If by your analogy you mean those who proclaim epiphenomenalism accounts for the emergence of consciousness and fail to explain it ontology, then I suppose you could go there. They want a word (epiphenomenalism) to be accepted as an explaination of causation. It is just a word. Now that we understand the word (which explains an alledged phenomenon) now we need them to explain HOW it occurred. They cannot. They cannot explain how a completely new kind of property can supervene in a brute universe and suddenly produce consciousness...that is, produce what it does not have to give. They do not get something for nothing. They do not get a pass. Nowadays we are demanding the HOW it worked. Explain for us HOW and show us the evidence, not just how one wants it to be.
Calvinism is whole 'nuther' thread. Please don't get me started on another subject.
We can talk with a jillion fancy words about what happens when what we know as choosing is treated as though it were not. Whether we get into that fix by one doctrine or another is not very important to the consequences.