| Dartanian |
| Posted 07/03/12 at 07:22 AM | Reply with quote #1 |
|
It seems a former youtube champion and apologist Noah, has had a change of heart.
I have no philosophical training, so most of this video is over my head,
but it would be nice to read the opinions of others on this argument.
Does this have any weight? |
| Loading... | |
| johnBee |
| Posted 07/03/12 at 11:47 AM | Reply with quote #2 |
|
No clue who this guy is though this bit seems to be behind his recent change of heart.
Quote: If the God of Christianity says He is. Then He would know what it takes to, not only give me propositional knowledge of His existence but... you know, He would know what it would take to bring me to ..... knowledge. And since for all... likelyhood, it looks like people die in genuine unbelief. I... kinda, seems like a big problem for Christianity.
Though I must admit, I really don't understand what the issue is here beyond that of someone thinking they know what's best from God's perspective. That being said, can anyone explain how dying as an unbeliever poses a challenge to Christianity? |
| Loading... | |
| bdsimon |
| Posted 07/03/12 at 12:10 PM | Reply with quote #3 |
|
I am of the opinion that it really only addresses Molinism and I am not sure that it causes a problem for Molinism. The Molinist is simply left with the rather unpleasant task of asserting that those who do not believe and will not believe would not believe under any circumstance (in a free will sense anyway) even if the nonbeliever insists otherwise. This can be done but it creates a PR problem for the Molinist who insists that God is all loving and yet has created those who will suffer for eternity and not not really given them a chance to believe.
Which brings us to the Calvinist. Who can simply say sorry pal you're screwed.
The universalist and the open theist do not face these issues at all. |
| Loading... | |
| mazzgolf |
| Posted 07/03/12 at 12:24 PM | Reply with quote #4 |
|
I often wonder why it is "news" when someone goes from theism to atheism or the other way around (for example, the recent news that hit CNN of all places - see "Prominent Atheist Blogger Converts To Catholicism"). Is it as if people are keeping score? "Ha Ha! We theists have C.S. Lewis now!"... or "Ha Ha! We atheists have Charles Templeton now!". And back and forth it goes.
I understand the curiosity of it all (for example, it is common sense to want to think, "I wonder what his or her reasons were for changing?") but quite honestly, don't we ALL have reasons for believing what we do (whether we changed our minds or not?).
I never heard of this veritas person (just like I never heard of that ex-atheist blogger CNN reported on). But from both of them, they look relatively young and are obviously still searching for answers and haven't had a lifetime yet of discovering all the arguments out there. So give them the benefit of the doubt - maybe their earlier worldviews were simply immature due to the ignorance of arguments that were out there that they haven't thought long enough about. It is only a "change" because they weren't fully aware of all the information that is out there. I'm sure had these two people (interestingly who just happened to criss-cross paths in worldviews at roughly the same time) had "known yesterday what they know today" then yesterday they would have been where they are today.
I'm sure this is tangential to the thread, but I guess I'm just making the point that Christians shouldn't be keeping score and for those that do leave theism, grant them the benefit of the doubt that had they known yesterday what they know today, they never would have been Christian (or theist) in the first place.
I personally think Christianity is correct, but I'm certainly not one to claim someone who changes their mind on that is irrational. I just happen to think they are wrong and would ask that they continue to study and learn and think hard about the issues and perhaps they will see mistakes in their current thinking. |
| Loading... | |
| Matthias |
| Posted 07/03/12 at 12:26 PM | Reply with quote #5 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by bdsimon
The universalist and the open theist do not face these issues at all.
The open theist (and Molinist) still have to deal with the fact that people still behave in fairly regular and predictable ways, and the apparent ability of any very powerful being to act in ways it could reasonably expect to elicit a better response. I mean, it's all well and good to hypothesize that the universe isn't causally closed and to derive Very Important Philosophical Conclusions from this, but when you go out to interact with people you have to operate on the assumption that how they behave depends a great deal on how you do. |
| Loading... | |
| Lawlessone777 |
| Posted 07/03/12 at 12:28 PM | Reply with quote #6 |
|
BD, when an Apologist talks about Molonism they're not putting it in the same category as either Arminianism, or Calvinism. I tried to clear up this misconception in another thread, but it seems to be sticking strong. Molonism is not a theory of salvation, it is a theory of omniscience. When someone who ascribes to Molonism talks about God's middle knowledge that doesn't come with the implicit statement that God utilized his middle knowledge to alter the course of an individuals life so that they come to him; it is only to answer the question raised by Theological Fatalism.
