Pages

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

A PAP Test In Action: Ability to Write a Retraction?

The fact that what looks to be like an obviously false position (backed by what looks to be a terrible argument) could seriously debated for an undetermined length of time is one of those things that turns one off towards philosophy, or theology. On the other hand, it’s one of those phenomena that capture one’s interest in the subject(s). Not least of all is the interesting question about how a rational person could be so wide of the mark about what they take to be fairly obviously the case. When one is pondering such questions, it may be wise to avoid reading Sextus Empiricus or (the older) Peter Unger! One might be tempted to throw up their hands in despair, capitulating to skepticism, saying to oneself, “If I’m wrong about something as obvious as this, what about those things I’m slightly less convinced about?” Thankfully, such a conclusion would be unwarranted, and there are good arguments against it. But we still must admit, it’s an odd phenomena, and not one I plan to address here. For as one philosopher puts it: “In the end, we must confess that we have no idea why there is no established body of metaphysical results. It cannot be denied that this is a fact, and beginning students of metaphysics should keep this fact and its implications in mind” (Van Inwagen, Metaphysics, 12).

Now, as this relates to some of the recent discussions on this blog, the above is even more interesting in the situation of Dan the Arminian. He takes it as “just obvious” that the Bible teaches Libertarian Free Will (LFW). So obvious, in fact, that all one needs to see it is a King James and a Merriam-Webster. The Bible uses the word ‘choice,’ and Merriam-Webster defines ‘choice’ in libertarian fashion, thus the Bible teaches LFW. Now, the argument is a tad better than what I just expressed, but only a tad. In this post, I will make one last public attempt to get Dan to admit that his argument was not all he originally thought it to be. Though I find it generally unprofitable to debate Dan on these matters, I still like him. He is my favorite Arminian epologist, I think. Though I am unsure whether Dan will give in, I trust that most of the people who read this post—Arminian or Calvinist—will be bound to admit that his argument has been defeated. I will attempt to show that his argument fails to do the heavy lifting he wants it to do by: (i) offering several general critiques of his argument, (ii) offering an rebutting defeater1 of his main premise, and (iii) presenting libertarian philosophers who disagree with Dan. Before this, however, I will present the gist of his argument.

The Basics of Dan’s Argument

Here are some relevant quotes from Dan:

“the dictionary is better at establishing the laymen, common sensical understanding of terms.”

The American Heritage College Dictionary (3rd edition) defines choose as: to select from a number of possible alternatives. (similar definitions available here and here) Determinism includes the idea that preceding causal forces render all our actions necessary such that they cannot be otherwise. So a “predetermined choice” implies an “impossible possibility” and an “inalternate alternative”. Since the bible states that we have wills and choose, determinism isn’t consistent with the bible.”

“So the dictionary definitions and common sense understanding of the terms do seem to rule out determinism.”

“the bible was written by common men and to the common man (i.e. to the people of Israel and the church, not the semi-compatibilist) and it uses the terms choice and choose.”

Putting these choice quotes together, we can construct an argument for Dan's position as something like this:

[1] The Bible uses the words choice and choose.

[2] The Bible was written by and to the common man.

[3] What common man understands the meaning of a word to be is the meaning the Bible applies to that word.

[4] The dictionary is the repository of what the common man means by any (every day) word.

[5] The dictionary defines choice and choose in libertarian fashion.

[6] Therefore, the Bible means choice and choose in a libertarian way.

[7] Determinism does not mean choice and choose in a libertarian way.

[8] The Bible is infallible.

[9] Therefore, determinism is false.

I take it that this is generally the position Dan defended and I critiqued when we debated it a few months ago. I will now demonstrate, in what I take to be the most cogent way I can express my disagreement, what is wrong with Dan’s argument, besides its obvious falsehood.

I. General Criticisms

1. First, what is the referent of “common man?” It appears to function as a static assortment of people. But statistical claims can, and many times do, represent changing assortments. Dan’s argument reminds one of the joke about the statistical report that a pedestrian is hit by a car every twenty minutes, to which comes the witty reply, “He must get awfully tired of that!” Socialists, when condemning the evils of Capitalism, frequently use the same kinds of “static assortment” arguments. These popular-level arguments not only treat all the wealth in the world as static (using the analogy of a finite, “set” pie), but the groups “poor” and “rich” as static too. However, these groups are changing. At times, those who were once in the “rich” group may find themselves, for various reasons, in the “poor” group, and vice versa. Most Americans, for instance, do not stay within the same income bracket for even ten years. So, these statistical claims are often nebulous, contentless concepts. They are not static. I dare say that how a “common man” in a stoic society defined terms would not be the same as how a “common man” in an Epicurean society defined terms. Forgetting this for now, I will proceed to use the term “common man”, though I question its referent.

