Since this isn’t a phrase that isn’t often used outside of philosophical circles, I figured it would be helpful to take a minute and define this term and how it has a significant bearing on the philosophical presuppositions we filter everything, including our interpretation of Scripture, through.

Simply put, causal determinism is the notion that every event is directly caused or decreed either by an impersonal force like the Fates or destiny, a natural series of causes and effects¹ constrained within a causally closed system², or a personal deity like Allah or, as some suppose, the God of the Hebrew Scriptures.

A more in-depth study regarding the validity of the notion of causal determinism³ is beyond the scope of this post. My intention here is to merely present the term for edification and clarification in the future as we explore what I believe to be one of the most significant divisions within all of Christendom. Indeed, I would argue (elsewhere of course) that the abandonment of causal determinism is one of the defining characteristics of Christianity.

1. Think about the famous, but hopelessly simplistic, debate regarding nature vs. nurture
2. That is, the notion that there are no non-material influences or causes. No souls or wills. Your mind is merely a biological information processing unit.
3. Or, as Turretinfan asserts, oozes from Scripture

Audio

William Lane Craig‘s multi-part series “Doctrine of God” taught in his Sunday School class (Defenders) at Johnson Ferry Baptist Church

Articles

• Refutation of Boyd’s Neo-Molinism, William Lane Craig
• Molinism and Romans 9, William Lane Craig
• On the grounding objection, William Lane Craig
• Subject: Misconceptions about Middle Knowledge, William Lane Craig
• Does God Choose Who Will Believe?, Jeff Robinson

Philosophia Christi is a scholarly periodical published by the Evangelical Philosophical Society which regularly has articles both for and against Middle Knowledge, recently Vol 11 Num 1 2009 featured Steven B. Cowan (Editor of Five Views on Apologetics) against and Scott A Davison (Professor of Philosophy at Morehead State University) for with some good interaction between them both.

Books

• Only Wise God, William Lane Craig
• Reasonable Faith, William Lane Craig
• Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, William Lane Craig
• Divine Providence: The Molinist Account, Thomas P Flint
• Middle Knowledge, Eef Dekker
• Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach, Kenneth Keathley
• God’s Greater Glory, Bruce Ware
• The Transforming Power of Grace, Thomas C Odem

Other notable proponents of Middle Knowledge¹ include:

• Bruce Little who is a philosophy professor at SEBTS who has done a lot of work on the topic of God, Evil, and Suffering and whom is also the author of Creation Order Theodicy
• Udo Middleman who is a Calvinist and director of L’Abri which was started by his father-in-law, Francis Schaeffer. He is also the author of the excellent books Innocence of God and The Islamization of Christianity
• Alvin Plantinga who is a Calvinist and Presbyterian professor of philosophy (specifically epistemology) at Notre Dame
• Thomas P Flint who is a Roman Catholic professor of philosophy at Notre Dame
• Ken Keathley who is a senior associate dean and professor of theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C. and a 4 point Calvinist.

I would be remiss if I were to claim this as an exhaustive list of proponents or resources pertaining to Middle Knowledge/Molinism so if you know of any other resources, by all means, let me know!

1. These include both active and passive proponents of Middle Knowledge/Molinism. Not all of these people actively promote Middle Knowledge by itself but all, as far as I know, hold to this doctrine and deem it useful or “fruitful” in answering other theological/philosophical issues. The most significant being the question of evil.

This comes as part of a long-running discussion where I maintain that, in order for morality to be of any substance² , it must first be objective³ , timeless⁴, and transcendent⁵. To that end, I would like to offer two conjoined arguments in opposition to the proposed secular basis for morality based on empathy and the golden rule.

1.) The philosophical foundations of naturalism do not support the case for empathy being a standard.

If by secularism we mean philosophical naturalism in the sense that the only reality is the physical reality of atoms, particles, and “laws of nature” to the exclusion of metaphysical constructs such as a soul then our biggest hurdle to overcome, long before we deal with the grounds of any objective morality, is to answer where we get the notion of “ought to” from.

In other words, if matter is all there is, then all of our actions are essentially predetermined by our genes through chemical reactions happening in our brains. In this scenario we can no more will ourselves to be good, upright individuals than a sociopath who has no conscience.

Furthermore, as naturalists, we remove from ourselves the categories of right and wrong and are merely left with preferences which, even if applied to a societal level, still find no objective basis since it is still the subject (whether an individual or collective) that is determining the correctness of any given action (or intention/motive) and not a fixed standard that fits the criteria outlined at the outset which is required if our goal is a standard that is truly objective.

The only imbalance that can be found in this scenario is an imbalance of opinion and preference so that, when I say that you have wronged me, all I am doing is merely expressing a difference in opinion over your actions or intentions.

However, the fact that humans throughout history, and even the secular humanist, feel the need for a basis to morality is a rather curious notion⁶ since, without a truly objective standard to go by, all we would be left with would be moral relativism which, being relative to the individual or culture, would provide no real guidance at all, let alone one based on empathy.

2.) The philosophical presuppositions in the argument of empathy seem to assume that all humans have some sort of inherent worth and are of equal value which, given the secular or naturalistic view outlined above, is as incoherent in a naturalistic or secular world view as the notion of a free will able to effect a downward causal change in the mind/body⁷.

At a certain level we agree that empathizing with animals is a good thing to do. However, at some point we tend to eat our small furry (or feathery) friends which seems to indicate that humans are in a category of their own⁸ indicating either speciesm or an indication that humans are, indeed, unique among the other “animals” in the evolutionary struggle.

Given that nature is also “red with tooth and claw“, and that animals regularly eat their own kind⁹, we can safely conclude that humans are alone in their ability¹⁰ to “empathize” which seems to indicate that the notion of empathy is, at best, ambiguous¹¹ and, at worse, completely irrelevant to simple propagation of the species¹².

The bottom line is that empathy, while sounding like the holy grail of secular ethics and morality does not line up with the philosophical naturalism it is built upon.

In conclusion; only in a world where humans were created equal¹³ would the golden rule or “empathy” make sense. Indeed, I would submit the fact that we find this golden rule upheld in some degree amongst nearly all cultures across the world and across time give us a good indication that we are, indeed, created equally and ought to therefore question seriously the foundation of our equality just in case that foundation happens to be a person like us¹⁴.

1. As opposed to a theocentric model where morality is ultimately based on God and His Law
2. That is, not a myth.
3. That is, outside of myself.
4. Not constrained by time and space.
5. Cannot change with time
6. “Human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and can’t really get rid of it.” –C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity
7. That is, naturalism presupposes a deterministic view of causal actions which, by default, makes the concept of a “free will” incoherent.
8. or at least view themselves as such
9. Cannibalism, not only for food, but, in the case of preying mantises, even as a means of sexual arousal
10. and willingness to do so consistently
11. that is, just as much of a cosmic accident as we supposedly are
12. especially since altruism and self-sacrifice are values directly opposed to the Darwinistic notion of self-preservation
13. That is, their metaphysical souls created in the likeness of God
14. Yes, I am referring to God which, if he exists would require us to extend the rule of empathy to him as well. More so, since having created us he would occupy a higher place of importance than a fellow human being created in his image which, coincidentally, is what Jesus taught when he summed up the teachings of the Bible in two statements dealing with love. Both of God and of men.