When it comes to Christianity, you will frequently hear followers talk about their triune biblegod having "a plan". When this happens, it is more often than not the believer's way of rationalizing an outcome that was not desired. It's taking a situation, which, on its face, is undesirable, and then trying to make it "good", or at least, make it acceptable(in their minds).
And then there are other times when the "God has a plan" conviction is used as a means to buffer anxiety, say, where there may be uncertainty regarding an anticipated future event. After all, Christians are not comfortable with uncertainty, which is why you will frequently see them filling in the gaps in knowledge by proclaiming "God did it!", for instance, on the topic of the origins of life or the universe. Likewise, "God is control!" and "God is my copilot!" are frequently uttered in times where the future is concerned, when in actuality this is just another way of saying whatever is going to happen is going to happen.
But today I would like to know how the Christian who speaks of "God's Plan" squares-up this "plan" with things like "prayer", "free will", and god's (supposed) "sovereignty".
So, Christians? Why do you commence to "praying" if you truly in your heart of hearts believe that.....
- God is Perfect, Sovereign and nothing happens without his direction
- God knows the future with absolute certainty
- God knows what's best for you, despite what you want
Well? Please do chime in for my benefit and for the benefit of other non-believers. Yes, because, see, if you are so interested and/or concerned with the fact that I and millions more left your religion, just think of what a good ministry tool you could be in bringing us back.
Or wait.....can you be that ministry tool??? Is that even possible in a Christian worldview?
Let's explore the answer together...
So, I occasionally encounter a Calvinist guest on another blog I frequent. I'll call this Calvinist guest "S.Z."
S.Z. subscribes to the philosophy of John Calvin, and under Calvinist doctrine it is stated in no uncertain terms that God predestines people into salvation. This is a cornerstone of Calvinism. It is further a cornerstone of Calvinist doctrine, aka, "T.U.L.I.P.", that Jesus died *only* for those predestined to be saved, and that God "regenerates" the person to where he or she wants to choose God(aka, "Irresistible Grace"), and it is then and only then that the person is able to "choose" God.
Whaaaaaa?!?!?!?
Okay, the astute among us see the problem(s) immediately. Seriously, this is even worse than the idea that we can actually choose God or not, and by extension, "choose" to go to "Heaven" or "Hell", which also has its share of problems.
One atheist YouTube video-maker who goes by "NonStampCollector" made a video in which he compares Christianity's "free choice" concept with that of the IRS allowing you the "free choice" of paying your taxes, or not. It's actually a good analogy, because while one is "free" in the dictionary sense of the word, one is certainly not "free" in the intellectual or emotional sense of the word. Our intellect and emotions are part of what make us human.
But interestingly, if we apply that same IRS analogy to the Christian doctrine that is "Calvinism", we'd have to seriously reconfigure it to make it truly analogous.
Let's see, to be analogous with the Calvinist worldview, the IRS would send out letters to everyone telling them that they are too frickin' stupid, wretched, and depraved to do their own taxes. Maybe it's because one couple seriously botched up their taxes, so now two people ruined it for everybody else, and subsequently, now no one can be trusted(this should sound vaguely familiar at this point, but if not, think "Original Sin", mainly, the idiocy of it).
A month later the IRS would send out a followup letter stating that they've elected to provide free tax services to those who qualify.
Lo and behold, a month after that another letter is sent out saying that no one qualifies and that all ineligible people will be penalized. However, as a kind gesture, and so that no one would lose faith in the good ol' IRS, the IRS decided to use an election process to choose a small percentage of people to be exempt from the newly instated tax laws and penalties.
A month later everybody receives a roster of names, and anyone on that list will not be penalized.
Now, if you consider yourself to be a rational, intelligent individual, then the above analogy should sound utterly bat-sh*t insane to you. And yet, while no analogy is perfect, it illustrates the lunacy of the Christian doctrine known as "Calvinism", specifically, that of "predeterminism". Just as it would be useless in the above analogy to phone up a person not elected to be exempt from tax penalties and to harass them and/or second-guess their tax preparation abilities, it would likewise be useless to tell someone not elected by God that they have failed or fallen short in some way.
