Kierkegaard writes on these three forms of despair that results from one’s relation to themselves, who they are and what they are. The first form is not recognizing that you are a self, most people are in this camp since they are indwelled in worldly idols that taint their consciousness. The second form is not willing to be yourself, which you may find something more desirable than duties that come with who you are. The final form is willing to be yourself, which I will argue is the hardest and the most despair we will be put through, but leads to the most meaning, purposeful life one can live.
“Every actual moment of despair is traceable to possibility; every moment he is in despair he is bringing it upon himself… in every actual moment of despair the person in despair bears all the past as a present (17).” When willing to be yourself, it is so difficult to relinquish your past from your consciousness, blatantly impossible. The past is what brought you to your recognition of yourself, so you are weary to avoid that. The consciousness arises your memories of that despair when you experience similar moments that bring the possibility of your past. It brings into imagination that you could bring greater despair to yourself and experience for worse pain.
“The person in despair cannot die; “no more than the dagger can slaughter thoughts (18).” The more consciousness you have when willing to be yourself, the more responsibilities you have to commit no matter the pain. Most certainly in the Christian worldview, we are called to be followers of Christ because that is who we are. It brings worse despair yet the greatest happiness. “To be sure, it is happiness, but happiness is not a qualification of spirit, and deep, deep within the most secret hiding place of happiness there dwells also anxiety, which is despair; it very much wishes to be allowed to remain there, because for despair the most cherished and desirable place to live is in the heart of happiness (25).” Willing to be yourself brings the most out of your being and flourishing with true meaning that gives rational happiness, but with that comes the cost of greater anxiety of possibly losing it all.
Delusion is a great happiness for those who fail to recognize themselves or will not to be themselves, for consciousness of that is lessened, so the pain is lessened. However, with these two, fantasia comes about, which is extreme, delusional imagination. Your self becomes this fantasia, you will do anything you can to achieve this fantasia and that is your flow of consciousness. “The fantastic is generally that which leads a person out into the infinite in such a way that only leads him away from himself and thereby prevents him from coming back to himself (31).” He appears to become more of himself, his godlike state, while in all reality, he is becoming farther and farther from his true self.
Those who will to be themselves paradoxically bring into existence a new category, happiness, and despair both consciously recognized. These individuals will have the strongest concept of God. Christians will have the strongest defeat of their own despair yet will still have it in this lifetime. “In the latter case, the individual in despair is like the consumptive: when the illness is most critical, he feels well, considers himself to be in excellent health, and perhaps seems to others to radiate health (45).” Christians could possibly fall into imagination of a situation that may seem to be from God, this is when they will bring maximum despair because this imagination makes claims of who they are supposed to be. This is praying against God’s status quo, where we take something to be God’s will when it is not.
The other despair that can come about for the Christian or those who are willing to be themselves, will be despair for others while we are ourselves happy. The worst form of mental pain is freely caring about others while they do not want your happiness or willing to be themselves. “The opposite to being in despair is to have faith (49).” This is true in one sense and not in another sense. To be in faith is to get rid of your despair, but it is not to get rid of the despair you feel from others. An exceedingly difficult question asked by nonbelievers is this, how can we be happy in Heaven knowing others are in Hell? We can be happy knowing that we no longer in despair of ourselves, but what about this despair for others we loved?
There is no sound answer to this question, but this is part of rational faith that requires us to believe apparent absurdities. Would God therefore have the greatest despair since he truly cares more about those people in Hell than any one human being could? Willing to be yourself brings you out of despair unless you come across past despair, which is another trial you must endure to continue to be yourself. Willing to be yourself makes you more empathetic and not wanting others to remain in despair. Is this not the Gospel existentially speaking?
This brings despair, since he cares more for the recognized self then the actual self not recognizing themselves, deluding themselves into real despair for themselves. Those willing to be themselves will always be conscious of their despair which makes it steady, while those not willing to be themselves in the first two forms of despair, will eventually feel all their despair in one actual moment that will bring fatalism, nihilism, and pessimism all at once. Willing to be yourself makes you more conscious and gives you the greatest concept of God and to know his will, wills you to be yourself, which brings the greatest happiness based in reality, not self-created delusions by willing not to be yourself.
Despair As Sin:
“Christianity understood, every poet-existence (esthetics notwithstanding) is sin, the sin of poetizing instead of being, of relating to the good and the true through the imagination instead of being that -that is, existentially striving to be that (77).” Socrates described sin as ignorance, while Aristotle would place it in self-indulgence. Aristotle had a category of those who maintained their reason, but still followed a basic appetite. The second from of despair of not willing to be yourself can be seen as the incontinent as Aristotle calls his second form of person.
“Therefore, from a higher point of view, it may be correct to regard paganism as immersed in sin, but the sin of paganism was essentially despairing ignorance of God, of existing before God; paganism is “to be without God in the world (81).” The pagan continues in sin by not recognizing themselves and continuing to live in that ignorance. Everyone eventually has the option to become incontinent in sin or to become continent in virtue. The Pharisees are the incontinent who are more aware of who they are(who they should be), they still follow the basic appetite of pride, which is very much self-indulgence.
The incontinent are pharisaical because they can cover their sin and appetites up with the use of reason. They do not possess wisdom, but rather possess cleverness. Wisdom with virtue is cleverness as Aristotle would say. They know how to be covert, but really suffer the worse despair of oneself because they will not to be themselves, even though they are playing apparently who they are suppose to be, only to get those appetites fulfilled. This is one level of the second form of despair, the other becomes not willing to be yourself by willing yourself to be something else.
Both however carry out the continuation of sin. “Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin, every unrepented sin is a new sin and every moment that it remains unrepented is also new sin (105).” Both these categories of despair do not proceed from faith, but rather from self-desires not focused on who we are and God. Those who have continuance of faith recognize how powerful sin really is because they will to be themselves which gives the strongest view of reality, since you can look past imagination, fantasia, appetites, and pride.
“The sinner, however, is so much in the power of sin that he has no idea of its wholly encompassing nature, that he is lost and on the way to destruction (105).” Those willing to be themselves have repented of sin because they have had destruction come once and wise fully stopped willing that upon themselves. Those willing to be themselves have awareness of what that sin they committed to themselves did to them and others, ignorance is no longer bliss. While those, still sinning is out of ignorance have not yet felt that pain. They will have the option to repent or to make sin a habit, which they will become. The incontinent or those willing not to be themselves have felt that pain but have chosen to justify their sin with excuses or ad hoc rationalization.
