Pages

Friday, April 09, 2010

I, Robot

SKARLET SAID:

"When I say that Arminians don't believe that God would caually determine evil, we mean first of all that God may allow sin to happen, but that He, being holy, would never cause it."

That's a false dichotomy. Arminianism doesn't take the position that God merely "allowed" evil to happen. Arminianism has a doctrine of creation and concurrence. It's not as if the world came into being all by itself.

"He may allow pain and trials to come into our lives, but He would not decree that we cannot choose otherwise but to sin."

But a little lower down you say:

"Well, I do not argue that there was something else he was going to do instead. To argue that anything would have happened if things were other than they are is completely hypothetical."

So if, by your own admission, there wasn't something else the human agent was going to do instead of sinning, how is your objection either coherent or relevant?

"God never allows us to be tempted beyond what we are able, through His grace."

Except for the fact that in Arminian theology, he does allow Christians to be overcome by sin. When push came to shove, they didn't have the willpower to resist the temptation. The temptation was stronger than their resolve to resist.

"Are you saying that if God (a force outside of us) doesn't causally determine (rather than just allow) everything we do, that He isn't really a God at all? And that, by logical necessity, if we don't believe that God causally determines everything, but rather allows sin, that we don't really believe in a God at all? Is that the logic? I'm just trying to understand... Wouldn't that mean that all the godly men throughout history who didn't believe in calvinism weren't really saved and didn't really believe in God at all?"

You keep resorting to this emotive, girly-girl rhetoric to deflect principled criticisms of Arminian theology based on what Arminians themselves strenuously say about God's relation to the world. But if Arminian theology has untoward consequences, then that's your problem, not mine. That's a question which Arminians need to wrestle with themselves. Don't throw your problems back on my lap, as if it's bad form for me to hold Arminians to their own representations.

ARMINIANPERSPECTIVES SAID:

"I will take it as a concession that the rebotic metaphor serves as a tight enough analogy to Calvinistic determinism, in accordance with your statement."

You can take that as a concession if you prefer to be dishonest and palter in equivocal usage.

"That is really all I was after."

What you were after is the specious appearance of a quick win, so that you can scurry back to your Arminian blog and falsely advertise a fatal concession.

"Now, you and other Calvinists can try to explain how creatures controlled in such ways are still meaningfully 'volitional' or 'responsible' for their irresistibly controlled thoughts, desires, 'choices', and actions, but that would require far more 'qualifications' and 'explanations' than any Arminian needs to make his point (just as I rather easily made the point above)."

i) That illustrates the limitations of any metaphor. And it's silly to think you can either prove or disprove a position by endlessly tweaking a metaphor. At best, a metaphor is just a limited illustration. It is not the actual position. I wouldn't attempt to keep refining a metaphor beyond it's natural limits.

ii) It's not as if I haven't responded to Arminian objections before. The explanations are readily available.

iii) Moreover, you haven't made your point. What you done is to assert that a predestined agent is equivalent to a puppet, then further assert, assuming that comparison, that a predestined agent lacks "meaningful" volition or responsibility. So all you've really done is to beg all the key issues every step of the way, then pat yourself on the back as if you'd scored a major accomplishment. That's a wonderful exercise in self-deception.

"In the end, despite word games and deflections, it all boils down to the same thing, as you freely admitted above."

This is yet another instance where you lapse into dishonesty. Since you insist on using the robotic metaphor, I explored that metaphor for the sake of argument. And even on your own terms, it's hardly a "word game" or "deflection" to distinguish between an automated vacuum cleaner and a conscious android with adaptive programming. To the contrary, that's a serious philosophical debate in AI literature and science fiction.

"But even if it was a perfect analogy and an essential synonym, it would still serve the intended purpose of showing that a Calvinist 'agent' is nothing more than a robot, without needing to redefine 'robot' to make it a synonym."

To the contrary, if you humanize a "robot," like Data, so that your robot is psychologically indistinguishable from a human being in the key features of personhood (a la the Turing test), then a 'robot' becomes a synonym for a humanoid person. In which case, a predestined agent is "nothing more" than a human person. Your analogy collapses into identity and tautology.

"One that I think is easily understood by most people (and no, I don’t have any 'polling data', but I have never come across someone who has had any difficulty in understanding the analogy and what is meant by it."