So, again: If "God" has "a Plan", and if part of that "plan" is to elect some people to save, while not electing others, then guess what.... the non-elect are every bit a part of "God's Plan" as the elect. Thus, asking for "Divine" intervention(AKA, "praying") on the behalf of the non-elect is counter-productive, at best. And yet, time and time again you will see the Christian bloggers (claim to be) throwing their hands up in the air in lack of their ministry doing any good.
"All we can do is pray", they say, and yet, we nonbelievers are evidently PART of "God's Perfect Plan"(assuming such a being exists for sake of discussion). But S.Z. and her Calvinist constituents blatantly ignore this. Every. time. Yup, S.Z. argues for "predeterminism", and she even confesses that it is up to her own supposedly "Sovereign" god to "open the eyes" of her non-believing counterparts.
So, maybe someone can explain how a "God" who already knows who will go to their grave a non-believer is "free" to open such a person's eyes. If "God" could "open my eyes", then I'm sorry, but that "God" couldn't have known with certainty that I wouldn't choose him.
This is applying basic logic in a world where we entertain the views of the illogical. If I said that I live next to a "married bachelor" and you correct me, but then next week I say the same thing, it is at that point that I become a damned liar. Well, it is no different for people like S.Z. when they repeat their errors.
11 comments:
"It's a mystery"
That's what I got after asking some questions to some Catholics once.
Of course none of this makes any sense, but in order to hold onto it, it doesn't have to either. It's all about faith. In fact, the less sense it makes the better (more faith).
Cool picture, btw.
"'It's a mystery'
That's what I got after asking some questions to some Catholics once."
Indeed, and this, too, belongs right up there with "God has a plan", "God is in control", yadda, yadda, on the list of apologetics that Christians employ, all of which happen to be intellectual cop-outs. What if Jeffrey Dahmer's defense attorney told the jury.... "Folks, it's a mystery why my client killed people and kept their heads in the refrigerator. So, today I ask you to understand this as you deliberate".
Okay, so-the-hell what, right? It's "a mystery", but does that somehow make it "right"??? I trust that you'd agree with me that it does not. And idk about you, but for me it's no different when a character in a book kills entire races of people, or commands us to feel "blessed" for dashing the heads of our enemy's children against rocks. There's nothing "mysterious" about the purposeful infliction of harm and suffering onto our fellow human beings, and it is for this reason that it's hard for me to not consider those who use such excuses to defend their "God", as subhuman.
"It's all about faith. In fact, the less sense it makes the better (more faith)."
I'm afraid you've nailed it, here. The amount of "faith" required to sustain belief is inversely proportional to the amount of sense it makes, and yet, the less sense it makes, the more "blessed" believers feel to go ahead and believe it anyway. This sort of mindset is a mainstay of religious indoctrination.
"Cool picture, btw"
Thx. 'Gotta love Google Image search = )
I agree that "God has a plan", "God is in control" and "It's a mystery" are all intellectual cop-outs. But I think an argument can be made that there is no actual intellectual investment in employment of these "answers". No, I'd argue that they are conditioned responses installed long before any intellect can be brought to bear on the questions that generate these responses ... because that's the way the whole house of cards is built and while installing these conditioned responses an overbearing dosage of fear is also installed to prevent the mark from ever questioning the question, let alone the answer.
I think the crux of getting theists to honestly apply intellect and reason hinges on getting them to suspend their fear of their "loving" god to actually LOOK at any question (objectively) honestly ... because generally, it's not that they're being purposely dishonest - at least not the rank and file - but they just will not view ANYTHING without the "god/bible" filter because even the academic exercise - however temporary - just MIGHT anger their god and thus cause irreparable harm if their god doesn't "get the memo" that they're just taking this objective intellect for a "test drive"
Good points Robert. It wasn't until I started considering Universalism that I wasn't afraid to ask.
Thanks Alice - I was in no way suggesting that current or former theists are in any way less intellectual - I know I refused to ask the central questions. or at least answer them with objective honesty, for 40+ years. It didn't start changing for me until around 2008 or so - in every iteration and configuration of belief - it ALWAYS started with the premise that there absolutely WAS a god and he loved us in some way and would punish us for eternity if we rejected him or acted in a way contrary to his "wishes" ... I actually think boomSLANG got me to take the original "test drive" - he was having a debate with another reader when I found his blog and I think I floated some uber liberal compromise position to bridge the debate and find consensus when he put me in a position to HONESTLY answer the question(s) from a position of objectivity and with backing of tangible, falsifiable evidence ... essentially started me on the road to thinking in a new way ... I suppose thanks are in order for that ;)
Directed her by Alice.
