Bennet's Determinism Or Free Will?
Do we have free will, or is everything we do traceable to a complex series of causes and effects over which we have no control? In other words, is free will actually free or are there consequences to certain decisions that are made? There have been a number of claims that address free will from various theories derived from philosophers that have dissected philosophical ideas regarding the problem with free will. Free will is defines as the idea that we have the ability to make choices in how we act and a course of action from various options (Free Will, 2016). To be clear, this does not grant someone the ability to do whatever they choose, but the topic has opened many streams of debate. Philosophical views on free will have caused quite a
…show more content…
bit of research that questions the validity of its definition. Three main positions related to the topic of free will include determinism, libertarian free will, and compatibilism; however there are other theories that have been birthed from these views. Expanded views such as hard determinism and predeterminism as well as incompatibilism and soft determinism argue against one another. Each of the main positions uncover differences in ethics of people and culture that give rise to philosophical views that research the topic of free will.
The Libertarian free will approach states that a person can choose between two actions or many actions, without the constraining influence of a sovereign God (MzEllen, 2010). To be simply put, the choices made by mankind are free from determination or the pressures of human nature and are free from the predetermination of God (“Libertarian Free will”, 2017). A philosopher by the name of William James was the first thinker to articulate a two-stage decision process, with chance in a present time of random alternatives, leading to a choice which grants consent to one possibility and transforms an uncertain future into a past that can not be changed. Although the past can not be altered, there are alternate futures and possibilities that can be ambiguous and open because free will means freedom (Doyle, 2017). James felt his will was free and felt the future called for open and alternative possibilities which was a key component in libertarian free will. Those who believe in libertarian free will are opposed to the claim that determinism is true. In the eyes of a libertarian nothing is free if it is determined or caused by something. Another philosopher by the name of Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, a Professor of Practical Ethics at Duke University, breaks down the definition of the word “free” which defies whether something is determined because it means that there is no cost. In his explanation, he discussed the omission of barriers associated with free will. His view explained that free will comes without cost which means the decision chosen involves no consequences (Philosophy of Free Will, 2016). So what makes the libertarian free will approach different that the determinist approach?
The Determinist approach claims that for every event there exist conditions that could cause no other events.
In other words, the decisions that are made eventually come together with the laws of nature to bring about all future events. Determinism can be associated with cause and effect because the events within that pattern are bound by a connection in such a way that any event is completely determined by prior states. Philosopher Daniel Bennet explains that the question is not whether free will exists but whether we can be morally competent. Bennet goes into detail by discussing the Determinism theory. If determinism is true, then the future is inevitable and all choices are inevitable which means unavoidable (Philosophy of Free Will, 2016). There are other varieties of determinism, but one of interest is that of Predeterminism. Predeterminism is surrounded by the idea that all events are determined in advance. From a theological point of view, God has already charted every event throughout life. Many religious and spiritual organizations believe that predeterminism explains the theology that God has a roadmap for everyone’s life because all events have been pre-designed prior to birth and no events happen because of chance (Predeterminism, 2015). It is the belief that the future is already known based on the idea of foreknowledge. R.E. Hobart was actually a student of William James who challenged the views of James regarding free will. Hobart felt that it was acceptable …show more content…
to hold religious faith in the absence of evidence either supporting or disagreeing with faith. Later, Hobart published an article that was considered one of the definitive statements of determinism and compatibilism. It was entitled “Free Will as Involving Determination and Inconceivable Without It”. Hobart felt that free will and determinism were compatible and the former requires the latter (Hobart, 1934). Given that Hobart challenged his mentor with claims that determinism and compatibilism were similar, Hobart gave an alternative view on the topic of free will which opens the door for another philosophical view to be discussed.
Compatibilism states that a person’s will is constrained by a sovereign God, but that person is a moral free agent which gives the ability to choose, but also the responsibility of that choice (MzEllen, 2010). Compatibilism is often called soft determinism which in physics is known as cause-and-effect. For every event there exist conditions that could cause no other event. Compatibilism and determinism are compatible ideas so it is conceivable to accept both without being contradictory. Some incompatibilists dispute that the two can work together because they tend to put more concentration on the definition of free will because it does not coincide with the view of determinism. Some incompatibilists remain agnostic as to whether free will exist so most take a further stand regarding the reality or falsehood of free will. Libertarians can also be considered incompatibilists. If compatibilists feel that each person makes choices based on their greatest desire, is it possible to associate compatibilism and predestination? Rather than limit the exercise of God's sovereignty in order to preserve man's freedom, compatibilists feel there must be an alternative way to define what freedom really means (Compatibilism, 2017). By combining both predestination and compatibilism, we are able to present another theory that appears to contradict the freedom associated with free will, but in actuality allows mankind the ability to choose a path that will ultimately prolong their life journey or introduce the inevitable sooner than later.
Furthermore, free will and predestination do co-exist because God is said to influence our desires, hence is able to have comprehensive control of all that goes on (“Compatibilism”, 2017).
Free will affects morality, responsibility, even consciousness and theology (Philosophy of Free, 2016). By definition, predestination is the doctrine that all events have been willed by God because God determines our fate. Earlier it was addressed that William James opposed determinism because he believed in alternate outcomes which he accounted to chance encounters. James also accepted Darwin’s theory on human evolution. In contrast of the Darwin theory, compatibilism and predestination embrace the relevance of God’s role as it applies to free will. A Calvinist by the name of James White explains,” The belief that God’s sovereign decree and man’s creaturely will coexist and that God judges on the basis of the intentions of the heart, there in fact, is a ground for morality and justice” (Celebration Church, 2014). To further support God’s predestination and free will, the Bible speaks of “the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God,” in Acts 2:23. The idea of God’s foreknowledge grants the logical basis by which a higher power dwells independent of all time and space that foresees the will of man and work His own will accordingly (Bible Hub, 2016). Based on the idea that free will and predeterminism work together, choices made can alter how long it takes to arrive at the predestined
place in life, but the choice involved with making the decision could incur consequences that could potentially prolong the inevitable outcome.
bit of research that questions the validity of its definition. Three main positions related to the topic of free will include determinism, libertarian free will, and compatibilism; however there are other theories that have been birthed from these views. Expanded views such as hard determinism and predeterminism as well as incompatibilism and soft determinism argue against one another. Each of the main positions uncover differences in ethics of people and culture that give rise to philosophical views that research the topic of free will.
