Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

Post by uwot »

How does driving passed each other 'entangle' cars? Why are the Earth and, for example, Voyager not similarly entangled?
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

Post by Obvious Leo »

uwot wrote:How does driving passed each other 'entangle' cars? Why are the Earth and, for example, Voyager not similarly entangled?
Read the essay, uwot, because this is clearly explained in it. If you then don't get it come back and ask me again.
Jaded Sage
Posts: 1100
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 2:00 pm

Re: Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

Post by Jaded Sage »

It is certainly compatible with fatalism. Once your fate is certain (predeterminism) it seems free will is rendered rather irrelevant so why not consider it nonexistent? I met a very devout Christian who claims there is no mention of free will in the bible.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

Post by Obvious Leo »

Jaded Sage wrote:It is certainly compatible with fatalism. Once your fate is certain (predeterminism) it seems free will is rendered rather irrelevant so why not consider it nonexistent? I met a very devout Christian who claims there is no mention of free will in the bible.
Fatalism and pre-determinism are synonymous constructs and both are also synonymous with eternalism, which is the metaphysical underpinning of Special Relativity. In SR no meaningful metaphysical distinction can be made between past, present and future because all of physical reality simply unwinds like a gigantic Newtonian clock. Fortunately the universe we live in does not conform to this Laplacian nightmare which defines a sentient being as a mindless automaton. Eternalism is bollocks because the real world exists only in the moment NOW and it is a world which is continuously re-making itself. The events of the past have been the causal agents for the events of the present and the events of the present will be the causal agents for the events of the future. The sentient being then becomes both ACTOR and ACTED UPON in the eternal dance of reality.

Is this world-view compatible with Christianity? The answer is YES, it is compatible with the humanist teachings of Jesus Christ, but the answer is also NO, it is not compatible with the bullshit which was confected by the political opportunists who saw that the gruesome execution of Christ could be used as a stepping-stone to unprecedented wealth and power. Theism is the ultimate tool of oppression because it condemns the individual to the fickle hand of a blind fate which was ever intended to be thus. Eternalism is the timeless enslaver of the human spirit which strips our own existence of its very meaning, turning us into puppets enacting the whim of a divine puppet-master.

This was exactly the way in which Isaac Newton saw his world so it is unsurprising that he modelled his new science of physics on this a priori assumption. It now being the 21st century I reckon it's high time that physics got with the programme and had another look at this a priori assumption. It really hasn't been working out very well for them for the past century and more.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?
Cheerful Charlie wrote:
The question is, how does one square all of this with God's supposed goodness. All is predestined by God, who will be saved, and who is to be damned. One answer is to fall back on original sin, but then the question is why God grant's some grace to overcome original sin and denies it to others. Again, Paul's theology from Romans. Original sin then is not an explanation. God's arbitrary acts here are. Why are some given a working sensus divinitus and others saddled with a broken sense due to original sin? People like WCL don't seem to notice this problem.
.

I recognised this problem when I was 13, and a budding determinist. Trapped as I was in a poor family, bad school, and eating a poor diet, whilst all around me privalege and elitism was running the country. I could not help but wonder how a fair minded god with all that power could expect people come with equamimity to 'open the door to Jesus'.

My growing sketicism of religion was guided by my personal experience and about causal factors over which I had no control. Given the sort of person that god had made me, how was I to suspend my disbelief to accept a dogma that was utterly bereft of reason and evidence. And since an all powerful god, omniscient, and omnipresent, must have known from the beginning of time how I would turn out, and with that knoweldge created me, I could only conclude that he had made me one of the damned.

This was either true and god was unfair OR God was a figment of man's poorly constructed imagination. Either way I wanted no part of God or religion and so my atheism was born.
The problem with your reasoning is that "first" you gave their version of what the creator was/is far too much credence, in believing that it was necessarily true. Then "second," when you saw the obvious holes in their story, (their version of a creator), you deduce that it means that there can't be a creator, as if there can only ever be two options, i.e., that their version of a creator is correct, or there is no creator! In fact, when their version of a creator fell flat on it's face, it could "only ever" have "meant" that it's their version of a creator that is wrong, not necessarily that there is definitely no creator. When I see such testimony as yours, at least I see that you, nor anyone else can actually know whether or not there is a creator, only that their version of a creator is illogical, thus improbable. You and many other atheist's have jumped to the very same potentially false conclusion, for the very same illogical reason.

