Are We Really Free?
Charlie is concerned that the Christian definition of free will keeps changing to fit the needs of the argument. If people are free, and God does not interfere, then they are free simpliciter. If God chooses which world we find ourselves in, then our choices are determined.
Charlie, I think I might be getting the idea here. Imagine world F (free) where God gives people the free choice of either choosing evil or good. Now, in F, God foreknows their choices, and I think you agree that this does not determine their actions. Similarly, their actions are NOT determined by God's choosing to create world F (out of all the feasible worlds). For instance, my choice to have cheerios and not rice krispies today was known by God. He could have created world F', where on this day I had no cheerios in my cabinet, but rather had froot loops, and freely chose them over the rice krispies. So, did God determine which cereral I would eat today?
I think our intuition is to say, "no, God didn't determine the choice, but he determined the parameters." OK? So am I truly free today, even though God de facto limited my choices to only cheerios and rice krispies? Yes, I am, because there were at least two live options. Does this seem right so far? This discussion is really helping me get some clarity.
Now, I think we can say that God determines the parameters of Eve's choices, but not the choosing itself. She is not free to do anything. She can't fly, nor can she have froot loops for breakfast. God gives her a range of limited choices, but they are real choices. In circumstances GS (being in the garden witht the serpent), she is free to either eat the fruit (E), or not eat it (NE). (Remember: God's foreknowledge does not determine this choice.) So whatever she chooses, E or NE, it is a free choice.
Now imagine a world F*, where God orchestrates it so that Eve never finds herself in circumstances GS, or in any circumstances where sin is a live option. She is free to choose from any of the live options available, but none of these options include sin. She is simply never tempted. So, the question is, has she freely chosen God? This is a hard question, and not rhetorical. Her choosing has not been fiddled with, as with a puppet. But the parameters have been so severely limited that her freedom seems to be a mere illusion. In one sense, she freely chooses God, but the word 'chooses' seems to be without meaning when you do not have alternatives. So, Eve does not "fail" a test. From her vantage point, she is free. But from ours, si she really? Again, this is not an open and shut case. What do you think?
Before you answer, imagine a child who grows up in a fundamentalist Christian home where he is sheltered from every temptation and is never exposed to other ways of thinking. He has never heard of atheism, or hinduism or Islam. He has never seen a philosophy book, or read Camus, or seen Contact. Has this child freely chosen the Christian way of life and beliefs? I'm not really sure he has.
Charlie, I think I might be getting the idea here. Imagine world F (free) where God gives people the free choice of either choosing evil or good. Now, in F, God foreknows their choices, and I think you agree that this does not determine their actions. Similarly, their actions are NOT determined by God's choosing to create world F (out of all the feasible worlds). For instance, my choice to have cheerios and not rice krispies today was known by God. He could have created world F', where on this day I had no cheerios in my cabinet, but rather had froot loops, and freely chose them over the rice krispies. So, did God determine which cereral I would eat today?
I think our intuition is to say, "no, God didn't determine the choice, but he determined the parameters." OK? So am I truly free today, even though God de facto limited my choices to only cheerios and rice krispies? Yes, I am, because there were at least two live options. Does this seem right so far? This discussion is really helping me get some clarity.
Now, I think we can say that God determines the parameters of Eve's choices, but not the choosing itself. She is not free to do anything. She can't fly, nor can she have froot loops for breakfast. God gives her a range of limited choices, but they are real choices. In circumstances GS (being in the garden witht the serpent), she is free to either eat the fruit (E), or not eat it (NE). (Remember: God's foreknowledge does not determine this choice.) So whatever she chooses, E or NE, it is a free choice.
Now imagine a world F*, where God orchestrates it so that Eve never finds herself in circumstances GS, or in any circumstances where sin is a live option. She is free to choose from any of the live options available, but none of these options include sin. She is simply never tempted. So, the question is, has she freely chosen God? This is a hard question, and not rhetorical. Her choosing has not been fiddled with, as with a puppet. But the parameters have been so severely limited that her freedom seems to be a mere illusion. In one sense, she freely chooses God, but the word 'chooses' seems to be without meaning when you do not have alternatives. So, Eve does not "fail" a test. From her vantage point, she is free. But from ours, si she really? Again, this is not an open and shut case. What do you think?
Before you answer, imagine a child who grows up in a fundamentalist Christian home where he is sheltered from every temptation and is never exposed to other ways of thinking. He has never heard of atheism, or hinduism or Islam. He has never seen a philosophy book, or read Camus, or seen Contact. Has this child freely chosen the Christian way of life and beliefs? I'm not really sure he has.
posted by Chris at 8:53 AM
3 Comments:
No, that child hasn't truly made a choice...yet. One can't obey without the opportunity to disobey.
I like how you've phrased things here...thanks!
Well, I’m not a theologian or philosopher by any stretch of the imagination, but I am a Christian. Hopefully I don’t dig Josh and Chris a hole with my remarks. But I thought I’d throw my two cents in and see how much change I get back.
Let’s consider this scenario:
When I was in a particular high school class, my teacher gave me an exam to test whether I had learned the knowledge of trigonometry that I was expected to learn in his class. If my teacher had given me an exam consisting of kindergarten arithmetic, I would have easily passed the exam without difficulty. But my teacher would not have had anything to gauge whether I understood the trigonometry material. If my teacher had given me an exam consisting of advanced calculus, I would have without doubt failed the exam because it was too much over my head. In this case, the teacher would have gained nothing by which to gauge my knowledge of the trigonometry material. Instead, my trig teacher gave me an exam that was above the level that I would have passed with ease, but below the level of material that I could not possibly pass. Only by giving me an exam with material in this “band” was my teacher able to gauge my progress in his trigonometry class.
From God’s perspective, the relationship He wanted in man (and woman) was one where man would love Him out of his own free-will. But I believe the decision to follow and love God is only meaningful if it has been tested. So, bring in the idea I discussed with my trig class. There is a level for each person where temptations above that level are challenging, and temptations below that level are insignificant. This is the lower level of this “Band of Meaningful Temptation” (BMT). The upper level of the BMT is the level in which temptations above the band are impossible to resist, and temptations below this level are possible to resist. (The BMT’s upper and lower levels are of course different for each individual.) Although each of us go through temptations below this band, only temptations in the BMT are significant to God. These temptations are our real test. (btw temptations above this band do not exist because scripture says that we will not be tested above what we can handle.)
So, to meld this scenario with the current discussion… What has been so eloquently defined as Gadsonian free-will (GFW) covers any choices that are made by man. God foreknows our decision made out of “real, libertarian freedom,” but He only foreknows what we have decided. (Not the other way around.) What wiploc defined as Plantingan free-will (PFW) are choices made below the BMT. These are meaningless decisions. Just as a trig student passing a simple arithmetic exam tells nothing of the trig abilities of the student.
God could have feasibly created a world in which every man made every right decision. But this world would have not have tested any man in the BMT. And so our following of God would be meaningless, as Chris suggested of the sheltered kid in his post. Because of God’s desire and goodness, He created the best possible world in which every man was tested in this band. But being the kind of people each of us is, there was no such feasible world in which every man was tested in his Band of Meaningful Temptation and any one man picked the right decision every time.
Curtis, I really like what you've said here. I've replied to Charlie et al. with a new post.
Post a Comment
<< Home