2. In line with the above, it is certainly plausible to imagine the “common man” holding to determinism, perhaps through watching some fancy science shows on the Discovery channel. It can also be debated whether the “common man” is consistent here. Some might be inclined to think that the “common man” holds to some kind of weird combination of determinism and libertarianism, not bothering to reflect on the tension.

3. What if the “common man” is wrong? Dan cannot beg the question here, and so his argument could wind up being an argument for the errancy of Scripture since Scripture would be asserting as true what is false.

4. I find it odd to claim that the dictionary sets forth the “common man” understanding of words since the “common man” consults the dictionary more or just as much as everyone else. Wouldn’t they just consult their own minds? Furthermore, why do they so often find out that they are wrong in how they or their friends have been using a word?

5. I deny the claim that the Bible was (solely?) written “by and to” the “common man”. Some very uncommon men wrote the Bible, e.g., Kings, doctors, highly educated Pharisees, etc. In addition, some uncommon men were meant to be recipients too.

6. Apropos 5. I find it very odd, especially coming from an Arminian, to claim that, “the Bible was not written to semi-compatibilists.” I guess the Arminian God is not as fair and omni-loving as we have been told! Calvinists may have "limited atonement" (i.e., particular redemption), but on the above view, Arminians may have a "Limited Intended Audience" for the book that contains salvific (rather than merely general) revelation from God.

7. The “common man” ostensibly defines other words in such a way that we do not think the Bible means what they mean by it. The examples here are too obvious, and numerous, to list.

8. Dan is not an Open Theist, yet Greg 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).

9. Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible (and which I will show is false, below). (This also would imply that the "dictionary" is not the sole source for "common mans'" definitions of various (every day) words.)

Given that many of the premises are false, then Dan must admit that his argument is unsound. Besides that small problem, we saw reason to reject the argument as resting on the concept of static assortments, which is false and leaves us with a nebulous concept, as well as requiring one to accept either the (false) view that all “common men” are libertarians, or that the Bible means contradictions. Unfortunately, there are more problems.

II. A Rebutting Defeater for one of Dan’s Main Premises: Folk Beliefs Regarding Free Will

In point nine above we saw that it is a crucial assumption of Dan’s argument that all common men are libertarians. If I find even one that is not, his argument seems debunked. I frequently asked Dan to provide the sociological data that underwrites his assumption. But he never did this, presumably because he thinks it is so blindingly obvious. However, the crucial assumption is false, or at least not nearly as obvious as Dan wants it to be.

See, rather than speculating from their own intuitions (shared by others within an Arminian community) and their own phenomenology, some have actually studied folk concepts of free will. Philosophers Eddy Nahmias, Jason Turner, Steve Morris had conducted some studies a few years ago in which they asked two groups of forty laypeople, and one of twenty-five (FW1, FW2, and FW3, respectively), a set of questions. For our purposes, I’ll just cite the results to question two. The second question put to "common men" was:

• Do you think that our actions can be free if all of them are entirely determined by our genes, our neuro-physiology, and our upbringing?

Here are the results:

FW1: 30% said yes

FW2: 48% said yes

FW3: 52% said yes

You will have to read the article to see the reasons for the different percentages. What is clear, though, is that the empirical evidence makes Dan’s argument imply that the Bible is contradictory. To wiggle out of this, he could say that the Bible was only addressed to libertarian “common men” (just like it was not addressed to semi-compatibilists), but I will assume that no one will be persuaded by such a response. Furthermore, the above also wrote a joint paper on the subject in which they claim: “The data seem to support compatibilist descriptions of the phenomenology more than libertarian descriptions. We conclude that the burden is on libertarians to find empirical support for their more demanding metaphysical theories with their more controversial phenomenological claims.”

Previously, Dan had claimed, “My primary argument to Paul was that the common sense notion of “choose” includes the ability to choose non-X, so determinists can’t consistently use the common sense notion of choose” (emphasis mine).

Considering my arguments so far, Dan needs to retract his argument. Unfortunately for Dan, there is still more problems.

III. Libertarian Philosophers Who Disagree With Dan

III. A. My initial response

In response to Dan’s argument from Merriam-Webster, I cited libertarian Robert Kane’s definition of ‘choice’ and concluded that it certainly seemed possible that “choosing” can happen on determinism. In response, and largely because he followed the highly unreliable “Robert,” Dan rejected Kane’s definition for two reasons: (i) Kane is not a substance dualist (Dan even went so far as to assume that Kane must not even be a Christian because of this!), and (ii) the dictionary shows that PAP is essential to the definition of choice.

