Pages

Saturday, November 19, 2011

The Christian Apologist Blogger JW Wartick Offers Fodder for the Case that the Bible Makes No Sense

The Christian apologist blogger JW Wartick, in his  book review on Paul Helm's “Eternal God: A Study of God Without Time,” states that:

"Helm here turns to compatiblism. He freely admits that timeless creation entails determinism (170). Thus, he denies that humans have free will in the libertarian sense. But this, he argues, does not undermine human responsibility. I don’t think I can do justice to the nuances of his argument, but the basic idea is that Helm argues that just because past actions/events determine our actions in the future, that doesn’t mean that we aren’t responsible for what we do. As I said, this is a really, really watered down version of his argument, but I think this is one of the weaker points of his work.

Why? Because the idea of responsibility simply does not make sense on determinism, particularly when it is theistic determinism. For consider the idea proposed here. God has created all of time and space as one bloc. Thus, everything I do or have ever done was created by God once he brought the universe into being. Literally, everything I did, I do because God created the universe such that I would do x. So how could it be that I am responsible for doing x, if I never chose to do x. I simply do x because I have to, I have “already” done it, on the static theory. If I could create a time travel device, I could travel forward in time and see myself doing x, and could not prevent it, because God created the world such that I would do x. But the core of responsibility is that I chose to do x. While we punish people for things they do by accident (vehicular manslaughter, for example, or accidentally breaking a window), these things still resulted from prior choices (playing baseball near breakable window/driving carelessly). I simply do not see how any account of responsibility could make sense unless someone can choose to do what they do."

So, according to Wartick, "... the idea of responsibility simply does not make sense on determinism, particularly when it is theistic determinism." This is exactly right, and as a result, WARTICK HAS ILLUSTRATED THAT THE BIBLE MAKES NO SENSE. First, let me set this out as an argument so that you can see how it works. Secondly, I will show that the bible does espouse responsibility and determinism. Here is the argument:

P1. If there are parts of the bible that espouse the idea of responsibility and determinism then the Bible makes no sense.

P2. The Bible espouses the idea of responsibility and determinism.

C. Therefore, the Bible makes no sense.

Note, P1 is supported by Wartick's claim that "... the idea of responsibility simply does not make sense on determinism, particularly when it is theistic determinism."

Many scholars, including Christian philosophers from Augustine to Pelagius, as well as secular philosophers, have long recognized the conceptual problem of the idea of responsibility and determinism presented in the bible via the roles played by man and Yahweh in the drama of salvation. According to the bible, redemption can come only through the offering of Yahweh of himself, and if a believer is saved, it is ONLY through Yahweh's grace, and it is NOT of themselves. (Ephesians 2:8) On the other hand, the bible also claims that humans chose to sin in the first place, and are FREE to make their own choices, and it must be their own choice to accept Yahweh's salvation, as the bible is also full of admonitions to repent and believe (Acts 3:19) Thus, we have a contradiction in that according to the bible, everything is due to, and determined by Yahweh; and the claim that salvation is the result of the responsibility of man's response to choose freely. As Wartick points out--THAT MAKES NO SENSE!!

As a result of this nonsense, as I mentioned above, Christian philosophers have battled over this issue for centuries, and to this day we have multiple denominations and groups in which some believe in determinism, and some believe in free will, and some believe both!. The battle has been raging for a long time, as the early Christian philosophers such as Augustine and Pelagius disagreed concerning the issue of determinism and free will, and the disagreements continued throughout history, as noted theologians such as Jacobus Arminius espoused the idea of free will, whereas John Calvin and Martin Luther were on the side of determinism.   All this disagreement is due to the fact that the bible is inconsistent and contradictory on the subject of free will and determinism.

According to Arminius, there is such a thing as prevenient grace, which is divine grace that precedes human decision. It exists prior to and without reference to anything humans may have done. As humans are corrupted by the effects of sin, prevenient grace allows persons to engage their God-given free will to choose the salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ or to reject that salvific offer. Whereas Augustine held that prevenient grace cannot be resisted, and if it cannot be resisted, then the person has no free will on this matter.  Wesleyan Arminians believe that it enables, but does not ensure, personal acceptance of the gift of salvation. According to John Calvin, humans are in a state of total depravity, and there is no free will at all due to Divine Sovereignty.


This table, taken from Wikipedia, summarizes the classical views of three different Protestant beliefs about salvation.


