I would like to perform a thought experiment. Secular compatibilist and compatibilists agree that freedom and responsibility are compatible with determinism. Frequently we see Calvinists making use of compatibilist arguments, such as Frankfurt's.
Calvinists maintain the following:
1) God's decrees set in motion causal chains that guarantee the occurrence of all that happens in the world.
2) Persons are morally responsible for those actions, even though they are the inevitable result of a divine decree.
3) These actions deserve retributive punishment, which in those who do not receive the saving grace of Christ, is meted out to sinners in hell.
4) God is not blameworthy for decreeing those actions that He himself judges as evil. (It is either good because God decreed it, or it is good because of an unknown and unknowable reason God might have had).
Calvinists: If this is in any way a straw man, please amend these statements so as to more accurately reflect your own position. Getting an accurate fix on your position aids the legitimacy of the thought experiment.
Now I am wondering what secular compatibilists think of all of this.
Obviously, a secular compatiblist is going to object to the theism that is part of Calvinism. But what else? Offhand, without denying compatibilism from a natuaralistic perspective, a secular compatibilist might object to the following:
1) She could say that while natural determinism is compatible with moral responsibility, control by an agent is not, especially an omnipotent one. The problem would then be to account in some principed way for the difference in the way these two cases are adjudicated.
2) She could argue that the attribution of moral responsibility should never be retributive. If that is the case, then the kind of responsiblity-attribution they are engaged in is markedly different from that of the Calvinist, and perhaps different standards apply. If I am asking "Who is responsible" because I want to know whose behavior I need to modify, as opposed to who deserves punishment, this is a very different enterprise, and one that is actually easier to reconcile with determinism.
3) She could argue that there is no "conservation of responsibility," that just because O. J. Simpson is responsible for committing two murders (assuming the prosecution was right) does not mean that an "accessory before the foundation of the world (not just before the fact)" is not also responsible.