OT: Ex-Post-Facto

So I know it's a bit off topic but the logical fallacy detective in me couldn't help but ask the rest of the forums. How would you defeat the statement that Christians live on an ex-post-factor fallacy. Namely, if Romans 8:28-29 are true and God is working out all things to the good of those who love Him, how can we say that nothing is outside God's sovereign control and yet not commit an ex-post-facto logical fallacy?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Rich DeRuiter

So I know it's a bit off topic but the logical fallacy detective in me couldn't help but ask the rest of the forums. How would you defeat the statement that Christians live on an ex-post-factor fallacy. Namely, if Romans 8:28-29 are true and God is working out all things to the good of those who love Him, how can we say that nothing is outside God's sovereign control and yet not commit an ex-post-facto logical fallacy?

Had to look up "ex post facto fallacy" and not sure I have it right, nor what the anti-Christian objection might be, specifically.

But the Scriptures are quite clear that sinful human beings as well as demons act within the framework of what God permits. Job is one example of how this works: God limits but does not directly control Satan. In this case God is not the direct cause of every effect, while at the same time limiting the extent of the effects for His Christians to only those effects that will result in our good. (That's for Rom. 8:28) I know there are some who would disagree with me on this, but I would challenge that view based on the simple reading of the Biblical text.

As far as Rom 8:29 goes, the theological debate still rages on how divine election and human responsibility work together. From both the Calvinist and Arminian side of this debate, there is a huge question mark as to the relationship between human freedom and predestination, and the degree of causality (which the ex post facto challenge seems to bring into question here) that belongs to God's sovereignty. Whether we construe the offer of grace as irresistible or not, may also be a part of the problem, but we'd need to clarify the specifics of the objection to be able to respond clearly.

But I'm not even sure I understand how you are construing the ex post facto fallacy in relation to these verses, so I'm not sure I'm addressing the issues you want addressed.

Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/408328#Comment_408328

Thank you for your reply. I should have been more clear. Avoiding the topic of divine election, if we treat history as the reflection of God's handy work, atheist would claim we base everything on an ex-post-facto fallacy. We look back on what has occured in history or our lives and conlude that because we believe there is a God, therefore, God has interviened in our lives. When we claim "God did something" it's ex-post-facto because 'after the fact' we say God has acted.

Whyndell Grizzard

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/408330#Comment_408330

And yes because we are finite that is the only way we can experience and see God's handiwork.

That may "not" be the philosophical answer you were searching for, but in reality, it is the best fallen creatures can do- we are without apology ignorant of God's ways and purposes, and can only appreciate the limited knowledge we receive in light of our relationship to Him, 'Salvation is of the lord."

Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/408332#Comment_408332

True but I'm looking for the correct philosophical response. Only one of two solutions is correct: either ex-post-facto is an invalid argument against viewing God's sovereignty in practical life (if that's the case I'd like the logical argument) or ex-post-facto is a valid argument and there is some other logical argument to be made for God's sovereignty. I know I'm not really that bright in the realm of philosophy so someone here with more formal training should be able to direct me on the right path

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/408336#Comment_408336

First there are a number of descriptions of the ex post facto fallacy. In law, it frequently refers to the retro-active application of a law. In science, it refers to interpreting an observed contingency as if it represented a causal connection - in which case we have an opportunity to develop another hypothesis for testing. In informal logic it often means rewriting personal history to match current personal beliefs.

Therefore, in the situation you are describing the real issue is what evidence one can provide for God's intervention vs. what evidence is provided for alternative explanations. One needs at the beginning to set aside the predictive aspect as we cannot externally prove an act of God prior to the action. One also needs to set aside the tendency to credit God for all events even when they are more simply explained by natural or social force -- this is simply a pragmatic principle for discussion not a theological position. Then when your "opponent" yells ex post facto fallacy, you have successfully removed the "fallacy" and limited the discussion to the identification of the effects of divine action as the simplest explanation for the observed phenomenon. Note all observations are post facto[;)]

Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/408339#Comment_408339

Thank you mj! Well written. I thought as much about natural observations that all are ex postdoctoral as our bias informs all our observations. I apprechiate your input!

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/408330#Comment_408330

Thank you for your reply. I should have been more clear. Avoiding the topic of divine election, if we treat history as the reflection of God's handy work, atheist would claim we base everything on an ex-post-facto fallacy. We look back on what has occured in history or our lives and conlude that because we believe there is a God, therefore, God has interviened in our lives. When we claim "God did something" it's ex-post-facto because 'after the fact' we say God has acted.

Which sounds a lot like what I hear when I listen to an astrophysicist talk about the "Big bang," or a psychoanalyst talk about the relationship between a rough childhood and anti-social behavior, etc. The observation of a fact and an explanation of a cause, is not wrong because it is asserted; we just can't always be sure it's correct (even if it is reasonable to believe it is). To this objection we could also add the correlation=causation fallacy, which gives rise to all sorts of superstitious behaviors - as well as dubious scientific discoveries.

But neither the ex post facto objection, nor the correlation/causation objection proves or disproves anything. It can only raises the question of causation, and asserts that we cannot prove (logically) that God intervenes on behalf of His people. Neither can it be proved that He doesn't.

Also, the ex post facto objection is a sword that cuts both ways. Asserting alternate (i.e., "not God") causes after the fact, stands on logically equal ground to asserting that God is the cause of "event X." Take for example the "Big Bang" theory. Asserting that the universe exists because of something popularly called "the Big Bang" is an ex post facto argument that stands on no higher ground than the assertion "God created the universe out of nothing." We have the "Big Bang" theory as the result of conclusions based on observations - it is a classic ex post facto argument: "X" occurred; "Y" explains how "X" occurred; therefore "Y" is the cause of "X."

Finally, the objection only has merit if there is a possible circumstance that would be acceptable to the opponent that God does, or at least on one occasion did intervene on behalf of His people; or if it could be proved that God never ever does this. Remember, offering an alternate reasonable explanation is not sufficient to disprove a proposed reasonable explanation (e.g., God intervened when my friend's broken arm was healed through prayer). What sort of proof would convincingly demonstrate to the objector that God intervenes on behalf of His people? If there is none that would be acceptable, then the discussion will be doomed to circular reasoning.

Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/408469#Comment_408469

Richard - Thank you for the reply! That brings clarification to the argument. For sure, there is always the 'accidental' argument (which seems a lot like what you are talking about at the end) where one incident outside the scope of 'normal' generalization assumed in speech is used to disprove a whole. And, you're right, that ex-post-facto is every observation from ADHD, depression, big bang, dispensation, Islam, etc. etc. etc. It all depends on if the basis is true thus the conclusion is valid. I'm grateful for your answer