And no, to say what I have said, is neither insinuating that there is, or is not a creator. I'm agnostic, believing no man can "know" which is true, because no man can "prove" which is true.


As for sensus divinus, I had felt it very strongly when faithful, but then so had Torquemada, Ivan the Terrible, Alexander the Great, and Ghengis Khan too. And when Joshua blew his horn and killed thousands when the walls of Jericho fell on them we can only assume that the sense of the divine was running hot in his veins.

Does this feeling hold water for evidence for God? I think not. When I asked how is this different from any other sort of delusion I was at theat time reflecting on the Trance Dance of the Bushmen of the Kalahari, who in a state of emotionally charged collapse think themselves capable of healing. Whatever "IT" is, it is likley that the sensus is not 'divine' at all.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?
Cheerful Charlie wrote:
The question is, how does one square all of this with God's supposed goodness. All is predestined by God, who will be saved, and who is to be damned. One answer is to fall back on original sin, but then the question is why God grant's some grace to overcome original sin and denies it to others. Again, Paul's theology from Romans. Original sin then is not an explanation. God's arbitrary acts here are. Why are some given a working sensus divinitus and others saddled with a broken sense due to original sin? People like WCL don't seem to notice this problem.
.

I recognised this problem when I was 13, and a budding determinist. Trapped as I was in a poor family, bad school, and eating a poor diet, whilst all around me privalege and elitism was running the country. I could not help but wonder how a fair minded god with all that power could expect people come with equamimity to 'open the door to Jesus'.

My growing sketicism of religion was guided by my personal experience and about causal factors over which I had no control. Given the sort of person that god had made me, how was I to suspend my disbelief to accept a dogma that was utterly bereft of reason and evidence. And since an all powerful god, omniscient, and omnipresent, must have known from the beginning of time how I would turn out, and with that knoweldge created me, I could only conclude that he had made me one of the damned.

This was either true and god was unfair OR God was a figment of man's poorly constructed imagination. Either way I wanted no part of God or religion and so my atheism was born.
The problem with your reasoning is that "first" you gave their version of what the creator was/is far too much credence, in believing that it was necessarily true. Then "second," when you saw the obvious holes in their story, (their version of a creator), you deduce that it means that there can't be a creator, as if there can only ever be two options, i.e., that their version of a creator is correct, or there is no creator! In fact, when their version of a creator fell flat on it's face, it could "only ever" have "meant" that it's their version of a creator that is wrong, not necessarily that there is definitely no creator. When I see such testimony as yours, at least I see that you, nor anyone else can actually know whether or not there is a creator, only that their version of a creator is illogical, thus improbable. You and many other atheist's have jumped to the very same potentially false conclusion, for the very same illogical reason.

And no, to say what I have said, is neither insinuating that there is, or is not a creator. I'm agnostic, believing no man can "know" which is true, because no man can "prove" which is true.


As for sensus divinus, I had felt it very strongly when faithful, but then so had Torquemada, Ivan the Terrible, Alexander the Great, and Ghengis Khan too. And when Joshua blew his horn and killed thousands when the walls of Jericho fell on them we can only assume that the sense of the divine was running hot in his veins.

Does this feeling hold water for evidence for God? I think not. When I asked how is this different from any other sort of delusion I was at theat time reflecting on the Trance Dance of the Bushmen of the Kalahari, who in a state of emotionally charged collapse think themselves capable of healing. Whatever "IT" is, it is likley that the sensus is not 'divine' at all.
Your first mistake was that you read what I wrote.
Your second mistake was that you think I give a fuck what you think
And your third is that you wasted your time writing something I did not bother to read, till the end.
You are a worthless piece of shit.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?
Cheerful Charlie wrote:
The question is, how does one square all of this with God's supposed goodness. All is predestined by God, who will be saved, and who is to be damned. One answer is to fall back on original sin, but then the question is why God grant's some grace to overcome original sin and denies it to others. Again, Paul's theology from Romans. Original sin then is not an explanation. God's arbitrary acts here are. Why are some given a working sensus divinitus and others saddled with a broken sense due to original sin? People like WCL don't seem to notice this problem.
.

I recognised this problem when I was 13, and a budding determinist. Trapped as I was in a poor family, bad school, and eating a poor diet, whilst all around me privalege and elitism was running the country. I could not help but wonder how a fair minded god with all that power could expect people come with equamimity to 'open the door to Jesus'.

