"All"

[Silverhair]

I am pretty sure the narrative events of Genesis leading up to Genesis 50:20 are not "man-made philosophy", but they do illustrate that "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" ... FREE WILL and GOD'S PLAN both fully compatible in the same actions.

"Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand." -Proverbs 19:21 [ESV]

God's plan and man's free will can be compatible but that is not what your compatibalism requires.

That seems to be something that you have not grasped as of yet.

Compatibilism (aka soft determinism), is the belief that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. In light of Scripture, human choices are believed to be exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices occur through divine determinism. It should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism - be clear that neither soft nor hard determinism believes man has a free will.

Now that comes from a C/R web site and is in line with both the WCF & LBCF.

In both hard and soft deterministic positions, there is no tug-of-war between what God has decreed from eternity past and what a person actually performs in time. As a matter of fact, the WCF & LBCF insist that the “liberty or contingency of second causes” is not taken away, “but rather established,” proving that God has even decreed all of the components which contribute toward a given action.
In other words, when Calvinists insist that God has not merely decreed the end but also the means to an end, then that, by necessity, must include secondary causes. So, while they clamor that the so-called contingency of second causes is not removed from the concept, what is absolutely necessary to confess is that God also decreed the secondary causes. That is to say, that, the alleged freedom to which the compatibilist attempts to concede is disingenuous at best given that even the alleged freedom to choose what God has decreed the person to choose was also decreed by God for them. Compatibilism, then, is a theory involving mere words but no reality.

 

[Silverhair]

Please quote where I said that, because I think that I have gone to GREAT LENGTHS to demonstrate that I do not view God as a pupet-master and Hard Determinism as God's modus operandi.

Are you now saying you do not hold to the DoG/TULIP or agree with the WCF/LBCF. You may not call God a puppet master but your theology makes Him one.

Even your stated view of compatibilism comes to that logical conclusion although you will deny it.

 

[atpollard]

Soft Determinism In Psychology​

By
Riley Hoffman
Updated on
October 10, 2023

Reviewed by
Saul McLeod, PhD
&
Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Soft determinism, also known as compatibilism, is the belief that determinism is compatible with free will and moral responsibility.
In other words, soft determinism states that even though all events in the world are predetermined by what came before them, it is still possible for people to have free will and thus be morally responsible for their actions.
Soft determinism is one branch of determinism. Determinism is the idea that everything that happens could not have gone otherwise; each event has a fixed outcome because of everything that led to it.
American psychologist and philosopher William James first used the term soft determinism in his essay “The Dilemma of Determinism” (James, 1895).
Soft determinism is a branch of determinism that differs from hard determinism. These branches differ in their views on whether free will is possible in a deterministic universe. Soft determinists believe that free will is possible in a deterministic universe, even when everything is predetermined.
They believe that as long as no external forces force someone to make a certain choice, the person has made a free choice.

Important Definitions​

• Determinism: The philosophy that all events are predetermined, by the chain of events that came before them.
• Soft determinism/compatibilism: The philosophy that determinism is compatible with the possibility of free will and moral responsibility for one’s actions.
• Hard determinism/incompatibilism: The philosophy that determinism makes it impossible to have free will and moral responsibility for one’s actions.

Examples of soft determinism​

Nagel’s example of the peach or the cake​

To explain the idea of determinism, philosopher Thomas Nagel (1987) uses an example of choosing between selecting a peach or a piece of chocolate cake out of a cafeteria line.
If you choose the cake and think to yourself, “I could have chosen the peach instead,” what does that mean, and is it true?
A soft determinist would say that because of some combination of your genetics, your life experiences, your environmental surroundings, and other factors, the fact that you chose the cake was inevitable.
The process of you deciding to choose the cake was just the follow-through of a predetermined conclusion. It is not possible that you could have chosen the peach instead of the cake.
However, you still acted with free will because there was no external force compelling you to choose the cake and not the peach; no one was constraining you or forcing you, and therefore you made the choice freely.

