Wednesday, July 01, 2009

Arminian 4 eva

Dan is a dyed-in-the-wool Arminian and seemingly can't ever admit that any case for Arminianism, or LFW, no matter how bad, is faulty. Can't even so much as concede even the slightest point. Not much I can do about that. You definitely can't have much of a dialogue with people of this stripe. Not only that, if I wanted this kind of behavior, I could watch Sean Hannity, and at least receive some entertainment for my troubles. :-)

Anyway, in response to my post, which a majority of libertarians who specialize in the metaphysics of free will agree with me over against Dan BTW, Dan simply digs a deeper hole, leaving me not much work to do by way of response.

We can first note that all three of the points in my post defeated Dan's argument, he only dealt with one point, leaving his argument still with undefeated defeaters.

Secondly, his argument has been subtly changed, and I'm unsure whether even he is aware of what he is now implicitly arguing. Dan tried to use Kane to show that Kane agreed with Dan over me, when he doesn't, and I've emailed Kane extensively enough to verify this. He now cites Kane arguing what some choices need to be free or morally responsible. But of course I already anticipated this move (cf. my discussion with Timpe). The further points Dan cites from Kane argue that a free or morally responsible choice cannot be made on determinism. This is not a definitional issue anymore but, rather, involves us in a substantive philosophical discussion about the details of the metaphysics of free will and moral responsibility. Kane flatly and obviously grants that we can choose on determinism, he denies that we can do so freely or responsibly. By moving the debate into the highly contentious and detailed and sophisticated realm of the variegated views on free will and moral responsibility, Dan has completely undermined his initial argument! What's worse, we've just shown the massive question begging nature of his argument. He is assuming a contentious and hotly debated metaphysical position. Dan wants to get a free pass on the tough part of the debate. I've shown that when just sticking with "choice," then there is no problem. Now, if one wants to say that a free or morally responsible "choice" is unintelligible, one is free to make that argument, but not assume it. Furthermore, it is wide of the mark of trying to claim one is just making a "common man" argument. Dan's reply, unbeknownst to him, to be sure, only served to further weaken his initial argument.

Dan ignores wide swaths of my post and hopes his Arminian readers will too. I have severely paralyzed his dictionary argument by pointing out that it is silent as to whether the ability to do otherwise is to be read counter factually. Even if we both think this is the wrong analysis, the point is, you don't get its false truth value from the dictionary. Dan totally ignores my rebutting defeater which his entire claim rests on. His view of what any and all common man believes just seems, well, false.He therefore has been shown to make empirically dubious announcements about what 'common man' (whatever that is) believes. I also subjected his view to some serious reductions, and those were not addressed either. All in all, it must be admitted that his response wis underwhelming, and unable to meet the challenges set for him.

There is nothing to Dan's argument, and I'll let readers decide which case is more persuasive. If Dan can't admit the defeated status of his argument from my last post, I'm unsure of what would, or could, possibly convince Dan. It seems that he is so bent on his pet argument that he isn't even bothered by the fact that it could (a) possibly prove determinism (since it's possible all the dictionaries could write very deterministic sounding definitions) and (b) prove the errancy of Scripture because, without begging the question, Dan must admit that common men and dictionaries (grating Dan's interpretation of the empirical data for sake of argument, which I don't in reality) could be wrong, thus making the Bible assert falsehoods. I guess he could say that this could not be the case since LFW is true, but then if we're going to argue that way, why bother will all the posting and posturing?

8 comments:

  1. Only a delusion could cause someone to think that the Hebrew writers of the Bible, Old or New Testament, had any of these silly fatalistic philosophical notions at all. When the writer of Deuteronomy wrote, "I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live," there is no possible way the writer could have ever had in mind determinism.

    You may find some weird sort of comfort in your strange view of Christian fatalism, but it's just one more reason I will never become a Calvinist.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Only a delusion could cause someone to think that the Hebrew writers of the Bible, Old or New Testament, had any of these silly fatalistic philosophical notions at all.

    Yeah, yeah, I hear the same rant from Richard Dawkins when he says that only a delusion or mind virus can account for continued belief in God. Got anything better than to peddle New Atheist attempts at shaming opponents into submission? Or should I still expect the usual unsubstantive material from Servantmanham?

    "When the writer of Deuteronomy wrote, "I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live," there is no possible way the writer could have ever had in mind determinism."

    Who said he had either in mind? What, you think a ANE Jew was thinking in categories of the metaphysics of free will? Anyway, tell us you have more than this? Please tell us you didn't come here simply assert your side's correctness. Please tell us that there's more to Servantmanham's Arminianism that assertions hunting for arguments?

    "You may find some weird sort of comfort in your strange view of Christian fatalism, but it's just one more reason I will never become a Calvinist".

    Well, I guess you're to ignorant of the literature to know that plenty of libertarian/Arminians think your view of a God with meticulate, exhaustive, definite foreknowledge of the future actions of indeterministically free agents is simply another version of fatalism.

    Anyway, I'm not going to cry about you not becoming a Calvinist.

    Again, you sound like the atheists who say, "You may take some comfort in a God who foreknew and even commanded the killing of woman, children, puppies and kitties, but it is one more reason I'll never become a Christian." That all you can do is baptize atheological arguments is one more reason I'll refrain from becoming an Arminian.

    Thanks for the soft ball, I can always count on you for some easy target practice.

    ReplyDelete
  3. BOSSMANHAM SAID:

    Only a delusion could cause someone to think that the Hebrew writers of the Bible, Old or New Testament, had any of these silly fatalistic philosophical notions at all. When the writer of Deuteronomy wrote, 'I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live,' there is no possible way the writer could have ever had in mind determinism."

    If you think that passage teaches the libertarian freedom to choose otherwise, then how to you square that with the traditional Arminian doctrine of conditional election? If God has chosen believers based on foresee faith, then in what sense is an elect believer now free to either choose life or choose death?

    ReplyDelete
  4. How many logical fallacies can we count in these responses? Let's see, one, two, three........

    What, you think a ANE Jew was thinking in categories of the metaphysics of free will?

    No I think he was thinking in terms of God has actually given us a choice in the matter. Certainly not, God has actually secretly willed what will happen, but I'll write like we actually have a choice.

    Well, I guess you're to ignorant of the literature to know that plenty of libertarian/Arminians think your view of a God with meticulate, exhaustive, definite foreknowledge of the future actions of indeterministically free agents is simply another version of fatalism.

    Nope, actually it's not. So sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  5. “Nope, actually it’s not. So sorry.”

    BRILLIANT!!!

    Why waist time actually supporting assertions, just claim it to be so and that is that.

    I for one have never heard even a decent answer from any Arminian that resolves the issue that Paul brought up.

    If God has exhaustive, definite foreknowledge of all future actions that people will make then it is another version of fatalism.

    ReplyDelete

  6. No I think he was thinking in terms of God has actually given us a choice in the matter.


    So you believe that "choice" and LFW are convertible principles. Where's the supporting argument?

    How many logical fallacies can we count in these responses?

    Name the fallacies.


    Nope, actually it's not. So sorry.


    Sure it is...because NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO, the future cannot be otherwise. That's the very definition of fatalism.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "No I think he was thinking in terms of God has actually given us a choice in the matter. Certainly not, God has actually secretly willed what will happen, but I'll write like we actually have a choice."

    of course this just begs the question in favor of libertarian free will. Got anything better, or is question begging all you have left?

    "Nope, actually it's not. So sorry."

    You actually think that's a valid response? Nope, actually it's not. So sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Nope, actually it's not. So sorry."

    I give him a ten for making me laugh.

    ReplyDelete