Have two people who are the same in practically every way, and ask them one simple question. Would you like coffee or tea? Would they answer the same? Most psychologists would answer yes to this question. If the circumstances influencing the two subjects were indeed the same, then there is no reason that they should answer differently. This is called determinism, in which one can make a choice, but it is not in their power to choose otherwise. For those who say no to this question, these people are rejecting determinism for indeterminism or inherent unpredictability. Others say no because they believe that “God is the ultimate source of natural events, so are people, to some extent, the ultimate cause of their own actions.” (pg. 71-72)
Although most answered yes to question above, psychologists agree that behavior is not absolutely determined based on predictors. We are influenced by a variety of different factors, everything from biological to psychological, but this does not always give a clear prediction of what ones behavior will be. Predicting the weather is easy when compared to predicting a person’s behaviors.
Although they are not always clear, they do powerfully influence ones behavior. This being said, research psychologists assume that there is a sort of order to human behavior. Even in attempting to predict and study behavior, research psychologists are still limited by the complexity of human nature in which they can only use statistical generalizations.
Let us think for a moment of what a world where there was absolutely no determinism. Nothing could be determined in this world. No one could be certain of anything, not the floor their standing on, or seat their sitting in. This would breed an attitude of “whatever-will-be-will-be.” Why make decisions when you have nothing base them off of, nor no idea what may happen. This breeds a lack of responsibility by people in this non-deterministic world leading to a loss of morality. Does morality and responsibility not require some sort of predictability? If we go on the opposite end of the spectrum, we would be in a world of absolute determinism. If we do this, we are denying the philosophical idea of agent causation in which we are self-determining.
This idea of being self-determined, or a self-made people, has come under attack by, not only determinists, but major theological masterminds who remind us that the concept of human responsibility must not deny the three attributes of God: foreknowledge, sovereignty, and grace.
God is omniscient, this is an indisputable fact. In being omniscient, He can anticipate the results of human choices. This is evidenced by his knowing of Judas’ betrayal, Peter’s denial of Christ, and the crucifixion. This does not imply divide determinism. God is not bound by time as we are, thus he can see all three parts of time including past, present, and future.
Although most answered yes to question above, psychologists agree that behavior is not absolutely determined based on predictors. We are influenced by a variety of different factors, everything from biological to psychological, but this does not always give a clear prediction of what ones behavior will be. Predicting the weather is easy when compared to predicting a person’s behaviors.
Although they are not always clear, they do powerfully influence ones behavior. This being said, research psychologists assume that there is a sort of order to human behavior. Even in attempting to predict and study behavior, research psychologists are still limited by the complexity of human nature in which they can only use statistical generalizations.
Let us think for a moment of what a world where there was absolutely no determinism. Nothing could be determined in this world. No one could be certain of anything, not the floor their standing on, or seat their sitting in. This would breed an attitude of “whatever-will-be-will-be.” Why make decisions when you have nothing base them off of, nor no idea what may happen. This breeds a lack of responsibility by people in this non-deterministic world leading to a loss of morality. Does morality and responsibility not require some sort of predictability? If we go on the opposite end of the spectrum, we would be in a world of absolute determinism. If we do this, we are denying the philosophical idea of agent causation in which we are self-determining.
This idea of being self-determined, or a self-made people, has come under attack by, not only determinists, but major theological masterminds who remind us that the concept of human responsibility must not deny the three attributes of God: foreknowledge, sovereignty, and grace.
God is omniscient, this is an indisputable fact. In being omniscient, He can anticipate the results of human choices. This is evidenced by his knowing of Judas’ betrayal, Peter’s denial of Christ, and the crucifixion. This does not imply divide determinism. God is not bound by time as we are, thus he can see all three parts of time including past, present, and future.
According to Edwards, if we are indeterminate, God’s plans become dependent on our actions. How can God direct the future if it constantly changes because we make a decision against His will? The answer is that God works in us and through us to bring about His will for our lives and in our world. “Luther argued that the bondage of will was an essential to the foundation for the doctrine of grace.” (pg. 75) We are inherently sinful, and cannot act righteously on our own. It is only through God that we can achieve salvation.
All these arguments against indeterminism have the same problem. They do not accommodate ultimate moral responsibility. “In a deterministic world, we can hold any behavior as worthy of praise or blame, but it becomes more difficult to hold the person as ultimately responsible.” (pg. 76) How can a person be held responsible for a crime that he had no choice in committing? Also, if it is predetermined who will gain salvation and who would not, what is the point of sending down Jesus to save us. If a person is already predestined to go to heaven, then there was no point in the sacrifice of Jesus. We, in turn, cheapen Jesus’ sacrifice in believing this way. Thus we are tempted to throw in a bit of free will saying that God only determines the big things or the ultimate ends. In saying this, we cheapen God’s omnipotence. Does God not have the ability to see and intervene in any situation he would like to? The question becomes, is His eye on the sparrow? “A God who is not concerned with the small things is not a God who is continuously involved with all events of creation.” (pg. 76)
So where does that leave us? In the end, we must realize that we cannot understand God’s ways. Perhaps the natural order and human responsibility are interwoven on a deeper level than we think. Who are we to put a limit on God?
This chapter was hard to write on because of there being many small points, but not a lot of detail in the small points, or so I felt. Personally, I have spent many years pondering this question of free-will versus determinism, and, in doing so, have created a theory of my own based upon the multiverse theory. Who is say that God cannot see the possibilities in front of Him and direct us where he would like? Of course, we have a choice which path to take, but there are significant events that we must be at, and that is where God can direct us. In Job, Satan challenges God to test Job and see if he would break and turn his back on God. If God was deterministic, I doubt this test would have even taken place because of the silliness of the concept to a God who is deterministic. But to a God who allows his subjects free will, this would be an interesting study into why people serve Him? In the end though, I say exactly what the book states, we cannot know, because it is above us. I do not like this reason, because it feels like a cop-out, but in the end, we will not figure out until we stand in front of Him and ask Him ourselves.
Comments
Post a Comment