My previous article entitled Do We Have Free Will? Is Free Will An
Illusion? concluded that free will is in existence i.e. we have free will. You
and I have free will to make an independent choice – a choice that is not
causally determined.
So does this mean that we are
Libertarians – those who endorse the libertarian free will position?
Libertarianism claims
incompatibility of free will with determinism. Libertarians believe in free
will; they negate determinism. Libertarians could also be termed as Incompatibilists. Libertarians believe
that for any choice made, one could have always made another choice or no
choice at all. This is called the CDO condition or Could Have Done Otherwise condition.1
There are sincere Christians who
believe that free will is compatible with determinism. They are the Compatibilists. They believe that God’s
sovereignty is compatible with human freedom.
Compatibilism defines free will
differently. “Compatibilism claims that every person chooses according to his
or her greatest desire. In other words, people will always choose what they
want-- and what they want is determined by (and consistent with) their moral
nature. Man freely makes choices, but those choices are determined by the
condition of his heart and mind (i.e. his moral nature).”2
Compatibilism believes that man’s
choices are not absolutely free. Both the desire and the choice of man are
determined by God and the forces of nature and not by man. In this situation,
man chooses what God and the forces of nature have already determined for him.
This is not absolute freedom.
A Theological Determinist, however, believes
that God’s sovereignty extends absolutely to every event that occurs in the
history of this world, which also includes human choice. Theological
determinism eliminates human freedom since there are external factors that are
sufficient to determine human choices.
A theological determinist, if he is
a soft determinist will be a compatibilist.
These positions, Compatibilism and
Theological Determinism should explain a plethora of theological dilemmas. A few of those dilemmas are mentioned below:
1. If all our actions are determined,
then is God the author of sin? If A
kills B, then it implies that God determined A to kill B. So God is the cause
of the murder, not person A.
2. If God is the cause of the
murder, how can HE punish person A for murder? Person A did not choose to murder,
instead, it was God who determined A to murder. So if A were to be punished,
would it not be an unjust punishment? Extending this to the final punishment
would pose another serious dilemma. If mankind is not free to make a choice to
either believe or disbelieve in God, then how
can God send unbelievers to hell? How would it be just/fair on God’s part
to send someone to hell despite the fact that that person did not choose to
disbelieve in God?
3. Does this mean that God is evil? If God is the author of sin and if
God punishes people unjustly, then HE cannot be a good, loving, merciful,
gracious and a just God.
More such theological dilemmas
should be explained by those holding to the viewpoint of theological
determinism and compatibilism.
Whatever be our stance, we need not condescend to the extent of
alienating our Christian brothers and sisters holding opposing viewpoints. We
could always agree to disagree, yet maintain our brotherhood.
Christian apologist, Greg Koukl
articulates this well:3
I believe that
all things are in operation. That there are some things that are determined.
Our molecules are like dominos falling in a certain way according to their
chemistry and natural law, and we don’t make any decisions about those kinds of
things. There are other things that I seem to make decisions on and I could
have done otherwise, so I believe that there are libertarian freedoms that we
have when we’re trying to make decisions about things.
There also
seems to me that there are some things that I do because I want to do them, but
I couldn’t have done otherwise. I don’t think it’s possible for us to live a
sinless life. I seem to want to sin, and sometimes I want to do right. But even
when I want to sin, and I do the sinful things, these are things that are, to
some degree, dictated by my nature.
How that all
plays out in our theology is a complex kind of notion. But when you’re
addressing the question of free will, think of these different categories:
strict determinism, strict libertarian freedom, and right in the middle, it’s
called compatibilism, or soft determinism. Yes, some of the things are
determined by your desires, and in that mix, you’re going to find a place for
your particular theology.
Why
am I not a compatibilist? The Consequence
Argument, even its non-technical version, is quite compelling against
compatibilism. The non-technical version of the consequence argument is this:4
This argument
invokes a compelling pattern of inference regarding claims about what is power necessary
for a person. Power necessity, as applied to true propositions (or facts),
concerns what is not within a person's power. Or, put differently, it concerns
facts that a person does not have power over. To say that a person does not
have power over a fact is to say that she cannot act in such a way that the
fact would not obtain. To illustrate, no person has power over the truths of
mathematics. That is, no person can act in such a way that the truths of
mathematics would be false.[16] Hence, the truths of mathematics are, for any
person, power necessities.
… The argument
requires the assumption that determinism is true, and that the facts of the
past and the laws of nature are fixed. Given these assumptions, here is a
rough, non-technical sketch of the argument:[17]
1. No one has
power over the facts of the past and the laws of nature.
2. No one has
power over the fact that the facts of the past and the laws of nature entail
every fact of the future (i.e., determinism is true).
3. Therefore,
no one has power over the facts of the future.
According to
the Consequence Argument, if determinism is true, it appears that no person has
any power to alter how her own future will unfold.
Peter van Inwagen is a prominent
metaphysician and a brilliant Christian philosopher. He is an incompatibilist.
He has written a paper entitled A
dialogue on Free Will.5 Read this paper if you desire to dig
deep into the subject of the superiority of incompatibilism over compatibilism.
I
am a libertarian, for I hold to the libertarian free will position. This
does not relegate those holding opposing views to hell. Whatever be your
position, it does not affect your
salvation, unless the extension of your belief motivates you to negate any
of the essential doctrines of Historic Christianity. What affects your
salvation and mine is our belief in the essential doctrines of Historic
Christianity.
How
do I reconcile my libertarian free will with God’s sovereignty? God has
given man free will and God allows
man to make independent choices that are not causally determined. So man is
free to make his own decisions, and he needs to face the consequences of those
decisions (moral responsibility).
The sovereign God predestines people
based on his foreknowledge (cf. Molinism). God knows who will accept and reject
HIM. When God predestines, HE does so in the light of HIS perfect knowledge,
which includes the knowledge of the counterfactuals as well.
Endnotes:
1https://www.str.org/videos/do-humans-really-have-free-will#.XWjzDOMzZhF
2https://www.theopedia.com/compatibilism
3https://www.str.org/videos/do-humans-really-have-free-will#.XWjzDOMzZhF
4https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/#ThrMajInfConCom
5http://andrewmbailey.com/pvi/Dialogue_Free_Will.pdf
Websites last
accessed on 30th August 2019.
No comments:
Post a Comment