A few weeks ago, William Lane Craig unloaded on Calvinism. His performance was underwhelming inasmuch as he fell back on canned objections to Calvinism.
However, I wish to make a different point. Craig is arguably the premier Christian apologist of his generation. Yet it’s clear, to judge by the slash-n-burn rhetoric he resorted to in reference to Calvinism, that if he thought the only logical alternatives were Calvinism, Molinism, and atheism, and if he also thought Molinism was wrong, he’d rather be an atheist than a Christian.
What makes this even more remarkable, coming from a major Christian apologist, is that, by his own admission, Molinism is not a revealed truth. It doesn’t even claim to be divinely revealed.
He compares and contrasts Calvinism with Molinism, and that’s a valid exercise up to a point. But it’s also misleading, for there is a fundamental asymmetry between the two positions.
Calvinism claims to be divinely revealed–Molinism does not. And in the nature of the case, we have a higher epistemic duty to believe the word of God than we have to believe an intellectual speculation.
Of course, you might object that’s possible to mistakenly believe that something or another is revealed truth. And that is, indeed, the case. However, that preserves the underlying asymmetry. For it’s also possible to mistakenly believe that an intellectual speculation is true.
So in both cases it’s possible to be wrong, but our epistemic duties are hardly comparable in each case. Because I have a higher obligation to revealed truth, than I have to intellectual speculation, I also have a higher or obligation to what I take to be revealed truth, than I have to what I take to be a true speculation.
A Christian’s allegiance ought to be first and foremost to the word of God. To make what is admittedly an intellectual conjecture like Molinism the deal-breaker betrays a terribly misplaced sense of spiritual priorities. Especially when Craig is a seasoned believer and veteran apologist for the faith.
"Yet it’s clear, to judge by the slash-n-burn rhetoric he resorted to in reference to Calvinism, that if he thought the only logical alternatives were Calvinism, Molinism, and atheism, and if he also thought Molinism was wrong, he’d rather be an atheist than a Christian."
ReplyDeleteI think if Professor Craig was pressed up against the wall and forced to choose between either Calvinism or atheism, and if he waffled with any qualifications or he declined to state, else his family would be tortured by Islamic terrorists, then he would confess to picking Calvinism.
Of course, he would deny that Molinism is wrong.
But anyways, he'd rank them Molinism, Calvinism, and atheism in that order.
I don't think it would be Molinism, atheism, and Calvinism.
But your general point is taken: Professor Craig strongly disagrees with Calvinism.
-----
FWIW, if it was me..., and Calvinism was wrong, I'd choose Arminianism over atheism.
"Yet it’s clear, to judge by the slash-n-burn rhetoric he resorted to in reference to Calvinism, that if he thought the only logical alternatives were Calvinism, Molinism, and atheism, and if he also thought Molinism was wrong, he’d rather be an atheist than a Christian."
ReplyDeleteThat's interesting. The Maverick Philosopher once told me that he'd prefer atheism over Calvinism; if Calvinism were true, he'd prefer God not exist at all.
"The Maverick Philosopher once told me that he'd prefer atheism over Calvinism; if Calvinism were true, he'd prefer God not exist at all."
ReplyDeleteWow.
Wow.
That's just utterly crazy to me. That's just like ... so stupid to me. All that I can derive from it is that it explains their virulent hatred of Calvinism and why they're so rudely anti-Calvinistic.
FWIW, if I had to choose between Catholicism/Orthodoxy or atheism, I'd choose Catholicism/Orthodoxy.
And if I had to choose between Arminianism or Catholicism/Orthodoxy, I'd probably choose Arminianism.
But it still seems totally bizarre and unreal that anyone who calls himself or herself a follower of Christ would rather become an atheist than to become a Calvinist. How utterly hateful towards Calvinist/Reform Christians.
Steve is probably correct. Here is something Craig said with a debate with Edwin Curley
ReplyDeleteDr. Curley presents the following argument:
1. Predestination is incompatible with God's love and justice.
2. Predestination is taught in the Bible.
3. Therefore, the God of the Bible does not exist.
Now I agree with his first premise, but I deny the second, that predestination, as he defines it, is taught in the Bible.
