Coffeehouse Compatibilism

The Espresso that Drowned an Idea

Lahm

• Publisher: Resource Publications
• Year: 2012
• eBook ISBN: 9781621899167
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

For centuries, Christians have pondered the following questions:•Are we free?•What is freedom? •What impact would it have if we weren't free? •Is it possible that we are determined, and yet free in a sense too?•Is there any way we can know which is correct?•How does all this fit in to our Christian faith?•What's the basic philosophical difference between Arminianism and Calvinism?Coffeehouse Compatibilism is a fictional philosophical dialogue between three academics and a student on the issue of free will. The three academics: Calvin, Wesley, and B. F., represent the three schools of thought on the free will issue. Calvin, who characterizes John Calvin, speaks for Compatibilism. Wesley, who characterizes John Wesley, speaks for Libertarianism. And B. F., who characterizes B. F. Skinner, speaks for Determinism. The first three chapters of the book contain the arguments and rebuttals for Determinism, Compatibilism, and Libertarianism, respectively. The final chapter integrates Christian theology and the Scriptures into the conversation, ending with a stunning change of opinion for one of the characters. The book is a fantastic introduction to the free will problem for novices and offers a uniquely Christian understanding of this free will issue.

Dialogue 1

Whose Watch Is It Anyway? Determinism Defended

When men strike for freedom, they strike against jails and the police, or the threat of them- against oppression. They never strike against forces which make them want to act the way they do.

—B.F. Skinner, Walden Two

Consider not only the consequences which flow from a given hypothesis, but the consequences which flow from denying the hypothesis.

—Parmenides, The Dialogues of Plato

Calvin’s eyes fell upon a tabletop menu as B.F. removed some papers from his jacket pocket. Near the top, facing him in decorative font, was the name of the coffeehouse:

La Fontaine Inattendue

Something in its placement, or style, or message reminded him of an announcement he had wished to share.

Calvin: “Pardon me, B.F., but before you start, I want to let you both know that one of my graduate students will be sitting in for our conversation tonight . . . . Wesley, I believe you have Rachel in your ethics course?”

Wesley: “Ah, yes, yes,” he affirms, now cradling his cappuccino just below his chin, with the steam of it partially fogging his thick, brown-framed glasses.

Calvin: “She is studying this very issue in my metaphysics course and expressed that she hopes to gain some insight into, well… what types of implications the answer to this question may have for other areas of philosophy, such as ethics,” he says with a nod towards Wesley, “or even religion.”

B.F., who was not always very attentive when Calvin spoke, nor had he been traditionally much interested in the subject of religion, seemed very fascinated in Calvin’s side of the coffee shop. Being so taken aback by the change, Calvin did a double-take. He realized that B.F. was looking past him, over his shoulder. Before Calvin could turn his head to see what the commotion was all about, B.F. precipitately began combing his moustache with a small, fine comb beckoned from— well— only God knows where. As a note of observation, B.F.’s moustache was similar, in the author’s opinion, to an Olympic hurdle in three particular respects:

1. (1) its shape,

2. (2) the daunting feeling of forthcoming danger it gave a person, and

3. (3) the figurative manner in which one had to vault it to arrive at the rest of B.F.’s face.

“Je suis désolée professeur, mais je pense que je suis un peu en retard.”1

Calvin stands up, a bit surprised by her entrance.

Calvin: “Non, je t’en prie,” he articulates in his native tongue, “assieds-toi là, s’il te plait.”2 While standing, he introduces Rachel to the other two men, “Wesley, I believe you and Rachel know each other.”

Wesley: “Yes! good to see you outside of class, Rachel,” he affirms, returning her grin and shaking her outstretched hand from across the table.

Rachel: “And you as well, professor. Professor Skinner, I don’t believe we have had the pleasure of meeting yet, but I have heard many great things about you from your admiring students.”