You can be an Arminian and still defend Molonism as an answer to Theological Fatalism. In fact that's what Dr. Craig does. |
| Loading... | |
| AtheisticSeeker |
| Posted 07/03/12 at 12:33 PM | Reply with quote #7 |
|
| Hmmm...I would guess that apologists often wrestle with doubts--especially those who wish to be an apostle to the "learned atheists". And, as such, I figured he'd be used to the highs and lows and just stay the course. |
| Loading... | |
| bdsimon |
| Posted 07/03/12 at 01:31 PM | Reply with quote #8 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Lawlessone777
BD, when an Apologist talks about Molonism they're not putting it in the same category as either Arminianism, or Calvinism. I tried to clear up this misconception in another thread, but it seems to be sticking strong. Molonism is not a theory of salvation, it is a theory of omniscience. When someone who ascribes to Molonism talks about God's middle knowledge that doesn't come with the implicit statement that God utilized his middle knowledge to alter the course of an individuals life so that they come to him; it is only to answer the question raised by Theological Fatalism.
Lawless,
I appreciate what you have to say in this manner and I understand how Craig uses Molinism as a defense against theological fatalism. However, I have also read Keathley's Salvation and Sovereignty and would recommend this article concerning his interpretation on how it affects ones salvation. I would not turn to Craig as the expert in Molinism for he uses it as a defense as you stated. If God uses His exhaustive knowledge to create Bob knowing full well that there are no circumstances in which Bob will freely come to Him then God has chosen to create someone that will be damned period (TWD). If there are circumstances in which Bob would freely come to Him and God has not chosen to actualize these circumstances then one is left to wonder why. |
| Loading... | |
| bdsimon |
| Posted 07/03/12 at 01:37 PM | Reply with quote #9 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by MatthiasQuote: Originally Posted by bdsimon
The universalist and the open theist do not face these issues at all. The open theist (and Molinist) still have to deal with the fact that people still behave in fairly regular and predictable ways, and the apparent ability of any very powerful being to act in ways it could reasonably expect to elicit a better response. I mean, it's all well and good to hypothesize that the universe isn't causally closed and to derive Very Important Philosophical Conclusions from this, but when you go out to interact with people you have to operate on the assumption that how they behave depends a great deal on how you do.
I am not an open theist but what I have read leads me to believe that they view God as playing the odds. There may be certain characteristics that God is looking for (in believers) and thus He has laid out the evidence as it is with the results lining up about where He expected. Which puts the open theist in only a slightly better (if at all) position than the Arminian. Point taken. |
| Loading... | |
| mazzgolf |
| Posted 07/03/12 at 02:01 PM | Reply with quote #10 |
|
Quote: If there are circumstances in which Bob would freely come to Him and God has not chosen to actualize these circumstances then one is left to wonder why.
A Molinist would say why think that antecedent is true at all? Who is to say that there ARE circumstances in which Bob would freely come to Him and God has not chosen to actualize these circumstances? Maybe God has given all future-believers circumstances that allows them to believe (thru either general revelation in nature and moral conscience or through special revelation and evangelism by missionaries). Maybe Bob is just a die-hard atheist and nothing would convince him otherwise (like some atheists on these forums and elsewhere - I've heard and read about people that are very clear on this - they say there is no amount of evidence that would make them worship a God that they view as abhorrent and a moral monster. Perhaps this is Bob?)
If the question is "if Bob is a die-hard atheist and would never believe, why create Bob at all?" To which a Molinist could answer, "because if Bob wasn't created, one or more people in the future will be lost when otherwise (if Bob was created) they would be saved". I gave this example in another thread: suppose Billy Graham's great-great-great-great-grandfather (let's call him "Bob", I have no idea if that really was his name  was a die-hard atheist and his libertarian free will allowed him to forsake God and no circumstance would convince him otherwise. Should God not have created Bob? In that case, generations later, Billy Graham would not be who he was and ALL the people that Billy Graham brought to Christ would have had to find some other (perhaps non-feasible) way to come to Christ.
The point is, we humans with limited knowledge cannot make any presuppositions about why God created a person and whether or not circumstances could exist that would convince them to believe. That person may have ramifications years later and perhaps in different parts of the world - and those ramifications are something God wants to actualize. We cannot make any judgements to the contrary since we don't have an omniscient view of the future in all parts of the world.
|
| Loading... | |
| bdsimon |
| Posted 07/03/12 at 02:29 PM | Reply with quote #11 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by mazzgloff
The point is, we humans with limited knowledge cannot make any presuppositions about why God created a person and whether or not circumstances could exist that would convince them to believe. That person may have ramifications years later and perhaps in different parts of the world - and those ramifications are something God wants to actualize. We cannot make any judgements to the contrary since we don't have an omniscient view of the future in all parts of the world.
