April Fools Day, The Avengers, and the Real World

On April Fools Day (2022) I posted the following across social media: “Doctor Strange is the most evil character in all of fiction. How dare he actualize a future in which he knew all the pain, evil, and suffering that would happen if he were to give Thanos the time stone. I hate him!”“Doctor Strange is the most evil character in all of fiction. How dare he actualize a future in which he knew all the pain, evil, and suffering that would happen if he were to give Thanos the time stone. I hate him!” This sarcastic post was directed at my atheist friends who appeal to the problem of evil as justification for their belief that God does not exist. In 42 words, those who have watched Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame can see the salient point. Namely, that if they consider Doctor Strange -- who actualized and predestined a world filled with vast amounts of pain, evil, and suffering -- to be a hero (a person with limited knowledge), then they have no reason to think that a perfectly intelligent and omniscient God allowing pain, evil, and suffering should be seen as anything other than a hero (one who ought to be praised)! Although this post was directed toward non-Christians, a popular on-line Calvinist decided to jump into the mix and responded with the following comment: “Conditional ability and determination FTW. I love this example because it demonstrates Compatiblism so perfectly! The outcome was causally brought about by prior causes. Beautiful.” Ironically, just a few days later, this same compatibilist and Calvinist popularizer scolded me on Twitter for portraying his view as "causal determinism" (he seemingly wants to keep his determinism but drop causation -- yet he uses the word "causally" to describe his view).<1> Moreover, leading compatibilist scholars appeal to and affirm causal determinism. Consider John Martin Fischer, for example. Fischer defines compatibilism as the “doctrine that both some central notion of freedom and also . . . moral responsibility are compatible with causal determinism” (Four Views On Free Will, p. 44). To see more about the different manners of defining compatibilism, click here. I digress . . . since my comment was aimed at those who do not believe in God, I felt embarrassed for the Calvinist when I read his comment. This is because it is ultimately unhelpful for at least three reasons. First, it’s a horrible misunderstanding of The Avengers. Second, it’s an even worse misunderstanding of the real world. Third, it hinders evangelism.

The Avengers

Appealing to a 'conditional ability' and 'determination' simply means that each of the characters in

Avengers: Endgame

had the 'ability' to be determined to do otherwise by something or someone else. This is unimpressive as a voo doo doll also has the so-called ability to be determined to do different things by an evil witch doctor. Accordingly, these characters in

The Avengers

movies have the 'ability' to be determined to do otherwise, if and only if something else would have determined them differently. Namely, Thanos, Tony Stark, Captain America, Natasha Romanov, and Thor could have done otherwise

IF

Doctor Strange had done otherwise and actualized a different possible future/world (or if the Russo brothers would have written a different script). Big deal! Who cares if a person is the kind of thing that can be determined – by something or someone else – to do one thing or a different kind of thing? Moreover, This provides no comfort, hope, or anything else for those who exist in the world Doctor Strange actualized into existence. Moreover, it does not seem as if Strange is determining all things at the end of

Infinity War

and all through

Endgame

. Although the outcome was brought about by Doctor Strange causing a possible state of affairs to become actual (by giving Thanos the time stone), it does not follow that all things within this state of affairs are

exhaustively

determined or necessitated via antecedent conditions. In

Avengers: Infinity War

, Strange told Stark that his choice to give the time stone to Thanos was “the only way.” Well, if Strange was causally determining all things, then there would not only be one way. Strange would have the power to determine any and all things exactly as he’d like. Surely he did not want to create a world in which Stark and Romanov are killed, where Thor becomes severely depressed and physically unhealthy, and where Peter Quill takes two vicious and gratuitous knee strikes below the belt by Gamora. In

Endgame

, when Stark asked Strange if this is the one world where they win, Strange answered that if he tells him what

will

happen, then it

won’t

happen. Why not? If Strange was determining and controlling all things, then he could determine it to be the case that Strange could tell Stark what will happen AND determine it all to happen anyway. It makes much more sense to watch

The Avengers

through the lens of libertarian freedom (especially since causal determinism is shown to be evil in Captain America: Civil War). For this Calvinist commentator to claim "victory" for exhaustive divine determinism (EDD) is ridiculous and atheists, skeptics, and other "outsiders" know it. I am attempting to "reason together" (Isaiah 1:18) and "walk in wisdom toward outsiders" (as Paul says in Colossians 4:5).