All these inconsistent and contradictory views are based on the bible. The bible espouses the idea of responsibility and determinism via the passages mentioned above, as well as my favorite passage from (Proverbs 16:33),  "...EVERY decision is from the Lord." These, and other passages such as Ephesians 1:11; Lamentations 3:37-38; James 4:13-15; Psalm 139:16 and Matt 10:29-30 support the case for determinism.  For more information and arguments for the case on biblical determinism, see Calvinism.

As Wartick pointed out: "... the idea of responsibility simply does not make sense on determinism, particularly when it is theistic determinism." If there are parts of the bible that espouse the idea of responsibility and determinism then the Bible makes no sense. As I have shown, that is exactly what the Bible espouses--the Bible espouses the idea of responsibility and determinism. THEREFORE, THE BIBLE MAKES NO SENSE!!

13 comments:

Randy Everist said...

Well this is pretty easily refuted, and by your own hand. You recognize scholars are divided on the meaning of the relevant texts--so what argument have you given to say these relevant (and plentiful) scholars are incorrect? I haven't seen any. Further, why would anyone who does not already agree with you agree with your assertions? So, in order for you to continue credibly, you must: show relevant exegesis and/or make an argument that the most plausible interpretation of a given text is causal determinism (which will require at least dealing with other interpretive options), and show relevant exegesis and/or make an argument that the most plausible interpretation of a given text is free will (which will require at least dealing with other interpretive options). Somehow, I doubt this is forthcoming.

Ob, by the way, where is it that you teach again? ;) lol

A is for Atheist said...

@ Randy

Actually Randy, you have not refuted anything. There are two aspects of this. The first aspect is the fact, as I have pointed out, that the bible has passages that espouse determinism, and on the other hand, it has passages that espouse free will. Now, I supported this by citing the deterministic passages, as well as passages that espouse free will, and those Christians scholars, both theological and philosophical, from Augustine to Luther; and from Pelagius to Arminius. Furthermore, as I have pointed out, this has also resulted in the many different denominations of Christianity--those based on determinism, and those based on free will.

The bible presents both free will and determinism in DIFFERENT passages. It is not a matter of whether anyone agrees with me or not, the fact of the matter is, is that different Christians, and not just mere Christians, but Christians in the forefront of Christian scholarship; theologians, Christian philosophers, and even saints have recognized the tension between the deterministic passages and the free will passages.

The second aspect is, is that we have Christians who would like to prove that the bible is not inconsistent and contradictory. But to do this, they must show that either the deterministic passages are not deterministic, or the free will passages do not advocate free will. But this is pretty hard to do, unless one attempts to employ Humpty Dumpty semantics, or, cherry pick one side of the passages, and ignore the others. Now, the weight of the arguments and evidence, and the historical fact of the matter is, is that the bible has deterministic passages AND free will passages. To refute my argument you would have to show that the aforementioned Christian scholars and their arguments and interpretations of the Bible are wrong. I think that they are exactly right. I look forward to any arguments you wish to present which will show that either the deterministic passages are not deterministic, or the free will passages do not advocate free will. Present your own arguments or of others which prove that such an interpretation is better than the one I have presented above. I will counter such arguments and show that the best interpretation of the passages is the one I have presented. I say this with confidence because the passages in question have been analyzed, and critiqued, as I have already pointed out, and I too have analyzed, and critiqued them. I look forward to the challenge.

Until you offer better arguments that present a better interpretation--one that I cannot counter--my conclusion stands. If there are parts of the bible that espouse the idea of responsibility and determinism then the Bible makes no sense. As I have shown, that is exactly what the Bible espouses--the Bible espouses the idea of responsibility and determinism. THEREFORE, THE BIBLE MAKES NO SENSE!!

A is for Atheist said...

@ Randy part 2

Let me help you out. For instance, one could try to make a distinction as to what the word 'determinism' means. For instance, let's take what you actually said in one of your recent blog posts:

"But then we arrive at another concern, explicitly stated. "Determined" can be a very ambiguous term, and without its exact implications being teased out can result in some confusion. "Determine" can mean either "knowing" or "causing." If knowledge, then there is no problem. If we mean "causing," remember that on middle knowledge God doesn't cause the individual actions of free creatures, he causes them to be actual. This is a hugely important distinction. The would counterfactual is true whether or not God makes the counterfactual circumstances the actual circumstances of the world. If that is true, then God's actualizing the possible world containing these true would counterfactuals doesn't cause anything (other than it being actual)."

