A problem with open theism (HOF thread)

[Delmar]

Legitimate question, I don't think so, at least not that I am aware of. Give me some examples of some random choices that you might make.

I was thinking more along the line of " do you want to go to Waffle House or Denny's" "I don't care" " I don't care either flip a coin or somthing"
Choices that don't in your mind make that much difference so you don't put any thought into them. Still such a choice could make a dramatic effect on your life if you turn to the left instead of the right and a guy runs a stop light.

 

[docrob57]

A better question is, "When God acts, could He have done otherwise?"

That answer to both questions is, yes.


Resting in Him,
Clete

That is right. But if God "does otherwise" He does that for a reason too. In this sense, the words "reason" and "cause" are synonymous. To say that human behaviors are "caused" does not deny free will. Causal mechanisms need not be (and clearly are not) the same from person to person, and, even at the level of the individual, are likely to be very complex, at least at times. This is why from a human perspective, behavior is very difficult, at times impossible, to predict.

Let me give an example to clarify. I voted for Bush (sorry, I wish I didn't, but I did). I voted for him because I supported the "war on terror," he claimed to be pro-life and I thought he would appoint pro-life judges (I know, shoot me). If you knew both my assumptions and my causal drivers (issue positions), you could have predicted my vote 2 years before the election. My choice was a free will choice, but it was caused.

 

[docrob57]

I was thinking more along the line of " do you want to go to Waffle House or Denny's" "I don't care" " I don't care either flip a coin or somthing"
Choices that don't in your mind make that much difference so you don't put any thought into them. Still such a choice could make a dramatic effect on your life if you turn to the left instead of the right and a guy runs a stop light.

Even in the case you suggest, there is likely a cause, even if it is only that you are closer to the Waffle House than the Denny's.

 

[Clete]

That is right. But if God "does otherwise" He does that for a reason too. In this sense, the words "reason" and "cause" are synonymous. To say that human behaviors are "caused" does not deny free will. Causal mechanisms need not be (and clearly are not) the same from person to person, and, even at the level of the individual, are likely to be very complex, at least at times. This is why from a human perspective, behavior is very difficult, at times impossible, to predict.

This is Open Theism in a nut shell! Welcome to the fold!

Let me give an example to clarify. I voted for Bush (sorry, I wish I didn't, but I did). I voted for him because I supported the "war on terror," he claimed to be pro-life and I thought he would appoint pro-life judges (I know, shoot me). If you knew both my assumptions and my causal drivers (issue positions), you could have predicted my vote 2 years before the election. My choice was a free will choice, but it was caused.

Yes, of course. The more information we have about a person the easier it is to predict their behavior and since God knows everything that is knowable that He wants to know, He has it pretty easy compared to the rest of us. Be that as it may, however, it is still a prediction not certain knowledge. As you said, behavior (especially human behavior) is very difficult, at times impossible, to predict.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Delmar]

Even in the case you suggest, there is likely a cause, even if it is only that you are closer to the Waffle House than the Denny's.

But sometimes, once in a while, for no particular reason, you just make one choice over another.

 

[Clete]

But sometimes, once in a while, for no particular reason, you just make one choice over another.

Such a thing only has to happen once to break the back of "Causal Determinism".

 

[docrob57]

Such a thing only has to happen once to break the back of "Causal Determinism".

Well, I am afraid I remain unconvinced, but I do thank you for the discussion.

 

[Clete]

Well, I am afraid I remain unconvinced, but I do thank you for the discussion.

Unconvinced that a single such act would break the back of Causal Determinism or unconvinced that such an act could occur at all?

 

[docrob57]

Unconvinced that a single such act would break the back of Causal Determinism or unconvinced that such an act could occur at all?

Unconvinced that such an act could occur. I like chaos theory. As I said at the outset, one of the implications is that there really may be no such thing as random processes. It can be a fairly powerful evangelistic tool. If everything is subject to causal processes, it follows that a) evolution as conventionally taught is false, and b) there has to be an Ultimate Cause.

 

[Clete]

Unconvinced that such an act could occur. I like chaos theory. As I said at the outset, one of the implications is that there really may be no such thing as random processes. It can be a fairly powerful evangelistic tool. If everything is subject to causal processes, it follows that a) evolution as conventionally taught is false, and b) there has to be an Ultimate Cause.