In response I pointed out that (i) was irrelevant, and (ii) had a couple responses: (a) it seems irresponsible to run to the dictionary and claim that ‘choice’ must have a PAP element to it because Merriam-Webster says so (however, I also cited numerous dictionaries that didn’t include a PAP element), and (b) even so, this is still not enough since many compatibilists can and have held to a notion of PAP. For example, in the above paper by Nahmias et al., we read regarding the PAP phenomenology:

“For instance, Adolf Grunbaum writes: ‘Let us carefully examine the content of the feeling that on a certain occasion we could have acted other than the way we did … This feeling simply discloses that we were able to act in accord with our strongest desire at that time, and that we could indeed have acted otherwise if a different motive had prevailed at the time’ (in Lehrer, 1960, p. 149). J.S. Mill agrees: ‘When we think of ourselves hypothetically as having acted otherwise than we did, we always suppose a difference in the antecedents: we picture ourselves having known something we did not know … or as having desired something … more or less than we did’ (in Boyle et al., 1976, p. 49).”
Nevertheless, all of my counter arguments were to no avail. It seemed Dan had found his perfect argument for LFW, and from that point on, refused to be budged (some would say, “listen to reason”).

III. B. Libertarians who do not find PAP as just a definitional matter

At this point, I would like to take my response here further. In response to (III: ii), I’ll cite what numerous libertarian philosophers have said about Kane’s definition, and most (or all) of them are dualists of some kind. I will draw from various emails or email exchanges I had with some prominent philosophers (Alvin Plantinga, Stuart Goetz, William Hasker, Robert Kane, Charles Taliaferro, and Kevin Timpe). But first, a couple of statements by libertarians who deny (libertarian understandings) of PAP (or that it is part of the “definition” of choice) as essential to libertarianism who I did not interact with.

William Lane Craig: “In that case his choosing A is entirely free, even though the man is literally unable to choose B, since the electrodes do not function at all and have no effect on his choice of A. What makes his choice free is the absence of any causally determining factors of his choosing A.”

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6209

Dave Hunt: “It is true that God’s foreknowing Adam’s action, like his causing Adam’s action, leaves Adam with no alternative possibilities . . . divine foreknowledge provides compelling grounds for rejecting (PAP)” (Dave Hunt, Divine Foreknowledge, Four Views, 88, 90).

Timothy O’Connor: Time and time again you see O’Connor claim that the debate is about whether one makes the choices he does libertarianly freely or not. O’Connor understands that even on determinism one can choose, one just doesn’t choose libertarianly freely. If ‘choice’ just meant PAP, then O’Connor would claim that on determinism, no one chooses at all. But he doesn’t (see O’Connor, “Libertarian Views: Dualist and Agent-Causal Theories.” Oxford Handbook of Freewill, ch.15)

III. C. Kane’s Definition of choice and placing the dictionary on holy ground

First, honest libertarians admit that “common men” find indeterminacy problematic at the intuitive level as well, thus Kane:

Robert Kane: "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).

This means that if we are going to be consistent with the "common man" argument, then we make the Bible problematic if it assumes "common man's" understanding of action. Certainly we wouldn't want to affirm that the Bible means that people make choices due to luck and then are held morally responsible for how things luckily turn out! So, this point makes Dan's argument a wash.

Second, Dan thinks PAP is intuitive, same with the ought-implies-can principle. Granting that, as honest libertarians have pointed out, Frankfurt counter-examples, which rebut PAPs and ought-implies-can, are equally intuitive. Thus David Copp,

David Copp: "...Frankfurt's argument is troubling and puzzling because it brings intuitively plausible counterexamples against an intuitively plausible principle. It forces us to deal with clashing intuitions" (Copp, David. "'Ought Implies Can,' Blameworthiness, and the Principle of Alternate Possibilities." Moral Responsibility and Alternative Possibilities. Ed. Widerker and McKenna, 265).

This makes it even less plausible to pin your hopes on the beliefs of “common men.” I have never ran across a "layman" who didn't respond to a Frankfurt Counter Example by saying something like: "I guess moral responsibility doesn't demand ability to do otherwise."

But, moving along, what is Kane’s definition of 'choice' and what is so problematic about it?

Robert Kane: “A choice is the formation of an intention or purpose to do something. It resolves uncertainty and indecision in the mind about what to do” (Robert Kane, “Libertarian Perspectives on Free Agency and Free Will.” Oxford Handbook of Free Will, p.423).