“Sin has become so natural to him, or sin has become so much his second nature, that he finds the daily everyday to be entirely in order, and he himself pauses only for a moment each time he perceives new impetus, so to speak (105).” Aristotle talks about making virtue a habit so that it will become natural to you. This is what he calls the continent person, that they live their life according to truth and virtue by making it a habit. “Excellence is not one act, but rather a habit.” Those continuing in sin make that their habit and take that to be their excellence if they are pharisaical.
“They play along in life, so to speak, but they never experience putting everything together on one thing, never achieve the idea of infinite self-consistency (107).” The greatest delusion facing people in the west is self-pride. Humility is the only way to bring infinite self-consistency since that leads us to God. Those willing not to be themselves are not aware of them not willing to be themselves when they are in sin unless they love sin itself and will a new self into existence. Much of the time, this can be the case which is called demonic despair. They fear inconsistency but can only consciously avoid it by sinning and taking pride in that. These are the hypocrites who can hardly recognize themselves as hypocrites because of their habit of sin which starts with pride.
“The situation of the demonic person is similar state of the alcoholic, who keeps himself in a perpetual state of intoxication out of fear of stopping and of the resulting debility and its possible consequences if he were to be completely sober for one day (108).” The unrepented sinner becomes the acholic but on an eternal level, eternal consciousness of willing to continue in that sin. This is what Lewis describes multiple times as Hell in the great divorce. Not willing to be yourself, but willing to be controlled by a desire of appetite not resulting from faith. This is what blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is according to Kierkegaard. Not willing to be yourself, which is prescribed by God, but willing to live by pride in these fleshly desires, making them your God and making yourself become a “god”. It is not that God hates these types of people, it is just impossible to love them.
Will to be yourself according to God by seeking and living by wisdom, integrity, and reason, which all give the most satisfying faith.
Sickness unto Death: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BNY0RZ0/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
The purpose of this article is for ministry sake for young Christian men and women who are trapped into the side shows of modern dating, which is a corruption of what God called good in Genesis 1. I have fallen into these traps and want to help give a true understanding of relationships from a biblical and philosophical standpoint of how relationships Should be. Key word here is Should. Yes, there can be exceptions to the rule along as the relationship is built around truth, virtue, and God.
I have to start off by saying that I’ve only dated twice in my life, but for a whole year I invested much time into it. I have come to learn that this is another area of human life that has been tainted by sin. There are many misconceptions of “love” in modern dating that hurts both parties in a so called “relationship”. Granted, this is from experience of those in their teens and early twenties. It is the case that social media, trends, memes, and narcissistic culture rules the minds of young people, but it all stems to one source for each person.
“But, as I said before, the most dangerous thing you can do is to take any one impulse of our own nature and set it up as the thing you ought to follow at all cost (Mere Christianity, 108).” Modern dating is mostly based on physically attraction for some or just wanting the feeling of affection. In hook up culture, the end goal is to fulfill one of our strongest pleasures, sex. Any one of these are hidden motives that will set you up for failure. When one has any of these motives, they will seek anyone independent of value, beliefs, and even personality.
This is where the games of modern dating take place to see if this one person you are talking to will fulfill your hidden desire and motive(s). Granted one could have multiple viceful motives (good things taken out of context), which all three mentioned are Godly gifts given to us for a proper context. Many of these games will take form in manipulation, wanting someone to be able to read your mind, and just making high expectations that are unreasonable, which stems from a sense of entitlement.
Culture is so corrupt that the “nice” guys are called “simps”. This is a word that has its origin in memes and nothing academic in the context of relationships. Since it originates in memes, it is undefined and very vague. Hence, putting many guys into the same box. There’s never a real definition given when it’s used to describe someone, usually it’s someone being too nice. However, some might have in mind seekers of pleasure who are nice just to get what they want. This is one type of “simp” someone could imagine. Another common usage would be the guy who is willing to do anything for a girl and has no boundaries. This is someone who is completely controlled by a woman or a feeling. Those two types of individuals are just corrupt as the other corrupt dating types.
The true nice guy is truly seeking a relationship and is more than just nice. He will treat a woman with respect and dignity but has boundaries because he knows his self-worth and has value. He is not controlled by pleasure nor feelings. He knows what he wants, doesn’t play games, and has strong character. The problem is, most girls in modern dating because of memes and social media throw them in with the crowd of “simps”. Those who truly care and would treat a woman the way she should be treated will be heartbroken because of this. They were doing the right thing and yet they ended up this way. “The human mind is generally far more eager to praise and dispraise than to describe and define (Four Loves, 15).” People do not get to know the other person, but rather judge their entire character base off the first couple weeks of talking to them and how they interact.
Another problem with modern dating is the fallacy of equivocation. Literally dating is assumed to be the same as a relationship(eros) and really means the same thing. Those who assume this, go straight into it with feelings without a foundation, which is building an important decision for your life on sand. We will go deeper into this foundation later when we cover eros love, this will be defined later. I will speak from the perspective of a male and what we need to watch out for with one verse. Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised (Proverbs 31:30).
Beauty and charm are beautiful things in a relationship, but in dating, they truly are deceptive. Many guys are “simps” because the charm of a women will be used on guys because of her beauty. Men are controlled by that and will be easily controllable. Then, when that woman is done using you for her own feelings and pleasures, she will “friend zone” you, which means, “I will use you again when I need you”. Many girls do this and it brings trauma to the nice guys because of the love bombing (signs of affection and compliments that appear genuine) early in the “relationship”. This is not to say that “friend zoning” is bad, my point is that they should have been friends (philia) first. These would be two genuine people looking for a relationship, but lack a foundation and have taken place in a corrupt process. If you are one who is not over a type of girl (or guy) like this, seek help from counselors and life coaches. They are here from God for a reason. What we truly need is a strong foundation and true understanding of what love is.
When discussing love, we clearly have many different definitions but only by feeling. This is another problem with modern dating, love is a warm, fuzzy feeling. This is half true, but the feeling is equated with eros love when it is really affectionate love. However, love is a feeling based on true action and initiative in building a relationship. Since modern dating is just reduced to this feeling, let’s go ahead and reduce this to what it truly is. Oxytocin is a neurotransmitter that is activated during these affectionate moments in the early stages of dating, that people treat as “love”.
