Showing posts with label Cause/Effect. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cause/Effect. Show all posts
Saturday, February 8, 2014
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Forget who-dun-it. Who is responsible for this mess?!?
The Reformed Assertion:"God can determine a specific outcome, a person can have no other option but to do the outcome, and that person can be held up to moral judgment while God is blameless."
Now, one objection to Calvinism that keeps coming up consistently over the years is the objection that it makes God the author of sin. Now, when it comes right down to it, Calvinists will generally teach that God did, in fact, decree sin before ever there was sin, and makes sin happen.
Generally, however, they seem to object to the term "Author" of sin, because it implies that God would be culpable for sin:
"The term authors is almost universally condemned in the theological literature. It is rarely defined, but it seems to mean both that God is the efficient cause of evil and that by causing evil he actually does something wrong.1 So the [Westminster Confession] says that God “neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin” (5:4). Despite this denial in a major Reformed confession, Arminians regularly charge that Reformed theology makes God the author of sin. They assume that if God brings about evil in any sense, he must therefore approve it and deserve the blame." - David MathisThe Calvinist view is that God causally determines the desires and actions of men, but that men are held responsible for what God caused them to do.
They do teach that God decrees sin, and causally determines that it happens:
" So here I see that God's command is that the sons of Eli ought to listen to and obey their father, yet the will of God was that they would not listen so that He would put them to death." - Peter Pike
"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass" - Westminster Confession of Faith
"Nothing has ever come to pass, or ever will, merely because God knew it. The cause of all things is the will of God." - Arthur Pink
"The question, though, is whether God merely permits evil, or whether in addition he actually brings evil about in some sense. I think the latter is true. Scripture often says that God brings about sinful decisions of human beings... If evil comes from some source other than God, that would be pretty scary." - Andre Rook
"That men do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss or deliberate on anything but what he has previously decreed with himself, and brings to pass by his secret direction, is proved by numberless passages of Scripture." - John Calvin
“But where it is a matter of men’s counsels, wills, endeavours, and exertions, there is greater difficulty in seeing how the providence of God rules here too, so that nothing happens but by His assent and that men can deliberately do nothing unless He inspire it.” - John Calvin
But they all maintain that God is righteous, holy, and pure. He is not culpable for the evil that He makes happen:
"Thus, even if God is 'the instigator of all sin' that would not necessitate that God is culpable for sin." - Peter Pike
"...yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." - Westminster Confession of Faith
"And while it is not ours to explain how God in His secret counsel rules and overrules the sinful acts of men, it is ours to know that whatever God does He never deviates from His own perfect justice. In all the manifestations of His character He shows Himself pre-eminently the Holy One. These deep workings of God are mysteries which are to be adored, but not to be inquired into; and were it not for the fact that some persons persist in declaring that the doctrine of Predestination makes God the author of sin, we could let the matter rest here." - Loraine Boettner
_________________________________________________
How can this be?
To the untrained mind, it may seem patently obvious that if God causes people to sin, then He is culpable for the sin. What is the Reformed answer to this?
1) Calvinist doctrine absolutely relies on the idea that only the direct cause is responsible for sin. They belabor this point to no end. We cannot hold God culpable for sin because He is not the agent of sin, the actor of sin. He merely causes it. But though He causes it, He is not culpable, because the secondary causes are culpable.
2) Now, if one argues that the cause of sin, directly or indirectly, is culpable, they will usually respond that even in Non-Calvinism, God is first cause of everything. So the other system solves it no better than theirs. But here is the difference: We admit that God is the first cause of every thing in the sense that without Him, nothing could happen. However, we do not see God as determining that we will sin in a causal way. In other words, we see that God allows sin, but they think that God causally determines sin - like pushing one domino causes, in a determining way, all the unsupported dominoes behind it to fall.
I use the phrase causally determine because if I say "cause," then they insist that God is the first cause of everything even in our system, and if I say "determine," then they say that determine can also include allowing. Because of the slippery nature of these words, I try to clearly and habitually use the term "causally determine" which does not allow for ambiguity.
Now, Calvinists are slow to accept that idea that the cause, or the One who causally determines sin is responsible or culpable for it. Why? Because if one could show them that the Being who causally determines something is culpable for it, then they would see that their system makes God culpable for all of sin.
