Free Will & Determinism (i)

As I promised to do some months back, I want to give some of my views and observations on this question concerning "determinism" and "free will." For those two previous postings see On Determinism and On Determinism Again. 

Back in the early 1990s I had a debate with Thomas Thrasher and Pat Donahue of the "Church of Christ" on this subject and it was held in Atlanta, Georgia at "Nancy's Creek Primitive Baptist" church building. Since then I have continued study on this subject, for now over fifty years.  

Like the study of Predestination (upon which I wrote much years ago), it requires great care. This is what the 1689 London Confession warned about in its remarks upon it, as I observed in that series. The last two years of college I wrote much upon this, reading a lot of what Jonathan Edwards and Martin Luther wrote upon the subject. I have read what both sides of the issue have said. I do not believe now what I was first led to believe but have grown in my understanding of the doctrine and of the debate over the subject. It is in many ways akin to the debate over what is called "the problem of evil" or "theodicy," for sin is an evil. However, my increase in knowledge and fine tuning of thoughts on this area of theology has been within the Calvinistic, Predestinarian, or Determinism paradigm. 

So, how do I begin such a presentation of my convictions on this area of theology and philosophy? What is my answer to those who would ask me why I believe in Calvinism and Predestination and Determinism? What would be the Reader's Digest version of an answer? Many Calvinists simply say that boiled down it simply affirms that God is sovereign over all things, and that his will cannot fail of accomplishment. But, many anti Calvinists will respond saying "we also believe in the sovereignty of God." So, the short answer is not sufficient. In fact, it is very difficult to give a mere Reader's Digest answer to such a deep theological and philosophical question. 

Some Calvinists do not believe in the predestination of all things, i.e., that everything comes to pass by God's decree and causation, but would say that God has only predetermined some things, certainly not predetermining sin and moral evil. They would assert that things which occur by a creature's free will decision are not in any way causatively determined by God. In this way they are in agreement with the Arminians (non Calvinists or non Determinists), for they too would say that God has fixed and determined some things, chiefly things outside the acts of the will in choosing. 

However, all five point Calvinists believe in what is called "irresistible grace" or "effectual calling" (being the 4th point in TULIP) and therefore believe that the changing of the will in conversion and regeneration is the work of God and the result of God's predetermination, predestination, or will. The question that is of concern is whether God has in any way caused, predetermined, predestinated, or willed anyone's sin, on the one hand, and whether God has in any way caused, predetermined, predestinated, or willed anyone's act of choosing Christ (or act of believing), on the other hand. In other words, does God "force" or "compel" anyone to will or choose anything, either good or bad, acting as the lone efficient cause? If he cannot, why can he not? What are the ramifications for saying that God cannot compel or effect a creature's choice? If God cannot determine or make certain the choices of his rational creatures, then it seems that he cannot control the world nor say for certain what shall be in the future. But, the scriptures show him making events certain by decreeing them to be and stating what shall certainly be done in the future. Prophecy fulfilling often involves God's control over the choices of his creatures.

One of the other problems in discussing this subject is to define words and ideas. What do we mean by "free will"? What do we mean by "predestination"? What do we mean by "the will of God"? What do we mean by "responsibility" or "accountability"? Oftentimes the devil is in the definition of such terms. 

Further, those who deny that God has decreed or willed to come to pass, or into existence, all that does come to pass or into existence, are often seeking to keep God from being guilty or responsible for the existence or occurrence of evil (either choices or acts), and so are protecting, they think, the moral goodness of God, his omnibenevolence, his justice and righteousness, his holiness, and all the moral acts of God. God is judged to not be a God of love did he in any way decree, determine, or will the occurrence of moral evil. On the other hand, those who are like I am want to do the same, but we also do not believe that we have to embrace indeterminism, dualism, free will-ism, and a denial of God's pervasive providence and sovereign control of things to do so. The fact is, to my thinking, the bible shows God taking responsibility for all things and thus this fact renders efforts to justify his doing so to be futile. It is also against the belief of some who say that God is not responsible for all things. So, in this series, it will be necessary to see whether scriptures say that all things are of God, coming to pass because he has willed that they come to pass. For now we will save that for later. So, generally speaking, the motives of both sides seem to be motivated by a desire to defend some attribute of God.   

Why Did I Do That? 