This powerful hormone is a validator for right moments of love, and the four loves give it that context. Don’t let a hormone control what you Should view as true love and a fulfilling relationship. This literally is an addiction that modern couples love to have and it takes good things and corrupts them. It will be what controls you just like what drug addicts deal with. This is not a poetic analogy, it’s a scientific fact. This is why people are addicted to porn, because they want there “fix” of oxytocin and they are willing to do what it takes (Deception, abuse, games, manipulation, distorting reality, anything that counts as an irrational vice).
When a chemical controls the mind of my generation, this is just upsetting to me, because the postmodern society we live in encourages it. To break this addiction, if you have it and can admit it, I’d suggest an article from Josh McDowell which will be linked and seeking help from trained professionals. Oxytocin in its proper context is more fulfilling because you have control of it and it doesn’t control you. It’s more fulfilling because you worked to it with virtue and not hurting others or yourself. It’s more fulfilling because of the context of proper love and God’s love which will be discussed later. Let’s now discuss love in its proper and different contexts. Oxytocin is a vindicator for true love, not love itself.
Lewis also makes clear that love falls under two categories, gift love and appreciative love. Sports teams or celebrities are people that we appreciatively love since they have admirable characteristics about them. A gift love would be loving those who help us and invest time into our lives, parents, relatives, spouses, so on or giving itself. In English, we just have the word love, but in Greek we have four different words. The natural loves are Storge, Philia, Eros, while Agape love supersedes the natural and becomes the lens for the natural. “When the natural loves become lawless they do not merely do harm to other loves; they themselves cease to be the loves they were-to be loves at all (36).”
Storge love is “affection, especially of parents to offspring’; but also of offspring to parents (41).” This is an appreciative love that couples nowadays start with in dating. I took a girl to the movies once and put my arm around her, she most certainty had this affectionate feeling. Let me tell you, this is treated as a need when starting "relationships". Affection is mostly need love, that’s why we love our parents who cared for us because we needed that attention when we were younger. Either guy or girl, if you start a relationship with this type of feeling as a need then you are not in the right stage of your life for a “relationship”. This means that you have this need for some reason and will rush something good into something like a relationship between a brother and sister. This is why friendship is so important before one jumps into these emotions, because that feeling is appreciative love, not eros love. Storge as a gift love is truly wonderful, meaning you have control of it and give it to a person you truly know and care about(no games).
In some countries, greetings and signs of affection are kissing. In America, kissing is the sign of “true” love. This is just a gesture showing that you appreciate the other person. “Affection can love the unattractive: God and His saints love the unlovable. Affection ‘does not expect too much’, turns a blind eye to faults, revives easily after quarrels; just so charity suffers long and is kind and forgives. Affection opens our eyes to goodness we could not have seen, or should not have appreciated without it. So does humble sanctity (49).” Some will treat this as a Need love when it comes to dating which is why it most likely will not work, because there truly is no appreciation in it. Some people want kisses in dating because it is this warm, fuzzy feeling that storge gives off. We have appreciative relationships with our pets and even cuddle them, unfortunately for some, this is all they want in dating. This devalues both persons when this is the mindset, completely guided by feelings and emotions. This is how people end up in toxic relationships because they never got to truly know the person. Some even know this and take advantage of women to take control of them and remove the masks of who they really are once they have a strong bond with this toxic person. They use storge as a gift love to corrupt people who treat storge as a need love.
“There is no disguising the fact that this means goodness, patience, self-denial, humility, and the continual intervention of a higher sort of love than Affection, in itself, can ever be. That is the whole point. If we try to live by Affection alone, Affection will ‘go bad on us’ (71).” A couple must grow in truth, patience, humility, goodness to truly fall in a Godly eros love. The beginning step of this is being friends first, which is the complete opposite of modern dating. Want to know why? Because one must supply this affection in order to fulfill the hidden motive they have, which is sin by definition because it is an idol that they have allowed themselves to be controlled by. “If affection is made the absolute sovereign of a human life the seeds will germinate. Love, having become a god, becomes a demon (72).’
The “friend zone” is seen as a bad thing, which it can easily be depending on the person who “friend zones” you. If one comes from the storge level and “friend zones” you, then they have the wrong motives for that “friend zone”. Most successful relationships are started in the context of philia love that grows into a friendship with more affection. This is what I would call true dating, when you truly get to know each other and grow in appreciation for each other with those signs of affection. “Friendship so sharply from both the other loves. Friendship is – in a sense not at all derogatory to it – the least of natural of loves; the least instinctive, organic, biological, gregarious, and necessary (74).”
Want to know why friendship is so unnatural, it’s commitment that requires you to give up your time to hang out or even help out a friend when they need your support. This is the start of a true connection with someone. People are only willing to give their time to those who have use to them (storge). “But in friendship – in that luminous, tranquil, rational, world or relationships freely chosen – you got away from all that (75).” This is truly a love to freely give up time to grow with people on a level beyond affection and the emotions of tainted eros love. If one grows in the same truths and values, then that is a true connection that is freely given. You grow closer to that person and appreciate them even more, especially if you have the same truths and values.
“The co-existence of friendship and eros may also help some moderns to realize that friendship is in reality a love, and even as great a love as eros (86).” Building those connections with people truly makes you grow as a person and them as well. Most people see themselves as their own friend and see friendship as just stamp collecting for those who will validate them, this is just what we call egoism at its finest. If someone ‘friend zones’ you in this context, give them the Gospel and turn the other way from that. If one “friend zones” to build a connection and you run, then you are at fault.
“From what has been said it will be clear that in most societies at most periods of Friendships will be between men and men or women and women. The sexes will have met one another in Affection and in eros but not in this love… To be sure, what is offered as Friendship on one side may be mistaken for eros on the other, with painful and embarrassing results (92-93).” This will happen if a guy has never really had girls who are friends and will take the slightest compliment as something on an affectionate or eros level, while they were probably just complimenting you.
A true virtuous woman who you grow close to in the same truths will let you know if she likes you more than just somebody who has the same values. This is why it is so important to connect and get to know someone, then jumping right into affection. You will either become too emotionally attached which can lead to staying in a toxic relationship or you will realize sooner or later that there are too many disagreements which makes an unequal yoke. When you let feelings control you, it’s easy to fall in “love” with someone who is attractive or charming, or anyone to satisfy the feeling.
Friendship love between a man and woman truly can and should be the beginning towards affection then eros. Here’s why, there is a start with a rational foundation. You actually got to know them and can make a rational choice if you develop true feelings and not out of desperation or for one single impulse. You have accepted them as a friend and have already given time to them on that level, there’s already commitment started. Obviously, physical attraction is important for eros love and that may be the reason why the friendship becomes more affectionate. There is also a strong bond between the two already which gives a rationale structure to this development of affection.