People who understand debates over AI also understand the difference between Lt. Commander Data and a computerized lawnmower.

"Like I said before, I don’t have time for debate right now."

Like you said before, and like you continue to say as you continue to post comments to me and others. So that's a phony disclaimer.

You're just using that as an escape route because you can't actually defend your own position.

10 comments:

  1. Steve,

    "Arminianism doesn't take the position that God merely "allowed" evil to happen. Arminianism has a doctrine of creation and concurrence. It's not as if the world came into being all by itself."

    That is what I mean, by allows, in fact. He created the world, and gave us the opportunity to act in the world. He could stop us from sinning at any time, merely by ceasing from giving us the breath we need for life. This is basically the doctrine of concurrence. Yet, I would call God's actions in relation to sin "allowing" because it's causing in a non-determining way, rather than a determining way. God is, after all, the first cause of everything.

    "So if, by your own admission, there wasn't something else the human agent was going to do instead of sinning, how is your objection either coherent or relevant?"

    It's coherent because my point is not to argue that man would have done this or would have done that. My point was entirely about this: Given that man sins, WHO causally determined that he would sin? That is entirely relevant, since in my view, only the one that causally determines intentional sin is culpable for it.

    "Except for the fact that in Arminian theology, he does allow Christians to be overcome by sin. When push came to shove, they didn't have the willpower to resist the temptation. The temptation was stronger than their resolve to resist."

    Umm, you must misunderstand Arminian theology, then. He does allow us to give in to sin, but does not allow us to be tempted beyond what we are able. Which means that when we give in the sin, we give in when we are able to take that way of escape that God has so graciously provided for us. That's right. I'm saying that we are able to resist temptation, and that we sometimes don't. Not that we can't, or that we just don't have enough willpower, but that we don't. And that is a fault. None of us are without that fault.

    You quote me as saying this ""Are you saying that if God (a force outside of us) doesn't causally determine (rather than just allow) everything we do, that He isn't really a God at all? And that, by logical necessity, if we don't believe that God causally determines everything, but rather allows sin, that we don't really believe in a God at all? Is that the logic? I'm just trying to understand... Wouldn't that mean that all the godly men throughout history who didn't believe in calvinism weren't really saved and didn't really believe in God at all?"

    Your answer to it, aside from being unkind and demeaning, is a complete red herring. The key words in that statement were "ARE YOU SAYING..." The point of that line of questioning was to try and better understand your point of view. To try to understand what you seemed to think was the logical progression between "Arminian" and "almost an atheist." In your answer, you did not clarify what you meant, or answer if that indeed was what you were saying. Therefore, a red herring.

    God bless. :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve,

    Oh and also I noticed that you said this to ArminianPerspective:

    "What you were after is the specious appearance of a quick win, so that you can scurry back to your Arminian blog and falsely advertise a fatal concession."

    You presume to know what he is really after here. And you presume that it's a bad motive, which you spell out in detail. Ummm yeh... what makes you think you understand the motives of others so well? You don't really believe in "innocent until proven guilty," do you? You make a claim about unseen things (motives) which is impossible to disprove. Why? Just to put him down?

    Maybe you should re-read my last comment here: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/04/answering-back-to-god.html#comments

    James 4:11-12
    " Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?"

    That statement was poor form in debating, and also just wrong. So why do you engage in it? You gain nothing except by it. Do you think, perhaps, that after you cut everyone else down, you will stand above the crowd? But we are not called to cut people down, but to build them up.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Like you said before, and like you continue to say as you continue to post comments to me and others. So that's a phony disclaimer.

    You're just using that as an escape route because you can't actually defend your own position.


    If I was using it as an escape route, then why do I keep coming back and posting responses? I have reasons for doing so, even though my time is limited and I should be doing other things. But it troubles me that you are so quick to play psychologist with those who disagree with you.

    As far as the usefulness of the metaphor, you can read my responses to Pike in the other thread, some of which you neglected to reference in this post. I draw out the points of analogy very carefully and explain exactly what I mean by the metaphors. I explain how far I am taking them and for what reasons.