Well, TUAD, for what it's worth, I don't think MP calls himself a Christian. And he's not a hateful anti-Calvinist like other goons you find on the internet.
ReplyDeleteI read Vallicella's blog regularly and he does make statements that make him at least sympathetic with christian theism. But his self styled "maverick" status causes him to resist being lumped into any group whatsoever. At least, that's how I interpret his explanation of "maverick".
ReplyDeleteSteve Said...
ReplyDeleteYet it’s clear, to judge by the slash-n-burn rhetoric he resorted to in reference to Calvinism, that if he thought the only logical alternatives were Calvinism, Molinism, and atheism, and if he also thought Molinism was wrong, he’d rather be an atheist than a Christian.
Steve, is this what Craig explicitly said, or is this what you are inferring as implicit in his statements on Calvinism?
I've said some harsh things about Arminianism in my time that would parallel Craig's statements about Calvinism (though not so bad as to parallel John Wesley's statements about Calvinism), but that doesn't necessary mean I would prefer atheism to Arminianism if Calvinism proved untenable.
ANNOYED PINOY SAID:
ReplyDelete"Steve, is this what Craig explicitly said, or is this what you are inferring as implicit in his statements on Calvinism?"
It's a logical implication.
Hey Steve (and others),
ReplyDeleteIf conservative Protestantism wasn't true, and you had to pick, HAD TO! MUST!, pick between the following two choices, which would you pick?
(A) Militant Liberal Protestants of the variety by Professor James McGrath and Professor Marcus Borg, liberal Protestants who are pro-abortion and pro-gay and pro-same-sex marriage
or
(B) Conservative Catholics/Orthodox like the Called To Communion guys, Professor Francis Beckwith, Professor Robert George, and Perry Robinson, conservative Catholics/Orthodox who are pro-life and pro-biblical marriage.
I'd pick (B). Not ideal, but clearly better than (A).
TUAD,
ReplyDeleteIt's only "not ideal" because you are already a conservative Protestant. But if conservative Protestantism were demonstrated to be false, is it the conservativism that's disproved or the Protestantism? Because if it's the conservativism that's disproven, you've gained nothing by becoming a conservative Catholic/Orthodox, or even a conservative atheist.
So one cannot answer your question, even dealing with it as a hypothetical, without having further information.
Okay. I'll rephrase and see if that might be an improvement.
ReplyDeleteIf you had to choose between
(A) associating and having the same beliefs as these Protestants: James McGrath and Marcus Borg
or
(B) associating and having the same beliefs as these Catholics: Francis Beckwith and Robert George
... who would you pick? A or B?
TUAD,
ReplyDeleteHmmm...that's an interesting question but I'd have to think on it a bit to answer it with any conviction. For me, it's like voting for either McCain or Obama all over again!
Steve,
ReplyDeleteHere is a slightly different angle on Craig's view (supposing everything you said about Craig's view is in fact his view).
Suppose Craig were convinced that M is false. So we have:
1. C v M v A
2. ~M
------------
3. C v A
Now C and A are mutually exclusive since each entails the falsity of the other. How should one choose between C and A? Well, it seems to me that the right thing to do, epistemically, is to consider how strong the arguments are in favor of C, against C, in favor of A, and against A.
From what I know about Craig, I find his acceptance of A over C to be strange. I would have thought that he regarded his arguments for God's existence, which is entailed by C, and which entail ~A, to be stronger than his commitment to incompatibilism. But if he *really* would rather choose A over C, then it seems that my presumption is mistaken. Worse: he finds incompatibilism so much stronger than his arguments for God *and* against A (e.g., his claim that atheism implies all things are permissible). The implication, "all things are permissible," is more absurd than would be having to switch from incompatibilism to compatibilism (or semi-compatibilism). Having recognized the preference for A over C requires the commitment, would Craig now stop using the moral argument he typically runs? I don't know.
As a student of Dr. Craig (been attending Defenders for 2 years), Dr. Craig's fallback position, if Molinism were disproven is the divine mystery view:
ReplyDeletei.e. that God has foreknowledge and that man has libertarian free will, and that the way the two connect is a divine mystery that only God knows.
It's sort of like a bridge over a misty canyon. You can see that the bridge connects to both parts of the canyon, but how it connects in the middle is obscured by fog.