors unless you were causally determined to leave them unlocked. But in that event you wouldn’t even try to lock them. In which case we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

    You act as though the future affects the present such that an unknown future keeps you from doing something in the present. However, the future doesn’t cause the present. And, in any case, you don’t know the future, so the future has no impact on your deliberations or actions in the present.

    iv) If “causal determinism” is true, then our actions are factors in the outcome.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Continued:

    “This means you don't really believe that you are a mere puppet on a string.”

    What I don’t believe is your juvenile caricature of Calvinism.

    “The best you can hope to do to avoid this logical paradox is an appeal to mystery (like John Piper) in order to maintain your Calvinistic view of sovereignty (which is characterized by a belief that God causally brings about all that happens).”

    All you’ve done is to tendentiously assert a logical paradox. I’m still waiting to hear a logical argument to back up your question-begging claim.

    “It's funny how Calvinists tend to think their beliefs, when carried out to their logical conclusion, sound silly.”

    It’s funny how libertarians in a “Certified Apologetics Instructor’s program” can be so theologically and philosophically incompetent.

    As Bill Hasker, a leading libertarian philosopher admits, “the experience of choosing–of seeing alternatives, weighing their desirability and finally making up one’s mind–is not any different whether one is a libertarian or a determinist. For while determinists believe that there are sufficient conditions which will govern their choices, they do not know at the time when they are making a decision what those determinates are or how they will decide as a result of them. So, like everyone else, they simply have to make up their own minds!” Metaphysics: Constructing a World View (IVP 1983), 37.

    “Perhaps you would have an easier time accepting these beliefs as ‘reformed’ if I were to use the proper amount of ‘God told me to’ and ‘I was just placing my faith in God" language.’”

    Now you’re resorting to empty rhetoric because you don’t have a rational argument.

    “The truth is that I did couch my belief in all kinds of ‘Christianeese’ and in the end it did me no good whatsoever because the underlying belief in causal determinism was completely false.”

    It did you no good because you’re pitifully irrational.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Great post Steve. Wes' absurdities ought to be exposed as they are.

    jamin h
    realapologetics.org

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wes Widner's irrationality is amazing, but hardly surprising. The idea that causal determinism teaches that God has predetermined that certain actions will take place without certain requirments first being met (I.E. preaching the gospel to bring about salvation) is a typical, fallacious, arminian complaint against calvinism, but I've never yet seen someone use such a silly scenario in their argument.

    Still, since Wes thinks he can charge people with slander, misrepresentation, lying, etc. because they didn't quote the person he wanted them to quote, I'm sure this isn't the last time he'll wow us with his irrationality.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Come on you guys, don't discourage him, Wes that is. He might come to the Light and begin to be rational in his thinking and we all have to do an about face!

    Would not that be grand?

    I do believe the Angels believe so!

    Luk 15:1 Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.
    Luk 15:2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.
    Luk 15:3 And he spake this parable unto them, saying,
    Luk 15:4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
    Luk 15:5 And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.
    Luk 15:6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.
    Luk 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.


    One more thing. I keep seeing this raised about puppets.

    Here's my assertion about that then.

    Puppets, we are all.

    Now the difference between dead puppets and Living Ones is, the dead puppet spends his whole life cutting the strings and when he finally has cut the last one, finds the bottomless pit a lake of fire!

    That's not a scorched earth policy there, but a permanent mistaken identity!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wes, you said...

    Well, why would you lock your doors, take medical precautions, or do anything to prevent or plan for the future when your core belief is that God causally controls all things and your actions don't matter in the end anyway?


    Wes, Calvinists believe that God ordains both ends *AND* means. That is, what will happen AND how they will happen. So, if God ordains that a farmer will reap a harvest of 50 bushels of corn, then God also ordains that the farmer will do those things that will naturally (via God's ordinary providence) result in such a harvest. For example, plowing a field, sowing seed, making and setting up a scarecrow (etc).

    If God ordains someone to get well, he might also ordain that the person get well because he took his medicine faithfully (via ordinary providence). In addition to that, God may have also ordained him and his family to pray for his recovery. In which case, in addition to ordinary providence, God via His special providence answers their prayers (as he had already planned to do) and supernaturally intervenes (above and beyond ordinary providence) to ensure his healing.

    This is basic Calvinistic teaching. If you don't know this, you shouldn't be commenting on Calvinism.

    ReplyDelete