My growing sketicism of religion was guided by my personal experience and about causal factors over which I had no control. Given the sort of person that god had made me, how was I to suspend my disbelief to accept a dogma that was utterly bereft of reason and evidence. And since an all powerful god, omniscient, and omnipresent, must have known from the beginning of time how I would turn out, and with that knoweldge created me, I could only conclude that he had made me one of the damned.

This was either true and god was unfair OR God was a figment of man's poorly constructed imagination. Either way I wanted no part of God or religion and so my atheism was born.
The problem with your reasoning is that "first" you gave their version of what the creator was/is far too much credence, in believing that it was necessarily true. Then "second," when you saw the obvious holes in their story, (their version of a creator), you deduce that it means that there can't be a creator, as if there can only ever be two options, i.e., that their version of a creator is correct, or there is no creator! In fact, when their version of a creator fell flat on it's face, it could "only ever" have "meant" that it's their version of a creator that is wrong, not necessarily that there is definitely no creator. When I see such testimony as yours, at least I see that you, nor anyone else can actually know whether or not there is a creator, only that their version of a creator is illogical, thus improbable. You and many other atheist's have jumped to the very same potentially false conclusion, for the very same illogical reason.

And no, to say what I have said, is neither insinuating that there is, or is not a creator. I'm agnostic, believing no man can "know" which is true, because no man can "prove" which is true.


As for sensus divinus, I had felt it very strongly when faithful, but then so had Torquemada, Ivan the Terrible, Alexander the Great, and Ghengis Khan too. And when Joshua blew his horn and killed thousands when the walls of Jericho fell on them we can only assume that the sense of the divine was running hot in his veins.

Does this feeling hold water for evidence for God? I think not. When I asked how is this different from any other sort of delusion I was at theat time reflecting on the Trance Dance of the Bushmen of the Kalahari, who in a state of emotionally charged collapse think themselves capable of healing. Whatever "IT" is, it is likley that the sensus is not 'divine' at all.
SO THEN...
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Your first mistake was that you read what I wrote.
Your second mistake was that you think I give a fuck what you think
And your third is that you wasted your time writing something I did not bother to read, till the end.
You are a worthless piece of shit.
SO THEN SOB WROTE:

I hope you realize that you are the biggest nasty little baby that I have ever met on the PNF.
I provide logical rebuttal to your words, and because they carry so much weight, you whine like a snot nosed brat, that can't have his way.

HC I wasn't trying to demean you in my last, do you see any derogatory words? Of course not. I was attempting to engage your intellect for a bit of an intellectual exchange, a bit of a debate. But as usual when someone seemingly bests you, you turn into a sniveling whiny fool.

That's OK. I'll not give up on you! You'll grow up one day, I'm sure! ;)

Kisses to you buddy!
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Please refer to the message I wrote above
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Please refer to the message I wrote above
As if it actually has any meaningful content, that anyone other than a child might take seriously.
aloyasha
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:02 am

Re: Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

Post by aloyasha »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2016 8:47 pm
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Wrong. Being all powerful is also the power to know. Knowing what character a person is in the act of creation, necessitates foreknowledge of their success or failure as "Christians", or whatever religion you wish to saddle them with. If god has made me the way I am then he will have know since the beginning of time that I shall die a sinner.
Well, I hesitate to point it out, but that's actually a non-sequitur. God might fully know what you would do. It wouldn't automatically mean He made you do it. Foreknowledge isn't determinism. That's the kind of distinction that even the Calvinists recognize. However, they think that both determinism and foreknowledge are true, even though they can see that the latter doesn't entail the former in any necessary way. They fully recognize what non-Calvinists are saying: that God foreknows which choices will be made, but does not force us to make them. They just think that's wrong.

To illustrate, I'm sure when you saw a reply from me, you already knew I would disagree. We have had sufficient prior conversations to give you foreknowledge of that. But did your knowing make me disagree? Or did the fact that you were clearly able to predict my future action constitute any cause of why I did it? Clearly not, as I'm sure you recognize.
I realize I'm resurrecting an old thread, but I'm new here, and I coincidently bumped into this forum based on this thread. Also since you're still an active member on this forum, it might not be entirely futile to resurrect the discussion.

I think the point you raised about foreknowledge is interesting. At least enough to warrant why omniscience doesn't indicate determinism.