Another example: To study or to party?​

Imagine a Friday night where you have a choice to stay home and study for a big exam on Monday, or to go to a party with friends, and you end up choosing to stay home and study.
A soft determinist would say that this choice was predetermined; you were always destined to choose to study because of some combination of your genetics, how your parents raised you to value education, your knowledge that the exam is very important, and your desire to get a good grade, and so on.
However, even though your choice to study was inevitable, you still acted with free will because your choice was in line with your desires and motivations.

Arguments in favor of soft determinism​

Soft determinism relies on a certain definition of the concept of “freedom.” It argues the natural meaning of “freedom” is lack of restraint or compulsion.

Soft determinists argue that when people think about “free will,” they are referring to physical and psychological freedom from being forced to act or constrained into not acting a certain way. They argue that this definition of “freedom” is most intuitive.

Soft determinists argue that given this intuitive definition of freedom, free will is possible under determinism because the only necessary condition for free will is that someone is free from restraint and compulsion.

Even if all of someone’s personality, desires, and motivation may be predetermined by nature and nurture, they can still have free will and make free choices within how they are predisposed to act or think.

One philosopher who argued in favor of soft determinism was Harry Frankfurt. Frankfurt (1971) argued that people have free will when they have a certain psychological structure; namely, when their first-order desires align with their second-order desires.

Frankfurt defines first-order desire as “what you want,” and second-order desire as “what you want to want.” Someone has free will if what they want aligns with what they want to want.

For instance, if your first-order desire is to go for a walk, and your second-order desire is to want to walk, then your first and second-order desires align, and you are free.

This is how it is possible to be free under determinism: Even though your first and second-order desires may be pre-determined, you are free since they align with each other.

Arguments against soft determinism​

Critics of soft determinism generally fall into two categories: those who disagree that determinism is true at all, and those who agree that determinism is true, but disagree with compatibilism and argue that determinism is incompatible with free will and moral responsibility (Strawson, n.d.).

Critics of soft determinism who instead believe in hard determinism argue that the former does not encompass a complete understanding of the nature of determinism and free will. They believe that under determinism, it is impossible to have free will or be morally responsible for one’s actions.

Hard determinists believe that the soft determinist definition of free will is not sufficient. They believe that the soft determinist definition of freedom is contrived and does not get to the true meaning of freedom. Kant referred to soft determinism as a “wretched subterfuge…, a petty word-juggerly.”

These hard determinists believe that if all of a person’s thoughts, desires, and choices are predetermined by factors often out of their control, then it is impossible to be truly free or morally responsible for their actions.

Besides the hard determinism, there are two additional major schools of thought that disagree with soft determinism: libertarianism, and pessimism.

The libertarianists believe that we have free will, but this is incompatible with determinism, so determinism must not be true.

On the other hand, the pessimists, or no-freedom theorists, believe that free will is impossible, whether or not determinism is true.

Psychological research on people’s beliefs about free will​

Several researchers have investigated the psychology behind people’s beliefs about determinism, free will, and moral responsibility.
Nichols and Knobe (2007) investigated how the phrasing of questions about these issues affects people’s responses. They found that when they asked people questions about the consequences of determinism in an abstract sense, people’s answers aligned with hard determinism.

For example, if asked, “If everything in the world was predetermined, would it be possible to have free will?” participants often said it wouldn’t be possible. However, when you asked people specific, emotionally-triggering questions about the consequences of determinism, their answers became more aligned with soft determinism.

Nahmias (2011) shows that hard determinism is unintuitive for average people. The author argues that this evidence provides support in the direction of soft determinism.

The author also provides evidence that when you talk to average people about determinism, they often confuse it with bypassing, a distinct psychological phenomenon in which our minds have no say in our bodies’ choices.

References​

Frankfurt, H. G. (1971). Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. The Journal of Philosophy, 68(1), pp. 5-20. Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person - Volume 68, Issue 1, January 1971

James, W. (1896). The dilemma of determinism. In W. James, The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy (pp. 145–183). Longmans, Green and Co. APA PsycNet

Nagel, T. (1987). Free will. In T. Nagel, What does it all mean? A very short introduction to philosophy. Oxford University Press.