I certainly agree with you and in general agree with all of your post. Perhaps I did not phrase what I see as the issue here- it is an appeal to emotion by the non-believer and appeals to emotion can be effective. The Molinist is left in the position (as many on this forum have been in the past) of calling his opponent dishonest. It is not that different from those who hold to OSAS talking to those that claim to have believed in the past and telling them they were deceiving themselves. There are answers and indeed you have given the common ones- in spite of the comments that I have quoted above. They just are not very satisfactory answers to those that are questioning the justice behind it- not me BTW in case me playing devil's advocate gave the impression otherwise. |
| Loading... | |
| Lawlessone777 |
| Posted 07/03/12 at 03:11 PM | Reply with quote #12 |
|
Quote: Lawless,
I appreciate what you have to say in this manner and I understand how Craig uses Molinism as a defense against theological fatalism. However, I have also read Keathley's Salvation and Sovereignty and would recommend this article concerning his interpretation on how it affects ones salvation. I would not turn to Craig as the expert in Molinism for he uses it as a defense as you stated. If God uses His exhaustive knowledge to create Bob knowing full well that there are no circumstances in which Bob will freely come to Him then God has chosen to create someone that will be damned period (TWD). If there are circumstances in which Bob would freely come to Him and God has not chosen to actualize these circumstances then one is left to wonder why.
Another theist's interpretation of molonism, however, doesn't equate a particular view of salvation as compared to an arminian or calvinist view. For example, if someone were to interpret molonism in that God uses his middle knowledge to ensure that some come to him, but others don't, through influencing their free willed decisions then that's simply calvanism with molonism as God's mechanism. If one holds that God has this middle knowledge, but allows others to freely make their choice without interference then that's an arminian who postulates molonism as a mechanism for omniscience.
You see molonism is a mechanism, not an application of salvation, it's nothing more than an interpretation of God's omniscience. So with regards to someone whose viewing this problem from the angle of "Why would God create someone in the first place who he would knew would reject him," I'd have to point out that on arminianism God gives everyone the chance to make a free willed decision to come to him, and so everyone has the chance to either answer special revelation, or general revelation. No one is created who has no chance of salvation. If he chose to only create those who would freely come to him, and leave out everyone else, then he really wouldn't be creating a race of free willed agents would he? He'd be creating a world of Christians.
Remember the parable of the seeds, where some are cast and are eaten by birds, others are choked by weeds, and some flourish. I always took this as a strong parable pointing to the fact that God largely lets us make our own path in life, to come to him freely, and doesn't influence us either way unless we ask him to. So how much more fair would it be for him to create you, and then instantly destroy you because you would reject him, deleting you from existence for taking an action you hadn't even performed yet? Is that really more fair than honestly giving you the chance to choose for yourself? |
| Loading... | |
| TheProblemOfAtheism |
| Posted 07/04/12 at 02:28 AM | Reply with quote #13 |
|
Veritas48 is still a Christian. He claims to still hold fast to Christian doctrines.
What has changed, based on what I see, is his weariness of apologetics, of fighting and combating with atheists.
This is just my personal interpretation, liberally sprinkled with assumptions, based on his blog post on 12tuesday.com |
| Loading... | |
| bdsimon |
| Posted 07/04/12 at 09:35 AM | Reply with quote #14 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Lawlessone777
You see molonism is a mechanism, not an application of salvation, it's nothing more than an interpretation of God's omniscience. So with regards to someone whose viewing this problem from the angle of "Why would God create someone in the first place who he would knew would reject him," I'd have to point out that on arminianism God gives everyone the chance to make a free willed decision to come to him, and so everyone has the chance to either answer special revelation, or general revelation. No one is created who has no chance of salvation. If he chose to only create those who would freely come to him, and leave out everyone else, then he really wouldn't be creating a race of free willed agents would he? He'd be creating a world of Christians.
I see this as a peculiar way of defining Molinism. Molina was attempting to account for the apparent contradiction between God being sovereign over all events and man having free will. The application of Molinism is particular to salvation so I am not sure what you mean above. I understand your gist but Molinism is about salvation. It is about how man can be free in a libertarian sense and God can still be sovereign over election. Now, having said that, it does not speak as to whether God uses His omniscience to limit the elect or to create the greatest number of souls who will freely choose to follow Him. |
| Loading... | |
