William Lane Craig vs James White - Calvinism vs Molinism on the Problem of Evil

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, All


I have respect for these 2 men, and I am really looking forward to this interview. My hope is this will lead to a formal 3–4-hour moderated debate with long sessions of cross examinations. YouTube will premiere the interaction today at 100 PM EST.

 

[BBAS 64]

Here we go...

 

[BBAS 64]

WLC.... Molinism in A Christmas Carol!!!

 

[Yekcidmij]

Good Day, All


I have respect for these 2 men, and I am really looking forward to this interview. My hope is this will lead to a formal 3–4-hour moderated debate with long sessions of cross examinations. YouTube will premiere the interaction today at 100 PM EST.

It seems like James White's main objection is the "grounding problem" of Molinism and question the truth content of the subjunctive conditionals:

Middle Knowledge | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The grounding objection hasn't been adequately answered to my mind, though possibilities have been put forward. I'm also not convinced that Molinism actually solves the problem of retaining creaturely freedom and doesn't either represent another form of determinism or lead to the conclusion of determinism.

It also seems on WLC's view that God is really The Great Utilitarian (James White calls him a super computer), which seems to be a large moral problem. In his view God is simply solving on objective function, maximizing benefits and minimizing costs under a set of constraints. He selects an environment to create which maximizes souls saved and minimizes souls lost given the constraints of human freedom. It seems to me that such a utilitarian view of God's activity may result in viewing God as acting immorally (assuming for a moment that utilitarianism is a wrong account of morality).

 

[JAL]

It seems like James White's main objection is the "grounding problem" of Molinism and question the truth content of the subjunctive conditionals:

Middle Knowledge | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The grounding objection hasn't been adequately answered to my mind, though possibilities have been put forward. I'm also not convinced that Molinism actually solves the problem of retaining creaturely freedom and doesn't either represent another form of determinism or lead to the conclusion of determinism.

It also seems on WLC's view that God is really The Great Utilitarian (James White calls him a super computer), which seems to be a large moral problem. In his view God is simply solving on objective function, maximizing benefits and minimizing costs under a set of constraints. He selects an environment to create which maximizes souls saved and minimizes souls lost given the constraints of human freedom. It seems to me that such a utilitarian view of God's activity may result in viewing God as acting immorally (assuming for a moment that utilitarianism is a wrong account of morality).

Regardless whether Molinism has managed to satisfactorily defend all of its tenets, it is, to use WLK's words "vastly more plausible" than a Calvinism where God is effectively the author of all evil. On the video, James White kept insisting that the Reformed view is more biblical. How is it biblical to claim that a fair and loving God (effectively) causes men to do evil and then punishes them for it? That is a contradiction which, as such, cannot be biblical.

Essentially, Reformed theology is OBSESSED with divine sovereignty. Any REAL human freedom is, in this view, blasphemy against a sovereign God. But why can't God limit His sovereignty for His own pleasure. Imagine a father with kids. He COULD choose to be fully sovereign, dictating everything they do. OR he might allow them some freedom/autonomy for his own good pleasure. The irony is that the Calvinisit is really saying, "God is free/sovereign to do as He wishes, but He is NOT free/sovereign to choose to limit His own sovereignty for good pleasure."

In essence, then, the Calvinist repudiates divine sovereignty just as much as the Molinist.

 

[disciple Clint]

Regardless whether Molinism has managed to satisfactorily defend all of its tenets, it is, to use WLK's words "vastly more plausible" than a Calvinism where God is effectively the author of all evil. On the video, James White kept insisting that the Reformed view is more biblical. How is it biblical to claim that a fair and loving God (effectively) causes men to do evil and then punishes them for it? That is a contradiction which, as such, cannot be biblical.

Essentially, Reformed theology is OBSESSED with divine sovereignty. Any REAL human freedom is, in this view, blasphemy against a sovereign God. But why can't God limit His sovereignty for His own pleasure. Imagine a father with kids. He COULD choose to be fully sovereign, dictating everything they do. OR he might allow them some freedom/autonomy for his own good pleasure. The irony is that the Calvinisit is really saying, "God is free/sovereign to do as He wishes, but He is NOT free/sovereign to choose to limit His own sovereignty for good pleasure."

In essence, then, the Calvinist repudiates divine sovereignty just as much as the Molinist.

God has no need to limit the freewill of man because God is sovereign meaning He can accomplish whatever He wants to accomplish without the need of the cooperation of men.

 

[JAL]

God has no need to limit the freewill of man because God is sovereign meaning He can accomplish whatever He wants to accomplish without the need of the cooperation of men.

Except if what He WANTS to accomplish is to have a bride with free will, rather than robots. In this case, it logically follows that He must place limits on His own sovereignty, He must abstain from sovereignly dictating every move that we make, He must allow us some freedom to sovereignly determine what happens in a given situation, or at least let us have some degree of influence on those situations. Stated simply, He cannot have His cake and eat it too.

