Why Molinists Say They Are Misunderstood

A common issue in discussions on Molinism is that, early on, Molinists (such as myself) will often complain that they have been misunderstood. Why are they claiming this, and is this claim accurate? My contention is that it is, in at least a lot of popular level cases.

First, let’s clarify what is meant by “misunderstood:” someone or some position is misunderstood when a claim made by that person or position is represented in a way that is not what the claim is actually stating, and the misrepresentation is not deliberate.[1]

With that in mind, it is demonstrable that some people simply do not know what they are talking about when it comes to Molinism. First, you have this popular website, which claims that Molinism “means that God learns what the actual choices of people will be only when they occur,” and this gem: “He doesn’t learn [note: as opposed to Molinism, it seems the author thinks]. He knows!” This is demonstrably not what any Molinist claims, and the author offers no reason to think that it’s an entailment of anything Molinists do claim. He doesn’t link to any source whatsoever, much less a primary one.

In fact, Molinists claim that middle knowledge is an excellent tool for divine planning, precisely because it means God knows what any free choice would be in any circumstances logically prior to divine creation! William Lane Craig, a Molinist, writes, “Indeed, the doctrine of middle knowledge just is a theory of how God can know future contingents without any sort of perception of the world at all. I think that you have mistakenly assumed that according to the doctrine of middle knowledge, God deduces from the circumstances in which a free person is placed what he would do in those circumstances. . . . But that is not the doctrine.” So we must be forgiven here for shouting that we are misunderstood when the exact opposite of the teaching of middle knowledge is presented as though it was the teaching of middle knowledge! I have addressed this particular popular site’s error here: http://www.randyeverist.com/2012/07/carm-on-molinism.html

Second, among many errors, this author insists that Molinism is relevantly like open theism, and is a heresy. The reasons? Well, he makes the same mistake, claiming that Molinists claim (again, no source cited whatsoever) that an action must first occur in order for it to be true. Next, he claims that Molinists (by virtue of the beginning of explicit Molinism) are trying to retain semi-Pelagianism (as an aside, I wonder if people just don’t understand semi-Pelagianism, or just don’t understand contemporary or classic non-Calvinism, because this charge appears an alarming number of times). He claims that “no future conditional thing can be knowable before the divine decree;” but Molinists don’t claim that they are! Instead, Molinists claim that the necessary foundation for future conditionals is subjunctive conditionals, and these subjunctive conditionals that describe creaturely free actions are known to God prior to the divine decree. So, again, we should be forgiven here. I deal with this website in this article: http://www.randyeverist.com/2011/02/unfortunate-critique-of-molinism.html

On the other hand, it is true there are plenty of people who do understand Molinism, and simply aren’t Molinists. And that’s OK; it’s not my personal mission to make sure everyone is a Molinist (nor should it be!). It’s just that we’d rather be rejected for things we actually say rather than be rejected for things we don’t.

---

[1] There is an exception to this; namely, if someone is listing an entailment of a particular position. However, two notes: first, if you are purporting to represent a view, then you should lay out at first what the view teaches, and then attempt to show entailments of it, not represent the entailments as things these positions claim for themselves. That’s just charity. Second, entailments should be clearly labeled as such; if they are not, we can not really be faulted for assuming that you just don’t know or understand what is being claimed.

People Are Not Objects to be Used

People should be viewed as ends in themselves, not merely means to ends. If they are viewed as means to ends, this is another way of stating that they are viewed as objects. When we view other people as objects, instead of viewing them as people made in the image of God, we not only de-value them, but further the delusion that we are really the only people who matter—and that other people are valued instrumentally only insofar as they serve our purposes. This, in turn, gives us a warped view of God, where he only values us instrumentally.

Here is a concrete way that can work out: Men often view women as sexual objects, there to serve them and bring them pleasure. Often, people in society work to overcome the misogynistic behavior associated with this. Christians, specifically, seek to commit to one woman, in marriage before God, for as long as they are alive together. The issue is that, too often, it is only the behavior that is modified. Often, unexamined assumptions are left unchecked, and the prevailing attitude is barely affected, if at all. Thus, for the Christian man, women are still objects to be used—but I only am allowed to use one, namely, my wife.

This is not viewing people as made in the image of God. Instead, we should strive every day to view not only women, but all people in the image of God, and recognize they are not objects to be used. The same thing can happen with women to men (in terms of love, stability, relationship status, money), with co-workers, and so on. So long as you view people implicitly as furtherances to your pleasure, you have failed. It’s why people treat each other so badly on the internet—it’s easier to objectify them when you can’t see them. Let’s try seeing people as God does: as ends in themselves, people made in the image of God, for whom Christ died.

The Reductionist Worldview

Our culture is often a reductionistic one. That is, our culture is what I like to call a “nothing-but” culture. Marriage is nothing-but a legal contract; gender is nothing-but a social construct; sexual behavior is nothing-but legal constraints and social taboos; beauty is nothing-but superficiality; life is nothing-but aimless wandering and contrived purpose, and on and on it goes ad nauseam.