It is instructive to note the surrounding context. Kane offers this definition in response to some determinists who seem to define ‘choice’ as something determined. He notes this is to solve the debate by fiat! Aside from question-begging, there’s no good reason to accept the definition. One would hope that Dan heeds Kane’s words of wisdom.

Now, Dan thought that part of Kane’s problem is that since he is a physicalist (or at least defends a libertarianism that does not need some kind of immaterial soul); his definition of ‘choice’ was couched in terms to protect his physicalism. In response to whether Kane should change his definition, let’s see what Kane himself says:

R. Kane: “I wouldn't change my definition. The idea that you can prove libertarianism or compatibilism or any other view on fw true by defining terms such as choice in a rigged way is whistling in the dark. We could still make choices in a determined world. We would just not be *ultimately responsible* for the choices we did make.” (Email correspondence)

But since Kane is a physicalist, I guess this still doesn’t count. So let’s see what two prominent non-physicalists have to say on the matter.

A. Plantinga: “Kane's definition sounds right to me.” (Email correspondence)

W. Hasker: “Kane’s definition is fine; I see no need to add to it.” (Email correspondence)

The problem here is that Dan cannot accuse these men of “physicalism,” or being cryptic determinists (as he indicated of Kane).

C. Taliaferro and S. Goetz thought that the biggest problem is that Kane’s definition doesn’t get to the essence of libertarianism, which is fine, but that’s not what Kane was doing. He was defining ‘choice.’ Furthermore, Goetz disagrees with Dan’s entire method, he writes,

“I can’t speak for Charles, but I would not base my belief in libertarianism on passages in the Bible. And I wouldn’t argue against your Calvinism from biblical texts. I believe that the Bible doesn’t teach anything about the issue of free will. It wasn’t written for that purpose, just as it wasn’t written for the purpose of teaching us whether or not we have souls. In short, I believe the Bible is not a philosophical text written to teach philosophy. It doesn’t fail to teach Calvinism because it teaches libertarianism. It simply doesn’t teach anything about the matter of free will.” (Email correspondence)
Lastly, I had the pleasure of corresponding with Kevin Timpe, who also doesn’t think the Bible is a metaphysical textbook. So, in response to the type of arguments advanced by Dan, as well as Kane’s definition, Timpe had this to say:

“On the whole, I think that Kane’s definition is pretty good. I’m inclined to think that there is no single thing as choice, but rather a variety of similar mental acts that go by that name. My dog, for example, certainly appears to decide which toy to play with, which involves various pro-attitudes and perhaps something like beliefs. And I can see no reason why this would be undermined if it turns out that determinism is true. Likewise, I’m pretty sure that I make decisions, and I don’t think I’d have any reason to change that belief if it turned out that determinism were true. So I’m inclined against building the falsity of determinism into the definition of choice. What is at issue, regarding determinism, is not choice per se but free choice. And I think that there are good reasons to think that there can’t be free choices if determinism is true.” (Email correspondence)
To which I responded: “Thank you for your response. I've found that it libertarians grant that determinists do choose even if determinism is true, they just think the choice isn't fee, as you said. This would make the issue depend on more substantive metaphysical issues than the mere definition of choice.”

Dr. Timpe wrote back: “The content of your first paragraph seems right to me.” (Email correspondence)

And so along with the other arguments I offered above, we can see that some of the biggest guns on Dan’s side disagree with him both about the dictionary thing as well as about Kane’s definition. I don’t know about Dan, but it would make me pretty uncomfortable to be at odds with some of the biggest guns on my own side. Heck, it makes me uncomfortable being at odds with Plantinga on almost anything, and I’m not even a libertarian!

Conclusion

I believe Dan’s argument for Arminianism and LFW to be flawed in sundry ways. I have presented my reasons why, and they appear fatal to his argument. His premises seem far too controversial to draw any confident conclusion from, his “primary” argument is false, and he is at odds with some of the biggest thinkers libertarianism has to offer. Dan should concede this point and move on to his (many) other arguments he has for LFW and against Calvinism. Even though I think none of them is successful, each and every are, unfortunately, better than the argument we looked at here.
____________________________
1 On undercutting defeaters see Michael Sudduth’s entry on Epistemological Defeaters on the IEP, http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/ep-defea.htm

17 comments:

  1. At times, you've scoffed off some Vantilians with something along the lines that "Paul (or Rom. 1:18ff or Prov. 1:7 or whatever) isn't talking about epistemology issues... Do you really think he had post-gettier type etc. etc."