What this also shows is this, that these two who became friends first, had control over their emotions and physical attractions for one another. Control is a virtue that is needed for any good relationship and that strong bond of growing in the same truths truly gives you that. You’ve already committed yourself to that person in spite of those emotions and attractions, which is a greater love that grows then anything you get out of modern dating. For Christians, this should be priority. You should become friends in Christ first to grow that strong connection in agape love then to see a correct lens for affectionate and eros love. As a Christian, your first love is God and all adoration and worship goes to him. A couple who pray, study the bible, and worship God together truly can grow true eros love since the foundation of their yoke is love himself.
“It must not become what the people call a ‘mutual admiration society’; yet if it is not full of mutual admiration, or Appreciative love, it is not friendship at all (112).” Modern friendship is based on convenience, mere similarities, pragmatic gain, and validation of oneself. This is why the “friend zone” most likely is going to be for these reasons or out of self-entitled ego that exerts a false empathy. Truly, become friends first and grow in the same interests, beliefs, and give each other your time. This is the only realistic and rational way for a relationship to start without eros love becoming your god and what controls your relationship.
“By eros I mean of course that state which we call ‘being in love’; or, if you prefer, that kind of love which loves are ‘in’ (117).” What Lewis is describing here is a feeling, but he of course understands that feelings are validators for certain truths and do not determine truth. If someone wrongs someone and regrets it, they will feel guilty. It is logical to feel guilty. People treat this feeling of love nowadays as a mysterious force without a proper context. I use to think that in dating, you shouldn’t try to rationally explain this feeling, this is just false on so many levels.
Firstly, it would just be special pleading to say that this is the one feeling that does not need to validate a truth but makes the truth. Secondly, this is just a warm, fuzzy feeling when affection is shown between couples who first date and then this is equated as love. It stems from the presupposition that dating is equivalent to relationship. Let’s be real, people in dating want the feeling and not the commitment. Some even know that, while others find this out after having their hearts broken. This is just what hook up culture is, this is a system that has been corrupted by sin just like every other aspect of human life and nature. Christians go into this lukewarm and act like it’s normal. This is why some almost even blame God for their “relationships” that failed, because there were already answers provided that they ignored. Finally, it’s literally an appeal to emotion fallacy, simple as that.
“Now Eros makes a man really want, not a woman, but one particular woman. In some mysterious but quite indisputable fashion the lover desires the Beloved herself, not the pleasure she can give (121).” Truly, how many people actually have this when they first meet someone or have just went on a couple of dates with. Couples who draw hearts with their initials on the second or third date truly are following an unjustified, irrational feeling that is not true eros. There are also those who think they know someone since they gave them their trust at first, but people are not to be trusted with this feeling unless you have truly become friends in the same truths, most certainly for Christians who live their natural loves in the context of agape love. The strongest trust bonds are around friends who have proven their friendship to you out of no pragmatic gain or convenience, but through the freely given philia love. This is where true eros love logically falls under, not just a warm, fuzzy feeling out of context.
“It is a continual demonstration of the truth that we are composite creatures, rational creatures, akin on one side to the angels, on the other to tom cats (129).” I know some people who are professing Christians and are very intellectual, then completely act in the opposite way of their beliefs and stated convictions. It’s just inconsistency at its finest and why is that? For starters, there could be an ego at play something like “I got everything else figured out so this should be no different”, then go on about with following an impulse or feeling out of context. Thinking, “I know this to be the case”, without doing much thinking about it. Basically, an unjustified assumption, which is based on a lack of oxytocin or subjective conjecture based on subjective, past experiences.
“There’s no living with it till we recognize that one of its functions in our lives is to play the part of buffoon (130).” Playing the part of the buffoon is letting this feeling take control of your mind and rationale rather than letting your mind guide this feeling. “Pleasure, pushed to its extreme, shatters us like pain (131).” This is an impulse that we really let control us and make up truths in our heads to act like it doesn’t. Christians are guilty of this and it’s even worse on them because many will recognize they put a pleasure, desire, or even a thought over the truth God has given to them and reject people who only met well for them.
Most do not actually apply metaphysics to their lives because they do not do much thinking into what metaphysics is. Metaphysics is simply the rules of reality like out of nothing, nothing comes. People operate with a metaphysical claim in their pursuit of eros which is just mistaken for affection, under the view that there is a soulmate for them specifically. “Plato will have it that “falling in love” is the mutual recognition on earth of souls which have been singled out for one another in a previous and celestial existence (139).” This is just a dangerous view that even Plato would be disgusted with how people use this idea. Plato at least asserted along with this, that both the souls have to grow with each other in habit of virtue. People have this view and literally assume nothing should go wrong and create a subjective, unrealistic standard to which this soulmate should be like.
If there’s one way to get rid of trust, communication, honesty, virtue, truth, God, and a relationship, it’s to assume this metaphysical claim. At this point, mind reading and games are the expectations for relationships to see if this soulmate truly is tied to them to complete them. Again, this would be a value issue that people need to fix by searching for God in their lives first. As soon as these unrealistic expectations are not met, the feeling changes for them with each person they test. “They expected the mere feeling would do for them, and permanently, all that was necessary. When this expectation is disappointed they throw the blame on eros or, more usually, on their partners (147).” So many people keep ending up in bad relationships and heartbreaks because they keep following this impulse which has failed them so many times.
“The real danger seems to me not that the lovers will idolize each other but that they will idolize Eros himself (142).” Let me say this, when this impulse that is an idol, is set up for oneself is met, they will attack anything that can dismantle this idol. Christians could fall in “love” with a non-Christian of some sort and cut off critical Christians and even family members, because they were really worshiping two different Gods at the same time. “Of all loves he is, at his height, most god-like; therefore, most prone to demand our worship. Of himself he always tends to turn ‘being in love’ into a sort of religion (142).” Subjective standards are created just like subjective morality, which leads to many disastrous “relationships”. This is a religion that is just a feeling, literally toxic relationships result from this and any other perversions of true eros love that God called good.
“But Eros, honored without reservation and obeyed unconditionally, becomes a demon… Divinely indifferent to our selfishness, he is also demoniacally rebellious to every claim of God or Man that would oppose him. Hence as the poet say: ‘people in love cannot be moved by kindness, and opposition makes them feel like martyrs’ (141).” When eros is your God, then wisdom, integrity, virtue, and reason are thrown in the trash. Even for Christians, the idea that God has the perfect one for you is just foolish because it leads to the same expectations as a soulmate does. When you think someone is from God for no reason and just a feeling, you feel like a martyr and blame God for the situation you threw yourself into.
