Freedom and Determinism
I hijacked this from my philosophy class, tweaked it for this audience, and now give it to you in hopes of actually getting somewhere in the Calvinism/Arminianism debate.
1. Just before 11 p.m., Patrick enters a room where a big party is bumping. Planning to stay for an hour or two, depending on how many chicks were there. Unknown to him, the front door at the party was connected to a timer that locked the door at 11p.m, and would unlock again at 1a.m. Chicks aside, all sorts of interesting philosophical/theological discussions were going on at the party. Patrick, being somewhat inclined to theological debates, was in the midst of a discussion of Calvinism vs. Arminiansism and the issue of free will. A few times, when the Calvinists got all riled up, Patrick thought about leaving, and even headed for the door once or twice. But each time, he found himself engaged in another conversation and ended up staying for the entire two hours. Then, exactly at 1a.m. just as the door unlocked, he walked out, thinking about the nature of human freedom. Things were winding down at the party anyway and a bit later all the chicks left as well.
2. Penelope visits her psychiatrist, Dr. Finney. As a part of her treatment, he places her under hypnosis. While under hypnosis, he instructs her that at 11p.m. she will enter a bumping party and stay for exactly two hours. Sure enough, that night at 11.p.m. she enters a party where the guests are discussion fascinating topics such as the sinners prayer and the nature Unconditional Election. A chemistry major in college, she was fascinated by such a discussion as it was much more exciting than protons and electrons. Her excitement leaves her with no desire to leave the party. A few times she thought about leaving, but every time she thought of a good reason to stay. Then abruptly, just before 1.am. she suddenly felt the urge to leave, and exactly at 1 she walked out the door, leaving behind a spirited debate about Predestination.
Who has the greater degree of freedom? How do you define freedom and how does it play out in your decision? These examples, I think, will show the huge differences between Calvinistic understandings of freedom and Arminian/Open Theist understanding of freedom.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
We all have free will but our choices are determined. Both people did what they wanted to do.
Patrick had been determined to stay there through his love of the subject. Yet, he chose to stay via free will.
For her, she did choose hypnosis. She didn’t know she had been hypnotized to go to the party.
St. Augustine & Stephen Hawkins agree:
We are determined. The fact that we don’t know how, makes us free.
Romans 3, Romans 8:8, and John 6:30-44 are really clear on Total Depravity & Predestination.
E. I. Sanchez,
I find it interesting that you bring Total Depravity into a conversation that had yet to ask for it. Even so, Paul never argues for total depravity. Even in Romans 3, Paul is merely pointing out the fact that all people sin, all “fall short.” He says this to show the legitimacy of entering covenant with God through faith, because he sees entering the covenant through just the law as problematic (especially for the Gentiles he is talking to). While he envisions people to participate in sin, one must jump through some exegetical loops to get to absolute total depravity. Regardless, it’s part of a greater argument, yet it has somehow been seen as the argument itself by a great many people. And how does Romans 8:8 deal with total depravity? It just illustrates the duality of seeking flesh/seeking the spirit that Paul is illustrating. In any case, Paul is consistantly speaking of groups. He is talking about how God is bringing the Gentiles as a group into the covenant, and how they will in turn correct the Jews. The idea of individual predestination is completely foreign to Paul, he speaks in corporate terms. The only early Christians that I know of who spoke of individual predestination were gnostics.
To say that Patrick’s choice was “determined” by his love of the topic is quite the misnomer. Being compelled and being determined are two drastically different ideas, and they absolutely should not be confused. Patrick was compelled, while Penelope was outright controlled. Furthermore, giving someone the illusion of free will while still controlling their actions is simple deception.
It’s interesting that you bring up Augustine. Do you also agree with his doctrines on Purgatory? Purgatory was one of the only ways that he was able to reconcile a just God and his new understanding of original sin. Even so, it’s precisely his views on determinism, original sin, purgatory, and several other things that causes the worlds second largest Christian denomination (Orthodox Christianity) to hold his beliefs to be heretical.
And I’m assuming you mean Stephen Hawking? What does a theoretical astrophysicist have to do with Christian understandings of determinism vs. free will? Seems odd to bring him into this conversation.