3) Calvinists often argue that man is culpable for sin while God is not, because God decrees the sin with good intentions, while man has evil motives. According to John Calvin, "we must hold that while by means of the wicked God performs what he had secretly decreed, they are not excusable as if they were obeying his precept, which of set purpose they violate according to their lust."
In this defense, they seem to imply that God decreed the action for a good reason with righteous motives, but the secondary cause carries out the action with bad motives - and therefore it is sin for the one with the bad motives, but not sin for God.
____________________________________________________
My short answers to those propositions:
1) So, I will try to show that whoever causes sin to happen, intentional and in a determining way, is responsible and culpable for sin, even if it was caused indirectly.
2) Again, I will be arguing not that just any cause is culpable, but that the determining cause of sin is responsible, and if the determining cause was intentional, then that person is also culpable for it.
3) There I would remind them that their system does not only charge God with decreeing actions, but also decreeing motives. If the motives, and not the actions are truly the sin which one can be held culpable for, then God is culpable for intentionally causing those specific evil motives in a way that determined that they would happen.
_________________________________________________
What does the Bible say about it?
Case A: Nathan confronts David
David here caused sin to happen, intentional and in a determining way, and is Biblically held responsible and culpable for that sin.
I could give many other examples of mob bosses causing crimes, and then washing their hands of the deed and claiming that "hey - all my money is clean. I didn't kill nobody." The intentional, but indirect, cause of sin is not innocent, but merely has others do their dirty work. Speaking of "washing hands," though, Pilate didn't kill Jesus. He merely intentionally causally determined that it would happen. He didn't directly kill Jesus, so he's innocent, right? According to the Bible, wrong.
Anyone who causes sin to happen, intentional and in a determining way, is justly held responsible and culpable for that sin. Anyone. No special pleading.
If God caused sin to happen, intentional and in a determining way, He would justly be responsible and culpable for that sin. Why? Because it is wrong for anyone, even God, to cause someone to sin! Yes, I just said it would be wrong for God to do something. God is not above morality - He is morality. He is always true to His righteous nature, and it would be wrong of Him to deviate from it. It would be wrong of Him to lie, for example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case B: Causing sin to happen is wrong
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case C: The cause of sin is bad
Now, you'll notice that the concept about cutting off body part, if they cause you to sin, is a recurring theme here. Maybe it's important. Some think that these verses are hyperboles to make a point, and are not meant literally. I disagree. It is, indeed, better to lose a body part than to go to hell! Does Jesus want us to cut off our limbs? Of course not. Why? Well, notice the key word here: If. If your hand causes you to sin... If your foot causes you to sin... If your eye causes you to sin... The reason we do not cut off our limbs is that our body parts do not actually cause us to sin. If I were to pluck out one eye, I would sin with the other one! If I had neither eye, I would sin in my mind. The key concept here is that the cause of sin is a bad thing, and ought to be thrown away - no matter what the cost.
Wait - hold on. The cause of sin, Biblically, is a bad thing, and ought to be thrown away. If God is the ultimate intentional and determining cause of all sin... then... how exactly would that work? Would He command us to love and serve Him as Good, and then declare Himself evil and say that we should distance ourselves from Him? That would be contradictory!
i - The cause of sin is bad and we ought to get rid of it
ii - God is not bad, and we ought not to try to get rid of God
iii - Therefore, God is not the cause of sin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case D: It would be better...
And now we come to perhaps the harshest words about how wrong it is to cause others to sin:
God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain that they would sin.
No sin of little kids has ever come to pass, or ever will, merely because God knew it. The cause of that sin is the will of God.
Little kids do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss or deliberate on anything but what he has previously decreed with himself, and brings to pass by his secret direction...
According to Calvin himself, little kids can deliberately do nothing unless God Himself inspires it.
Enough said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case E: A couple of interesting verses about the cause of sin
*All verses are quoted from the English Standard Version, unless otherwise noted
To the untrained mind, it may seem patently obvious that if God causes people to sin, then He is culpable for the sin. What is the Reformed answer to this?
1) Calvinist doctrine absolutely relies on the idea that only the direct cause is responsible for sin. They belabor this point to no end. We cannot hold God culpable for sin because He is not the agent of sin, the actor of sin. He merely causes it. But though He causes it, He is not culpable, because the secondary causes are culpable.