    God Bless,
    Ben

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ben said:
    ---
    If I was using it as an escape route, then why do I keep coming back and posting responses?
    ---

    Actually, I do wonder why you keep saying you don't have time to debate and keep returning. Just so you know, I'm reading that as you saying: "I can't win a debate on this topic but don't want to admit it, so I'll pretend to be really busy and hope people don't notice that I post a lot of comments for someone who is really busy and who has no interest in a debate."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Peter said: Actually, I do wonder why you keep saying you don't have time to debate and keep returning. Just so you know, I'm reading that as you saying: "I can't win a debate on this topic but don't want to admit it, so I'll pretend to be really busy and hope people don't notice that I post a lot of comments for someone who is really busy and who has no interest in a debate."

    **** Is that really what you think? That seems so strange. I know exactly where Ben is coming from. One might not really have the time to devote to an involved debate, at least feels one should devote the time one has elsehwere, but does not wnat anyone to be taken in by faulty Calvinist arguments. So one posts some letting it be known that one can't really get too involved with the debate, but then responses are made to what one posts, one feels he can address this or that, or perhaps make a substantial contribution with a limited comment, etc., etc. It's easy to see how someone might not really have the time to get into a detailed debate, but might make a bunch of smaller posts to still try and do something to counter the faulty Calvinist arguments being put forth. Even now, I really should not allow myself to get caught up in this conversation, and I took time from something else more important to even make this comment. But I felt that I could make a good point with a relatively brief post, without committing myself to in-depth discussion. One might state what Ben has said to make it clear that one could engage the debate at a deeper and fuller level, but just does not have the time.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Arminian,

    Anyone can read what Ben responds to after saying he doesn't have time for debate. I doubt I'm the only one who has noted his, shall we say "convenient", escape-from-tough-discussion mode.

    ReplyDelete
  7. SKARLET SAID:

    “It's coherent because my point is not to argue that man would have done this or would have done that. My point was entirely about this: Given that man sins, WHO causally determined that he would sin? That is entirely relevant, since in my view, only the one that causally determines intentional sin is culpable for it.”

    Even on your own assumptions, if a sinner was going to sin anyway, whether or not he had the freedom to do otherwise, then how is it morally relevant if he was “causally determined” to do what he was going to do all along?

    “He does allow us to give in to sin, but does not allow us to be tempted beyond what we are able.”

    If he allows you to give into temptation, then he allows you to be tempted beyond your powers of resistance.

    “I'm saying that we are able to resist temptation, and that we sometimes don't.”

    Actually, what the Arminian God does is to give you the power to resist his grace rather than to resist temptation.

    If you succumb to temptation, then, by definition, you didn’t have the willpower to effectively resist.

    “The point of that line of questioning was to try and better understand your point of view. To try to understand what you seemed to think was the logical progression between "Arminian" and ‘almost an atheist.’ In your answer, you did not clarify what you meant, or answer if that indeed was what you were saying.”

    Now, you’re not trying to understand me at all. Rather, you’re trying to change the subject.

    I presented an argument which you’ve never dealt with head-on. If Arminians don’t trust God to plan their lives, they Arminians don’t trust God with their lives. In fact, your subsequent effort to drive a wedge between what God does or does not plan merely confirms my point.

    ReplyDelete
  8. SKARLET SAID:

    “Oh and also I noticed that you said this to ArminianPerspective…You presume to know what he is really after here. And you presume that it's a bad motive, which you spell out in detail. Ummm yeh... what makes you think you understand the motives of others so well? You don't really believe in ‘innocent until proven guilty,’ do you? You make a claim about unseen things (motives) which is impossible to disprove. Why? Just to put him down?”

    The is the final time I’m going to deal with this issue:

    1.I have dealt in great detail with the sort of prooftexting you advance for your dainty theory of etiquette. I’m not going to repeat all that here and now.

    2.Just because you think something is endlessly interesting doesn’t mean that I share your interest level. If you want carry on and on about rhetorical etiquette, you can do so on your own blog. That’s not my priority, and you don’t dictate how I’m going to spend my time here.

    3.I will never kowtow to your girly-girl code of etiquette. Maybe, because you live in the Bay Area, you have limited experience with real men. But you’re not going to turn Triablogue into a soapy teen drama in which the female characters are always strong, resourceful, and wise while the male characters are always hesitate, cry a lot, constantly apologize for being insensitive, and squeak in prepubescent voices.