Every rational human being has asked himself "Why did I choose that?" Or, "Why did I make the wrong decision?" Or, simply "Why did I do that?" Those questions reveal that we see it as a self evident fact that human choices have causes or reasons for their occurrence. Obviously the person made a choice or decision, but it was not made as in a vacuum, or so freely as to be without reason or cause, or independent of external influences. So we ask questions also like "Why am I here?" And "What is my purpose in life?" And "Why did that happen?" And "Why God?" "Why did you let that happen?" And "Why is there evil in the world?" And "Why does God not stop the evil?"

Nearly every Psychologist, Psychiatrist, Neurologist, reject the idea that the will is "free" in the way it is oftentimes defined in Non Determinism ideology (or indeterminism). They believe that there are causes for the choices humans make. They all believe that it is possible to predict what people will choose to do in given situations. Philosophically, if future choices are predictable, then they are the effects of prior causes. This proposition is accepted overwhelmingly in the social sciences. 

If exercising free will means choosing without any influence or pressure, without force or coercion, then we can safely say, in my view, that there is no absolutely free choice. I choose to eat because my hunger pains are forcing me (or strongly urging me) to make that choice. And even if I choose not to eat when starving, it is because another cause (reason) is competing with, and succeeding, against the force of hunger. Jonathan Edwards mammoth work of the "Freedom Of The Will" looks closely at the psychology of human choice within a biblical framework and concluded that a choice represents the greatest desire. I would say greatest influence, power, or force, or desire. 

For these reasons I say that "free will" in actual practice is a myth, like Martin Luther said, if by "free will" we mean a will that acts without a cause or reason. Even those who promote a version of "free will" where there is no causal link to a prior reason have to admit that such a "free will" is rarely, if ever, really seen in operation in the world. The word "free" often involves the idea of being "independent." When Americans declared "independence" from England and king George, they were saying that they were "free" of the rule of such. So, whose will is independent of all the stimuli operating upon the will? My view is to say that man has free will relatively speaking. That is, I can say that it is free in relation to one thing, but not free in relation to another thing. Paul spoke in this manner in Romans, writing thus: 

"For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness...But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life." (6: 20,22)

Slave (not free and independent) in relation to one thing but a freeman in relation to another thing, all at the same time. So, it is a relative freedom, relative to one thing or another. I see the subject of "free will" in the same way. In relation to one thing I can validly say that there is no pressure on me to choose one way or the other, but in relation to another thing I can say "X forces or compels me to choose Y." I can say "my parents gave me liberty to do this or that but my friends would't allow me to do it." Again, relatively free.

There are of course, varies kinds of Determinism and Indeterminism within other of the sciences too. In a writing titled "Types of Determinism," J. R. LUCAS (see here) wrote:

 

"Four sorts of determinism have at various times been put forward, and have been felt to threaten the freedom of the will and human responsibility. They are: 

1. logical determinism, 

2. theological determinism, 

3. psychological determinism, and 

4. physical determinism. 

"Logical determinism maintains that the future is already fixed as unalterably as the past. Theological determinism argues that since God is omniscient, He knows everything, the future included. Psychological determinism maintains that there are certain psychological laws which we are beginning to discover, enabling us to predict, usually on the basis of his experiences in early infancy, how a man will respond to different situations throughout his later life. Physical determinism is based on there being physical laws of nature, many of which have actually been discovered, and of whose truth we can reasonably hope to be quite certain, together with the claim that all other features of the world are dependent on physical factors."

Through the years I have studied all of the categories of this subject, but chiefly theological determinism, and secondly, psychological determinism. I wrote a thesis paper on this in my Advanced Composition class and we discussed it in my "Philosophy of Religion" class. In that class we discussed "hard" vs. "soft" determinism, and such things as "strict liability," and free will. The subject of free will was also deeply discussed in my class on Existentialism. It was also discussed in a Summer class I had in "The Philosophy of Law."It was the subject of a debate I had with two ministers of the "Church of Christ" in Atlanta Georgia in the early 1990s. 

God Can't Mess With Free Will?

Again, I repeat, we are trying to understand "why," why we do what we do, why we choose the way we do, and what is God's role in the exercise of my free will? Is my will off limits with God? I recall one of the famous lines in the movie "Bruce Almighty" where Bruce (Jim Carrey) is given by God (Morgan Freeman) all God's power with one exception. God says to Bruce "you can't mess with free will." Bruce later asks "can I ask why?" (why I can't mess with free will) And God responds with an exuberant "yes you can." 