 

[disciple Clint]

Except if what He WANTS to accomplish is to have a bride with free will, rather than robots. In this case, it logically follows that He must place limits on His own sovereignty, He must abstain from sovereignly dictating every move that we make, He must allow us some freedom to sovereignly determine what happens in a given situation, or at least let us have some degree of influence on those situations. Stated simply, He cannot have His cake and eat it too.

What I am saying is we have freewill but God still can and will accomplish anything He wants to accomplish with or without our participation.

 

[JAL]

What I am saying is we have freewill but God still can and will accomplish anything He wants to accomplish with or without our participation.

Our (freely willed) participation is precisely what He wants to accomplish. So yes, by definition, He NEEDS our participation to accomplish what He wants to accomplish.

But sure, aside from THAT issue, I agree He can pretty much accomplish whatever He wants without our participation.

 

[JAL]

Funny I forgot one of my favorite descriptions of the Calvinist God, namely that He is the quintessential control-freak, dictating/puppeting everything we do.

 

[disciple Clint]

Funny I forgot one of my favorite descriptions of the Calvinist God, namely that He is the quintessential control-freak, dictating/puppeting everything we do.

IN that there is only ONE God, most Christians are going to be a little upset with the comments you have made. Would you say that if Jesus was standing in front of you?

 

[JAL]

IN that there is only ONE God, most Christians are going to be a little upset with the comments you have made. Would you say that if Jesus was standing in front of you?

Yes. I would say, "Lord, the Calvinist God is an evil control-freak because He causes men to do dirty deeds and then punishes them for it. I am grateful that YOU, Lord Jesus, are NOTHING like the Calvinist God."

 

[Fervent]

I don't really understand why people have to try to cut the knot. How God establishes man's ability to choose while also choosing ahead of time is not really for us to know. Philosophizing about the question is only going to lead to division and pointless squabbles. Moving theology away from the practical implications doesn't edify the body and serves more to meet men's pride than to honor God.

 

[JAL]

I don't really understand why people have to try to cut the knot. How God establishes man's ability to choose while also choosing ahead of time is not really for us to know. Philosophizing about the question is only going to lead to division and pointless squabbles. Moving theology away from the practical implications doesn't edify the body and serves more to meet men's pride than to honor God.

The Problem of Evil remains very disturbing if you are misled to believe that Calvinism is the only literal reading of the ext. Alternatives to Calvinism, therefore, are worth discussing.

 

[Fervent]

The Problem of Evil remains very disturbing if you are misled to believe that Calvinism is the only literal reading of the ext. Alternatives to Calvinism, therefore, are worth discussing.

So discuss the text, perform exegesis and show that there is some flaw in the Calvinist understanding. But Calvinism isn't some kind of boogey-man despite the polemics surrounding it, nor does philosophizing provide anything but fodder for Calvinists to continue to falsely claim that theirs is the "most Biblical" since their critics always appeal to everything but the Bible.

 

[JAL]

So discuss the text, perform exegesis and show that there is some flaw in the Calvinist understanding. But Calvinism isn't some kind of boogey-man despite the polemics surrounding it, nor does philosophizing provide anything but fodder for Calvinists to continue to falsely claim that theirs is the "most Biblical" since their critics always appeal to everything but the Bible.

I did discuss the text. And I did show a flaw. I don't have to always name chapter and verse to debate theology. It is well known that:
1. The text declares God to be impeccably kind and loving.
2. Many Calvinists, for instance James White on the video, understand the text as asserting divine sovereignty to the exclusion of real libertarian human freedom.

Such TEXT is what I was discussing, when I pointed out that it extrapolates to a God who authors evil and then punishes men for it, as WLK pointed out time and again in the video.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Regardless whether Molinism has managed to satisfactorily defend all of its tenets, it is, to use WLK's words "vastly more plausible" than a Calvinism where God is effectively the author of all evil.

I'm not sure it answers the problem at all, so I'm not sure how to make the evaluation that it's "more plausible" than some other alternative. Theoretically, in some possible worlds I accept Christ and in other possible worlds I don't. On Molinism, if the actual world happens to be one of the possible worlds where I don't accept Christ, it's hard to see how my lack of acceptance (or even a willingly made wrong choice) is somehow my responsibility and so I fail to see how I'm morally culpable. The choice of actual-world-selection is God's choice - he could have selected the actual world to be one of the possible worlds where I do accept Christ. If in fact he didn't, and so I don't accept Christ, the problem is one of God's choice in actual-world-selection.On Molinism, God is not simply a passive observer of activity, he takes an active role and makes an active decision that is a pre-condition for all outcomes observed in the actual world. On Molinism, it seems human freedom has a critical and decisive limitation that is instead deferred to God, namely, in selection from among possible worlds.