“We must do the works of Eros when Eros is not present. This all good lovers know, through those who are not reflective or articulate will be able to express it only in a few conventional phrases about ‘talking the rough along with the smooth’, and the like. And all good Christian lovers know that this programme, modest as it sounds, will not be carried out except by humility, charity, and divine grace; that it is indeed the whole Christian life seen from one particular angle (147).”
Treat eros love as something special and good, not as a need but as a want that is truly most desirable when people have control. If you have to find your value in the feeling of eros itself or a “soulmate”, then you are treating it as a need and devaluing the goodness of eros and the people you drag into your life that are used to satisfy this impulse. “Date” yourself to truly find your value and truly find your value in God who created you. "To fall in love with God is the greatest romance; to seek him the greatest adventure; to find him, the greatest human achievement (St Augustine)." “Eros is driven to promise what Eros of himself cannot perform (146).” Agape love is the love everyone needs and can receive.
In every wife, mother, child, and friend they saw a possible rival to God. So of course does our God (Luke 14:26) (153).” It’s a struggle for a parent to put God first above their children or put God above a wife, mother, brother. It’s difficult since these are true commitments of natural loves that control you easily because they are need loves. Imagine, giving your heart to someone who you’ve only known for a bit and went on a few dates with. Oh wait, this happens literally every day, because people are controlled by eros.
Again, people have value and identity issues because they have a lack of purpose or initiative in their lives. This leads to people having to find their value in something other than themselves or God, which is what we call good, old fashion idolatry. What does it mean to give your heart to something? John Calvin gives us four signs of worship: Adoration, Truth, Invocation, and Thanksgiving. It is scary how people are willing to give these four things to people who fulfill this eros feeling not founded on a rational structure. If any human being should get these from you, it is parents who follow truth and virtue in raising their children. Not from dating someone for a couple of weeks and drawing a heart with your initials into a tree representing your “love”.
Augustine said it pretty well “giving one’s heart to anything but God”. People willing to give their hearts to people in dating truly do not understand love on a fundamental level. Some people do not give their parents and siblings the trust and adoration they have merited as they do to those who have sacrificed a few days of the week for a couple of weeks or even months. Want to know why people do this? Because they go off of an impulse that is their idol and any person to fulfill that feeling is almost eros incarnate for them. Because of an impulse people are willing to give their lives to people so quickly.
It’s a value and identity problem that none of the natural loves can fulfill. The best you can get is a friend who shares the same truths and values as you and grow a connection with them. That is the best hope for any who do not put God first in a relationship. “Do not let your happiness depend on something you may lose (154).” This is such a powerful statement because it speaks true to the state of one’s mind while pursuing a “relationship” nowadays. One is in a state of confusion, bitterness, depression when seeking a “soulmate” to complete them which leads them to just find someone, and not a person. Someone is just an object to satisfy a feeling and to be used for that. People are willing to do what it takes to keep that someone who satisfies that feeling whether it’s manipulation, love-bombing, or just worshiping them.
A person is someone you seek to build a connection with you when you have determined who you actually are and not using someone to get that identity. When you jump into a “relationship” on a foundation of sand (pure emotion/feeling), you set yourself up for even worse confusion, bitterness, and depression. “Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly be broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must not give your heart to no one, not even an animal (155).” By giving your heart, this means worship. Of course you can love people in these natural loves, but if you literally derive your value, purpose, morality, authority, identity, and even reality from any of these loves, you will self-destruct eventually.
We shall draw nearer to God, not by trying to avoid the sufferings inherent in all loves, but by accepting them and offering them to Him; throwing away all defensive armor (156).” If you are heart broken and go to the same feeling that has failed you multiple times, then you are controlled by it and you let that happen. Go to God who is the greatest conceivable being who cannot fail and is the ontological, metaphysical grounding of love itself. “The real question is, which (when the alternative comes) do you serve, or choose, or put first? To which claim does your will, in the last resort, yield (157).”
If you let affectionate (modern dating) or eros control your will, then you will reject those who were good to you. Those who give you your trust, would have been good to you, and those who have been good to you for most of your life. Emotions cause humans to do irrational acts and horrible things all the time. “To hate is to reject, to set one’s face against, to make no concession to, the Beloved when the Beloved utters, however sweetly and however pitiably, the suggestions of the Devil (158).” Even the slightest sign of attacking those who threaten your eros idol is a sign of hatred to that person who loves the truth and only wants you to live by the truth.
“The best love of either sort is not blind (160).” Going back to feelings and emotions, these are vindicators for truths. True connection with affection will be the rational and true grounding for the development of eros. However, one must find their identity to make those connections and develop true friendship. “The doctrine that God was under no necessity to create is not a piece of dry scholastic speculation. It is essential (162).” God did not have to create those he knew would betray his love and yet redeem in the doctrine of the incarnation. That God became man to save those who did not want to be saved. This is truly charity love that we need to base all of our relationships off. We do this by giving God our will and full worship over anything created.
The Need-loves, so far as I have been able to see, have no resemblance to the Love which God is (163).” “But Divine Gift-love in the man enables him to love what is not naturally lovable, lepers, criminals, enemies, morons, the sulky, the superior, and the sneering. Finally, by a high paradox, God enables men to have a Gift-love towards Himself (164).” “There is something in each of us that cannot be naturally loved (170).”
We literally cannot find the meaning of our existence in the things in which need explanation or are contingent on something else. Only God, a necessary being can give us this meaning and purpose, which is what people do in modern dating. Trying to find their meaning and purpose in this “soulmate” that fate will give them. That “soulmate” is no different than you, they are most likely just ahead of the broken game they are playing. In the Christian worldview, love literally is a metaphysical principle of the universe and is why it exists. We can only get our meaning and purpose that is truly fulfilling from that, since that just is how reality is.
“The natural loves are summoned to become modes of charity while remaining the natural loves they were… Charity does not dwindle into merely natural love but natural love is taken up into, made the tuned and obedient instrument of, Love himself (171).” When we literally apply the metaphysics of reality to our relationships which is based on charity love, then logically it just follows those relationships will be better since they are grounded in truth. That feeling is a vindicator of that truth you have discovered, not created. To truly understand agape love, read the four Gospels and understand the message behind it. “By loving Him more than them we shall love them more than we now do (178).”