2) Now, if one argues that the cause of sin, directly or indirectly, is culpable, they will usually respond that even in Non-Calvinism, God is first cause of everything. So the other system solves it no better than theirs. But here is the difference: We admit that God is the first cause of every thing in the sense that without Him, nothing could happen. However, we do not see God as determining that we will sin in a causal way. In other words, we see that God allows sin, but they think that God causally determines sin - like pushing one domino causes, in a determining way, all the unsupported dominoes behind it to fall.
I use the phrase causally determine because if I say "cause," then they insist that God is the first cause of everything even in our system, and if I say "determine," then they say that determine can also include allowing. Because of the slippery nature of these words, I try to clearly and habitually use the term "causally determine" which does not allow for ambiguity.
Now, Calvinists are slow to accept that idea that the cause, or the One who causally determines sin is responsible or culpable for it. Why? Because if one could show them that the Being who causally determines something is culpable for it, then they would see that their system makes God culpable for all of sin.
3) Calvinists often argue that man is culpable for sin while God is not, because God decrees the sin with good intentions, while man has evil motives. According to John Calvin, "we must hold that while by means of the wicked God performs what he had secretly decreed, they are not excusable as if they were obeying his precept, which of set purpose they violate according to their lust."
In this defense, they seem to imply that God decreed the action for a good reason with righteous motives, but the secondary cause carries out the action with bad motives - and therefore it is sin for the one with the bad motives, but not sin for God.
__________________________
My short answers to those propositions:
1) So, I will try to show that whoever causes sin to happen, intentional and in a determining way, is responsible and culpable for sin, even if it was caused indirectly.
2) Again, I will be arguing not that just any cause is culpable, but that the determining cause of sin is responsible, and if the determining cause was intentional, then that person is also culpable for it.
3) There I would remind them that their system does not only charge God with decreeing actions, but also decreeing motives. If the motives, and not the actions are truly the sin which one can be held culpable for, then God is culpable for intentionally causing those specific evil motives in a way that determined that they would happen.
_____________________________________________
What does the Bible say about it?
Case A: Nathan confronts David
2 Samuel 12:9bNow, David here, if he subscribed to theory that indirect causes were not responsible or culpable for sin, could have justly replied: "Now, now, Nathan. You forget about the liberty and contingency of secondary causes here. I was not the one to strike down Uriah. I didn't kill him. Those bloodly Ammonites did, and you know that they had bad motives!" Rather, the Bible seems to equate the culpability of doing the act of killing and causally determining that it would happen.
"You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites."
David here caused sin to happen, intentional and in a determining way, and is Biblically held responsible and culpable for that sin.
I could give many other examples of mob bosses causing crimes, and then washing their hands of the deed and claiming that "hey - all my money is clean. I didn't kill nobody." The intentional, but indirect, cause of sin is not innocent, but merely has others do their dirty work. Speaking of "washing hands," though, Pilate didn't kill Jesus. He merely intentionally causally determined that it would happen. He didn't directly kill Jesus, so he's innocent, right? According to the Bible, wrong.
Anyone who causes sin to happen, intentional and in a determining way, is justly held responsible and culpable for that sin. Anyone. No special pleading.
If God caused sin to happen, intentional and in a determining way, He would justly be responsible and culpable for that sin. Why? Because it is wrong for anyone, even God, to cause someone to sin! Yes, I just said it would be wrong for God to do something. God is not above morality - He is morality. He is always true to His righteous nature, and it would be wrong of Him to deviate from it. It would be wrong of Him to lie, for example.
--------------------------
Case B: Causing sin to happen is wrong
Malachi 2:8See, in this verse, it seems pretty clear that causing people to sin is, in and of itself, a sin. Okay, sure, but what if you cause people to sin for a good reason? To that, I would quote this verse:
"But you have turned aside from the way. You have caused many to stumble by your instruction. You have corrupted the covenant of Levi, says the LORD of hosts,"
Romans 3:8There is no excuse for causing evil to happen. The good omelette is not an excuse for breaking the "eggs" to achieve that result.
"And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just."
Leviticus 22:15-17We are not just commanded not to sin ourselves, but also are commanded not to cause others to sin or to bear more iniquity and guilt. To cause others to sin is a sin. It's wrong. Period.
