On the Absurdity of Compatibilism, and the Problem of Evil

 

In this blog post I will prove that THE BIBLE MAKES NO SENSE, OR COMPATIBILISM IS TRUE AND THE BIBLE MAKES SENSE AND THE CHRISTIAN GOD IS RESPONSBILE FOR THE MOLESTATION OF CHILDREN (murder, rape, and so on) AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL, AND IS A MORAL MONSTER! This blog post is a continuation of one of my earlier posts called "The Christian Apologist Blogger JW Wartick Offers Fodder for the Case that the Bible Makes No Sense." Wartick stated 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....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. In my aforementioned blog post I proved that is exactly what the Bible espouses--the Bible espouses the idea of responsibility and determinism. THEREFORE, THE BIBLE MAKES NO SENSE!! Please read that post for the complete argument and details. This is the first disjunct.

Now, let us turn our attention to my second disjunct and the absurdity of holding compatiblism for a Christian. Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent.To do this, I will use a comment that was made by Stan in the aforementioned post. My reply will follow. In my reply, I will present my argument and conclusion from my second disjunct and my final conclusion from both disjuncts. I look forward to any opposing positions. Here is Stan's comment:

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.

My reply to Stan:

Stan,

I agree with Wartick on this point:

"Why? Because the idea of responsibility simply does not make sense on determinism, particularly when it is theistic determinism."

But for a different reason than Wartick, not that I disagree with his reason, which was stated above as because (in reference to compatibilism):

"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."

The key part being "if I never chose to do x" because the compatibalist claims that while God determines everything that you still chose to do x.

As a philosopher and a pragmatist I am quite familiar with compatibilism. The great American Pragmatist William James, calls compatibilism a “quagmire of evasion”. Kant says it’s a “wretched subterfuge.” I call it as just another attempt of Humpty Dumpty semantics.

Let us look at compatibilism and their view of free will based on Frankfurtian:

"A person S has compatibilist free will for a choice or action if:

(i) S wills X,

(ii) S wants to will X,

(iii) S wills X because she wants to will X, and

(iv) S would still have willed X even if she (herself) had known the

provenance of her wanting to will X."

So S wills x, and therefore chooses to do x. This handles Wartick's objection because S chose to do x.

In Faith and Philosophy, the campatiblist, Lynne Rudder Baker argues that:

“...the desire to do God’s will and the desire to will what is good are effects, not causes, of God’s grace. Turning to God is indeed a matter of will, but the will is caused by God to make the turn” (465). Undoubtedly this account of predestination will only work with compatibilistic freedom, thus making libertarian freedom untenable."

For the sake of argument, let us assume that this view of compatibilism is true. If compatibilism is true, to paraphrase Baker, then molesting children is indeed a matter of will, but the will is CAUSED BY GOD to MOLEST CHILDREN (murder, rape, and so on.) IF molesting children is indeed a matter of will, but the will is CAUSED BY GOD to MOLEST CHILDREN, then the Christian God causes child molestation. But wait, Baker claims that the desire to will what is, in this case bad, are effects, not causes, of God's grace. Ahhh..., but what is the benefit of this little example of Humpty Dumpty semantics for Christianity and Christians? Lets see, let us paraphrase Baker again--the desire to molest a child and the desire to will to molest a child is the effect, not the cause, of God's grace. Molesting a child is indeed a matter of will, but the will is caused by God to make the molestation to occur. Therefore, the molestation, is caused by the Christian God because one's will is caused by and determined by the Christian God. Therefore, the cause and the effect are the result of the Christian God's provenance!

Now we can better understand Stan's notion of "genuine choices." Recall, that according to Stan: "We do make choices, "genuine choices," but the compatibilistic notion of "choice making" is a deterministic process, not libertarian mysticism...According to the Bible, all choices we make are predetermined." Right, we make "genuine choices" that are all predetermined by the Christian God! Therefore, according to Stan, the child molester (murder, rapist, and so on.) makes "genuine choices" that are all predetermined by the Christian God! To paraphrase Baker and Stan, a "genuine choice" to molest children is indeed a matter of will, but the will is CAUSED BY GOD to MOLEST CHILDREN. Wow, see what happens when one uses Humpty Dumpty Semantics, and a Humpty Dumpty definition, and the absurdity that it leads to.  No wonder there is a problem with priests, pastors and bishops molesting children--as according to compatibilism, they just have the desire to do God’s will and the desire to will what is good or bad are effects, not causes, of God’s grace. Turning to God is indeed a matter of will, but the will is caused by God to make the turn, in this case, the turn to molest children.

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!