    Curious, the same logic works for handwaving arguments of Calvinism, free will etc. In fact, I think I've discovered a whole new list of items I can handwave: modern politics, modern ethical issues, modern missional issues, etc. etc. I mean seriously, do you think that's what they're talking about?

    (P.S. I'm just jerking your chain here. I realize you've provided many other reasons and I tend to agree with you on the Van til thing. I'm just curious about where the lines are drawn.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't think the Bible is a handbook on action theory, so I'm consistent here.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Correct. But I have in mind the statement by Goetz that he "believe[s] that the Bible doesn’t teach anything about the issue of free will. It wasn’t written for that purpose, just as it wasn’t written for the purpose of teaching us whether or not we have souls... It simply doesn’t teach anything about the matter of free will."

    and your remark, "Lastly, I had the pleasure of corresponding with Kevin Timpe, who also doesn’t think the Bible is a metaphysical textbook." (I'm not implying you agree with Goetz, of course.)

    Granted that you're only quoting a portion of Goetz and granted that he wasn't trying to write a textbook against the notion that the Bible is a metaphysical textbook (zing), that sort of reply strikes me as handwaving and non-sequitur.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yeah, I guess I just don't understand what you're struggling to communicate. Rephrase, please.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't think the Bible is a textbook on pretty much all those things you mention, that's not to say that I don't think it has anything to say on those matters, I do. So, the textbook point stands and is not hand waiving but appears to me to show a defect in a position if adherents so treat the Bible. Look, the Bible is underdetermined on almost all of these issues we debate. A flaw with some fundy evangelicals, or Reformed for that matter, is that they don't realize this point, and thus continue to embarrass themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sorry for my lack of clarity.

    "I don't think the Bible is a textbook on pretty much all those things you mention... So, the textbook point stands"

    Oh, of course. But it's trite. It's not a textbook on theology either. The Bible isn't a textbook, period.

    The triteness of the observation is what comes off as handwaving. Such as if someone were to try to construct a biblical argument that we should not hack and slash all the rain forests and someone responds "Uh, what do you mean biblical argument? The Bible isn't a textbook on ecology you know!" It's also a nonsequitur, and that should be obvious enough.

    But one may say I'm just burning a straw man here anyway. Goetz didn't do that. But the portion I quoted above leans in that direction.

    I take these two sentences: "It wasn’t written for that purpose, just as it wasn’t written for the purpose of teaching us whether or not we have souls. In short, I believe the Bible is not a philosophical text written to teach philosophy."

    to be his reason for the prior: "I believe that the Bible doesn’t teach anything about the issue of free will."

    "...appears to me to show a defect in a position if adherents so treat the Bible. Look, the Bible is underdetermined on almost all of these issues we debate. A flaw with some fundy evangelicals, or Reformed for that matter, is that they don't realize this point, and thus continue to embarrass themselves."

    The only persons I've met like this are pop-level creationists that do stuff like appeal to passages such as Job 36:7,10 (while ignoring vs. 11) to try and prove the Bible's advanced scientific knowledge. But I haven't seen a lot of it and I haven't seen it done in other areas. For the most part, I've seen the opposite error: "You can't say that abortion is sin because the Bible doesn't say anything about it. It's not a textbook on personhood, ya know. It's up to my own conscience."

    But maybe we just roll with different crowds.

    ReplyDelete
  7. That should be Job 26, by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  8. RM,

    It's not trite if one treats the Bible as a textbook, agreed? So, the context of dialogue is important.

    Anyway, the way I use the language, yes, the Bible is a textbook on theology; more precisely, on getting right with God.

    However, and moreover, I cited Goetz since he's an LFWer, and I'm interacting with a LFWer.

    I have met plenty of people that treat the Bible as textbook in just those ways. Furthermore, the phenomena is heavily doccumented. Many theonomists, TAGsters, 6/24ers or just plain old Christian Righters do it, and do it ad nauseum. And to be fair, so do some OECs and Christian leftists.

    Lastly, my argument wasn't that we couldn't draw any conclusions about anything whatever because the "bible doesn't say anything about it." I have argued that we can draw such conclusions. So the pro-choicer wouldn't be able to tu-quoque me. I also wouldn't stick to "the Bible alone" for a "anti-abortion" argument. So, I can say abortion is a sin even though the Bible doesn't make that case full stop. it does say that killing innocent humans is murder, and if I can show that the unborn is human (which the Bible may help, but is probably not definative), then the conclusion follows.