E.I.,
Determinism and Freedom are mutually exclusive, so you cannot hold to both. However, there are systems of thought out there that attempt to make them compatible. So, either you need to abandon either Freedom or Determinism Or you need to demonstrate more clearly how they work together - specifically by delineating your definition of freedom that can allow for an action to be both determined and free.
And I agree with cheapham, reasons for staying at the party (love of chicas) do not determine anything. Reasons may explain, but they do not determine. A very important distinction indeed.
Hank,
I think you’re right in your assertion that neither had freedom - at least from a Libertarian/Arminian perspective. However, from a Calvinistic/Compatibilism perspective, it was actually Penelope who experienced freedom.
As for Patrick, I agree that freedom can sometimes be illusionary - but I guess I have to ask why we should ever assume that it is? Sure, my belief in freedom may be an illusion, but there is no real reason for me to ever question that freedom - you see? So, the illusion of freedom, or my own perception of freedom is all I really have to work with - and really, even if the door is locked on me and I don’t know it, I see no reason to question my freedom.
And Patrick not only has no reason to assume the door is locked, but he also freely chose to stay at the Party, anyway. So, I might say his freedom is limited by his options, but as he chose what he wanted out of his own volition, I would still say he made a free choice.
I too, maintain that Patrick freely choose to stay in the room and that Penny did not. The choice did not originate for penny inside her, but from Dr. Finney (nice one). The choice for Pat to stay come from inside him.
I don’t think there is a real issue of greater freedom (as it relates to the locked door). For me, there is a difference between choice and ability to enact that choice. Pat had the ability to choose to remain in the room or to leave the room. However, he did not have that ability. (Wonder what sort of parallel I could draw here)
When it comes to humans and determinism, the issue for me is choice, not ability to enact that choice. I see the the ability to enact a choice as a struggle against the environment.
I also maintain that every single choice one makes is both free and determined at the same time. What do I mean by this? Isn’t it a contradiction, as Tom has said? I think that free choice is choice between a set of determined actions. I am free to actualize one of a set of causes of my choice.
I think the Hawking reference refers to the same problem of determinism in physics. Hawking is not dealing with religion here but the determinism of the material universe, so I think that he is admissible even if he is an atheist or agnostic. I think Hawking is leaving out “wills.” If one is only trying to figure out the future of the mechanical ( I know, bad term) universe, then he is right. However, if you introduce the notion of free wills into the discussion (God, Humans, etc) then I think the predictability breaks down.
Henry - can we say a person has freedom if an outside force restricts their ability to performa an action even if it does not impact their will? If my will wants one thing (say, food), but someone keeps me from food by force, is not my freedom restricted?
It seems to me that true freedom must include not only the will but also the ability. Now, I still maintain that Patrick’s freedom is limited by his ability to leave the party. However, as he did what he wanted without the knowledge of his restricted freedom, I still think there is a free choice there. His will and his action were in alignment and were not hindered.
As far as Hawking goes - I don’t really find him relevant to this discussion. Neither the Calvinists nor the Arminians hold to that kind of materialist determinism. And though Calvinists are determinist s in some sense, I still hear them say all the time that they believe in free will - even thought God gives them the will. That is Compatibilism, not determinism.
Hi cheapham,
I’ve only read Augustine’s Confession’s and an article here and there. Which is the book that deals with Purgatory, and Original Sin?
In retrospect, I have no idea how the Total Depravity Line got in there. It definitely doesn’t follow the conversation.
As far as Romans 3 and Romans 8, I’m not going to touch on those two because - as we would agree - there are plenty of interpretations: Thus, Calvinists vs. Arminianism. I’m definitely not going to convince you with a comment.
Tom 1st,
Determinism and Freedom are mutually exclusive from human terms because we don’t have a full picture. Thus, we’re free to choose but the choices are given. The one that gives us the choices has determined the outcome. Especially if someone really knows you well, he can predict your choices and reactions (e.g. God).
I still think Patrick & Penelope made free choices. No one forced them.
This is really great conversation guys. I’m enjoying it.
Tom -
Depends on what aspect of the general category of freedom we are talking about. The choice is free, even if the ability to enact the choice is not free. Separate from choice is action, the ability to put choices into motion or actuality. This freedom of action was limited in Pat’s case, but there was still a freedom of choice. So, in the first case there are some freedoms that are there and others that are not.