WLC believes that God selects the "best" possible world which he takes to mean that God solves an objective function where he minimizes and maximizes under constraints. God maximizes souls saved and minimizes souls lost under the constraints of human freedom. So God's actual-world-selection process has nothing at all to do with the merits of my action and is hardly a decision that deals with giving people justice (assuming a utilitarian view of justice is a wrong account).

When the lost soul stands before the final judgment, he could argue that he would have accepted Christ had God selected a different possible world and that God's world-selection had nothing to do with the individual merits of the case. Thus, God has treated him unfairly. And it looks to me to be a pretty good argument.

The same is the case for the creation of evil. God knows which possible worlds result in the existence of evil and creates one anyway. It seems that he has a critical role in the existence of evil - he knows which environments bring about evil and creates one of them. I'm not sure how Molinism escapes these issues or somehow becomes "more plausible" than some alternative.

 

[JAL]

I'm not sure it answers the problem at all, so I'm not sure how to make the evaluation that it's "more plausible" than some other alternative. Theoretically, in some possible worlds I accept Christ and in other possible worlds I don't. On Molinism, if the actual world happens to be one of the possible worlds where I don't accept Christ, it's hard to see how my lack of acceptance (or even a willingly made wrong choice) is somehow my responsibility and so I fail to see how I'm morally culpable. The choice of actual-world-selection is God's choice - he could have selected the actual world to be one of the possible worlds where I do accept Christ. If in fact he didn't, and so I don't accept Christ, the problem is one of God's choice in actual-world-selection.On Molinism, God is not simply a passive observer of activity, he takes an active role and makes an active decision that is a pre-condition for all outcomes observed in the actual world. On Molinism, it seems human freedom has a critical and decisive limitation that is instead deferred to God, namely, in selection from among possible worlds.

WLC believes that God selects the "best" possible world which he takes to mean that God solves an objective function where he minimizes and maximizes under constraints. God maximizes souls saved and minimizes souls lost under the constraints of human freedom. So God's actual-world-selection process has nothing at all to do with the merits of my action and is hardly a decision that deals with giving people justice (assuming a utilitarian view of justice is a wrong account).

When the lost soul stands before the final judgment, he could argue that he would have accepted Christ had God selected a different possible world and that God's world-selection had nothing to do with the individual merits of the case. Thus, God has treated him unfairly. And it looks to me to be a pretty good argument.

The same is the case for the creation of evil. God knows which possible worlds result in the existence of evil and creates one anyway. It seems that he has a critical role in the existence of evil - he knows which environments bring about evil and creates one of them. I'm not sure how Molinism escapes these issues or somehow becomes "more plausible" than some alternative.

I think you're surfacing a problem in Molinism - if we are truly free, God would not foreknow our decisions. That's why I have more in common with Open Theism than Molinism.

Despite this problem in Molinism, at least it does assert real libertarian human freedom. It identifies me alone as the author of my evil decisions. It affords me some degree of real autonomy/sovereignty. It doesn't construe God as an evil control-freak who causes all evil behavior and then punishes those involved.

On Molinism, if the actual world happens to be one of the possible worlds where I don't accept Christ, it's hard to see how my lack of acceptance (or even a willingly made wrong choice) is somehow my responsibility and so I fail to see how I'm morally culpable.

You are morally culpable if you, indeed, were sufficiently autonomous/sovereign in those decisions to be indicted for acting irresponsibly. This is what Molinism asserts, even if it fails to explain how God foreknows such outcomes. Such a God has "mysterious foreknowledge" but at least is not EVIL. I can't say the same of the Calvinist God.

 

[Yekcidmij]

I think you're surfacing a problem in Molinism - if we are truly free, God would not foreknow our decisions.

Sure, I have been assuming that God foreknows future outcomes. Relaxing that assumption could be one way out of the issues I've expressed here.

I think also in these discussions, another assumption is that God is also somehow constrained by time itself so that he exists in the present, has perfect knowledge of the past, and well, we argue about what he knows about the future. In essence, an "A-theory" of time is assumed (Time, metaphysics of - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy) and this may not be warranted.

 

[JAL]

Sure, I have been assuming that God foreknows future outcomes. Relaxing that assumption could be one way out of the issues I've expressed here.

I think also in these discussions, another assumption is that God is also somehow constrained by time itself so that he exists in the present, has perfect knowledge of the past, and well, we argue about what he knows about the future. In essence, an "A-theory" of time is assumed (Time, metaphysics of - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy) and this may not be warranted.

Back to the plausibility issue. Molinism has the advantage of not standing in OBVIOUS contradiction to Scripture. A professional theologian or philosopher will, upon close scrutiny, find enigma in Molinism's foreknowedge, but at least there is no OBVIOUS conflict with the biblical God. I just don't see how the same can be said of Calvinism as it seems to overtly/blatantly conflict with the most basic facets of the biblical God - His fairness, kindness, and impeccable justice. In terms of plausibility, then, isn't Molinism the clear winner?