Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action

Christine,

In discussions of free will there is what is called libertarian free
will and what is called compatibilist free will.

In the former there can be no decree or foreordination that
predetermines the outcome; this is what most people in casual
discussions seem to mean by "free will". In open theism, free choices
of this sort can't even be foreknown by God because if they were
foreknown there would have to be some "deterministic" mechanism such
that what was foreknown actually came to pass. Once it's foreknown it
can't be free choice in this sense any more. (Open theists are
consistent in their advocacy of libertarian free will, in my opinion.)

Compatibilist free will is compatible with God's decree or
foreordination or in a general sense with some sort of determinism.
Here free will simply means that the agent is not coerced in his or
her choice; no outside factor is determining what he or she does--it
comes from within--some say it is an expression of the agent's
desires. But it doesn't mean that the outcome can't be determined or
known ahead of time.

Some critics of compatibilist free will argue (as you seem to below)
that this is no free will at all.

Of course this is very simplified summary of a debate among
philosophers and theologians that has taken pages and pages.

As for me--this is where I see scripture pointing. God is totally
sovereign--purposing everything that happens--even evil. (You can find
lots of Biblical proof-texts in one of the footnotes of the paper to
which I referred. His plan to show his love in the death of Christ is
the pre-eminent example. All sort of evil intentions of men "caused"
Christ's death and they will be held accountable for their evil; yet
it was God's plan all along--from all eternity, I think we can even
say.) At the same time, human beings are responsible agents, we are
not coerced in our actions--we make choices that we are accountable
for. Reformed/Calvinist theology maintains both simultaneously. Other
understandings of scripture force a choice between those two strands
usually giving God reduced sovereignty (redefining the word
variously!) and giving human beings libertarian free will. I will
gladly admit (as do all Reformed theologians) that there is some
mystery here, but we seek to let scripture determine how to think
about this rather than unrestrained human philosophizing.

TG

On Feb 15, 2008, at 12:07 PM, Christine Smith wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I must say, I'm enjoying this thread thoroughly. Ted's
> and John's answers in particular I found to be quite
> insightful and eloquent :)
>
> Terry--a question to you...you write here that: "From
> God's point of view nothing is random, it's all
> decreed and ordained. (And that goes also for the free
> choices of free agents!)" We're coming from different
> theological backgrounds/frameworks here, so maybe you
> can help me understand--I just don't follow how this
> can be a logical conclusion--if God decrees that
> something will be a certain way--say, a (sinful)
> choice I make, then how can I be truly "free" in any
> sense of the word, and how can God not be the author
> of evil? Doesn't it make more sense, logically and
> theologically, to understand that though God is
> all-knowing and all-powerful, He is also
> self-limiting, and that He has chosen to limit His
> powers by intentionally creating a universe that
> contains elements of randomness and free will which He
> interacts with, rather than "predicts" or "decrees" as
> it were?
>
> Thanks everyone for good food for thought!
> In Christ,
> Christine (ASA member)
>
>
> --- "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu> wrote:
>
>> Randy,
>>
>> I think you have understood him correctly.
>>
>> Personally, I think the only way out of this
>> "problem" is to have God
>> involved in some way in every single thing (even the
>> most minute and
>> the most fleeting) that happens. The Reformed
>> theologians (and others)
>> have called this concurrence and it is a
>> sub-category of the doctrine
>> of Providence.
>>
>> Westminster Confession of Faith:
>>
>> III, 1
>> God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and
>> holy counsel of his
>> own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever
>> comes to pass:
>> yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,
>> nor is violence
>> offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the
>> liberty or
>> contingency of second causes taken away, but rather
>> established.
>>
>> IV, 2
>> Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and
>> decree of God, the
>> first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and
>> infallibly; yet,
>> by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall
>> out, according to the
>> nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely,
>> or contingently.
>>
>> Random events are in the category of contingency.
>> Thus, according to
>> this historic Presbyterian and Reformed way of
>> understanding
>> scripture, even chance events are ordained by God.
>>
>> Logan Gage is mistaken to think that there is no
>> difference between
>> physical and metaphysical randomness. God "orders"
>> some of his
>> "decree" to "fall out" by chance events. Such events
>> look entirely
>> like chance events to us the human observer, even
>> though they are
>> completely ordered by God. Even Calvin talks about
>> the ill-fortune
>> (bad luck) of the fellow killed in the forest when a
>> branch fell on
>> him while passing by. But, no doubt, for Calvin it
>> was part of God's
>> plan and decree. I suppose it's semantics of sorts.
>> I'm happy to call
>> things that look like random events in terms of
>> statistical analysis,
>> random, even though I know that from God's
>> perspective and purpose
>> they are not at all random. From God's point of view
>> nothing is
>> random, it's all decreed and ordained. (And that
>> goes also for the
>> free choices of free agents!)
>>
>> Some discussion of all this applied to process
>> theology, open theism,
>> and intelligent design can be found in my paper
>> "Give Me Some of That
>> Old-Time Theology: A Reflection on Charles Hodge’s
>> Discussion of
>> Concursus in Light of Recent Discussions of Divine
>> Action in Nature"
>> found on-line at
>> http://www.asa3.org/gray/GrayASA2003OnHodge.html
>>
>> TG
>>
>> On Feb 14, 2008, at 8:16 PM, Randy Isaac wrote:
>>
>>> Jack Haas just drew my attention to Logan Gage's
>> response to my
>>> letter in the Jan 2008 issue of CT. I would
>> greatly appreciate your
>>> views on the last two paragraphs of his article.
>> We have touched on
>>> randomness several times in this forum and I
>> believe it continues to
>>> be one of the fundamental questions. Logan seems
>> to believe that if
>>> there is divine guidance there will necessarily be
>> evidence of non-
>>> randomness. Or have I misunderstood him?
>>>
>>> Randy
>>>
>>
>> ________________
>> Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
>> Computer Support Scientist
>> Chemistry Department
>> Colorado State University
>> Fort Collins, CO 80523
>> (o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to
>> majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
>> message.
>>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
(o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Feb 15 22:59:49 2008