If God is sovereign, then predestination is logical

[zippy2006]

Go back and read post #28. I said there is no absolute free will. But because of how the brain works, we have relative free will. It's free will for practical intents and purposes.

Right, but what is that even supposed to mean? What does it mean to say that we don't have absolute free will but we have free will for practical intents and purposes? I've seen a lot of discussions surrounding free will, and I find that language to be common and also to be a smokescreen for the idea that free will just doesn't exist.

I did read that post, I suppose I just haven't pointed out the entailment:

I am a determinist in that if our brains are in exactly the same state at 2 different times, we will make exactly the same decision both times.

That's a denial of free will, plain and simple. It is determinism where our choices are reduced to and determined by physical brain states. We had no choice in the matter of the brain state that determined our action, or the brain state that determined that brain state, etc. There is no middle ground to be had here.

The chance that a physiologically normal brain will be in exactly the same state at 2 different times is vanishingly low.

This is logically irrelevant with respect to free will. If a brain state were repeated, the action would be repeated, but both actions are fully determined whether or not a repetition occurs. Focusing on the probability of actual repetition is a mistake.

(That's how I read your earlier post, and each of my subsequent posts carried with them the implied possibility that you might give an explanation how one can have a kind of partial free will. If you are able to do that then of course my parallels would fail.)

I made a value judgement that a naturalistic worldview is superior to, and more useful than believing in supernatural entities. But I did not make any such judgement about the presence or absence of free will. What I said in the OP was that there are Bible passages stating that God is all-sovereign and that those who come to Jesus have been selected by God. And I quoted verses to support that. To save time, I'll repeat 2 passages from John:

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. John 6:44

And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” John 6:65

Yes, but I really think Silmarien's first point is apt. Personally I would phrase it this way: the Calvinist compatibilist has precisely the same avenues of argument open to them that the naturalist compatibilist has, and it seems that you are a naturalist compatibilist.

How else would you interpret this language? These and other verses imply that God decides who will accept Jesus as savior. This makes sense if God is indeed sovereign in all things. What would not make sense is if such an all-sovereign God allowed everyone to decide completely on their own whether to follow Jesus.

I would be happy to try to give a Catholic (Thomistic) perspective, but I want to finish our discussion related to compatibilism first.

So to answer your question from that perspective the Calvinist might say that the Father's drawing is the necessary prerequisite for conversion, but this is just like the fact that certain brain states are the necessary prerequisite for certain actions. The Father's drawing and the brain state are outside of our control, but somehow we still have a "relative" free will because the brain and God's drawing are so mysterious and complicated.

(If someone is comfortable with philosophical compatibilism, I'm not sure why they would have an issue with Calvinism.)

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I'll state right off that I don't believe in any supernatural god. I'm posting this to point out what I see as a logical inconsistency in Christianity.

So would you then say that Reformed Theology is "logically consistent"?

 

[jayem]

Right, but what is that even supposed to mean? What does it mean to say that we don't have absolute free will but we have free will for practical intents and purposes? I've seen a lot of discussions surrounding free will, and I find that language to be common and also to be a smokescreen for the idea that free will just doesn't exist.

I did read that post, I suppose I just haven't pointed out the entailment:



That's a denial of free will, plain and simple. It is determinism where our choices are reduced to and determined by physical brain states. We had no choice in the matter of the brain state that determined our action, or the brain state that determined that brain state, etc. There is no middle ground to be had here.



This is logically irrelevant with respect to free will. If a brain state were repeated, the action would be repeated, but both actions are fully determined whether or not a repetition occurs. Focusing on the probability of actual repetition is a mistake.

(That's how I read your earlier post, and each of my subsequent posts carried with them the implied possibility that you might give an explanation how one can have a kind of partial free will. If you are able to do that then of course my parallels would fail.)



Yes, but I really think Silmarien's first point is apt. Personally I would phrase it this way: the Calvinist compatibilist has precisely the same avenues of argument open to them that the naturalist compatibilist has, and it seems that you are a naturalist compatibilist.



I would be happy to try to give a Catholic (Thomistic) perspective, but I want to finish our discussion related to compatibilism first.

So to answer your question from that perspective the Calvinist might say that the Father's drawing is the necessary prerequisite for conversion, but this is just like the fact that certain brain states are the necessary prerequisite for certain actions. The Father's drawing and the brain state are outside of our control, but somehow we still have a "relative" free will because the brain and God's drawing are so mysterious and complicated.

(If someone is comfortable with philosophical compatibilism, I'm not sure why they would have an issue with Calvinism.)

I’ll address what I mean by absolute and relative. Absolute means independent of any outside influence. It’s a property that can’t be limited, qualified, or altered by anything. An example would be the mass of a proton. AFAIK, that’s a physical constant that exists in and of itself and is unaffected by anything external. Something that’s relative can be modified or changed by outside forces. An example would be the weight of a proton. Which can vary depending on the strength of the gravitational field in which it exists.

If you’re religious, you might say only God has absolute free will. Human beings do not. Our free will is relative. Our decisions are dependent on the state of our brains. If our brains are in exactly the same state at different times then we will make the same decision each time. But that’s extraordinarily unlikely. This gives us the impression of free will. And for practical purposes, it is. Our ability to decide is restricted by walls. But there’s a very wide space between the walls. We have relatively free will. Am I making myself clear?

