- Oct 21, 2003
- 6,793
- 3,289
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Definitions are always helpful, especially in any sort of philosophical discussion. So to aid the discussion, here are basic definitions from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
"Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature. The idea is ancient, but first became subject to clarification and mathematical analysis in the eighteenth century. Determinism is deeply connected with our understanding of the physical sciences and their explanatory ambitions, on the one hand, and with our views about human free action on the other. In both of these general areas there is no agreement over whether determinism is true (or even whether it can be known true or false), and what the import for human agency would be in either case." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
"Compatibilism offers a solution to the free will problem, which concerns a disputed incompatibility between free will and determinism. Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed as a thesis about the compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
"“Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Which sort is the free will sort is what all the fuss is about. (And what a fuss it has been: philosophers have debated this question for over two millennia, and just about every major philosopher has had something to say about it.) Most philosophers suppose that the concept of free will is very closely connected to the concept of moral responsibility. Acting with free will, on such views, is just to satisfy the metaphysical requirement on being responsible for one's action. (Clearly, there will also be epistemic conditions on responsibility as well, such as being aware—or failing that, being culpably unaware—of relevant alternatives to one's action and of the alternatives' moral significance.) But the significance of free will is not exhausted by its connection to moral responsibility. Free will also appears to be a condition on desert for one's accomplishments (why sustained effort and creative work are praiseworthy); on the autonomy and dignity of persons; and on the value we accord to love and friendship. (See Kane 1996, 81ff. and Clarke 2003, Ch.1; but see also Pereboom 2001, Ch.7.)" Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
In another thread in response to another poster and before explaining my position, in response to the defintion they provided, I responded with the following, giving a few details on my position:
"...which unlike the entry you quoted does not include the extra biased baggage of "every cause, including our decisions, are pre-determined." Which is completely unnecessary because if you check out the link from the definition above, you will see there is history of compatibilism in philosophy and different types of compatibilism. I would probably be considered a "classic compatibilist". I do not like the term "free will" because it is extremely misleading. Free from what to what? I much prefer the term "FREEDOM" because it acknowledges choice. Compatibilists do not subscribe to what is known as "hard determinism", there are differences and I'll leave it to you to learn them. Compatibilists are "soft determinists". At this point, we can hardly discuss determinism without discussing causality, at least to a point. In an attempt for brevity and clarity, I recognize no less (angels, fallen and non?) than two chains of cause. God being the uncaused cause of everything first caused. Portions of His creation were created, especially humans made in His image, to be secondary chains of causality, such that humans could be given commands and actually choose to obey or not obey. However, the first humans by disobeying, brought curse to the choices of everyone after them. As secondary chains of cause, originating from the first Causer, there is of course a link, however the freedom given to secondary causers, shifts the responsibility of first cause to secondary cause. I feel this is terribly complicated and difficult, however, when studied most of life is complicated under a microscope, ask a Scientist. This did not all sink into me overnight, it is an accumulation of years of pondering of meditating and questioning. So to answer your loaded question, yes I believe everything is pre-determined, if in no other sense than permanently settled in the omniscience of God. Does that make God the direct cause of everything? NO, by NO means. It does not follow that secondary chains of causality necessarily (by necessity) be caused by the first Causer. Finally, this is an area where I am open to disagreement, where I do not feel one hundred percent certain, but confident enough to lay out a position, even if it may be lacking in presentation and fine details. I believe in determinism and true moral responsibility, I believe they are both presented in other terms in Scripture and are compatible and harmonious."
In response to their "free will in the Bible" claim, I posted the following:
"Might I suggest that for every passage where the word is "choose" or "choice" that non-Augustinians are reading "FREE" into the will of a choice? In other words there is a world of difference between making a choice and it being free from countless things including desires. The Scriptures are clear as a bell concerning the nature of fallen man. That fallen man can makes choices is a far cry from free will, that fallen man has freedom within the bounds of his completely sinful nature is also a far cry from what people think "free will" so commonly means."
In short, my reason for posting comes from looking over the Christian philosophy forum and seeing so little direct and obvious Christian philosophy (in the titles at least), so I thought maybe this could get a discussion going and minds turned onto this ongoing debate that has gone on for centuries. A number of giants of our faith have written at length on this topic, what can we glean from them?
"Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature. The idea is ancient, but first became subject to clarification and mathematical analysis in the eighteenth century. Determinism is deeply connected with our understanding of the physical sciences and their explanatory ambitions, on the one hand, and with our views about human free action on the other. In both of these general areas there is no agreement over whether determinism is true (or even whether it can be known true or false), and what the import for human agency would be in either case." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
"Compatibilism offers a solution to the free will problem, which concerns a disputed incompatibility between free will and determinism. Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed as a thesis about the compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
"“Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Which sort is the free will sort is what all the fuss is about. (And what a fuss it has been: philosophers have debated this question for over two millennia, and just about every major philosopher has had something to say about it.) Most philosophers suppose that the concept of free will is very closely connected to the concept of moral responsibility. Acting with free will, on such views, is just to satisfy the metaphysical requirement on being responsible for one's action. (Clearly, there will also be epistemic conditions on responsibility as well, such as being aware—or failing that, being culpably unaware—of relevant alternatives to one's action and of the alternatives' moral significance.) But the significance of free will is not exhausted by its connection to moral responsibility. Free will also appears to be a condition on desert for one's accomplishments (why sustained effort and creative work are praiseworthy); on the autonomy and dignity of persons; and on the value we accord to love and friendship. (See Kane 1996, 81ff. and Clarke 2003, Ch.1; but see also Pereboom 2001, Ch.7.)" Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
In another thread in response to another poster and before explaining my position, in response to the defintion they provided, I responded with the following, giving a few details on my position:
"...which unlike the entry you quoted does not include the extra biased baggage of "every cause, including our decisions, are pre-determined." Which is completely unnecessary because if you check out the link from the definition above, you will see there is history of compatibilism in philosophy and different types of compatibilism. I would probably be considered a "classic compatibilist". I do not like the term "free will" because it is extremely misleading. Free from what to what? I much prefer the term "FREEDOM" because it acknowledges choice. Compatibilists do not subscribe to what is known as "hard determinism", there are differences and I'll leave it to you to learn them. Compatibilists are "soft determinists". At this point, we can hardly discuss determinism without discussing causality, at least to a point. In an attempt for brevity and clarity, I recognize no less (angels, fallen and non?) than two chains of cause. God being the uncaused cause of everything first caused. Portions of His creation were created, especially humans made in His image, to be secondary chains of causality, such that humans could be given commands and actually choose to obey or not obey. However, the first humans by disobeying, brought curse to the choices of everyone after them. As secondary chains of cause, originating from the first Causer, there is of course a link, however the freedom given to secondary causers, shifts the responsibility of first cause to secondary cause. I feel this is terribly complicated and difficult, however, when studied most of life is complicated under a microscope, ask a Scientist. This did not all sink into me overnight, it is an accumulation of years of pondering of meditating and questioning. So to answer your loaded question, yes I believe everything is pre-determined, if in no other sense than permanently settled in the omniscience of God. Does that make God the direct cause of everything? NO, by NO means. It does not follow that secondary chains of causality necessarily (by necessity) be caused by the first Causer. Finally, this is an area where I am open to disagreement, where I do not feel one hundred percent certain, but confident enough to lay out a position, even if it may be lacking in presentation and fine details. I believe in determinism and true moral responsibility, I believe they are both presented in other terms in Scripture and are compatible and harmonious."
In response to their "free will in the Bible" claim, I posted the following:
"Might I suggest that for every passage where the word is "choose" or "choice" that non-Augustinians are reading "FREE" into the will of a choice? In other words there is a world of difference between making a choice and it being free from countless things including desires. The Scriptures are clear as a bell concerning the nature of fallen man. That fallen man can makes choices is a far cry from free will, that fallen man has freedom within the bounds of his completely sinful nature is also a far cry from what people think "free will" so commonly means."
In short, my reason for posting comes from looking over the Christian philosophy forum and seeing so little direct and obvious Christian philosophy (in the titles at least), so I thought maybe this could get a discussion going and minds turned onto this ongoing debate that has gone on for centuries. A number of giants of our faith have written at length on this topic, what can we glean from them?