Do not be controlled by eros or affection out of their proper context. Truly understand the Gospel and God’s love for you before pursuing a relationship. Grow with friends in that truth of reality to have philia love that will grow with affection and into a true, beautiful eros love not based on an impulse. Have patience, which is enduring with the proper attitude. Build virtue by habit to build your character to be temperate and courageous instead of self-indulgent or over confident. Remember, Love is an action and not just a feeling. The true feeling of eros rises out of the charity put into a relationship. Let God, the greatest romance be your metaphysics and authority in your relationships since it’s just beyond an ought, it just is for true meaningful relationships.
Let wisdom, integrity, and reason guide your thinking,
Live Stream Presentation:
Josh McDowell Article: https://saltandlight.sg/faith/how-to-deal-with-addiction-to-pornography-josh-mcdowell/
Property Dualism is a type of dualism that tries to explain mental states by prior physical brain states, but it fails to account for mental states being their own thing. This type of dualism starts to beg the question when it tries to explain mental states by physical properties. It’s an inconsistent view that in all reality implicitly states that our mental states are really illusory because they are just physical states that our brain is in. This next section is an argument against both Property Dualism and Scientific Naturalism.
Is Scientific Naturalism Reasonable?
According to the naturalist, scientific naturalism is the most reasonable worldview that one can hold. As we will learn later, free will doesn’t exist on this worldview, so no can choose to hold to scientific naturalism as the most reasonable or rational worldview. Reason is the application of the laws of logic and their application to arguments. Where do the laws of logic come from? Clearly, they do not come from matter, space, or time. They come from mental states that recognize the logical absolutes like the law of non-contradiction. Another is the law of identify, which states that if A has the same properties or attributes to B, then A is B. There are more of these absolute logical laws that can only be found in mental states, or minds that observe something. Do we have minds on scientific naturalism? The short answer is no, mainly due to the fact the mental states are not the same as brain states. If I think of a pink elephant, there is no brain state that can tell you that I am thinking about the pink elephant. I have to tell you that because my mental states are private, and my brain states are public (Turek, 32-38).
Essentially, my argument is that mental states are required for logical absolutes, and on scientific naturalism, matter is all there is. No matter how many times we rearrange matter, we will not get mental states based on the law of identity forbidding this. Atoms, Quarks, and energy don’t have beliefs, thoughts, or decisions which are all forms of mental states. For the sake of arguments, I’ll grant that property dualism is possibly on scientific naturalism. This is the view that mental states arise from brain states. Francis Crick wrote this one time: “The Astonishing Hypothesis is that my scientific conclusions that I write this book are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules (Turek, 40).” Francis Crick was a brilliant man and helped the discovery of DNA. Yet, he held to such a self-defeating worldview because it shots itself in the foot. If are our beliefs are just the result of atoms in a certain assembly, then why trust them? A different assembly would produce different beliefs making them no tool to truth. He held to the view that Scientific Naturalism is false and Crick came to a different conclusion based on his nerve assembly. Why is your nerve assembly better than mine? I think scientific naturalism leads us to a type of assembly relativism. Your truth is your truth and my truth is my truth because we have different brain states that determine our own truths. Scientific Naturalism cannot be true because there is no objective way to determine it to be true (Turek, 40-45).
Scientific Naturalism is not reasonable because reason doesn’t exist on this view of the world. Logic is dead on scientific naturalism, so what’s the point. This radical view is the end of reason. While an unembodied mind like God, is the most reasonable inference to the evidence to account for first cause uncaused of mind that logical absolutes are contingent upon. Theism is the most reasonable position to take if you want to believe the most reasonable position since it accounts for the logical absolutes that we know exist. The most committed, consistent naturalists will argue that consciousness doesn’t exist, but one ought to wonder if they consciously came to that position. Scientific Naturalism is ultimately not reasonable because it doesn’t allow for reason or mental states to exist (Turek, 52-53).
I Think, Therefore Scientific Naturalism is False
Intentionality is a philosophical term that is basically the philosophical way of describing consciousness. Is matter aware? Does matter contain mind? As we discussed earlier atoms, quarks, and lumps of matter do not contain Consciousness. How can we think if we just arranged matter in motion? Mind is where we get intentionality and this cannot be obtained through matter by being arranged a certain way. Free will is required to make intentional statements and so on. I have to be free to intentionally say that scientific naturalism is the correct view of the world. Also, to decide whether a position is more rational requires you to choose between the competing worldview. Mind cannot arise from matter, but is the other way around (will be shown in my final argument). To hold to materialism will lead to materialist relativism, which I described earlier as the view that truth is determined on the brain state. If our mental states are just brain states, then we do not have free will, mind, or intentionality. Descartes famous saying “I think; therefore, I am” is one of the most famous quotes from modernity. There is truth to this phrase because it is self-evident that we are selfs and have minds. Mind cannot arise from matter, because it would not truly be mind. I think, therefore Scientific Naturalism cannot be truth, but is indeed false (Turek, 74-85).
We all believe that we have free will to the degree of making our own decisions, but not control over where we are born geographically. On scientific naturalism, I can’t even make my own decisions. This is what Sam Harris would argue for, that free will is just an illusion. I’m not talking about controlling your own ethnicity or gender, but rather your own mental states, which are determined by our brain states. We’ve established already that mental states can’t exist on the materialistic worldview of scientific naturalism. Every material thing has a prior material cause so free agency is caused by that prior material cause not making it free. This is the short view of determinism, which states that everything is determined by its prior cause. Obviously, on scientific naturalism, materialism, determinism is not compatible view with free will since everything is matter in time and space (Turek, 42-45)
Mental states are not material and are their own things that are not determined by prior material things. Mental states by definition would be the true causes of free will since they come from mind. The things that we think are not determined by material, but rather when the mind perceives material things and reflect on these experiences, which allow us to think for ourselves. On scientific naturalism, we are not free thinkers, but rather what we think is determined (Turek, 60-65).
1. “Is the Soul Biblical?”, 3.
2. “Scientific Naturalism”, 4-5.
3. “Scientific Naturalism”, 6-7.
Truth is defined as “That which corresponds to reality”, which influences people’s actions depending on what corresponds to reality. In post modernity, we are taught that metaphysical truths are relative to the eye of the perceiver. Metaphysical truths would be truths as objective moral principles or religious beliefs. It’s noted that Allan Bloom knows one thing for certain: “There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: “almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative (19).” Certainly, no one actually believes that two plus two does not equal four or that the label on a bottle of rat poison is wrong. Again, it’s metaphysical truths that are believed to be truly relative because it can’t be verified by the senses or something else.