The Real World

The problem is worse for EDD when considering the actual world. When a Christian falls into temptation and sins (suppose the Calvinist cheats on his wife), he could not have

actually

done otherwise in the real world God created and taken the way of escape God promises to provide as 1 Corinthians 10:13 seems to make clear. No, the only way the man could have not committed adultery is ultimately conditioned upon if God would have determined him to do or want something else (conditionalism). Indeed, the stark difference between Molinism and exhaustive divine determinism (what many Calvinists affirm), is that although both affirm predestination of all things, if Molinism is true,

nothing

(that actually exists) prevented the regenerate Christian adulterer from doing otherwise. If Calvinism is true, however, God prevented the regenerate Christian adulterer from doing otherwise (by determining him to do exactly

what

he did (and exactly

how

he did it) by determining him not to take the way of escape). As I also shared on social media:

The Molinist God has the endgame of perfection with libertarian free creatures in mind. The God of EDD-Calvinism could have determined perfection from the beginning (unless, as I think it is, perfection is incompatible with determinism). He does not have to determine child rape or beheadings for His glory.The Molinist God has the endgame of perfection with libertarian free creatures in mind. The God of EDD-Calvinism could have determined perfection from the beginning (unless, as I think it is, perfection is incompatible with determinism). He does not have to determine child rape or beheadings for His glory.

Unlike the Calvinist commentator who describes this as “beautiful,” if God determining a regenerate Christian man to cheat on his wife (or fill in the blank with far worse evils) strikes you as sick, wrong, and just plain absurd (as it does me), then you ought to reject this Calvinistic view that advances a low view of our creator. Why would anyone offer this kind of response to “outsiders” when interacting with the problem of evil? The advancement of this absurd view only makes it harder to do evangelism and reach the lost (but the Calvinist assumes the damned are determined to be "doomed from the womb" anyway, so who cares).

Conclusion

Bottom line: EDD-Calvinism combined with the problem of evil provides justification for the atheist’s non-belief. With apologetics and evangelism in mind (not to mention truth), Christians ought to do better and lovingly take the atheist’s justification away from them – leaving no good reason to be an atheist. Simultaneously, we need to show atheists that God loves

all

humans and desires each and every one of us (who are all created in His likeness) to  know the truth and enter into a true love relationship with God – paradise – for eternity (1 Timothy 2:4). The Molinist can consistently make such claims. Indeed, as I’ve written elsewhere:

“For all we know, the actual world is the best feasible freedom-permitting world, even with its moral, natural, and gratuitous evils, as well as its divine hiddenness. For example: it is “For all we know, the actual world is the best feasible freedom-permitting world, even with its moral, natural, and gratuitous evils, as well as its divine hiddenness. For example: it is

possible

that the actual world is the one feasible freedom-permitting circumstance where evil is ultimately defeated and all are saved (the bracketed words leave room for that the actual world is the one feasible freedom-permitting circumstance where evil is ultimately defeated and all are saved (the bracketed words leave room for

hopeful

universalism). If this specific feasible “maximal harvest world” exists, then a perfectly wise and loving God would either create it—no matter how much finite suffering, evil, or divine hiddenness existed—or refrain from creation altogether.” universalism). If this specific feasible “maximal harvest world” exists, then a perfectly wise and loving God would either create it—no matter how much finite suffering, evil, or divine hiddenness existed—or refrain from creation altogether.”

This response is far superior to that which any advocate of EDD can offer. Indeed, the EDD-Calvinist response

provides

the problem of evil, the problem of suffering, the problem of hiddenness, and especially the problem of the damned (see Leighton Flowers's recent video highlighting the failure of Calvinistic apologetics and evangelism in real-life). The only day this view should be offered to the public is on April 1st. The Molinist response, however, takes the teeth out of the bite of all these "problems." Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18), Dr. Tim Stratton *To view the corresponding video click here.

Notes

<1>

There seems to be a trend of several Calvinists retreating from causation (i.e., cause and effect relationships). Traditionally, however, Calvinists have held to a "causal determinism and have maintained that God causally determines things to occur "one way or another" (e.g., via primary or secondary causes). For example, in

Calvinism and the Problem of Hell

, notable Calvinist, Matthew J. Hart not only identifies himself with this exact position but admits that there is a greater body of scholars who agree with him. Hart writes:

“Calvinists, I shall assume, are theological determinists. They hold that God causes every contingent event, either directly or indirectly.”

In other words, all of a person’s thoughts and beliefs are “caused” and determined by God. Paul Helm is clear that each and every one of your thoughts and desires is under God's direct control:

“not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by God, but every twist and turn of each of these is under the direct control of God. He has not, as far as we know, delegated that control to anyone else.”

I'll be discussing the Calvinist's recent retreat from causation (and its implications) in a forthcoming article. Stay tuned.