    So, maybe we are in different crowds, maybe not. The more fundamental point is that you seem to have misconstrued what I take to be a good and helpful point about the scope of what the Bible speaks on. I'd agree with Van Til that it speaks to everything, but not with enough detail to form any detailed theory on various political, scientific, or philosophical topics. So, for example, the Bible can give some confines on where we can and can't go, say, on the metaphysics of personhood, but it doesn't necessarily select for any one of the myriad forms of dualisms (or other varieties, e.g., personalism) over against another.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's not trite if one treats the Bible as a textbook, agreed? So, the context of dialogue is important.

    Right. Within the context of your critiquing Dan’s argument, it didn’t occur to me that he was treating the Bible as a textbook. What Dan did, according to your own construction, was say “The Bible uses the words choice and choose.” and then turn outside of the Bible to find out what must be necessary to that concept. What he came up with was stupid, but how was it treating the Bible like a textbook?

    If it wasn't treating the Bible as a textbook, then what's the context by which Goetz made the statement? You prefaced it with Goetz disagrees with Dan’s entire method...

    Besides, Goetz seems to make the statement as support for his assertion that the Bible doesn't teach anything about free will. See my previous post/comment.

    Anyway, the way I use the language, yes, the Bible is a textbook on theology; more precisely, on getting right with God.

    That’s the general concern of the Bible, but it also concerns itself with more than that (e.g. worship, history, things to come, etc). So while I’m not sure that I would even call it a “textbook” on that either, it’s not what I intended by the term anyway. But if we start playing loose with “textbook” I’m sure we could find room the theonomists and “Christian righters” too.

    The more fundamental point is that you seem to have misconstrued what I take to be a good and helpful point about the scope of what the Bible speaks on.

    I don’t see that I have and my primary concern has been with what Goetz said in relation to comments you made elsewhere. As I said in my first comment, I was wondering how you lay out the parameters to that sort of response. I already explained why I think Goetz’s statement was handwaving and inappropriate in context. If you disagree with Goetz that the Bible doesn’t teach anything about the issue of free will (because it’s not a philosophical textbook, ya know!), then I think you should understand where I’m coming from.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm unsure if you've read the all the posts with Dan, Steve, and I. I also wonder what all this has to do with your initial post.

    Dan thinks he can squeeze the details of libertarian action theory out of the Bible, thinking that if an ancient Jew uses the word "choice," then this is to pour all kinds of metaphysical meaning into the word. If the Bible uses the word "possible," dan thinks it's giving a treatise on modal metaphysics. If it uses the world 'alternative' Dan thinks it is trying to teach a garden of forking paths. Seems to me you're hung up on the word "textbook." I wouldn't get hung up on that since we're wasting time. Nothing of substance follows from you wanting to impute a woodenly literal understanding of a college textbook on my use of the word.

    I'm unsure Goetz wuld be inclined to claim that the Bible doesn't teach "anything" on free will if we give that its broadest meaning.

    Yeah, worship: getting fed, responding to the savior, resting. History: redemptive history.

    As to your final paragraph: Goetz's comments were in the context of a private email exchange between he and I. I find it extremely odd that you would call this "hand waving" since that would require a context that was not present. I also must again confess my ignorance of what you'e trying to get at with statements I've made in the past and what Goetz said in an email conversation. You're still being subtle. Lay out, precisely, what you're trying to claim and just what the problem is supposed to be so perhaps I can respond better.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I also wonder what all this has to do with your initial post.

    I actually wrote a detailed response mapping this out, but then it said "Your HTML cannot be accepted: Must be at most 4,096 characters" ... so whatever, I'm not here to win points.

    Dan thinks he can squeeze the details of libertarian action theory out of the Bible, thinking that if an ancient Jew uses the word "choice," then this is to pour all kinds of metaphysical meaning into the word. If the Bible uses the word "possible," dan thinks it's giving a treatise on modal metaphysics. If it uses the world 'alternative' Dan thinks it is trying to teach a garden of forking paths.

    Well, those are metaphysical terms, so I can’t really fault him for thinking they might make some contribution to metaphysical questions. I guess I’d have to read all his posts to see where he did this, but I get drift and fair enough.

    Seems to me you're hung up on the word "textbook." I wouldn't get hung up on that since we're wasting time. Nothing of substance follows from you wanting to impute a woodenly literal understanding of a college textbook on my use of the word.

    The word itself doesn’t get us anywhere, but dismissing someone’s argument because it “treats the Bible like a textbook” raises questions as to what role the Bible plays in our reasoning process on certain issues and what exactly such a rejoinder proves. That’s why I wrote the comment.

