Enjoying the interaction! Thanks for all the challenging thoughts Bob.
Bob: I get that Epistemic Distance is needed to “develop morally” (and learn through experience). But I don’t get what you mean by “responsible.”
Tom: Moral development, or development of the character with respect to right and wrong, entails the notion of responsibility, no? They go together. That is, we only rightly hold people accountable (blameworthy) for their choices if their choices are minimally rational. What might be the components of a choice for which we’d hold someone accountable? I would say ‘being sufficiently informed’ would count as a component. ‘Being sane’ would count as another. I think ‘choosing freely’ would count as another. So how is one sufficiently free to reject God if one is left no rational grounds upon which to misrelate one’s self to the truth? It just doesn’t appear cruel to me that God would leave us this room, for this same space defines our possibility for freely choosing rightly.
I’m not saying that by being rational the choice against God isn’t wrong or that it doesn’t darken the intellect or bind us to illusions. I’m just saying that the only way to start down this road is by means of rational choice.
Bob: You say it’s essential to be provided “ground upon which to responsibly reject God,” which would be destroyed if “truth” was “obvious.” For we must maintain “responsibly chosen delusion.” But calling choices of delusion ‘rational’ and ‘responsible’ seems to me to turn words upside down.
Tom: I’ll try to distil it better. What I’m trying to say is that the rejection of God, to be a choice for which we are held accountable, ought to be free and rational. Now, I realize that in point of fact—if all the truth be told—there are no rational reasons for rejecting God. In that sense unbelief is an illusion. But that’s just the point. The sort of ‘moral development’ mentioned above presumes a movement towards perfection and maturity. God didn’t create us in a state of unmitigated and absolute truth and light so overwhelming that no space was left the reason (and so will, for the responsible exercise of the will is a rational exercise of the will) to reject God. We’d essentially be robots from the get-go, in which case no ‘development’ of character would be possible. But we in fact were and are able to reject God without having to be ‘insane’ or ‘delusional’. We “find reasons” to reject God. They’re not very good reasons in fact, but they constitute that bit of space human beings need to develop and determine themselves.
Bob: If Jesus models what we pursue, did he see “ground upon which to responsibly reject God”? Or was he, unlike us, simply unable to be ‘responsible’?
Tom: I don’t think Jesus was peccable (or free in the libertarian sense with respect to evil) as we are, so there’s no precise parallel for me here.
Bob: Pivotally, you assert that such a definition of ‘responsibility’ is the only metaphysical way to engineer loving partners. I simply don’t know that.
Tom: I get excited and overstate my case. Sorry! I should say I don’t see any other way to engineer a loving partnership between God and finite human beings apart from LFW.
Bob: Using a supposed grasp of metaphysical necessity to argue that we are fully responsible and blameworthy for rationally justified delusion, sounds to me like an extreme way to justify a philosophic premise already determined. I asked where the Bible celebrates having a proper basis to maintain delusion.
Tom: Oh, I don’t think the Bible celebrates having a proper basis to maintain a delusion in so many words. In fact, I don’t think libertarian freedom is valuable in and of itself. I think its value lies in the possibilities it opens up for the establishment of divine-human partnership and moral development God wants. It has a certain utility. That’s all.
But when I hear talk of “delusion” and “illusion” I tend to think of people getting “tricked” or “victimized” by some slight of hand magician, or that one has to be insane or mentally deranged to choose to reject the gospel or to make some selfish choice. But I want to lay the blame for sinful choices at the feet of sinners, not some unfortunate state of mental incapacity. But to do that we need to suppose we are sufficiently informed to have chosen rightly (that’s one side) but also that their wrong choices didn’t spring from some unfortunate lapse of sanity. To sin one doesn’t need to become temporarily insane.
Bob: You cited a great example: Eve’s deception. But I see this less as celebrated, than negatively regarded as something to overcome.