It would also lead to the conclusion that no one is truly responsible for their own actions because they are as much victim of a causal chain of events as any pair of dice or a child's fire cracker. Determinism in any form detroys morality, thus I think it would back fire in regards to evangelism.

 

[docrob57]

It would also lead to the conclusion that no one is truly responsible for their own actions because they are as much victim of a causal chain of events as any pair of dice or a child's fire cracker. Determinism in any form detroys morality, thus I think it would back fire in regards to evangelism.

I tend to think we are using terms somewhat differently. To say that one's acts are caused by something does not deny responsibility. Take homosexuality for example. I don't believe that homosexuality is biologically determined, but let's assume it is. Just because a person is biologically homosexual does not give him/her the moral authority to commit homosexual acts. As you know, there are people who claim to be homosexual but do not act on it. THere are necessary and sufficient causes. To commit homosexual acts, it is a necessary condition that one "be" a homosexual and morally consent to the behavior (this is an oversimplification, but I trust you see what I am saying). If a person is biologically a homosexual and decides not to act on it on moral grounds, then the moral prohibition is a sufficient cause to keep the person from acting. In both cases, there are causes, but in only one instance is the actor not morally wrong.

 

[Clete]

I tend to think we are using terms somewhat differently. To say that one's acts are caused by something does not deny responsibility. Take homosexuality for example. I don't believe that homosexuality is biologically determined, but let's assume it is. Just because a person is biologically homosexual does not give him/her the moral authority to commit homosexual acts. As you know, there are people who claim to be homosexual but do not act on it. THere are necessary and sufficient causes. To commit homosexual acts, it is a necessary condition that one "be" a homosexual and morally consent to the behavior (this is an oversimplification, but I trust you see what I am saying). If a person is biologically a homosexual and decides not to act on it on moral grounds, then the moral prohibition is a sufficient cause to keep the person from acting. In both cases, there are causes, but in only one instance is the actor not morally wrong.

But that isn't causality. A causality is something that is DETERMINED by its cause. That there is only one out come because there is only one set of causes for any particular circumstance. Is this not what you mean by causality?

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I recommend, unless you want this thread to go south really quick, to avoid using the "H" word. It seems to attract the spammers on TOL all at once.

 

[docrob57]

But that isn't causality. A causality is something that is DETERMINED by its cause. That there is only one out come because there is only one set of causes for any particular circumstance. Is this not what you mean by causality?

No not at all. There can be numerous causes for any particular outcome when we are dealing with human behavior. I think we have been "talking past each other" to some extent.

P.S. I recommend, unless you want this thread to go south really quick, to avoid using the "H" word. It seems to attract the spammers on TOL all at once

Thanks, the advice is duly noted.

 

[Clete]

No not at all. There can be numerous causes for any particular outcome when we are dealing with human behavior. I think we have been "talking past each other" to some extent.

But only one SET of causes, right? And therefore only one possible outcome.

If this is not correct, please elaborate so I can understand you. It may be that we agree with eachother.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[docrob57]

But only one SET of causes, right? And therefore only one possible outcome.

If this is not correct, please elaborate so I can understand you. It may be that we agree with eachother.

Resting in Him,
Clete

It's times like these that Internet communication is frustrating. Tell me first what you mean by "one set of causes"

 

[Clete]

It's times like these that Internet communication is frustrating. Tell me first what you mean by "one set of causes"

Well to use a simple example, look again at the chemical reaction example I gave before. At any one time there is only one set of chemicals present that can react together in the experiment and only one set of conditions that the experiment is exposed to during the experiment. In other words it can't be both 32 degree C and 100 degrees C at the same time, the pressure can't be both 100 bars and 10,000 bars at the same time, you can't have just one gram of carbon and at the same time have 40 kilograms of carbon. So at any one time only one set of conditions exist for any chemical reaction and thus there is only one possible outcome of that reaction. If there happens to be an unexpected result it is because there was a factor which you either were unaware of or had miscalculated.

Or take an example from physics, like vector calulations. You have all these various forces acting upon an object at the same time. Does the object take off in more than one direction at a time? NO! All the vectors add themselves together or cancel each other out to various degrees and the result is an object moving in a single direction until acted upon again by additional forces.