What has been the result of this purpose? The principle that has taken over is that life is for whatever brings the most pleasure to us. For some, this means a fully hedonistic lifestyle. For others, this means attempting philanthropy to feel better. For others still, this involves paralysis and despair (e.g., the existentialists). Finally, for some, this means bringing much pain and suffering to others.

In all cases, the principle behind it is the same: life is purposeless, senseless, meaningless, vacuous, valueless, hopeless, and cold. Make of it what you can. My duty today is not to tell you that such a principle always works itself out pragmatically in the way of Hitler. In fact, I’ve taken pains above to show even some ways where the behavior at least seems to be quite positive.

My main point is two-fold: first, such selfish or hateful actions are allowed by such a principled worldview. Second, it is desirable that such a worldview be false. A worldview answers at least four major kinds of questions:

1.     Metaphysics—What kinds of things exist?

2.     Epistemology—What can we know?

3.     Axiology/Aesthetics—What is the good, and the beautiful?

4.     Teleology—What is the purpose or meaning of life?

The nothing-but worldview that allows for suffering and despair as completely normal very nearly strikes most of us as absurd. We instinctively recognize that such despair and dysfunction ought not to be. But if it ought not to be, then the nothing-but worldview is false. Perhaps we cannot show it is false (we certainly have not shown it, as of yet); but at the very least, we have suggested it is desirable that it is. And that, my friends, should make you pause.

How Incorrect and Unexamined Background Principles Can Affect Your Thinking

In the last post, we discussed how principles are present in everyone’s lives. Now in this post, I’d like to discuss a very important way this can affect you. Lurking in the background of every attempt at reasoning, whether excellent or terrible or anywhere in between, is a set of principles. Now I’m not advocating that we go out and list these principles any time we’re about to engage in reasoning; but being aware of these can help.

I read a recent “deconversion” story of a former Christian-turned-atheist recently. In his story, he explained how he loved Christ and wanted to be a Christian. Further, he wanted to have strong proofs for his faith. He mentioned something like, “I wanted to find irrefutable arguments and evidence for God’s existence and Christianity’s truth, or at least arguments that were so good no one could deny them.” When he didn’t find such arguments and evidence, he abandoned the faith.

Now this post is not to discuss the various evidences and arguments for Christianity’s truth and God’s existence, though I certainly think those are quite good. I do want to discuss his principle. It’s quite unreasonable.

I see a variant of this thinking quite often—sometimes even from budding young apologists—but what I don’t see is anyone attempting to justify it. Why, in order to be justified in being a Christian, must the evidence be so good that no one can deny it? I don’t see a good reason. Even the “extraordinary claims” line often tossed about doesn’t justify such thinking (it only justifies “extraordinary evidence,” not evidence so good no one could deny it).

In fact, not only do we not see a reason to accept the standard, we can actually see a reason to reject it. Given that the goal of Christianity, so to speak, is not merely to believe in God, or even merely to believe in the intellectual facts of the Gospel, but instead to enter into a loving, trusting relationship—with God as our Father and Christ as our Savior where we follow him with our lives—that we call “faith,” it would actually be counterproductive for God to have the world be such that we could not deny the truths of the Gospel. God does not want compulsory relationships; in fact, love is such that “compulsory love” is an oxymoron.

Notice the wide gulf that exists between “can deny x,” and “cannot accept x;” they are not identical. There is no good reason to accept such a standard. In fact, such a standard implicitly says, “If I am not forced to believe, I will not believe.” But this, then, is a dispositional matter of the will, not the intellect. And that is something for which we need God and his Word.

Principles or Pragmatics?

Pragmatism vs. Principle. Which one should win? This comes up in many areas of life, including politics, religion, finances, etc. In either case, the popular idea seems to be that if you want to get the result you truly desire, pragmatism is king. And there is a certain sense in which that is technically correct: there are times where our principles will not yield us the results we want.

However, I think there is a fundamental issue often overlooked in the popular discussions on pragmatics: the issue that pragmatism is itself a principle. Just as one cannot avoid having a worldview or particular philosophy (on pain of self-refutation), so one cannot avoid the snare of principled thinking, even in pragmatic considerations.

For consider this: one thinks one should be pragmatic in a particular situation, in order to gain x. After all, the only reason this is even a debate is because people do what works. The “principle of pragmatism” is applied any time pragmatic considerations are invoked precisely because the very definition of pragmatism entails doing what works.

Why is this important? What affect can this have on discussions? It seems there is only one contribution I have with this idea: one must admit that principles govern his life, and he must be aware of them. Being aware of our principles allows us to evaluate them and the way we see the world. This is important because we want to have an accurate picture of the world, instead of a distorted one.