{"id":380427,"date":"2010-03-02T08:53:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-02T13:53:00","guid":{"rendered":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5587346.post-6234439626337211440"},"modified":"2010-03-09T10:21:10","modified_gmt":"2010-03-09T15:21:10","slug":"calvin-free-will-and-me","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/380427","title":{"rendered":"Calvin, free will and me"},"content":{"rendered":"
I’ve had only a nodding acquaintance with Calvinism (TULIP, via Garrison Keillor<\/a>), though I picked up a bit more thanks to George W Bush<\/a> and his fellow Marketarian<\/a> social Darwinists<\/a>.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It wasn’t until I listened to In Our Time on Calvinism<\/a>, though, that I realized Calvin and I had something fundamental in common. Neither Calvin nor I believe in the myth of free will<\/a>, or the myth of responsibilit<\/a>y. (Though I do treat both as a useful fiction – especially with the kids.)<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
If you’re a Christian, and you don’t believe in free will, then you have to believe that either nobody is saved, or everyone is saved, or that God is capricious.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The first two options are simpler, but the first makes Christ seem rather pointless and the second can’t create a successful social movement. Only the third option, that God is capricious, will produce the right mixture of fear, pride, power and scorn – particularly when coupled with the Marketarian principle that God rewards the righteous with worldly power. The principles of natural selection ensure that, absent free will, the theology of a capricious God will win.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
I’ve never liked <\/i>Calvin, but at least now I understand his logic. Of course, were <\/i>I a Christian, I’d follow Occam<\/a> and choose the simpler assumption that everyone is saved. Calvin didn’t let his logic get in the way of a good power base, so he made a different choice.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
See also:<\/div>\n
\n