This is true of all causal events. The complexity of the circumstances makes no difference. If everything happens purely as a result of some causal chain of events then regardless of how many causes you pile up on one another, they only have one possible result. The only way I know of that the idea of morality can survive this is the acknowledgement of something supernatural. Such things do not necessarily work the same way as purely natural things do. And since God and a good part of ourselves are both supernatural we are not entirely subject to Causal Determinism.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[docrob57]

Well to use a simple example, look again at the chemical reaction example I gave before. At any one time there is only one set of chemicals present that can react together in the experiment and only one set of conditions that the experiment is exposed to during the experiment. In other words it can't be both 32 degree C and 100 degrees C at the same time, the pressure can't be both 100 bars and 10,000 bars at the same time, you can't have just one gram of carbon and at the same time have 40 kilograms of carbon. So at any one time only one set of conditions exist for any chemical reaction and thus there is only one possible outcome of that reaction. If there happens to be an unexpected result it is because there was a factor which you either were unaware of or had miscalculated.
Or take an example from physics, like vector calulations. You have all these various forces acting upon an object at the same time. Does the object take off in more than one direction at a time? NO! All the vectors add themselves to gether or cancel eachother out to various degrees and the result is an object moving in a single direction until acted upon again by additional forces.
This is true of all causal events. The complexity of the circumstances makes no difference. If everything happens purely as a result of some causal chain of events then regardless of how many causes you pile up on one another, they only have one possible result. The onyl way I know of that the idea of morality can survive this is the acknowledgement of something supernatural. Such things do not necessarily work the same way as purely natural things do. And since God and a good part of ourselves are both supernatural we are not entirely subject to Causal Determinism.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Let me stipulate 2 things. I do believe supernatural forces are involved, I am a Christian and am not trying to argue otherwise. Also, prediction in the natural sciences is clearly simpler than in the behavioral science. I have been a behavioral scientist for many years and can attest to the fact that by human means, human behavior is predictable only in very imprecise terms.

Okay, let me give you what I believe to be a reasonable model of human behavior and get your reaction. For any given action, thought, attitude, etc. there are numerous causal antecedents. These would include religious beliefs, of course. These all act in concert to bring about a given outcome under a given set of conditions. Let's assume that 2 people at 2 different points in time have the exact same causal processes working and face the exact same decision under the exact same circumstances. They are both Christians at the exact same level of spiritual maturity, the Holy Spirit guides them in the exact same way and both are identical in the extent to which they recognize the guidance of the Spirit and are surrendered to it. Is there any possible to reason to believe that they will act differently with regard to the decision at hand?

 

[Clete]

Let me stipulate 2 things. I do believe supernatural forces are involved, I am a Christian and am not trying to argue otherwise. Also, prediction in the natural sciences is clearly simpler than in the behavioral science. I have been a behavioral scientist for many years and can attest to the fact that by human means, human behavior is predictable only in very imprecise terms.

Agreed. :thumb:

Okay, let me give you what I believe to be a reasonable model of human behavior and get your reaction. For any given action, thought, attitude, etc. there are numerous causal antecedents. These would include religious beliefs, of course. These all act in concert to bring about a given outcome under a given set of conditions. Let's assume that 2 people at 2 different points in time have the exact same causal processes working and face the exact same decision under the exact same circumstances. They are both Christians at the exact same level of spiritual maturity, the Holy Spirit guides them in the exact same way and both are identical in the extent to which they recognize the guidance of the Spirit and are surrendered to it. Is there any possible to reason to believe that they will act differently with regard to the decision at hand?

Yes. I beleive that our two spiritual identical twins could indeed make different decisions. If there were nothing else going on but a causal chain of events then the answer would be no but there is more than that going on in a spiritual being. Can I quantify what that something is? No, I don't think I could. But the logical implications of the contrary is unacceptable on several levels and so much be rejected.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[docrob57]

Agreed. :thumb:



Yes. I beleive that our two spiritual identical twins could indeed make different decisions. If there were nothing else going on but a causal chain of events then the answer would be no but there is more than that going on in a spiritual being. Can I quantify what that something is? No, I don't think I could. But the logical implications of the contrary is unacceptable on several levels and so much be rejected.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I am sure that we can't quantify all that is going on, but I do believe that God can, and based on that, if nothing else, I beleive He does know the future.

 

[Agape4Robin]

Paul still could have refused his calling and could have rejected the revelation as demonic. He did not have to bow His knee.

This is not a good arguement. You are right, he could have done the opposite, but the fact is he didn't. This proves nothing.