E.I.
Just a few thoughts…
Having my choices given to me is not necessarilly the same thing as deciding for me which of those choices I will make. God gave Adam and Eve a choice to sin or not sin, but God did not make the choice for them.
Also, someone knowing me well enough to know what I will probably choose is not the same thing as determining for me what I will choose. My wife knows I will always choose a Cheeseburger over Spinach, but that does not mean she has determined what I will choose.
According to classical theism, when it comes to God, though, for God to have knowledge that I will choose something ensures that I cannot choose otherwise. He doesn’t just predict, He knows. And if He knows what I will choose, then it is not really a choice after all because I cannot, in fact, do otherwise. So though it appears I have a choice, that choice is only illusionary. But that means, then, that I am not REALLY free. This is why I’ve heard Calvinists like Piper deny human freedom - it has no place in their theological system - everything is determined by God…and no one is ultimately, really, free.
Henry,
I agree - Patrick’s choice was free. I just think it was in some way limited because, had he desired, he could not have actually done otherwise.
Penelope, though, she was free according to the classical theism view of Compatibilism. They would consider her free indeed! But we’ll get to that eventually I’m sure.
Just so everyone can jump on me…
The main reason I believe I have free will is because I experience my life as a series of (basically) free choices. Whether or not I actually have free will or am just experiencing the illusion of it is irrelevant to me, because even if I were to be convinced philosophically/theologically that I don't have free will, I would still probably live my life as though I do.
Theology that is not practical is dead theology. For me, at least, theology that helps me experience God more intimately and helps me to grow his kingdom now must necessarily begin from (or at least include) an anthropology of free will. Otherwise I will not be able to relate to it.
In other words, if the doors are locked, I don't know it. And if I'm hypnotized, I don't know it. I need to learn the right way to pick up chicas and the best means of engaging in conversations. (did that stretch the metaphor too far?)
Brothers,
No one is really going to get anywhere until each define’s his use of the term “free will.” I can think of at least six off the top of my head. This is crucial to this discussion, for without, often people simply talk passed each other.
This is also important because I have yet to neither read nor hear about any orthodox theologian in times past or since who has not held to some version of free will. Yes, this includes Calvin, Luther, and Augustine.
For example, Sartre argues that if God exists, then there is no such thing as human freedom. Since there is (or must be in his existential system [or I should non-system?]) human free, then God does not exist. I would absolutely agree with Sartre’s major premise, in light of his view of freedom, but not his minor premise, for the same reason. Why? Because I don’t believe in his form of human freedom (which simply means that man is bound by no external or natural laws, but is validated only by his sense of capricious will that makes him essential man). Sartre’s view of freedom is derived from his view metaphysical view that for human beings, existience proceeds essence, but that is another post altogether.
Hope this clears some things up.
In Christ,
-Travis
Thanks, Travis, that’s exactly where I was hoping to go with this discussion. It seems that people on both sides of this debate tended to, at least in relation to these examples, NOT choose sides with their theological presuppositions. A few did, but I found it interesting that some didn’t.
First I'll admit I prefer to stick to examining the appropriate texts of Scripture in the debate of Calvinism/Arminianism or Human Free-Will/God's Sovereignty.
Second, at first glance, and I will read this more and look more carefully, neither one has any greater freedom. Patrick comes to the party because of a desire to interact with the chicas and does not leave because of his desire to engage in the theological discussions ( I say this knowing that the door locked for two hours). However we do not see how Patrick came to prefer these discussions/debates. In Penelope's case, we see why she stayed even when she thought about leaving. The psychiatrist had hypnotized her into staying, as a result she always found a reason to stay until the two hours had completed. Both were inclined to stay out of an internal desire, but Penelope's is seen to have come from the doctor, where as Patrick is just out of his inclination to debate/discuss theology. But I guess you could also say that neither one really had any true freedom to leave the party because the door was locked and could not be opened until 1:00 am for Patrick, and Penelope was conditioned to stay at the party from 11:00 pm-1:oo am. Freedom can sometimes be an illusion–may be…I don't know. Just some thoughts at first glance of the post.
This should be fun and engaging. I do hope that comments will stay toned down as these threads can get heated. I'll be back later with some more thoughts.