Nahmias, E. (2011). Intuitions about free will, determinism, and bypassing. In Robert Kane (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Free Will: Second Edition. Oxford University Press.

Nichols, S., & Knobe, J. (2007). Moral responsibility and determinism: The cognitive science of folk intuition. Noûs, 41(4), pp. 663-685. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0068.2007.00666.x

 

[atpollard]

Got Questions: What is compatibilism?​

Compatibilism is an attempt to reconcile the theological proposition that every event is causally determined, ordained, and/or decreed by God (i.e., determinism, not to be confused with fatalism)—with the free will of man. Promulgated originally from a philosophical viewpoint by the Greek Stoics and later by numerous philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and David Hume, and from a theological viewpoint by theologians such as Augustine of Hippo and John Calvin, the compatibilist concept of free will states that though the free will of man seems irreconcilable with the proposition of determinism, they both do exist and are “compatible” with one another.

The foundation of the compatibilistic concept of free will is the means by which “will” is defined. From a theological viewpoint, the definition of the will is viewed in light of the revealed, biblical truths of original sin and the spiritual depravity of man. These two truths render the definition of “will” in regard to fallen man as “captive to sin” (Acts 8:23), a “slave of sin” (John 8:34; Romans 6:16-17) and subject only to its “master,” which is sin (Romans 6:14). As such, although the will of man is “free” to do as it wishes, it wishes to act according to its nature, and since the nature of the fallen will is sinful, every intent of the thoughts of the fallen man’s heart is “only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5, cf. Genesis 8:21). He, being naturally rebellious to that which is spiritually good (Romans 8:7-8; 1 Corinthians 2:14), “is bent only on rebellion” (Proverbs 17:11). Essentially, man is “free” to do as he wishes, and he does just that, but man simply cannot do that which is contrary to his nature. What man “wills” to do is subject to and determined solely by his nature.

Here is where compatibilism makes the distinction between man having a free will and being a “free agent.” Man is “free” to choose that which is determined by his nature or by the laws of nature. To illustrate, the laws of nature prohibit man from being able to fly, but this does not mean that man is not free. The agent, man, is only free to do that which his nature or the laws of nature allow him to do. Theologically speaking, though the natural man is unable to submit himself to the law of God (Romans 8:7-8) and unable to come to Christ unless the Father draws him to Him (John 6:44), the natural man still acts freely in respect to his nature. He freely and actively suppresses the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18) because his nature renders him unable to do otherwise (Job 15:14-16; Psalm 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Jeremiah 13:23; Romans 3:10-11). Two good examples of Jesus’ confirmation of this concept can be found in Matthew 7:16-27 and Matthew 12:34-37.

With the distinction between free agency and free will defined, compatibilism then addresses the nature of the free agency of man in respect to the theological proposition known as determinism and/or the biblical truth of the omniscient nature of God. The foundational issue is how man can be held accountable for his actions if his actions were always going to occur (i.e., the future is not subject to change) and could not have been anything other than that which occurred. Although there are numerous passages of Scripture that address this issue, there are three primary passages to examine.

The story of Joseph and his brothers
The first is the story of Joseph and his brothers (Genesis 37). Joseph was hated by his brothers because their father, Jacob, loved Joseph more than any of his other sons (Genesis 37:3) and because of Joseph’s dreams and their interpretation (Genesis 37:5-11). At an opportune time, Joseph’s brothers sold him as a slave to traveling Midianite traders. Then they dipped his tunic in the blood of a slain goat in order to deceive their father into thinking Joseph had been mauled by a beast (Genesis 37:18-33). After many years, during which Joseph had been blessed by the Lord, Joseph’s brothers meet him in Egypt, and Joseph reveals himself to them (Genesis 45:3-4). It is Joseph’s discussion with his brothers that is most pertinent to the issue:

“So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God. He made me father to Pharaoh, lord of his entire household and ruler of all Egypt” (Genesis 45:8).

