Alas no. Most Muslims do, so far as I know (I have heard of exceptions, so I don’t know as to relative popularity of each view within Islam). But only few Christians do. For instance, most (but still not all) Calvinists are compatibilists (or even hard determinists), but no Catholics or Evangelicals are (and that constitutes most actual Christians).

Don’t muslims and cristians like leibnitz believ in compatibilism

“Does God have free will? If so, would it be Compatibilist or Libertarian?” God doesn’t exist. So it’s kind of like asking what color is Yoda’s underwear. But in the realm of the fiction that is called theology, the answer is: theologians disagree.

Incompatibility arguments only follow from God’s ability to act, not his knowledge. Being able to predict the future is as compatible with determinism as free will is.

Wow, I’ve really just had a eureka moment lmao. Thank you, it makes so much more sense now.

One (or 2, or 3) more random question and I’ll leave you alone, still related to free will:
Does God have free will? If so, would it be Compatibilist or Libertarian?
And how do you feel about the atheistic argument from Free Will, how divine omniscience is supposed to be incompatible with human free will? Or, as Dan Barker has argued, incompatible with God’s free will?

Sorry if I’m being a bit greedy. Thank you.

“God supposedly gives us choice.” But set up our abilities and information and dispositions. Thus he is as responsible for the outcome as we are. You can only get God off the hook if you completely disconnect his decisions from the outcome; which is why Christians are so desperate for their incoherent idea of contra-causal, libertarian freewill to be true.

You can see why if you imagine that we aren’t talking about people, but, say, Replicants. That we humans manufacture. We make them, on purpose, irrational and prone to violence and sociopathy, and don’t involve ourselves in their upbringing or education in any way, we just toss them randomly into households of abusers and losers and irresponsible or naive fools, do nothing to see to their formal education, or their nutritional needs, let them be manipulated by any culture they happen to randomly find themselves in rather than give them the information and abilities and skills they need to succeed despite any such circumstances, and so on. Those Replicants would be responsible for their crimes, to the extent they have knowledge of what they do and malicious intent. But we would also be responsible for their crimes, because we designed them to be that way, and worse, neglected them during the very process that could have fixed them. We were irresponsible engineers, guilty of gross negligence, like any other company that knowingly makes defective products and takes no responsibility for the outcome.

That’s what you get on Compatibilism. Christians can’t have that. Because it would force them to admit their God either doesn’t really exist, or is even more monstrously evil and incompetent than the Tyrell Corporation.

You address the common BS attempts to hand-wave away strong atheist arguments and in your ‘Free Will Defense’ section, you say that the defense is irrelevant to Compatibilism. Why not, if you don’t mind me asking?

Once I really learned what Compatibilism was (and now I agree with it), it really seemed to be what Christians (in that context) mean by free will: the ability to do what you want. Good or evil. God supposedly gives us choice.

This got me thinking some more: why, in your opinion, do Christians (even apologists and philosophers) seem so reliant on Libertarianism and rejection of Compatibilism? I know you aren’t a Christian, but I just thought it would be interesting to get your thoughts on it, as well as clarification on your book.

I look forward to your reply. Thanks.