"They shall not profane the holy things of the people of Israel, which they contribute to the LORD, and so cause them to bear iniquity and guilt, by eating their holy things: for I am the LORD who sanctifies them."
--------------------------
Case C: The cause of sin is bad
Matthew 5:29
"If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell."
Matthew 5:30
"And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell."
Matthew 18:8
"And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire."
Now, you'll notice that the concept about cutting off body part, if they cause you to sin, is a recurring theme here. Maybe it's important. Some think that these verses are hyperboles to make a point, and are not meant literally. I disagree. It is, indeed, better to lose a body part than to go to hell! Does Jesus want us to cut off our limbs? Of course not. Why? Well, notice the key word here: If. If your hand causes you to sin... If your foot causes you to sin... If your eye causes you to sin... The reason we do not cut off our limbs is that our body parts do not actually cause us to sin. If I were to pluck out one eye, I would sin with the other one! If I had neither eye, I would sin in my mind. The key concept here is that the cause of sin is a bad thing, and ought to be thrown away - no matter what the cost.
Wait - hold on. The cause of sin, Biblically, is a bad thing, and ought to be thrown away. If God is the ultimate intentional and determining cause of all sin... then... how exactly would that work? Would He command us to love and serve Him as Good, and then declare Himself evil and say that we should distance ourselves from Him? That would be contradictory!
i - The cause of sin is bad and we ought to get rid of it
ii - God is not bad, and we ought not to try to get rid of God
iii - Therefore, God is not the cause of sin
------------------------------------------------------
Case D: It would be better...
And now we come to perhaps the harshest words about how wrong it is to cause others to sin:
Matthew 18:6
"...but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."
Mark 9:42Oh snap. And, according to Calvinism, who causally determines that little ones who believe in him will sin?
"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea."
God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain that they would sin.
No sin of little kids has ever come to pass, or ever will, merely because God knew it. The cause of that sin is the will of God.
Little kids do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss or deliberate on anything but what he has previously decreed with himself, and brings to pass by his secret direction...
According to Calvin himself, little kids can deliberately do nothing unless God Himself inspires it.
Enough said.
--------------------------
Case E: A couple of interesting verses about the cause of sin
Jeremiah 32:35Point being, God didn't cause that to happen.
"They built the high places of Baal in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin."
James 4:1Point being, we are the determining cause of our own sin, and therefore we are responsible and culpable for it.
"What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you?"
*All verses are quoted from the English Standard Version, unless otherwise noted
Friday, March 19, 2010
The Three Dimensions of Causality
When I was younger, I used to think that causality was pretty simple. Either something caused something else, or it didn't. Now, I still think it's pretty simple, but I have a more complete mental model of what I think it is. Just recently, I had chinese food with my older brother, and we discussed all sorts of intriguing concepts, including the concept of causality. The topic came up when we were discussing if God was the first cause of everything, and what that means practically. Pretty soon, we realized that I was using a much more narrow definition of "cause" than he was, but after much discussion, I came to accept a broader definition of the word. In the discussion, though, we both came to realize that there just like there are three dimensions of space, there are three dimensions of causality.
Now, before I go on to describe what I think that causality IS, let me explain what I think it isn't. I think that there is a difference because influence and cause. A cause is something that is necessary to the chain of events - without that cause, the event would not happen. Influence is merely something that inclined things in a certain direction. For example, if I flick the light switch, I am causing the light to turn on. On the other hand, if I tell my sister that I'm going to watch House, that may influence her to stop working on homework. You can see the difference. My sister would probably stop working on her homework even without my influence; my influence was not part of the necessary chain of a events and therefore was not a cause. Secondly, I do not think that causality is passive. If something is passive, it will simply allow things to keep on doing what they are already doing. You can actively push your younger brother, and you can actively block your older brother from pushing your younger brother. Those are active. If you are a pacifist, and do not block when someone tries to hit you, you have not caused them to hit you. You were passive. So, to recap those thoughts, causality is active rather than passive, and is more than just influence: It's a necessary part of the chain of events leading up to the event in question.
So, what are the three dimensions of causality? Before I explain them, I will draw a diagram to show the three dimensions. [It'll be more awesome that way]
So, one dimention is that a cause can be either direct or indirect. If my little sister takes a toy out of my little brother's hand, she directly caused him to lose possession of that toy. Mob bosses, on the other hand, don't prefer to do their own dirty work, and make things happen indirectly. If I turn on the light, even, I am the indirect cause. I cause one plastic thing to switch positions, which causes another something to switch, and the electricity flow causes the light to turn on. On the other hand, if I punch the wall, I can directly cause it to break.