    As to your final paragraph: Goetz's comments were in the context of a private email exchange between he and I. I find it extremely odd that you would call this "hand waving" since that would require a context that was not present. I also must again confess my ignorance of what you'e trying to get at with statements I've made in the past and what Goetz said in an email conversation. You're still being subtle. Lay out, precisely, what you're trying to claim and just what the problem is supposed to be so perhaps I can respond better.

    I don’t know what being private has to do with the likely hood of handwaving occurring, and I’m not sure what context you believe is required for that. Let’s say I’m talking on the phone to my grandma and I casually bring up “Ya know, this guy at work said he’s a Calvinist because the Bible teaches it… Isn’t that ridiculous? I mean the Bible don’t teach nothin’ about that because it’s all about Jesus! Right, granny?” That seems like handwaving the issue to me. Anyway, I already tried to take this into account when I said, “Granted that you're only quoting a portion of Goetz and granted that he wasn't trying to write a textbook against the notion that the Bible is a metaphysical textbook…”

    But you’ve already laid out your position clearly enough and said Dan was reading the Bible like a metaphysical textbook; therefore, it would be appropriate for him to says “it’s not a philosophical textbook.” That would establish an appropriate parameter for such a response; however, I don’t find the immediate context in which it is couched in appropriate or at the very least clear and I’ve already spelled that out.

    ReplyDelete
  12. RM,

    Here's one major unargued premise of yours:

    [1] Arguments have been "dismissed" by making the textbook claim. To my knowledge that has not happened anywhere. Can you provide evidence to back up your crucial asusmption?

    Second:

    Private etc had nothing to do with it. The point, however, was "hand waiving arguments away" is only done in certain contexts. Goetz was not trying to answer any argument. So I find your claims pedantic and ignoring the context of dialogue, disanalogous stories about Grandmothers aside :-)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Here's one major unargued premise of yours:

    [1] Arguments have been "dismissed" by making the textbook claim. To my knowledge that has not happened anywhere. Can you provide evidence to back up your crucial asusmption?


    Is that my premise? As far as you personally go, I originally said, “I realize you've provided many other reasons…” So it was never my premise that you have dismissed arguments entirely on such grounds, but if you’d like an example of where you use it, try “ What, you think a ANE Jew was thinking in categories of the metaphysics of free will?” in Arminianism 4 Eva.

    As far as Goetz goes, I tried to provide for anything I might be missing in Goetz by saying “Granted that you're only quoting a portion of Goetz…,” as I’ve already pointed out. So I was trying to avoid pegging that remark of his as his entire position; nevertheless, you quoted it, he said it, so I addressed it.

    As far as other persons go, the example I gave of abortion is from an actual conversation I had with a biology student and the ecology one was loosely based on a discussion I had with an author… but, alas, I don’t have any way to prove those aside from finding them and having them come here to testify for me. So, in this case, you’re free to do a ‘liar, liar, pants on fire’ dance if you choose.

    Private etc had nothing to do with it.

    Well then I don’t know why you felt it was worth mentioning… I thought it was pretty obvious from the context that it was an email correspondence and so I figured you must have thought it related to something you were on the verge of saying.

    The point, however, was "hand waiving arguments away" is only done in certain contexts. Goetz was not trying to answer any argument. So I find your claims pedantic and ignoring the context of dialogue, disanalogous stories about Grandmothers aside :-)

    So you disagree that the grandson in my story was an example of handwaving? I think it is analogous. Goetz wasn’t trying to “answer an argument” in a technical sense, but neither was the grandson. And handwaving isn’t restricted to a formal debate technique, so unless you’re going to start “imputing a woodenly literal understanding” to “handwaving,” I don’t see the problem. They were both talking about someone else’s position and glossing over it with (trite) observations that I don’t think supported what they were saying anyway. But as you said, maybe Goetz doesn’t think you can’t learn anything from the Bible on free will (or maybe he’ll want to create some distinction between teaching and learning), but that’s not what it sounded like from the quoted section.

    ReplyDelete
  14. RM,

    You've still not specified what your all worked up about. I honestly cannot see what you think counts as a criticism.

    "Goetz wasn’t trying to “answer an argument” in a technical sense, but neither was the grandson."

    No, RM, Goetz wasn't trying to answer an argument IN ANY SENSE. There simply *was* no "handwaiving."

    I also don't "hand wave" anyway, and I furthermore don't think that point about textbooks, functioning in a debate, counts as hand waiving. On all scores, I am at a loss as to just what you are attempting to argue for. Seems to me I have denied all of your crucial explicit as well as hidden premises.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You've still not specified what your all worked up about.