What makes this statement startling is that Joseph had previously said his brothers had, in fact, sold him into Egypt (Genesis 45:4-5). A few chapters later, the concept of compatibilism is presented:

“You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives” (Genesis 50:20).

The Genesis story tells us that it was, in fact, the brothers who sold Joseph into Egypt. However, Joseph makes it clear that God had done so. Those who reject the concept of compatibilism would say that this verse is simply stating that God “used” Joseph’s brothers’ actions for good. However, this is not what the text says. From Genesis 45-50, we are told that (1) Joseph’s brothers had sent Joseph to Egypt, (2) God had sent Joseph to Egypt, (3) Joseph’s brothers had evil intentions in sending Joseph to Egypt, and (4) God had good intentions in sending Joseph to Egypt. So, the question is, who sent Joseph to Egypt? The bewildering answer is that both Joseph’s brothers and God did. It was one action being carried out by two entities, the brothers and God doing it simultaneously.

 

[atpollard]

(continued)

The commission of Assyria
The second passage that reveals compatibilism is found in Isaiah 10, a prophetic warning passage for God’s people. As divinely promised in Deuteronomy 28-29, God is sending a nation to punish His people for their sins. Isaiah 10:6 says that Assyria is the rod of God’s anger, “commissioned” against God’s people to “seize loot and snatch plunder, and to trample them down like mud in the streets.” Notice, however, what God says about Assyria:
“Yet [Assyria] does not so intend, Nor does it plan so in its heart, But rather it is its purpose to destroy And to cut off many nations” (Isaiah 10:7, NASB).
God’s intent in the Assyrian invasion is to inflict His righteous judgment against sin, and the intent of the Assyrians is to “destroy and cut off many nations.” Two different purposes, two different entities acting to bring about this purpose, in one, single action. As we read further, God reveals that, although this destruction is determined and decreed by Him (Isaiah 10:23), He will still punish the Assyrians because of the “arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness” (Isaiah 10:12, cf. Isaiah 10:15). Even though God Himself had infallibly determined the judgment of a disobedient people, He holds those who brought the judgment accountable for their own actions.

The crucifixion of Jesus Christ
The third passage of Scripture that speaks of compatibilism is found in Acts 4:23-28. As revealed in Acts 2:23-25, Christ’s death on the cross was carried out by the “predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God.” Acts 4:27-28 further reveals that the actions of Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, and the people of Israel had been determined and decreed by God Himself to occur as they “gathered together against” Jesus and did “what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.” Although God had determined that Christ should die, those responsible for His death were still held accountable for their actions. Christ was put to death by wicked men, “yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer” (Isaiah 53:10). Once again, the answer to the question "who put Jesus to death?" is both God and the wicked people—two purposes carried out by two entities within a single action.
There are other passages of Scripture that pertain to the concept of compatibilism, such as God hardening the hearts of individuals (e.g., Exodus 4:21; Joshua 11:20; Isaiah 63:17). While compatibilism seems bewildering to us (Job 9:10; Isaiah 55:8-11; Romans 11:33), this truth has been revealed by God Himself as the means by which His sovereign decree is reconciled with the will of man. God is sovereign over all things (Psalm 115:3, Daniel 4:35, Matthew 10:29-30), God knows all things (Job 37:16; Psalm 147:5; 1 John 3:19-20), and man is held accountable for what he does (Genesis 18:25; Acts 17:31; Jude 1:15). Truly, His ways are unfathomable (Job 9:10; Romans 11:33), and so we should trust in the Lord with all our hearts and lean not on our own understanding (Proverbs 3:5-6).

 

[atpollard]

@Silverhair
Since you will not believe me when I claim what it is, perhaps you will listen to other sources that define "Compatibalism" as something different from HARD DETERMINISM or even FATALISM (as you seem to advocate).

 

[Tenchi]

Did GOD "make" Joseph's brothers hate him? ... no,

What are your scare quotes implying?