B.F.: “I have many admirers my dear . . . and yet I’d say I’m always recruiting.” He smiles back at the young girl, whose face he finds curiously pleasant to gaze upon.

Calvin: “Well then,” Calvin noisily interjects, “I see you have your notepad with you,” he comments, motioning to Rachel. “If there is any point within our discussion where you are at a loss for the meaning of our terms or the specific logic of our arguments, please feel free to ask at will. I don’t want you to feel hindered in any way,” Calvin puns.

Wesley: Wesley, chuckling a bit to himself from Calvin’s thoughtfully placed witticisms, adds, “yes, please feel at liberty to do as you please throughout the evening, Rachel.”

B.F., still taken more by Rachel’s natural beauty and unpretentious demeanor than the humor of his friends, inquires, “So how is it that you have come to know French? Is this a part of your philosophical studies?”

Rachel: “Yes it is Professor Skinner. I actually spent a year studying the language in Noyon, which is a petite city in northern France. It would be totally unknown to the world if it had not been the birthplace of a few great thinkers,” Rachel artfully intimates, looking to Calvin to explain further.

Calvin: Nodding his head, noticeably delighted by her complaisance, he elaborates, “As chance would have it, Rachel happened to choose my home town to study in . . . .Yes, and I have asked her to converse in French with me when leisure allows, as it gives me great pleasure to speak in French outside the home. However, before you arrived, Rachel, B.F. was just getting ready to commence our dialogue this evening, so I will not hinder him any further.”

B.F. opens some folded papers that he had lying on the table in front of him.

B.F.: “Knowing how much you theists like stories about watches, I thought I would begin our evening by speaking on the beautiful timepiece that we find ourselves in, or rather, a part of. The turning gears and integrated systems of our Newtonian world all spin to the melody of the mundane ‘tic tic tic tic . . .’ There are no autonomous oscillators, no maverick mechanisms, but each part is moved by its antecedent and moves its consequent in a magnificent parade of causation.3 It will be my aim, therefore, this evening to buttress this conclusion, namely, that man is no more ‘free’ than a wooden top, which being flung out by some children, rolls this way and that.”

B.F. pauses, glances towards Rachel, and recommences, “I suppose it would be fitting for me, in the presence of our guest, to quickly outline the main forms of determinism held today. There are four. First, physical determinism, which is essentially the type of thing I had just alluded to. It is the notion that, given the determinant way physical things interact, there is no room for freedom; unless of course you define it in the bizarre way Calvin does,” B.F. banters. Calvin, seemingly accustomed to this sort of sarcasm, just continued sipping his coffee.

“So, on this thesis, the state of the physical world and the laws of nature entail a distinct future;4 that is, given the way the world is at any moment, the laws of nature will carry the world in a fixed way and nothing can deviate from this path. So the two, the laws of nature and the state of the world, bring about all that is. They entail whether or not I will succeed at my greatest life goals, whether or not I will have any goals, whether I will cheat on a test, cheat on my wife, and, in general, the state of every physical thing. As the great French determinist Laplace asserted, if one were able to know everything about the current moment and the laws by which the universe operates, one could predict the future,5 and not only the next few moments, but the entirety of it.”6

B.F., judging Rachel’s face to see whether or not his explanations were sufficient, continues. “Rachel, did you ever play with dominoes when you were a child?”

Rachel: “Mmm . . . not really, but I know what they are. Why?”

B.F.: “Okay, well think of it like this. You have just set up ten dominoes in a sequence. You know the weight, height, and width of every piece. You know the distance between each piece and any external factors that may come into play in their toppling into each other, like the density of the ai...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• The Gathering: Three Schools Collide
• Dialogue 1: Whose Watch Is It Anyway? Determinism Defended
• Dialogue 2: Compatible or Intractable?
• Dialogue 3: Would the Real Morally Responsible Agent Please Stand Up?
• Dialogue 4: Compatibilism and the Christian Story
• Epilogue: A Letter to Friends