The Libertarian free will approach states that a person can choose between two actions or many actions, without the constraining influence of a sovereign God (MzEllen, 2010). To be simply put, the choices made by mankind are free from determination or the pressures of human nature and are free from the predetermination of God (“Libertarian Free will”, 2017). A philosopher by the name of William James was the first thinker to articulate a two-stage decision process, with chance in a present time of random alternatives, leading to a choice which grants consent to one possibility and transforms an uncertain future into a past that can not be changed. Although the past can not be altered, there are alternate futures and possibilities that can be ambiguous and open because free will means freedom (Doyle, 2017). James felt his will was free and felt the future called for open and alternative possibilities which was a key component in libertarian free will. Those who believe in libertarian free will are opposed to the claim that determinism is true. In the eyes of a libertarian nothing is free if it is determined or caused by something. Another philosopher by the name of Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, a Professor of Practical Ethics at Duke University, breaks down the definition of the word “free” which defies whether something is determined because it means that there is no cost. In his explanation, he discussed the omission of barriers associated with free will. His view explained that free will comes without cost which means the decision chosen involves no consequences (Philosophy of Free Will, 2016). So what makes the libertarian free will approach different that the determinist approach?
The Determinist approach claims that for every event there exist conditions that could cause no other events.
In other words, the decisions that are made eventually come together with the laws of nature to bring about all future events. Determinism can be associated with cause and effect because the events within that pattern are bound by a connection in such a way that any event is completely determined by prior states. Philosopher Daniel Bennet explains that the question is not whether free will exists but whether we can be morally competent. Bennet goes into detail by discussing the Determinism theory. If determinism is true, then the future is inevitable and all choices are inevitable which means unavoidable (Philosophy of Free Will, 2016). There are other varieties of determinism, but one of interest is that of Predeterminism. Predeterminism is surrounded by the idea that all events are determined in advance. From a theological point of view, God has already charted every event throughout life. Many religious and spiritual organizations believe that predeterminism explains the theology that God has a roadmap for everyone’s life because all events have been pre-designed prior to birth and no events happen because of chance (Predeterminism, 2015). It is the belief that the future is already known based on the idea of foreknowledge. R.E. Hobart was actually a student of William James who challenged the views of James regarding free will. Hobart felt that it was acceptable …show more content…
to hold religious faith in the absence of evidence either supporting or disagreeing with faith. Later, Hobart published an article that was considered one of the definitive statements of determinism and compatibilism. It was entitled “Free Will as Involving Determination and Inconceivable Without It”. Hobart felt that free will and determinism were compatible and the former requires the latter (Hobart, 1934). Given that Hobart challenged his mentor with claims that determinism and compatibilism were similar, Hobart gave an alternative view on the topic of free will which opens the door for another philosophical view to be discussed.
Compatibilism states that a person’s will is constrained by a sovereign God, but that person is a moral free agent which gives the ability to choose, but also the responsibility of that choice (MzEllen, 2010). Compatibilism is often called soft determinism which in physics is known as cause-and-effect. For every event there exist conditions that could cause no other event. Compatibilism and determinism are compatible ideas so it is conceivable to accept both without being contradictory. Some incompatibilists dispute that the two can work together because they tend to put more concentration on the definition of free will because it does not coincide with the view of determinism. Some incompatibilists remain agnostic as to whether free will exist so most take a further stand regarding the reality or falsehood of free will. Libertarians can also be considered incompatibilists. If compatibilists feel that each person makes choices based on their greatest desire, is it possible to associate compatibilism and predestination? Rather than limit the exercise of God's sovereignty in order to preserve man's freedom, compatibilists feel there must be an alternative way to define what freedom really means (Compatibilism, 2017). By combining both predestination and compatibilism, we are able to present another theory that appears to contradict the freedom associated with free will, but in actuality allows mankind the ability to choose a path that will ultimately prolong their life journey or introduce the inevitable sooner than later.
Furthermore, free will and predestination do co-exist because God is said to influence our desires, hence is able to have comprehensive control of all that goes on (“Compatibilism”, 2017).
Free will affects morality, responsibility, even consciousness and theology (Philosophy of Free, 2016). By definition, predestination is the doctrine that all events have been willed by God because God determines our fate. Earlier it was addressed that William James opposed determinism because he believed in alternate outcomes which he accounted to chance encounters. James also accepted Darwin’s theory on human evolution. In contrast of the Darwin theory, compatibilism and predestination embrace the relevance of God’s role as it applies to free will. A Calvinist by the name of James White explains,” The belief that God’s sovereign decree and man’s creaturely will coexist and that God judges on the basis of the intentions of the heart, there in fact, is a ground for morality and justice” (Celebration Church, 2014). To further support God’s predestination and free will, the Bible speaks of “the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God,” in Acts 2:23. The idea of God’s foreknowledge grants the logical basis by which a higher power dwells independent of all time and space that foresees the will of man and work His own will accordingly (Bible Hub, 2016). Based on the idea that free will and predeterminism work together, choices made can alter how long it takes to arrive at the predestined
place in life, but the choice involved with making the decision could incur consequences that could potentially prolong the inevitable outcome.