Note Gen 37:20 ... they wanted to KILL Joseph. That was the free will of man. That was contrary to the plan of God ... so God restrained their evil. God did not steal their free will, God merely turned their hearts to allow them to choose from among the many OTHER evil options available to their hearts. Romans 1 talks about this. God "gives men over to" evil desires of their hearts (which implies that he did not give them over prior to that) - restrains and allows - limits on free will without violating that free will.

The desire of the brothers to kill Joseph was the "free will of man"? Not according to Calvinists of the "higher," harder sort.

Where in the account in Genesis 37 does it say God restrained the evil desire of the brothers? I read only of Reuben, who was never in favor of killing Joseph (verses 21-22), intervening to keep Joseph alive. God used Reuben's favorable mind toward Joseph to keep Joseph alive, but did God compel Reuben to feel as he did about killing Joseph, and did He alter or restrain the bloodthirsty desire of the other brothers? These things would all have to be assumed to be the case in this part of the story.

If God "steers" a person's will into His course (rather than overtly and abruptly wresting a person's will into it) what purpose does the freedom of that person's will serve, exactly? Whether in or out of the velvet glove, the "iron fist" of God's will is exerted in a negating fashion upon the will of His creature, is it not?

Your language is rather tortured, it seems to me, in attempting to describe what you think God did to Joseph's brothers: "turned their hearts to allow them to choose...". Does the story say that the brothers would not have killed Joseph if Reuben had not intervened? No. According to the story, the killing desire of the brothers wasn't altered by some inner restraint of God, but by the external resistance of their oldest brother to the plan to kill Joseph.

If Bobby has five popsicles in front of him and chooses the raspberry-flavored one and, as he reaches for it, I gently guide his hand to the peach-flavored popsicle, telling him that he ought to let his little sister, Suzy, have the raspberry one, how have I not directly interfered with Bobby's freedom to choose? I could say that I turned Bobby's hand to allow him to choose among the many other popsicle options, but, more simply and honestly, what I did was stop Bobby from fully enacting his will.

Anyway, I think that God "giving over" vain, rebellious people to their evil desires in Romans 1 is not God imposing upon these people a retributive set of self-destructive desires but simply utterly removing all general constraining influence He has had upon them. Instead of constricting the exercise of their will, God allows them to experience the fullness of their evil choices: seared conscience, warped desire, self-destruction.

Note what actually happens after Gen 37:20 ... they do not kill Joseph, SLAVERS "just happen along" at that moment. Slavers "just happen to be heading to Egypt". The Brothers freely choose to sell Joseph to the slavers who bring him to the very place that GOD wants Joseph to advance the Plan of God. EACH PERSON acted according to their free will ... and each action advanced GOD'S PLAN.

Yes. I think all of this ordering of events is so marvellous because God doesn't have to coercively enact His will in any of it. His omniscience and omnipotence are such that He sees His will done in the midst of our free choices. That's far, far beyond impressive, in my view.

As an aside, along the way, God cured Joseph of his arrogance and healed the family of Jacob. [You are welcome].

???

I'm quite aware of how things transpired with Jacob and his family...

THIS is MY definition of COMPATIBALISM. Every person did what they wanted according to their free will (subject to the same limits on EVIL that Satan was in Job ... "you may go THIS FAR and no further"). And through it all, GOD's PLAN was accomplished.

Well, this is all interesting, I suppose. Thanks for the clarification of your view. By "compatabilism" what I mean is the more standard philosophical version that other Calvinists put forward.

 

[Silverhair]

@Silverhair
Since you will not believe me when I claim what it is, perhaps you will listen to other sources that define "Compatibalism" as something different from HARD DETERMINISM or even FATALISM (as you seem to advocate).

I understand that you want people to accept your view of compatibilism as a biblical view but it is not.