    Yes I have. I have specified in my first comment, in my second comment, and my fourth comment and it should have been implicitly clear in all my other comments. You keep saying that you don’t know what I’m talking about or what my point is, yet you keep responding and your responses are hitting on the topic. Ironic isn’t it? Now I’M starting to get confused about what YOU’RE going on about.

    No, RM, Goetz wasn't trying to answer an argument IN ANY SENSE. There simply *was* no "handwaiving."

    Okay, maybe Goetz wasn’t trying to answer an argument; rather, he was trying to gloss over an issue. Honestly, I think this whole thing is a ploy for you to get me to appeal to the dictionary so that you can lump me in with Dan.

    From Dictionary.com: “insubstantial words, arguments, gestures, or actions used in an attempt to explain or persuade.”
    From Answers.com: “Usually insubstantial words or actions intended to convince or impress.”
    From Urban Dictionary.com: “Attempting to get past a moment when a difficult explanation is required.”
    From Wikipedia: “The term handwaving is an informal term that describes either the debate technique of failing to rigorously address an argument in an attempt to bypass the argument altogether, or a deliberate gesture and admission that one is intentionally glossing over detail for the sake of time or clarity. It can be meant as an accusation or in a more positive light, depending on the context.”

    Everyone knows that these are sources of absolute truth. They are normative. Just ask Dan. Ergo, argument “IN ANY SENSE” is not necessary to handwaving. Maybe a biology teacher is explaining creationism to his class and he handwaves the issue. Did he have to be making an argument in favor of evolution? No. Did he have to be examining an argument of creationism etc. etc. Not that I can see.

    But none of that matters because Goetz was trying to give a *reason* for his belief that “the Bible doesn’t teach anything about the issue of free will.” Maybe you don’t think he wasing giving a reason for that belief, but I already said that this was my understanding in my 3rd comment. Furthermore, he was doing so within the context of *arguments* against Calvinism: “I wouldn’t argue against your Calvinism from biblical texts.” Rather, he would handwave those sort of arguments because da Bible ain’t a textbook, yo! Anyway, I’m baffled as to why you think this is a context in which it is impossible to do handwaving. Perhaps YOU could “lay out, precisely,” what you think the necessary preconditions are to handwaving and how Goetz escapes that.

    I also don't "hand wave" anyway,

    Great. Have I been arguing that you handwaved? Maybe you could find that argument for me.

    and I furthermore don't think that point about textbooks, functioning in a debate, counts as hand waiving.

    Well, like you said, it depends on the context. I’ve already provided examples that I think are obvious (such as the abortion one), but you don’t think that’s handwaving… fine whatever. So if you and Dan were debating Calvinism and you laid out your best argument from Scripture and he got up to the podium in his rebuttal and said “I believe that the Bible doesn’t teach anything about the issue of Calvinism. It wasn’t written for that purpose, just as it wasn’t written for the purpose of teaching us whether or not abortion is murder. In short, I believe the Bible is not a Calvinist text written to teach Calvinism,” and then sat down, you’d be fine with that? You wouldn’t call that handwaving your argument? Okay, whatever… I guess you can call it whatever you want, a rose by any other name.

    On all scores, I am at a loss as to just what you are attempting to argue for.

    Habla Español?

    Seems to me I have denied all of your crucial explicit as well as hidden premises.

    Wow, you just decimated my argument without even being able to figure out what I’m attempting to argue for. The force is strong with you!

    ReplyDelete
  16. RM,

    You started out by saying you were "just jerking my chain" you also stated that "you were not trying to win points" but your actions betray you (using the language of the force).

    People can *guess* at what arguments are without knowing what they are. So this refutes your childish attempts to commit me to self-referential incoherency.

    On your definitions of "hand waving," then I guess you've done nothing but "hand wave" here.

    I disagree that your story about what Dan would do in a debate is what I do. You keep ASSUMING a lot, and that makes an ASS out of U (not) me.

    Look, if you want to press this, okay:

    Lay out your argument formally.

    Then I'll respond.

    A future response by you without a formal argument will get your post deleted. Because, either you're from a foreign country, or English is your second language, but I still have no clue just what you're trying to get at.

    ReplyDelete
  17. and if you must know why I'm hardly bothering to deal with you in a substantive way: I guess I'm not impressed with someone trying extend so much effort in a "gottcha" over some weak, pedantic detail where they *think* I'm acting inconcistently (for some unspecified reason), and since they can't debate me on any substantive issue that matters, they waste both of our time debating some stupid thing like this.

    ReplyDelete