Now, let us consider an OT passage, and a NT passage. First, the OT passage:

The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord. Proverbs 16:33

If its every decision is from the Lord, then the Lord determines everything about the decision.

Now the NT passage:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God," Ephesians 2:8

So, with regards to ones' salvation, this is determined by your god Yahweh--it is not of your own doing.

It is not a question of knowing vs causing as the above passages say that everything is determined by Yahweh, including whether or not you are "saved". It is determined by Yahweh because he causes it to be the case. This supports the deterministic aspect of the Bible, and Humpty Dumpty semantics do not help. Likewise, with the free will passages I have already gone over above,if you need me to, I can do the same for them, if someone wants to argue that they are not really advocating free will, but are deterministic.

Therefore, the Bible espouses the idea of responsibility and determinism, and THE BIBLE MAKES NO SENSE!!

Randy Everist said...

Hi Cathy, your first comment can be safely ignored because it is simply a bare assertion; there are no arguments there!

Your second comes a little bit closer, as at least you (somewhat) make an attempt (but notably, no attempt at exegesis). (Incidentally, this is how we know you're not a professional philosopher--I've never met an analytic philosopher who actually thought bare assertions passed as arguments).

I'll answer your assertions without arguments if you answer where it is that you teach. ;)

A is for Atheist said...

Dear Randy,

Your feeble attempt at ad hominem is not going to work. The argument is clearly stated in the above post, but let me restate it again for you:

P1. If there are parts of the bible that espouse the idea of responsibility and determinism then the Bible makes no sense.

P2. The Bible espouses the idea of responsibility and determinism.

C. Therefore, the Bible makes no sense.

The argument is straightforward. I have provided the deterministic and freewill passages from the bible, and I have also shown, that as a result of this, we have deterministic denominations, and free will denominations based on those biblical passages.

Your ad hominem about me not being a "professional philosopher" is a red herring, and is not going to work. You attempt to use "big words" but apparently, you do not know what they mean, or you have a problem reading, or you are just trying to use it like a debating trick. The exegesis was provided in the entire post. Let me just copy one small part for you:

"Many scholars, including Christian philosophers from Augustine to Pelagius, as well as secular philosophers, have long recognized the conceptual problem of the idea of responsibility and determinism presented in the bible via the roles played by man and Yahweh in the drama of salvation. According to the bible, redemption can come only through the offering of Yahweh of himself, and if a believer is saved, it is ONLY through Yahweh's grace, and it is NOT of themselves. (Ephesians 2:8) On the other hand, the bible also claims that humans chose to sin in the first place, and are FREE to make their own choices, and it must be their own choice to accept Yahweh's salvation, as the bible is also full of admonitions to repent and believe (Acts 3:19)"

No further exegesis is necessary.

If a basket has an orange and an apple in it, then it has an apple and an orange in it.

The basket has an apple and an orange in it.

Therefore, the basket has an apple and an orange in it.

Now, in the case above, the basket is full of deterministic and free will passages, as I have shown. I have shown which passages are deterministic, and which are free will. I have given a graph and links for more detail. If you think that a particular passage is not deterministic or free will, then if you are able to, you ought to refute it. You cannot refute it, because those passages are deterministic and free will! Furthermore, like apples and oranges, the cited passages have a well known history and have been analyzed for centuries, and any scholar worth their salt ought to recognize the deterministic passages and the free will passages. So, either show that the deterministic passages are not deterministic, or that the free will passages are not free will. Note, that there only need be one of each for the argument to go through. Give your exegesis, and I will respond in kind.

So, again, until you offer better arguments that present a better interpretation--one that I cannot counter--my conclusion stands. If there are parts of the bible that espouse the idea of responsibility and determinism then the Bible makes no sense. As I have shown, that is exactly what the Bible espouses--the Bible espouses the idea of responsibility and determinism. THEREFORE, THE BIBLE MAKES NO SENSE!!

Randy Everist said...

I'm sorry, that's not exegesis. Simply quoting a verse and then proclaiming the verse means what you say it means--when that is precisely the question--is not exegesis. It's question begging. Similarly, appealing to authority won't work--especially because it is neither the orthodox nor majority view of Christianity, nor has it ever been. I'm sorry if you found some of my words too big. I'll answer your argument when you answer my two-part request: first, you have to make an argument (not just an assertion).

