There was a thread on Facebook that I participated in discussing Calvinism. Here is my edited helpful form of a confused conversation:
Leighton Flowers:
If you redefine human freedom to mean “doing as one desires when those desires are theistically determined,” then sure. But normal people don’t do that. Just Calvinists.
Brian Knapp:
Leighton Flowers actually no – not all compatibilists are calvinists. And to say “redefine” is to beg the question.
And to use the word “normal” as you did is to poison the well. Congrats – you’re 0 for 3.
Phillip Jackson:
Brian Knapp what poor refutation, my man. Leighton is totally correct here, although he should have left the word “theistically” out of his statement because yes, there are compatibilists who are naturalistic atheists and conversely are determinists. But his use of the word redefine is on point. For most of human history, people have understood human freedom in a libertarian sense. It’s the intuitive understanding as well. Compatibilism redefines human freedom to mean “doing what one wants/desires” but this is NOT free. It’s a last ditch effort to grab on to some kind of freedom to protect God from being the author of sin and evil, and to be true to all the verses in the bible that talk about free will. But on this definition, I could theoretically put a chip in your head and make you want and desire to murder your family, and to do all sorts of crazy things, and yet you would be totally “free” in the way compatibilists have redefined it. How do you square that circle?
TheSire:
The argument is just trash. “Most humans have defined freewill this sort of way” well that probably isn’t true but supposing it was there are probably more determinist in history than libertarians. So, intuition hardly gets you to the conclusion that freedom must be libertarian. Human intuition isn’t known for it’s infallibility. It also undermines your case that libertarian freedom can leave to counter-intuitive conclusions.
But it isn’t as if libertarians agree on the concept of libertarian freedom either. So, this argument isn’t much of anything other than rhetoric masquerading as a conceptual argument.
http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2019/07/02/intuition-and-choices/
Leighton Flowers:
So more people should choose determinism?
TheSire:
Yeah
Philip Jackson:
It’s only when you need to make human freedom compatible with determinism that one comes up with the lunacy of human freedom being just a matter of humans doing what they desire, all the while their very wants and desires are totally determined by some other Person. If I determined for you to abuse a person, and you must do it by necessity, would you be doing it freely? What if I made it the case that you must “want/desire” to abuse a person. Are you now doing it freely because I also made you have the desire to do it?
TheSire:
The idea that choices can be done apart from one’s desires seems like lunacy to me. When we talk about human activity we are always discussing the desires, intentions, and thoughts of a person. In your view, people just act without any explanation.
The thought experiment in my mind would violate a condition of authenticity. What makes me myself is my God given-ness and not some chip or manipulation. The analogy fails to recognize that God is different than a human agent. He can’t violate our being in the way the manipulator(evil scientist) does because we are created by him.
This also ignores the wealth of argument and reasons for believing determinism given biblical and philosophical evidence. I have developed those types of arguments with Open Theist and Arminians:
Lastly, notice that thought experiments against libertarian freewill exist in this same conversation. Frankfurt counterexamples are also a problem for libertarians. So, manipulation is more a problem for libertarians than for determinist.
Harry Frankfurt developed an argument that gave compatibilists the resources to argue in just this way. Frankfurt’s argument was directed against the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP):
PAP: A person is morally responsible for what she does do only if she can do otherwise.
Central to Frankfurt’s attack on PAP is a type of example in which an agent is morally responsible, but could not, at the time of the pertinent action, do otherwise. Here is a close approximation to the example Frankfurt presented in his original paper:
Jones has resolved to shoot Smith. Black has learned of Jones’s plan and wants Jones to shoot Smith. But Black would prefer that Jones shoot Smith on his own. However, concerned that Jones might waver in his resolve to shoot Smith, Black secretly arranges things so that, if Jones should show any sign at all that he will not shoot Smith (something Black has the resources to detect), Black will be able to manipulate Jones in such a way that Jones will shoot Smith. As things transpire, Jones follows through with his plans and shoots Smith for his own reasons. No one else in any way threatened or coerced Jones, offered Jones a bribe, or even suggested that he shoot Smith. Jones shot Smith under his own steam. Black never intervened.
In this example, Jones shot Smith on his own, and did so unencumbered — did so freely. But, given Black’s presence in the scenario, Jones could not have done otherwise than shoot Smith. Hence, we have a counterexample to PAP.
Leighton Flowers:
If only the Determiner determined more people to believe the “truth” of determinism then you guys wouldn’t have to work so hard to convince us.
Phillip Jackson:
Yeah why should I “choose determinism”? If I don’t choose it, then God hasn’t determined me to choose it, right?
Why does God want some of His children to be in error about the truth concerning soteriology?
Leighton Flowers:
Phillip, you should never choose to accept determinism. Why? Because if it’s true then God will change your mind regardless if He wants you to accept it.
TheSire:
Leighton, you’re confusing obligation/epistemic norm with determined outcome. Those things are different. What occurs can be different than what ought to occur.
Phillip, God uses theological mistakes all the time. Error is a significant part of our history. It could be the case that God uses certain works, people, or arguments to change your mind at a later date. Your positions can change throughout your life given different reasons. So, that is why it is worth trying to change another individual’s minds.
The Council 