Great post! Wasn't a Calvinist, but you certainly made your point. :-D
"I think an argument can be made that there is no actual intellectual investment in employment of these 'answers'. No, I'd argue that they are conditioned responses installed long before any intellect can be brought to bear on the questions that generate these responses" ~ R. Hall
I don't disagree with any of that, Bobby. And yes, most certainly an argument can be made that there's no intellectual investment being made when believers opt to express and live by certain soundbites such as "God has a plan!", or "God is mysterious!", and the like. After all, it's not like Christianity tries to hide the fact that it is anti-intellectualism. It brags about it, for cryin' out loud. Yes, your "wisdom is foolishness", and you are admonished to become like children. Sure, children have some admirable qualities..e.g...forgive easily, love unconditionally. But they are also apt to believe anything you tell them. And it's worth noting that children don't need to be commanded to forgive or love unconditionally; they do those things innately.
"It wasn't until I started considering Universalism that I wasn't afraid to ask." ~ Alice
Makes sense, since, if there's universal reconciliation, then there's really no reason to be afraid to ask questions(like being curious is such a terrible thing....::eyeroll::)
"Great post! Wasn't a Calvinist, but you certainly made your point." ~ Nan
Thx!
BTW...
"I suppose thanks are in order for that ;)" ~ R. Hall
Welp, I'm glad that you (or anyone) can look back on our conversations and remember any sort of "light bulb" moment that I might have produced. I remember some of those same sorts of moments myself, back when the cognitive dissonance was becoming impossible to ignore. I listened in on believers conversing/debating with non-believers, and I'm actually thankful to those of my fellow deconverts before me who used the right blend of reasoned arguments and forthrightness. Taking it easy on demonstrably bad beliefs isn't doing anyone any favors. It just isn't.
I definitely had to get to a place where I could suspend my fear of hell(aka my "loving" god) before I could let myself entertain the questions seriously. I wasn't a Calvinist, BUT since becoming an unbeliever have come to the conclusion that if Christianity is true and Yahweh exists that Calvinism is probably the view that makes the most sense. The reason being that the Christian God really doesn't give anybody a choice. He made some for heaven and some for hell. The ones he made for heaven can't resist his...um...grace*. The ones he made for hell can't choose him even if they want to. In which case he's a monster.
*I don't think you can call that grace but Calvinists sure seem to think it is. If grace is unmerited favor I guess those few chosen have received it, but it isn't anything akin to mercy. We're all just pet rats in his maze.
"I wasn't a Calvinist, BUT since becoming an unbeliever have come to the conclusion that if Christianity is true and Yahweh exists that Calvinism is probably the view that makes the most sense. The reason being that the Christian God really doesn't give anybody a choice."
I totally "get" how you'd arrive at that conclusion, and I'm glad that you stipulated that it only "makes sense" in light of there not being a choice. In Calvinism, the only "choice" that's taking place occurred "before the foundation of the world". IOW, before any of us even existed. Yes, John Calvin's version of "God" is the only one making any "choice", here---that is, he's decided who he will "elect", and by extension, decided who he will not "elect", in advance. More shitty than that, Calvin's god can presumably see into the future via his omniscience, in which case, this god could see which of us would choose him, and which of us would not choose him. But alas, Calvin's "God" doesn't give a rat's hindquarters about that. He just doesn't. Five point Calvinism states in no uncertain terms that "God" could not care less about who we are as individuals. Nope, the Calvinese god's "election" process has nothing to do with what he sees(or doesn't see) in us. So, yes, I agree that if "square circles" could somehow exist, that John Calvin's god is a monster, and yes, we would all just be rats in his maze.
"The ones he made for heaven can't resist his...um...grace*."
Welp, it'd damned well better be irresistible. I mean, Gawd can't exactly offer grace that's "irresistible" to someone he didn't elect, now can he? D'oh! = )
Post a Comment