I just came across this statement from George Whitefield. It was being quoted by a hard-core five point Calvinist.

“Man is nothing: he hath a free will to go to hell, but none to go to heaven, till God worketh in him to will and to do his good pleasure.”

So, apparently, some Calvinists believe in free will. This is an expansion of what I was trying to say earlier – Calvinists believe in free will when it works to humanity’s disadvantage, but stop believing in it when it would work to our advantage. This really rather supports my contention; even those Christians who claim not to believe in free will actually do believe in it, to a degree, when they can use the concept as an excuse to damn humanity.

You aren’t dispensing with free will entirely, but you’re certainly knocking it off of its pedestal, and you’re doing it in an attempt to be “lenient” (I can’t think of a better word at the moment). Many (I think most) Christians would find that “un-Christian”.

Although to be honest, I never had a big problem reconciling free will and determinism. All other things being equal, the complex biological system that is me is free to make whatever choice it sees most fit in any given situation. My self-awareness allows me to predict what I might normally do in a situation and choose to act differently.

Ironically, I find some intuitive common ground with the theists concerning the stance of logical positivism.

I know what you mean. I remember even from the first time I met Hemant (when he visited our church for the original eBay Atheist project) thinking that the biggest difference in our worldviews was not our beliefs about God (or lack thereof) but our epistemology.

Perhaps the “Emerging Christians” and the “Emerging Atheists” should form a combined church.

Great idea! Actually, I know at least one postmodern atheist who attends Emergent events on a regular basis. Oh, and there’s an atheist who’s now a regular attender at my friend’s emerging church in downtown Chicago (he even participates in the liturgy occasionally – last time I was there he did the scripture reading.) And we have several atheists and almost-atheists who come to the monthly Emergent cohort discussions downtown too. So yeah, seems your idea is already happening.

…atheism is not synonymous with “logical positivism”.

That is a good point Jeff. Though to be honest I have found that it tends to be the most common point of view among atheists.

In the academic circles I run in, we have vicious arguments about logical positivism. For example, can measurements resulting in numbers fully explain reality? All the participants are atheists and you are right that most are logical positivists. But there is an emerging group of atheists that want to expand the foundations of science. Ironically, I find some intuitive common ground with the theists concerning the stance of logical positivism. Although, I think the theists take the easy way out in positing a supreme being.

Perhaps the “Emerging Christians” and the “Emerging Atheists” should form a combined church.

I really don’t want to get into all this with you again since we’ve already covered that ground and since you’ve just said that you don’t really like talking to “liberals” like me anyway.

Noooo – what I said was that I don’t like arguing with liberal theists, reason being that I don’t have the anger toward them that I have toward fundamentalists.

There are plenty of Christian determinists who deny the existence of free will. We call them Calvinists.

Touche! (Although, even Calvinists feel that we somehow “deserve” eternal damnation, even though God has predestined most of us for it.)

Theists in general – and Christians in particular (Muslims are much more vague about this) – have to rely on the notion of “free will”, in some sort of absolute sense.

As I said before, this is not always the case. There are plenty of Christian determinists who deny the existence of free will. We call them Calvinists.

In fact, it seems somewhat at odds with what you’ve told us in the past. I know you don’t emphasize sin and judgment in your theology, but you have indicated (or I’ve inferred) that you believe in judgment of a sort, and that our actions in this life, and the kind of persons we “make ourselves” into, affect the state in which we find ourselves in the afterlife. Whether or not you believe this state is eternal, you haven’t said (and I’m not trying to put you on the spot). I’m not saying there’s no free will or personal responsibility (I’m not a great believer in it, myself, but I’m not arguing that here) – but, if the things that happen to us are largely beyond our control, and they influence our development profoundly, how can we be held “accountable” in the Christian sense?

Just to clarify, I didn’t say that I don’t believe in free will, I just don’t think it’s the whole picture either. I don’t believe in the radical freedom of Kierkegaard or Sartre but I do think we have some control over who we become.

If I’ve had a horrible life, and I die a bitter, angry, broken person as a result, is it reasonable of God to condemn me to a state of separation from him? This is, as I see it, the fundamental problem with all theodicy (even among the Buddhists) – we get punished for having experienced pain. If I’ve learned nothing else in life, I’ve learned that this is one of the most ubiquitously human tendencies; it seems to underlie nearly everything we do – blaming the victim. I think it’s an ancient coping mechanism – we fear the pain and suffering of others, because we’re afraid that what is happening to them may happen to us, so we convince ourselves that the other person is suffering because he or she “broke the rules”. As long as I don’t break them, I won’t suffer. I know you’ll probably tell me that this was part of Jesus’ message – not to fear becoming involved intimately in the suffering of others, and to suspend our natural tendency to judge – but, in Christian theology, it would appear that God isn’t so understanding, particularly when it comes to assigning our postmortem state.

I really don’t want to get into all this with you again since we’ve already covered that ground and since you’ve just said that you don’t really like talking to “liberals” like me anyway. But to put it simply, I agree with your concern and I don’t think God operates that way. IMHO God is infinitely compassionate and is more interested in healing the wounded, not punishing them.

(Okay, I guess that’s everybody’s cue to tell me one more time how I’m not really a Christian because my “liberal” views of the Bible and theology don’t line up with fundamentalism.)

Is there a UT at Austin?

Yep, but I didn’t get in since they don’t really have what I want to study anyway.

I wanted to point out that atheism is not synonymous with “logical positivism”. Although some atheists ascribe to logical positivism, others do not.

That is a good point Jeff. Though to be honest I have found that it tends to be the most common point of view among atheists.

I might say ‘living is the process by which we become what we are.’

Yes, that is an existentialist position and is more or less what I was trying to say too.

That’s fine. I don’t see it that way, but I don’t like to argue with liberal theists.

I would point out that even if I could accept the existence of God, I can never see the Bible as divinely authored. Too many internal inconsistencies, too many historical inaccuracies, of which the business about the Pharisees is a good example. I don’t accept that these “debates” took place as reported. There are serious problems with the Gospel accounts, from the perspective of anyone who has an understanding of Jewish history.