 

[zippy2006]

I’ll address what I mean by absolute and relative. Absolute means independent of any outside influence. It’s a property that can’t be limited, qualified, or altered by anything. An example would be the mass of a proton. AFAIK, that’s a physical constant that exists in and of itself and is unaffected by anything external. Something that’s relative can be modified or changed by outside forces. An example would be the weight of a proton. Which can vary depending on the strength of the gravitational field in which it exists.

If you’re religious, you might say only God has absolute free will. Human beings do not. Our free will is relative. Our decisions are dependent on the state of our brains. If our brains are in exactly the same state at different times then we will make the same decision each time. But that’s extraordinarily unlikely. This gives us the impression of free will. And for practical purposes, it is. Our ability to decide is restricted by walls. But there’s a very wide space between the walls. We have relatively free will. Am I making myself clear?

Yes, that is what is usually meant by "relative" free will: that you are free to walk east or west, but not to fly upward into the sky. We are free within constraints.

But there’s a very wide space between the walls.

I just don't see where the wide space is on your view. What you have said is that brain states necessitate actions, and presumably every action is derived from a necessitating brain state. So where does choice fit in? There would only be a "wide space" (or space at all) if we were able to choose our brain states. Is that your position? That we can choose which brain states we have and thereby choose to act in this or that way?

 

[jayem]

I just don't see where the wide space is on your view. What you have said is that brain states necessitate actions, and presumably every action is derived from a necessitating brain state. So where does choice fit in? There would only be a "wide space" (or space at all) if we were able to choose our brain states. Is that your position? That we can choose which brain states we have and thereby choose to act in this or that way?

Of course we have voluntary control over our brains. Particularly in regions like the frontal cortex, which handles executive functions. We can choose what we are thinking. If we need to solve a problem we can focus our thoughts on various solutions and how to apply them. Every time we speak, we choose what message we want to convey and what words will best express it. Right now, I'm doing exactly the same thing non-verbally as I'm typing this post. OTOH, not everyone has good control over his emotions. Which appears to be largely a function of the limbic system. As I've said, we don't have total, absolute control over everything the brain does. There are many involuntary and subconscious processes running in the background. Which can be a limiting factor. But there's still lots of room for a wide range of choices. Which is as close to free will as we can get. Especially since I reject the notion of a totally sovereign supernatural deity. Which logically is an impediment to free will.

BTW, if you're interested, here's an article on how the brain handles emotions.

How the Brain Processes Emotions

 

[zippy2006]

Of course we have voluntary control over our brains. Particularly in regions like the frontal cortex, which handles executive functions. We can choose what we are thinking. If we need to solve a problem we can focus our thoughts on various solutions and how to apply them. Every time we speak, we choose what message we want to convey and what words will best express it. Right now, I'm doing exactly the same thing non-verbally as I'm typing this post. OTOH, not everyone has good control over his emotions. Which appears to be largely a function of the limbic system. As I've said, we don't have total, absolute control over everything the brain does. There are many involuntary and subconscious processes running in the background. Which can be a limiting factor. But there's still lots of room for a wide range of choices. Which is as close to free will as we can get. Especially since I reject the notion of a totally sovereign supernatural deity. Which logically is an impediment to free will.

BTW, if you're interested, here's an article on how the brain handles emotions.

How the Brain Processes Emotions

Okay, thanks. That does clarify things a bit and helps answer some of my questions, especially given your medical background.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'll state right off that I don't believe in any supernatural god. I'm posting this to point out what I see as a logical inconsistency in Christianity. The Judeo-Christian tradition claims the absolute sovereignty of God. There are numerous OT and NT verses to support this idea.. A small sampling:

All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth;
Daniel 4:35

The Lord has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all.
Psalm 103:19

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

Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it?
Lamentations 3:37

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.
Romans 11:36

The Lord of hosts has sworn: “As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand,
Isaiah 14:24

So, if God is the ultimate sovereign, and has a grand plan for the universe, then wouldn't that include who becomes a Christian and who doesn't? There are NT passages that appear to support predestination. Several more samples:

Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.
Ephesians 1:4

In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.
Ephesians 1:11

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
John 6:44

And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
John 6:65

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Romans 8:29

If these passages are true, can anyone really choose to accept Jesus? And even if you believe you made the choice of your own free will, how can you know it wasn't God directing your will subconsciously? (Not to mention that another logical implication of predestination is that evangelization is useless.)

BTW, I'm not arguing for Calvinism. Strict 5 Point "TULIP" Calvinism grounds predestination in man's Total Depravity (the T in TULIP.) Which says that humans are so depraved by sin that they're unable to make a righteous decision to accept Jesus of their own free will. It's only by God's election that anyone becomes a Christian. This is a bleak and pessimistic view of human nature and has never been well accepted by most Christians. My argument also comes to the conclusion of divine election. But it's grounded in the idea of a totally sovereign God. Which is a traditional Christian belief.

So, are you sure that your selection of verses in your OP all play the semantic and metaphysical hand that you think they imply? I have to ask since you've said in the past that you're not a Christian and I'm not sure you've actually vetted out all of the various tangents of thought that have come to play in the denotations and connotations of the concepts your placing at odds with one another here.