But I think God being an Omniscient creator does. God had foreknowledge even before our universe was conceived, even before we ever existed. That foreknowledge and creation go hand in hand. God literally created a story, and we're characters in that story, conceived long before it was penned.

The author determined the outcomes and choices of his character, so it seems to me determinism is unavoidable from a Christian perspective.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

Post by Immanuel Can »

I think the point you raised about foreknowledge is interesting. At least enough to warrant why omniscience doesn't indicate determinism.

But I think God being an Omniscient creator does. God had foreknowledge even before our universe was conceived, even before we ever existed. That foreknowledge and creation go hand in hand. God literally created a story, and we're characters in that story, conceived long before it was penned.

The author determined the outcomes and choices of his character, so it seems to me determinism is unavoidable from a Christian perspective.
That's a bit of a non-sequitur again, I'm afraid. Like Foreknowledge alone, the formula Foreknowledge + Creation is also insufficient to establish Determinism as a necessary fact.

To illustrate simply, you were created by your parents, no doubt. Their creating you did not entail that they predetermined every aspect of your existence, all the choices you would make, and so on, I'm sure you'd agree. No, you were created by them, but proceeded under conditions in which you would have a significant measure of free will: you would, so to speak "live your own life." For example, you would choose your own friends, your own college, your own career, your own spouse, your own words, your own actions, your own values...and so on.

Now, we have already established that foreknowledge does not logically entail Determinism. So add it to Creation, and you simply have two facts that allow for free will, and neither of which entail Determinism. Combining them certainly doesn't patch up the holes in Determinist reasoning.

We could put it this way: God made us, and God knows what we will choose to do (Foreknowledge and Creation). But this is not the same as to say, "We are constituted by Him as mere robots, and then God makes us do whatever it is we do" (Determinism).

Thus you can see that it isn't true to imagine that Christians have a need to conclude what you attribute to them. Logic does not require it, and their beliefs deny it.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

Post by Arising_uk »

Immanuel Can wrote:... Now, we have already established that foreknowledge does not logically entail Determinism. ...
You keep asserting this but we haven't established it have we, as all that is logically entailed, if we assume that your 'God' has infalible 'foreknowledge'(which I presume you'd wish), is that 'it' may not be the determiner but a determiner there must be if this 'foreknowledge' is to be true as if it isn't then your 'God' is falible which I presume you'd not wish? So which is it? No determiner and a fallible 'God' with respect to this foreknowledge or an infallible 'God' but one that depends upon some determiner to make things turn out in accord with 'its' 'foreknowledge'.
Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

Post by Dalek Prime »

Immanuel Can wrote:We could put it this way: God made us, and God knows what we will choose to do (Foreknowledge and Creation). But this is not the same as to say, "We are constituted by Him as mere robots, and then God makes us do whatever it is we do" (Determinism).
Well, the very act of our creation is determined. At least not by us. Once that is determined, it's determined we must do something, as opposed to nothing, even if it's just to die. I would have chosen the path of least resistance, if the original decision was left to me. One small determination by the determiner, creates a lifetime of forced choices, which otherwise needn't have been.

Also makes me wonder on God's lack of foreknowledge concerning my opinion on his decision. Or at least my parents decision. But at some point, God made the original decision for creation, which led to this decision by others, and had foreknowledge of it. Even at the creation of all. And he didn't give an ounce of care for my free will or choice.

And this? This is my beef with God. And he knows it already. And he's already determined my judgment for being at odds over this. And I'm supposed to be grateful?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dalek Prime wrote: Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:26 am
Immanuel Can wrote:We could put it this way: God made us, and God knows what we will choose to do (Foreknowledge and Creation). But this is not the same as to say, "We are constituted by Him as mere robots, and then God makes us do whatever it is we do" (Determinism).
Well, the very act of our creation is determined. At least not by us.
Absolutely. Your height, weight, intelligence, potential athleticism and artistic ability, susceptibility to genetic diseases and so on were all set by factors over which you had no ultimate control. And really, nobody denies that SOME factors are set in just this way; even the most ardent proponent of free will can easily concede that.

But the question is, "Are ALL things predetermined." That's the difference between the two positions. The Determinists say, "Yes, all." The Libertarians (or proponents of free will) say, "Some are, but some aren't; and those that aren't are significant. So we're significantly free."
One small determination by the determiner, creates a lifetime of forced choices, which otherwise needn't have been.
No, that doesn't follow. Non-sequitur.

