The analogy uses the examples of the two different kinds of animals to make an incorrect point about human nature, volition, and moral failings. In it, a rabbit and a vulture are separately given the opportunity to choose between a pile of carrots and a pile of meat. According to the Calvinists who use this analogy, the rabbit and vulture can only choose what is compatible with their natures, with rabbits being herbivores and vultures being carnivores.
They mistakenly think that this hypothetical scenario illustrates some deep truth about what it means to be human. According to them, humans are incapable of choosing righteousness or salvation on their own because of their fallen natures, and thus God must intervene in someone's life, choosing them for redemption, before he or she can actually "choose" God over sin (calling a predestined event a choice is dishonest at best, of course). Not only is the Calvinist position on human free an ideology that is logically false [1] and contradictory to what the Bible teaches about God [2], but the analogy involving the rabbit and vulture doesn't even establish that the animals themselves will eat the appropriate food.
Even if a rabbit is offered a massive pile of carrots, it might not eat any of the carrots at all; likewise, even if a vulture is offered a mountain of carcasses, it might not eat any of the meat in front of it. The fact that an animal has the opportunity to eat even a familiar food does not mean that it will actually eat anything to begin with. The rabbit and vulture analogy fails entirely for these reasons alone! Even so, there is at least one other major problem with this Calvinist analogy.
The second major error in the analogy is the assumption that if animals act as deterministic puppets, humans do as well. This is a mere assumption because it relies on the fallacy of composition--that is, it treats humans as if whatever is metaphysically true of animals must also be metaphysically true of humans. No one can demonstrate that animals are deterministic or capable of making free choices, as the fact that humans are non-telepaths prevents us from even knowing if animals (or, ultimately, other humans) are conscious at all.
The most significant flaw with Calvinism, though, is that I know with absolute certainty that I possess free will [1], regardless of what the Bible or any other person claims. If I did not have free will, I could not know anything at all because I my worldview would be dictated by some external force (God, nature, etc.) and thus nothing would be certain--not even that a thing is what it is or that my mind exists. However, logical axioms (as well as any other logically demonstrable truth [3]) and the existence and contents of my own consciousness, in addition to several other things, cannot be illusions. In order to doubt or deny them, they must be affirmed, which makes them necessary truths that can be proven in full.
It follows from the fact that any fact can be known with absolute certainty that I do have free will, meaning that I can voluntarily deliberate, reason, and choose to think or act in a certain way. Genuine knowledge is impossible apart from an autonomous will and the affiliated capacity for sound reasoning. If the Bible denied human free will, then every part of the Bible containing the denial would be false, as my free will is a brute fact that I have immediate confirmation of. The matter is that simple.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/refuting-assumption-about-free-will.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/02/a-contradiction-of-calvinism.html
[3]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/metaphysics-and-absolute-certainty.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-extent-of-absolute-certainty.html
C. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-impossibility-of-total-ignorance.html
No comments:
Post a Comment