Pages

Thursday, September 03, 2009

From Reppert to atheism

“There is an a way of arguing from Calvinism to atheism. If the Bible is true, we have no libertarian free will (based on Calvinist arguments), but that means that God could have created us in such a way that everyone free does what is right, and everyone goes to heaven, but didn't. But a God who not only allowed sin, but also damnation, when God could just as easily have chosen their salvation is not a God worthy of worship. Hence, if the the God of the Bible exists, he is not worthy of worship (is not omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good), and hence there is no being in existence that satisfies this requirement. Therefore, atheism is true.”

http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2009/09/from-calvinism-to-atheism.html

Several problems with this argument:

1.As I’ve already pointed out, this is fatally equivocal. In Calvinism, God could choose to create a world in which “everyone” is sinless.

But the “everyone” in that possible world is not the same “everyone” in a fallen world.

Everyone who is born in a fallen world is a link in a chain of moral and natural evils. To have a sinless world, you’d have to uproot the family tree of fallen humanity, and replace it with a completely different family tree.

Would that be a better world? Better for whom? It wouldn’t be better for Christians or OT saints. They wouldn’t exist in such a world.

2.Likewise, if God made a world in which everyone was regenerate from the womb, that would also change the human genealogy. Eliminate many moral evils at the cost of also culling many men and women who are the direct or indirect result of moral evils. Many of us would never make the cut.

Would that be a better world? Better for whom? Not for the causalities.

In such a world, everyone is heavenbound. But everyone who is heavenbound is not the same person or set of persons as the heavenbound persons in a world where some men are heavenbound while other men are hellbound.

3.Each scenario has its own tradeoffs. Alternate scenarios capture incommensurable goods. No single scenario combines all the goods of every other scenario.

4.A fallen world is, in some ways, a tragic world. But it’s not a purely tragic world. If it were pure loss, it would be purely tragic. But certain losses deepen our appreciation of what remains and what we had. We don’t take it for granted.

5.Reppert also acts as if his own position is immune to the objection he levels at Calvinism. But does that follow?

i) If human beings have the freedom to do otherwise, then there’s a possible world in which everyone freely does good. So, on Reppert’s assumptions, why didn’t God instantiate that combination of free choices?

ii) Perhaps he’d invoke transworld depravity. But why is that a plausible postulate? It seems to me that transworld depravity represents an ad hoc restriction on libertarian freedom.

iii) There is also a Manichean quality to transworld depravity. On this view, evil is embedded in the nature of things. A metaphysical necessity.

But in that case, good can never triumph over evil. At best, you have a stalemate.

iv) Another problem with this move is that if there’s no possible world in which everyone does right, then there’s no possible world in which everyone goes to heaven. No possible world in which everyone stays in heaven.

That’s not a problem for me, but as long as Reppert wants to reserve universalism as a live option, then this move eliminates that fallback position.

iv) Or perhaps Reppert would say there is a possible world in which everyone free does good, but God can’t know which possible world that is. God can’t foreknow the counterfactuals of freedom.

But, in that case, creation is a cosmic raffle. God reached into the rotating basket and happened to pull out this particular ticket. Which possible world becomes real is a matter of chance.

v) A further consequence of (iv) is that even if there’s a possible world in which everyone freely goes to heaven, God can’t know which world that is. Hence, God can’t knowingly instantiate a world in which everyone freely goes to heaven. God can only roll the dice and hope the possible world he creates is one of the better worlds, rather than one of the worse worlds. For, given the randomness of the selection process, the actual world might just as well be an irremediably evil world.

10 comments:

  1. Taken aback by this blasphemy. This is exactly the sort of thing I said when I was an agnostic who had discovered what the bible teaches about predestination.

    ReplyDelete
  2. tbxi said:

    Taken aback by this blasphemy. This is exactly the sort of thing I said when I was an agnostic who had discovered what the bible teaches about predestination.

    We could likewise reply that we're taken aback by this emoting. It's as if you're reacting from your emotions rather than thinking through the argumentation presented here. What precisely do you find blasphemous? Also keep in mind the context of the post: Steve is responding to Reppert.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Reppert said:

    If the Bible is true, we have no libertarian free will (based on Calvinist arguments), but that means that God could have created us in such a way that everyone free does what is right, and everyone goes to heaven, but didn't.

    Steve said:

    "iv) Another problem with this move is that if there’s no possible world in which everyone does right, then there’s no possible world in which everyone goes to heaven. No possible world in which everyone stays in heaven."

    Yes, Reppert must fall on his own sword here. Presumably even arminians must concede that the glorified state is just such a world in which people will always freely choose the good. If that is the case, then the arminian cannot escape this criticism either. Why didn't God just create that state to begin with and avoid all this need for God to demonstrate his wrath and mercy?

    ReplyDelete
  4. No, man, you misinterpreted me. I was referring to Reppert. I am on your side :)

    I just found it interesting that his sentiment is exactly the one I had when I was a blatant God-hater.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sorry, tbxi! Prob shouldn't post when I'm sleepy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. no worries bro. It is this bit I am specifically referring to:

    "But a God who not only allowed sin, but also damnation, when God could just as easily have chosen their salvation is not a God worthy of worship. Hence, if the the God of the Bible exists, he is not worthy of worship"

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is a possible atheist argument. I did not endorse it. I was trying to show that the issue of predestination has apologetic implications.

    I believe that the God of Islam would not be a good God and would not be worthy of worship, and I also believe that the God of Islam does not exist. Am I guilty of blaspheming Allah?

    ReplyDelete
  8. If Allah exists, then yes. And if God exists as He tells us in Scripture (i.e., the Calvinist God), then you blaspheme Him when you don't believe in Him too.

    BTW, I should note that it was debating atheists that turned me from a lock-step Arminian into a Calvinist, since atheists were quite adept at destroying Arminian presuppositions. Yet for some reason (read: "because it is true"), Calvinism withstands all the logical attacks of atheism quite easily.

    Really, all the Arminians have going for them is the emotional argument, as you never fail to demonstrate.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It looks like we're all going to end up having to blaspheme someone. It just depends on which one exists. But if persons blaspheme the Calvinistic God, then God shouldn't complain too much. He, after all, predestined before the foundation of the world that he would get blasphemed in the first place. (Is God the author of blasphemy?).

    ReplyDelete