Tom: I didn’t mean to celebrate it as such. Rather, I want to argue that such is the universal state we find ourselves in (and a necessary one for our development), and that it won’t be overcome until glorification lifts the curtains entirely and floods our being with undeniable light. But what does Eve do? She ‘reasons’ (is there a better word) that “the fruit is good for food, pleasing to the eye, and profitable to make one wise.” She didn’t simply turn her brain off or become temporarily insane and leap irrationally into evil. She considered the Serpent’s offer, weighed it against what God had said, and managed to “spin” things sufficiently to fabricate a reason for eating. That is what I’m talking about. We have to be able to do THIS in order to freely self-determine with respect to God’s commands.
Bob: You admit that “a revelation of God” may feel constraining, but assert that rejection still remains “possible.” Do you think everyone is provided these equally powerful “revelations from God”?
Tom: Certainly not. I don’t think everybody even gets a sufficiently informed basis in their lifetime upon which to determine themselves relative to the gospel, a state of affairs I’m sure God rectifies post-mortem. But even post-mortem I don’t think it’s just a “given” that folks make the right choice. (Boy this is getting off into post-mortem eschatology!)
Bob: You conclude that it’s most loving to ‘create space’ for others to “rationally reject what is true.”
Tom: It’s a loving and acceptable risk to create space for people to freely determine themselves with respect to good and evil if that sort of self-determination is the only way to get finite persons into loving partnership with God. So, the freedom which defines the possibility of our choosing to develop toward God is the same freedom that defines the possibility of our choosing to move away from God.
Bob: This again turns the reality I experience on its head. I never seek to preserve grounds for those crippled around me so that they can rationally reject what is true (e.g. that they are in fact loved). I actually seek to persuade men of the truth as much as I can.
Tom: Right. So do I. But that’s not something epistemic distance undermines. By all means, whatever truth we CAN secure for people who haven’t yet chosen the gospel, let’s do so. But what you and I can’t do is persuade the mind so absolutely of so great a swatch of truth that the mind has no recourse for rational motivation except to choose God, for that would constitute (for as yet developing characters) a ‘constraint’ that makes free development impossible.
If you don’t need human moral development to be free, none of this carries any weight with you. I understand that. But for those of us who do think LFW is necessary to such development, it pretty much follows.
Bob: And it seems to me, that for many of us in U.R., the assumption that God will ultimately do no less, is what makes our confidence coherent. How do you assure U.R., if God forever preserves for rebels a “rational basis to reject the truth”? Doesn’t saying that what God values is taking a “risk” imply that you then can’t be sure of the outcome? I’d prefer a true Lover who would checkmate me.
Tom: Great question. I think Tom T. and I tossed this back and forth above under his tent. Basically I don’t guarantee UR by appealing to any deterministic providence of God. Nor do I suppose that once all our delusions and lies are burnt away that persons will automatically choose God. Adam and Eve didn’t suffer from any delusion or lie that darkened their reasoning capacities. Nor can I suppose that God will flood the intellect with so overwhelming a revelation of God that no rational ground would remain for rejecting God. Since I think the choice for God must be libertarian I’m bound to suppose that SOME measure of epistemic distance would characterize even an optimal post-mortem context. Does that mean a person could conceivable renew their rejection of God? Yes. But given the postmortem context as I see it, it’s just a matter of time. We can’t permanently/irrevocably foreclose all possibility of Godward movement either. We can’t irrevocably solidify our wills against God. And God will love us and pursue us as long as it takes. Beyond that I don’t speculate. It’s enough for me to know that no one of us can irrevocably solidify into evil (not even Satan has done so in my view) and that God will never give up on us. So I’m an extremely hopeful and encouraged believer in eventual UR. But I don’t think God has predetermined a terminous ad quem at which point he has decided to release the last of all the hearts he’s hardened. (Had to throw that in there! 
)
Grateful for the convo,
Tom
LOL! Go ahead fire away.