Also, what school do you teach at? lol

A is for Atheist said...

@ Randy

To illustrate to you the meaning of exegesis, and how it works, I wrote a post explaining it in detail. Note, that when you are not applying Humpty Dumpty Semantics, the exegesis of the text need not be all that complicated, and if one is in opposition to a particular explanation or interpretation, they can offer an alternative interpretation, and I will respond in kind.

You can find the post here:

http://aisforatheist5760.blogspot.com/2011/11/on-meaning-of-exegesis-and-how-it.html

Anonymous said...

Fayth is not a choice it iz a seed planted n every1z hart hoo haz herd the Werd ov God, the choice 2 let it groe or how it iz 2 groe iz both hourz and Godz(fasting from worldiness(witch plants seedz ov doubt/and konstant study ov the skripchures)

Grayce iz completely determined by God, its Hiz choices wether we r 4given or not

Butt He did harden the hart ov the fairoe cauzing him 2 knot let the juize go, so eye doent no

duz this help any?

Stan Patton said...

Hi Cathy,

You said, "On the other hand, the bible also claims that humans chose to sin in the first place, and are FREE to make their own choices"

Not exactly. We do make choices, genuine choices, but the compatibilistic notion of "choicemaking" is a deterministic process, not libertarian mysticism. We're not "perfectly free" because libertarian free will is false. Under compatibilism, "free will" refers to the *degree* to which one's will is not redirected by proximal oppressors (Kant hated this definition, but Kant's own odd form of compatibilism is dysfunctional and unpopular).

Furthermore, "in the first place" isn't a reflection of what the Bible says. Romans 8:20-21: "For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God." According to the Bible, all choices we make are predetermined. We do not have libertarian free will. Every joy, every triumph, every sin, every horror, every atrocity is God's responsibility (and an individual, as an automaton in God's machine, can *share* particular responsibility).

Many compatibilistic philosophers (secular and not) have made valuable efforts toward explaining how responsibility "works" under determinism (especially over the last few centuries), and it is, frankly, a bit odd that you're unfamiliar with this, given that you're a philosophy professor of 14+ years. Maybe I'm being presumptuous. Are you familiar with the writings on this subject from Spinoza? Hobbes? Hume? It's jarringly baffling that someone with your credentials would post something that seems so empty of familiarity with compatibilism, which is absolutely essential to usefully talk about determinism, free will, and responsibility.

A is for Atheist said...

@ Stan

Hello Stan, and yes you are being presumptuous. I see no need to go over the entire philosophical history of Compatibilism. I maintain that the idea of responsibility simply does not make sense on determinism, particularly when it is theistic determinism. However, in fact I was working on a second post on this subject. I am glad that you posted your comment, as I have replied to you and incorporated it into my new post called:

"On the Absurdity of Compatibilism, and the Problem of Evil."

I assume that Compatibilism is true and then I prove that it leads to absurdity for Christianity and Christians.

My conclusion is: If there are parts of the bible that espouse the idea of responsibility and determinism then the Bible makes no sense. As I have shown, that is exactly what the Bible espouses--the Bible espouses the idea of responsibility and determinism. THEREFORE, THE BIBLE MAKES NO SENSE, OR COMPATIBILISM IS TRUE AND THE BIBLE MAKES SENSE AND THE CHRISTIAN GOD IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MOLESTATION OF CHILDREN (murder, rape, and so on.) AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL AND IS A MORAL MONSTER!

I look forward to your reply, and I will reply in kind. I hope that those who have looked at this post will also read my second post, and I also look forward to your comments as well.

Stan Patton said...

Awesome. I'll take a look at your most recent post now.

Anonymous said...

The logic of A is for Atheist:



1. Whatever I say entails the CORRECT Exegesis, no question about it
2. I state the Bible makes no sense
3. Therefore the Bible makes no sense, and Christianity is false

^invalid and unsound^

You are terrible at philosophy, and you LIVE by emotion.

A is for Atheist said...

Actually, I have not used any argument or logic of this nature. Where is this argument--nowhere. My argument is:

P1. If there are parts of the bible that espouse the idea of responsibility and determinism then the Bible makes no sense.

P2. The Bible espouses the idea of responsibility and determinism.

C. Therefore, the Bible makes no sense.

Your failure to address the argument actually demonstrates that you are the one who is terrible at philosophy, and you LIVE by emotion.

Post a Comment