    4.I also don’t think it’s my Christian duty to play the chump for rhetorical ploys by cynical Arminians. Gullibility is not one of the theological virtues.

    5.In addition, I’m also less than impressed by your double standards. You talk about how we’re all one big family, but in practice you’re an Arminian team player who imputes the best motives to her Arminian teammates and the worst motives to the other team.

    6.In sum, you’re a guest here. The quickest way for a houseguest to outstay her welcome and be shown the door is to criticize the furniture, the silverware, the placemats, &c.

    If you want to debate the merits of Calvinism and Arminianism, fine. But spare me any more of your schoolmarmish lectures on etiquette–as you define it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I presented an argument which you’ve never dealt with head-on. If Arminians don’t trust God to plan their lives, they Arminians don’t trust God with their lives. In fact, your subsequent effort to drive a wedge between what God does or does not plan merely confirms my point.

    Would Steve Hays trust God to script that he abandon Calvinism and begin to argue for Arminianism? God has scripted this for other Calvinists, so why not him? Would Steve Hays trust God to script him to abandon Christianity and prove that all along he was just a self-deluded hypocrite, never really saved to begin with? I suspect he will say, "Yes", but likely only because he does not believe that God would ever do such a thing to him. But he cannot be sure. God is the script writer, and Steve is powerless. God can certainly script for Steve to embrace Arminianism or reveal that he was a deluded reprobate false convert all along.

    Do Arminians believe that God has a script for their lives? Absolutely. Calvinists often chide Arminians for telling people that "God has a plan for your life". In that sense we can say that God has a script for us to follow, but that God allows us the freedom to reject His plans for us and to live for ourselves, suffering the ultimate consequences of those decisions.

    We believe that God wants us to freely yield to His plans for us. This was God's prerogative, and if Steve wants to say that God cannot do that, then we can just as easily say that Steve is not trusting God to run His universe the way that He sees fit. Steve doesn't trust himself with a measure of free will, so Steve doesn’t trust God to give him a measure of free will and hold him responsible for the free choices that he makes. So I guess Steve just doesn't trust God.

    ReplyDelete
  10. ARMINIANPERSPECTIVES SAID:

    "Would Steve Hays trust God to script that he abandon Calvinism and begin to argue for Arminianism?"

    The question is incoherent. If I abandoned Calvinism for Arminianism, I wouldn't believe that God scripted that outcome. Ben is oscillating between Arminian and Calvinist assumptions. But they obviously yield different conclusions.

    "God has scripted this for other Calvinists, so why not him?"

    I trust God to script the lives of Calvinists and Arminians like.

    "Would Steve Hays trust God to script him to abandon Christianity and prove that all along he was just a self-deluded hypocrite, never really saved to begin with? I suspect he will say, 'Yes', but likely only because he does not believe that God would ever do such a thing to him."

    That's another incoherent question. If God scripted me to commit apostasy, then, as an apostate, I'd cease to trust God.

    "But he cannot be sure. God is the script writer, and Steve is powerless."

    Why would a Christian object to being powerless in the hands of God?

    "God can certainly script for Steve to embrace Arminianism or reveal that he was a deluded reprobate false convert all along."

    True. So what?

    "Do Arminians believe that God has a script for their lives? Absolutely. Calvinists often chide Arminians for telling people that "God has a plan for your life". In that sense we can say that God has a script for us to follow, but that God allows us the freedom to reject His plans for us and to live for ourselves, suffering the ultimate consequences of those decisions."

    So Arminians don't really believe that God has a script for their lives. Rather, God has a rough draft.

    "We believe that God wants us to freely yield to His plans for us. This was God's prerogative, and if Steve wants to say that God cannot do that, then we can just as easily say that Steve is not trusting God to run His universe the way that He sees fit."

    I didn't say God "cannot" do that.

    Of course, Ben's scenario also assumes that libertarianism is a coherent notion. But even an omnipotent God cannot perform a pseudotask.

    "Steve doesn't trust himself with a measure of free will, so Steve doesn’t trust God to give him a measure of free will and hold him responsible for the free choices that he makes. So I guess Steve just doesn't trust God."

    Of course, the conclusion derives from an Arminian premise. By contrast, I've been arguing from Arminian premises. So Ben's attempted analogy is fundamentally disanalogous.

    ReplyDelete