Beckwith and Koukl wrote Relativism, in order to deal with the death of truth and the consequences that follow from it. They remark on page 20, that Finding God at Harvard reports “students feel safer as doubters than as believers, and as perpetual seekers rather than eventual finders.” Students are approaching college to learn about a particular major, yet they have this mindset in their learning. Truly, they do not doubt the subjects that they are learning, otherwise they are wasting college money.
Beckwith and Koukl’s main points in this book are to show the consequence of denying objective truth, the results of relativism in society, and the fact objective truth/morality. “The death or truth in our society has created a moral decay in which “ever debate ends with the barroom question ‘says who (20)?” Max Weber showed that the Protestant beliefs influenced economic structure of society based on truths that they saw as objectively true, which is glue that held their society. I agree with the authors, that objective truth and moral obligations are the glue of society that holds together.
Relativism in Morality:
“The death of morality also produces an “anything goes” mentality (22).” Page 23 gives an example of a security camera that recorded two young boys that beat a toddler to death. If moral truths are subjective, then there is nothing morally wrong with what happened to the poor, defenseless toddler. “Tastes are personal. They’re private. They’re individual. If you didn’t like butter pecan and favored chocolate instead. It would be strange to say that you were wrong (27).” Society is left with arguing over morality like people arguing over ice cream flavors, which is the point made by the book.
“Classically, moral systems have had at least three characteristics (29). These three characteristics are that “morality has been viewed as a supremely authoritative guide to action, trumping consideration of personal preference, morality includes a prescriptive code of conduct, and morality is universal”. The authors of Unleashing Opportunity give solutions to sex trafficking, loan abuse, and other social issues in American in a Judeo-Christian worldview. They operate under the assumption of an objective truth of Christianity that everyone is created in the image of God, structure is laid down by God, and the God gives us wisdom. They assume that morality comes from God (supreme authority), that there are things that are objectively wrong (prescriptive code of conduct), and that it pertains all humans (universal morality).
Objective morality can only operate under a worldview that is seen as true and is true. If metaphysical truths like Christianity are seen as relative, then objective morality becomes subjective. They show the consequences of this idea through the book and how it effects society.
Effects on Society:
Du Bois and Coates’ experience of racism in the culture and society they grew up were wrong, but on moral relativism, society determined these as moral truths. Issues like abortion or racism are subjective based on mob rule or societal rules. Anthropologists record that apparently “each society has different ethical standards when it comes to morals” (36). They call this descriptive relativism that each society has different morality and that it evolves over time. Are Anthropologists right that ethical standards develop depending on their society? This would be false since sociology is descriptive not prescriptive.
Another view is normative ethical relativism, that says “all people ought to act in keeping with their own society’s code (37). Of course, this is self-refuting since this standard implies objective morality (that people should follow society’s standards). A final view they present is individual ethical relativism that says “individual preferences offer the only guidelines to behavior” (38). This also becomes self-refuting since it gives an objective standard that people should do what they want. These three views are scary since child-sacrifice, genocide, and many other moral atrocities are seen as objectively true by the individual or the societies that enforced these principles.
Objective Truth and Morality:
When People end up saying there is no truth, they do not mean this. A simple question can be asked: “Is it true that there is no truth? Like mentioned before, nobody believes that the label on a bottle of rat poison is wrong. The point is that there is objective truth, what that consists of is up for debate. Relativism’s focus is on beliefs like in the supernatural and morality are relative to each person. Morality is not subjective for many reasons that the author’s give in the book. They point out that when we put someone behind bars, that we are doing so in the belief that we are following objective morality (54). Objective morality is proven through intuition, which is derived from immediate knowledge, not inferred (57). Memory is an intuitional truth that is not inferred from something else. Everyone knows immediately that torturing babies for fun is wrong, even those who perform abortions.
Those who push moral relativism are not consistent based on seven reasons that are given as fatal flaws to moral relativism. “Relativists can’t accuse others of wrongdoing, relativists can’t complain about the problem of evil, relativists can’t place blame or accept praise, relativists can’t make charges of unfairness or injustice, relativists can’t improve their morality, relativists can’t hold meaningful moral discussions, and relativists can’t promote the obligation of tolerance (61-69).” Moral relativism can’t live up to its standard because tolerance is an objective virtue in this system. Relativists can’t live consistently because of the immediate knowledge they have that evil is wrong and people are blameworthy of their actions.
Wrap Up and Thoughts:
I agree with almost all the points of this book because there truly are things that are objectively wrong and right. Intuition affirms moral facts are real and are affirmed by the Bible as well (Roman 2:1-16). I’ve learned the seven ways in which moral relativists refute themselves in how they want to live their lives that things are truly wrong.
Knowing that objective morality exists gives me an obligation to my fellow neighbor. We have to follow an objective obligation to help the communities we live in and those that are in them. If we take this objective obligation away, then community development falls into the abyss of moral relativism and its consequences that follow. Objective morality is the glue to society that allows it to function properly as Durkheim would suggest.
One very important issue debated in western society is whether life begins at conception and that mothers do have human life in them. Roe vs Wade decided that it is okay to take the life of fetus before birth and some are trying to push this up six months after birth. Most people with a working brain agree that it is wrong to harm innocent human life, that is why the pro-choice movement argues that fetuses are not human. This is an issue that can only be resolved in a framework of an objective morality that society is losing. This is a very personal issue that I find to be a core point to why moral relativism exists and is defended. Overall, Beckwith and Koukl are correct in affirming that objective morality exists, which obligates us to follow this objective truth for society’s sake.
Koukl, Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory. Relativism. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998. Book.
Relativism Book: https://www.amazon.com/Relativism-Feet-Firmly-Planted-Mid-Air/dp/0801058066
By: John Limanto
1. Forekowledge Entails Fatalism
For one to endorse this argument, it would roughly proceed the way that Nelson Pike had introduced it since 2001, which had taken roots back in 1965. The scenario Pike comes across is of a man named Jones who is about to mow the lawn on one Saturday. Supposing that God knows that Jones will do it, then how can we suppose that Jones could have acted differently? In short, the objection says that definite foreknowledge entails that no one has the ability to do otherwise because the future is logically necessary. Hence, either foreknowledge must be rejected or libertarian free will (LFW) that Molinism so insists must be rejected.