So, why can't God mess with "free will"? Why is God's operating on the will taboo? If we say such, what are the ramifications of affirming that the human will is outside of God's control? Many will say, based upon the bible, that God does operate on the will by "influence," and by "persuasion," and by providential means, by bringing about circumstances in the life of the one being influenced, etc., but absolutely not by "forcing" or "compelling" the will. Such folks think this is horrible for God to do. They think that God cannot mess with free will beyond that of unforced influence. But, who can so limit God? Where is the authority for saying that God's influence "crosses the line" at some point? 

Another issue in this discussion and which has been an important factor with me in bringing me to my present views on this vast subject; It is the idea that God cannot fail. I believe the bible to teach that God cannot fail in any of his attempts to do a thing. God does not know defeat, failure, disappointment, or frustration. His will and pleasure are always done. This is what was learned by Nebuchadnezzar so that he said that God "does according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him,  What doest thou?" (Dan. 4: 35) I take that to mean that God can do whatever he wants when he wants and that no creature can frustrate him in his purposes and that none have a right to question him or to charge him with injustice. 

If we think he is acting unjustly, we need not jump to conclusions about God and his decisions. It would have been easy for Job to have done so. He experienced the paradox or cognitive dissonance that resulted from his thoughts upon his situation in light of God's sovereign control over his life and of the world. God no doubt seemed to be unjust to Job at times. Yet, he clung to the belief that God was just though it seemed otherwise (for he did not know all the facts behind the scene). 

Also, from the words of Daniel 4: 35 we see one way in which the "will" of God is used in scripture. According to these words God's will is never resisted, never kept from fruition. This is the same way Paul used the words "the will of God" in Romans 9 when he asks rhetorically "for who has resisted his will?" (Verse 19) Of course, there is another usage for the "will of God" seen in scripture. It is used to denote what God has commanded of creatures to do. Thus, for instance, the ten commandments may be called the will of God. But, that will is not always obeyed; So though God says his will is that Jack or Jill not steal, his will is not always effectual in that way. Some Calvinist haters scoff at such, denouncing the idea of "two wills in God." But, it is not that there are two wills in God, but two senses in which the term "will of God" is used in scripture. If we had time we could show this to be true by looking at all the texts that speak of the will of God. Even words in all dictionaries list several usages for a single word. There is often a primary meaning and one or more secondary meanings. So too in scripture with words like the "will" of God. 

To read my previous writings on this subject see these postings:

JUL 6, 2008 Baptist Gadfly

Free Will & Determinism Debate (here)

Free Will & Determinism Debate II (here)

Free Will & Determinism Debate III (here)

Free Will & Determinism Debate IV (here)

Free Will Theodicy (here)

Cute! Ben Witherington (here)

Another Question for Ben (here)

Back in 2008 when I wrote these posts and had these exchanges I argued more from the Hard Determinism perspective. I am now, however, more of a Soft Determinist, which is what most Compatibilists are.

Twelve chapters title "Hardshells and Predestination" from Oct. - Nov. 2011 (see archives)

The opposite of determinism, strictly speaking, is not libertarian free will, but is rather some kind of indeterminism (otherwise called non-determinism). Determinism is often contrasted with free will and free will is identified with indeterminism. In other words, it is the thesis that affirms that the will can only be said to be free if it is in no way determined. 

It must be acknowledged by all, at the outset of any discussion on this deep subject, that even the most fervent advocate of "libertarian free will" must admit that some things are determined. Likewise, the most fervent advocate of determinism must admit that angels and humans possess some degree of freedom as respects choice or the power to will.

It must also be acknowledged that the bible posits both divine determinism and creature free will and in a way that demonstrates that they are shown to be somehow compatible, without explaining the minute mechanics of how that works. Perhaps this is because the bible authors did not affirm a kind of "free will" as do many theologians and philosophers (by those who espouse creature freedom of will in its highest sense). 

This subject is also interconnected with "the problem of evil." If there is only one God, and that God is both good and all powerful, why does he not stop or prevent the evil in the world? The atheist believes that the existence of evil proves that there is no god, or at least no good god. Advocates of determinism will offer solutions to this riddle differently than those who offer what is called the "Free Will (FW) Defense." 

Said Jesus: "And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined..." (Luke 22: 22) Jesus had a destiny. So too do we.

We will continue our thoughts on this subject in the next posting in this series.