To make a sufficient condition for that conclusion, you would have to argue that not just "one small determination" but a world with nothing BUT determinations was to follow. If it were not so, then the "one small determination" would be potentially overcome by the subsequent choices of free agents. For example, the determinist must believe that poverty "makes" people into criminals. The Libertarian can say that poverty makes many inclined to choose a life of crime, but that there's no necessity that a child from a bad background must become a criminal. The choice of a person to capitulate to, or to react against the factors he cannot change always remains for the Libertarian.

Now, it's surely obvious that a person can alter some given conditions by choosing to do so. But one significant case of free choice would defeat the supposition that our world is actually a deterministic system like that. And that explains why the Libertarian is able to concede some determined causes exist, but the determinist is not able to concede that even one free choice by one person ever has existed, without defeating his own metaphysical theory.
Also makes me wonder on God's lack of foreknowledge concerning my opinion on his decision.
Well, by definition, God could have "foreknowledge" of events He did not "predetermine" to happen. So, for example, if I "foreknow" that this statement will be questioned, that does not mean I would be determining you or anyone else to question it. It would be your choice whether you did or not, and my foreknowing wouldn't impinge on that choice even one bit.

So I would turn the question around: what makes you think God didn't "foreknow" a particular event? How would you decide that He hadn't simply allowed free agents to produce it?
But at some point, God made the original decision for creation, which led to this decision by others, and had foreknowledge of it. Even at the creation of all. And he didn't give an ounce of care for my free will or choice.
Actually, the free will argument says He GAVE you the ability to make that choice or another; so it would be certain He did, in fact "care for" your free will. He lets you actualize it...just as you are right now, when you are discussing this with me.
And this? This is my beef with God. And he knows it already. And he's already determined my judgment for being at odds over this. And I'm supposed to be grateful?
You mistake the case. If God had predetermined you to be resentful, then it would no longer be you who was resentful. You would have no say. But your rhetorical question at the end suggests quite strongly that you personally don't act in your own life as though you're predetermined. Instead, you pass a value judgment on the situation, and feel that you can withhold "being grateful." But if you were predetermined, how could you do that? Your gratitude would be automatic, or your inability to be grateful would be ironclad. But I think you want to tell me about how you see things, not about how God has "fated" you to think, no?

If God were who you seem to think he is (i.e. a harsh determiner of all things) perhaps I would feel as you do -- but then, I could only even do that if God determined that I HAD to feel that way. Being a mere robot, my approval or disproval of God's dealings would be value-meaningless, because it would not then be the product of any personal judgment coming from me. Rather, icy disapproval would be no more than a forced, necessary situation, not a real "beef" at all.

You see, if you're annoyed at God, you can't possibly believe in Determinism. It it were true, it would be neither a genuine, willing "you" who was making that judgment; nor would it be an actual "judgment" on your part (since the word "judgment" implies you could have assessed otherwise, had you wished to), but rather a mere "effect" of prior causes, no more meaningful than a rock falling off a cliff face.

I'm not trying to be unkind in saying that. I'm just trying to show how the "logic" of Determinism plays out if we follow it to its necessary conclusions.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

I don't know why you crazy people think that you can seriously consider speaking of anything that you can't prove. That you assert things about unproven entities, as if you could possibly know these things about them, as they've never been written by their hands, rather simply the hands of those ancient peoples that lived in a time of relative ignorance.

I mean to say that the seriousness with which you talk of things you cannot "know," at least to me, is extremely laughable! :lol:


know1 [noh]
verb (used with object), knew, known, knowing.
1. to perceive or understand
as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully.
2. to have established or fixed in the mind or memory: to know a poem by heart; Do you know the way to the park from here?
3. to be cognizant or aware of: I know it.
4. be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report: to know the mayor.
5. to understand from experience or attainment (usually followed by how before an infinitive): to know how to make gingerbread.
6. to be able to distinguish, as one from another: to know right from wrong.
7. Archaic. to have sexual intercourse with.
verb (used without object), knew, known, knowing.
8. to have knowledge or
clear and certain perception, as of fact or truth.
9. to be cognizant or aware, as of some fact, circumstance, or occurrence; have information, as about something.
noun
10. the
fact or state of knowing; knowledge.
Idioms
11. in the know, possessing inside, secret, or special information.
12. know the ropes, Informal. to understand or be familiar with the particulars of a subject or business: He knew the ropes better than anyone else in politics.
--dictionary.com--
Post Reply