At first glance, it should strike one to note that this is not an argument against Molinism exclusively. Rather, it is an argument against all theists who hold to both LFW and exhaustive foreknowledge of God. This fact alone should already raise eyebrows for the easy victory that it claims to have. Our detractor has committed the so-called modal fallacy. To commit a modal fallacy is to deduce status of necessities and possibilities inappropriately to propositions. In order to make the argument proceed, our detractor would have to involve an equivalent of the following three premises:
1. Necessarily, God knows all true propositions.
2. X is a true proposition.
3. Therefore, necessarily, God knows X.
This fallacy can be more extensively discussed than the space permits me. The bottom line is this: our detractors want to insist that the future is logically necessary—that no logically possible condition could have changed. Our detractors want to arrive at this conclusion from the premise that God necessarily knows every and all true propositions. I’m not here to dispute the premise; I’m here to dispute the conclusion. Just because, necessarily, God knows all true propositions, the content of those propositions don’t have to be necessary likewise. Molinists may avoid this problem by saying that God may know that Jones will mow the lawn on Saturday. Yet, Jones is free to have done otherwise. In all the worlds in which he did, God would have known differently likewise!
2. Libertarianism is Luck!
I shall not be the last to say that this objection would require volumes of treatments. Be that as it may, the trump card of the Calvinists is the objection that a free will known as libertarianism that Molinism insists on is unintelligible because it would entail freedom being random in libertarian free agents. To begin with, we shall define LFW simpliciter. In bare-boned terms, libertarianism is simply the conjunction of the following three propositions:
1) Free will is incompatible with determinism
2) Free will exists
3) Determinism is false
The bottom line is that the type of freedom stipulated by Molinists is the kind where freedom is not compatible with determinism.
Peter van Inwagen famously quips that this argument should be called the ‘Mind’ argument for how often it appeared in the philosophical journal article, ‘Mind,’ of the 1980s. This, in itself, should already be a proof of how prevalent this argument against LFW even in the sophisticated philosophical literature. As van Inwagen pointed out himself, the major folly of this argument is in its equivocating between randomness and indeterminacy. It is true—as per the determinists—that libertarian free actions would have to be undetermined to be free from causal determinism. However, to jump to the conclusion that this is luck or randomness seems to be a stretch. If God were to have the choice to choose between a range of options which are all consistent with his nature, then it is obvious that he would possess an undetermined will. Does this mean that God’s action would be random? Well no! Quite the contrary, it would be motivated by the reasons albeit not causally determined by them.
3. Molinism is not in the Bible
This is a remarkable objection. By far, it is the most celebrated bastard ‘brainchild’ of the Reformed camp. White often quips that all these talks of possible worlds and feasibilities in the Molinist scheme cannot be found in the Bible and hence, we must not adopt it on the basis of a principle akin to the Reformation’s beloved sola Scriptura.
A positive case for Molinism supported by the Bible is that the Bible often talks about the choices to do otherwise. To cite two examples, Deuteronomy 30:11 would be a prime verse which contains God’s advice to the Israelites: “Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach.” The famous pastoral message of 1 Corinthians 10:13 hits this point as well: “No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.” Molinists take these verses at face value to mean that men have genuine ability to have done otherwise through a series of options available to him in his fallen state—even if all of the options are sinful choices. A strong affirmation of the Bible is also exhaustive divine providence. Indeed, Ephesians 1:11 talks about God’s total control over everything to bring his purposes.
The tension between these two verses are evident: how may we reconcile them? Molinism, indeed, is not a concept explicitly expounded in the Bible, but neither does a lot of doctrines posited by theologians: different models of Trinitarianisms, hypostatic union, closed canon, etc. The point is not to undercut the genuine sense in which these doctrines may be supported by Scripture. Rather, the point is to show the importance of reconciling Biblical concepts into one coherent system. We take this reconciliation, in itself, an evidence for a doctrine from the Bible.
4. What Grounding is there for Molinism?
This idea is the hardest to chew on because of its technicality and the overwhelming support that the so-called ‘grounding objection’ has had from popular academics. To simplify the matter, the grounding objection says that middle knowledge cannot be true because there is nothing to ‘make’ these knowledge true. How one may interpret the word ‘make’ is up to the grounding objector. Jennifer Jensen has helpfully categorized between two senses of the word ‘make’: the ‘in-virtue-of’ or the ‘causal’ sense. In the former, a proposition is true ‘in-virtue-of’ when there is an exemplification of that proposition as a concrete object. Thus, the proposition <Cars exist> is made true in virtue of the existence of cars. In the case of middle knowledge, the objection says that there is nothing in virtue of the knowledge in middle knowledge to make the knowledge true for they are true prior to the agents’ existence. The causal sense of ‘make’ likewise has had its technical formulations with the advent of its most ardent defenders: William Hasker and Robert M. Adams.
In any case, the grounding objection needs to be scrutinized in terms of the plausibility of the principle it posits. The knowledge posited by the ‘in-virtue-of’ grounding objections can be answered by bringing exceptions to the principle. Propositions such as the following have always been suspect to this controversial principle:
(1) Ravens are black
(2) Unicorns do not exist.
Both of these propositions have been known to circumvent the principle while no one would deny their truths.
The grounding objection, numbered as the principal objection to Molinism by the Molinist Thomas P. Flint, remains a hotly debated objection. However, it seems that the following retort by Craig sums its best:
What is ironic about this situation is not merely the fact that the many Molinist responses to the grounding objection remain largely ignored or unrefuted in the literature, nor yet again the fact that Molinist solutions to the objection tend to be far more sophisticated philosophically than the almost casual statements of the objection itself; rather the irony is that this allegedly powerful objection has virtually never been articulated or defended in any depth by its advocates.
 Pike, Nelson. 2001. God and Timelessness. Wipf & Stock.
 Kane, Robert. 2005. A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will. New York: Oxford University Press. 32-33
 Determinism here is defined as the thesis that all events or creaturely actions of a world is sufficiently caused by either prior states of affairs or divine determination.
 Jensen, Jennifer Lynn. 2008. The Grounding Objection to Molinism. PhD Thesis, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame.
 I have personally written an academic exploration of this topic in a paper called: “Exploring the Grounding Objection: From Garrigou-Lagrange to Hasker.” https://www.academia.edu/37060747/Exploring_the_Grounding_Objection_to_Molinism_From_Garrigou-Lagrange_to_Hasker
 Craig, William Lane. 2001. "Middle Knowledge, Truth–Makers, and the "Grounding Objection."FaithandPhilosophy18(3):337-352. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/divine-omniscience/middle-knowledge-truth-makers-and-the-grounding-objection/.