Lets look at what you just posted:
Soft determinism, also known as compatibilism, is the belief that determinism is compatible with free will and moral responsibility.
In other words, soft determinism states that even though all events in the world are predetermined by what came before them, it is still possible for people to have free will and thus be morally responsible for their actions.
Soft determinism is one branch of determinism. Determinism is the idea that everything that happens could not have gone otherwise; each event has a fixed outcome because of everything that led to it.
American psychologist and philosopher William James first used the term soft determinism in his essay “The Dilemma of Determinism” (James, 1895).
Soft determinism is a branch of determinism that differs from hard determinism. These branches differ in their views on whether free will is possible in a deterministic universe. Soft determinists believe that free will is possible in a deterministic universe, even when everything is predetermined.
They believe that as long as no external forces force someone to make a certain choice, the person has made a free choice.

Just because you believe that it is possible does not make it possible.

We are not speaking of external physical forces but rather that God has predetermined all that will happen as we see in both the WCF & LBCF. If you claim that in your compatibilistic view man has a free will then you must also say that man can override the will and decrees of God.

“Compatibilism is no less deterministic than hard determinism.” [Calvinist {John Hendryx, How can God be Sovereign and Man still be Free?}]

God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass,
nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; LBCF Chp 3 Par 1

Compatibilism (aka soft determinism), is the belief that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. In light of Scripture, human choices are believed to be exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices occur through divine determinism (see Act_2:23 & Act_4:27-28). It should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism - be clear that neither soft nor hard determinism believes man has a free will. Our choices are only our choices because they are voluntary, not coerced. We do not make choices contrary to our desires or natures. {Compatibilism is no less deterministic than “hard” determinism. Calvinistic compatibilism proffers that two seemingly contrary ideas are both true: 1) that God has meticulously and exhaustively decreed what shall take place in history; and 2) that we freely do what God has decreed (some use the term foreordained) for us to do.} Compatibilism is directly contrary to libertarian free will. Therefore voluntary choice is not the freedom to choose otherwise, that is, without any influence, prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. Voluntary does mean, however, the ability to choose what we want or desire most. The former view is known as contrary choice, the latter free agency. (Note: compatibilism denies that the will is free to choose otherwise, that is, free from the bondage of the corruption nature,for the unregenerate, and denies that the will is free from God's eternal decreee.)

Compatibilism | Monergism

Compatibilism (also known as soft determinism), is the belief that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. In

www.monergism.com

Immanuel Kant in Critique of Practical Reason writes:
“Compatibilism is a wretched subterfuge with which some persons still let themselves be put off, and so think they have solved lives problems with petty word-jugglery.”

Dr. William James in The Dilemma of Determinism writes:
“Compatibilism is a quagmire of evasion. The Compatibilists strategy relies upon stealing the name of freedom to mask their underlying determinism. They make a pretense of restoring the caged bird to liberty with one hand, while with the other they anxiously tie a string to its leg to make sure it can’t get beyond determinism’s grasp.”

Compatibilism contends that a person can act freely even though that action is determined by God.

Determinism and free will are not compatible. You can believe in determinism or free will, but not both. It is logically impossible to force someone to freely do something. Theologically, the loss of free will has a devastating impact of how we view God.
Compatiblism does not, can not equate in any way to free will. Compatiblism is a programmed desire.

You have the power of contrary choice [free will] when it comes to accepting compatibilism or not. I have never known a compatibilist who did not face decisions as if he had libertarian freedom. Compatibilism is ultimately unlivable. As Richard Dawkins (an atheist compatibilist) says, though we don't have free choices we have to live consistent with the illusion that we do.

Compatibilism is still determinism
It simply means that free will is supposedly “compatible” with determinism. So it is still true that God predetermined everything, including every sin that would ever be committed in such a way that those sins could not have possibly been avoided. Appeals to compatibilism do nothing to solve the difficulty, since in compatibilism the will is still controlled by God. All compatibilism does is redefine free will so that it means the freedom to do what we want or desire. But since our wants and desires are still controlled by God (even according to compatibilism), it doesn’t solve anything. The will is still completely determined by desires that the person has no control over.

Compatibilism solves nothing. It makes free will “compatible” with determinism by redefining “free will” in a deterministic sense. In the end, compatibilism means only that determinism is compatible with determinism.

@atpollard as much as you would like compatibilism to get you off the hook it does not work.