Christian Propaganda, and Why Two Wrongs Do Not Solve the Problem of Evil

 

In one of my more recent conversations with a Christian, the topic of "atheist regimes" cropped up, which has motivated me to write this post in order to clear up the misconceptions and turn the tables on the propaganda we have been inundated with concerning the so-called "atheist regimes" of China and Russia for example.  Now, there is no doubt that some who claim to be atheists have in fact committed heinous deeds, but that does not take away from the fact that even if they were atheists, and had committed atrocities, that would not make Christianity or their god, if he existed, anymore worthy of worship--nor would it solve the problem of evil.  The problem of evil being that if the Christian god is said to be all-knowing, all-good and all-powerful, then there should be no atrocities at all in the first place.   As the bible tells us, "...EVERY decision is from the Lord." (Proverbs 16:33) meaning EVERYTHING, if we believe the bible, is because the Christian god made a decision for that to happen.  Many Christians too have committed heinous atrocities, and still do--but two wrongs do not make a right.  Furthermore, even those that Christians claim were "atheist regimes" were heavily influenced by Christianity, and if Christianity had not been such a powerful force, perhaps the atrocities committed by these so-called "atheist regimes" may not have happened at all.  Let me explain why.

The following is an excerpt from the book I am currently writing. This excerpt begins by explaining how the writings of Martin Luther influenced Hitler's ideology:

"The anti-Semitism and atrocities committed by Hitler's Nazi's was influenced heavily by the works of Martin Luther, including his "On the Jews and Their Lies" in which Luther called for all Jewish rights, including rights to their own religious writings be eliminated; their properties razed; their monies confiscated; and to use Jews as forced agricultural labour. Because of this view of the Jews that was held by many Germans--especially those Germans who were familiar with Luther's writings--the Jews were easily scapegoated.  The Jews were also blamed for the death of Jesus, so it was easy to incite hatred against them and to implicate them for the economic hardships the Germans faced after WWI--which happened not because the Jews were the money changers--but because of the economic sanctions placed on Germany after the Treaty of Versailles, where they were made to pay restitution for starting WWI. Therefore, the reasons for the atrocities committed in Germany in WWII against the Jews were very, very heavily influenced by Christianity. On an even deeper level, it makes one wonder how Christians can trust their own bible (half of which consists of the Jewish Tanakh) when as Luther claimed, the Jews are "untrustworthy"-- this is a non-sequitur of epic proportions.

It was not only during WWII that the influence of Christianity can be seen.  Many of the so-called "atheist regimes,"and their totalitarianism were not created to impose atheism on others, but to free themselves from the tyranny of Imperialist/Christian rule. For instance, in Russia before the Russian Revolution (1917), the Russian Orthodox Church and the czarist autocracy controlled the country and the wealth, while peasants and the working class suffered in poverty. Nothing could be done to influence the Czar to change his policies, which then resulted in worker strikes, culminating in actual revolution. Their revolutions were anti-Imperialistic, and directed towards removing Imperialism (which works hand in hand with the church) in order to establish socialism and a more even distribution of wealth within the country. As church and state worked hand in hand in oppressing their nation, it would therefore be a natural progression for the socialists to eliminate religion along with the Czarist government.

Just as was in the case of Russia, China too, was a feudal society where the few elite controlled the wealth and power, while the majority barely survived, resulting in many peasant uprisings. Their revolution and the communism that followed was an effort to elevate the living conditions of the poor and oppressed workers. In the case of China, Christianity had been in practice since the 7th century, and although it waned between the 10th and 14th centuries, it reestablished itself the 18th and 19th centuries. This "western influence" then led to the Taiping Rebellion from 1850-1864--a civil war launched by a heterodox Christian who believed he was the younger brother of Jesus Christ. This rebellion is considered one of the deadliest in history, and resulted in the deaths of approximately 20 to 47 million people.*

We can see then, that just as it was in the case with Russia, when the Communist Party of China came to power in 1949, China viewed Western religions such as Christianity as the tool of Western colonialism.  In an effort to separate themselves from Western Colonial influence, Mao, in a similar move to Jefferson's, aimed for the separation of church and state. This move had nothing to do with forcing atheism onto the people, and everything to do with removing the influence of Imperialistic regimes. Therefore, it can be seen that many of the so-called "atheist regimes" were heavily influenced by Christianity, and none of these atrocities may have occurred if it were not for the imperialist/Christian noose that was around the necks of those who otherwise had no power to control their own destinies."

Therefore, if the atheist regimes were atheist, they were heavily influenced by Christianity; two wrongs do not make a right; and blaming atheists for committing atrocities does not solve the problem of evil. 

 Just as the Jews had been scapegoated in the past by Christians wielding power, I believe that atheists today are being viewed in much the same way.  Atheists are some of the most hated people in America--not because they commit heinous acts--but because atheists do not believe in Jesus, and just like in the case of the Jews, Christians believe we "cannot be trusted."  This is pure propaganda that must be stopped before history repeats itself.


*Revolutionary armies in the modern era: a revisionist approach By S. P. Mackenzie p. 78