Another dimention is that some things are intentional, and somethings are not intentional. I could directly cause a car accident by going into an intersection, while the light is green, while an ambulance is running a red light, but the accidently would be caused unintentionally: I simply wouldn't have known that the ambulance was going to run that red light. On the other hand, if I'm riding bumper cars, and I go out of my way to hit your car, that would be intentional.
Finally, there are many things necessary in a chain of causation. To light a candle, the candle has to be caused to exist, and I have to be caused to exist, and I must have access to a lighter of some sort, and there must be oxygen in the room, and I must be physically capable of making the lighter work, etc, etc, etc. There are many many indirect causes to anything. The guy who made the engine of the car was (indirectly) part of the chain of causation which made the two year die after being by a drunk guy driving a speeding car. That guy was only only an unintentional and indirect cause, but was also a non-determining cause. It was not his actions that set off the chain of events or determined that the girl would die. The person who choose to drive drunk was unintentionally and directly the determining cause. A mob boss, on the other hand, intentionally and indirectly, causes people's death in a way that pretty much determines that it happens. When I turn on the light switch, the electricity is a cause (for without it, the light wouldn't turn on) but I am the determining cause.
So, every cause is a cause, and yet there are different kinds of causes. I think that all causes that can truly be called "causes" can be found somewhere on this three dimensional chart. Why does this all matter? Well, it helps one sort out in one's mind just who is responsible for what. Was it little Jonny's fault that Aunt Helen got all upset because he didn't like her baking? When he promised not to turn the lights off, and then used a stick to flip the light switch, is that a legitimate excuse? It's all food for thought.
The Three Dimensions
Now, before I go on to describe what I think that causality IS, let me explain what I think it isn't. I think that there is a difference because influence and cause. A cause is something that is necessary to the chain of events - without that cause, the event would not happen. Influence is merely something that inclined things in a certain direction. For example, if I flick the light switch, I am causing the light to turn on. On the other hand, if I tell my sister that I'm going to watch House, that may influence her to stop working on homework. You can see the difference. My sister would probably stop working on her homework even without my influence; my influence was not part of the necessary chain of a events and therefore was not a cause. Secondly, I do not think that causality is passive. If something is passive, it will simply allow things to keep on doing what they are already doing. You can actively push your younger brother, and you can actively block your older brother from pushing your younger brother. Those are active. If you are a pacifist, and do not block when someone tries to hit you, you have not caused them to hit you. You were passive. So, to recap those thoughts, causality is active rather than passive, and is more than just influence: It's a necessary part of the chain of events leading up to the event in question.
So, what are the three dimensions of causality? Before I explain them, I will draw a diagram to show the three dimensions. [It'll be more awesome that way]
So, one dimention is that a cause can be either direct or indirect. If my little sister takes a toy out of my little brother's hand, she directly caused him to lose possession of that toy. Mob bosses, on the other hand, don't prefer to do their own dirty work, and make things happen indirectly. If I turn on the light, even, I am the indirect cause. I cause one plastic thing to switch positions, which causes another something to switch, and the electricity flow causes the light to turn on. On the other hand, if I punch the wall, I can directly cause it to break.
Another dimention is that some things are intentional, and somethings are not intentional. I could directly cause a car accident by going into an intersection, while the light is green, while an ambulance is running a red light, but the accidently would be caused unintentionally: I simply wouldn't have known that the ambulance was going to run that red light. On the other hand, if I'm riding bumper cars, and I go out of my way to hit your car, that would be intentional.
Finally, there are many things necessary in a chain of causation. To light a candle, the candle has to be caused to exist, and I have to be caused to exist, and I must have access to a lighter of some sort, and there must be oxygen in the room, and I must be physically capable of making the lighter work, etc, etc, etc. There are many many indirect causes to anything. The guy who made the engine of the car was (indirectly) part of the chain of causation which made the two year die after being by a drunk guy driving a speeding car. That guy was only only an unintentional and indirect cause, but was also a non-determining cause. It was not his actions that set off the chain of events or determined that the girl would die. The person who choose to drive drunk was unintentionally and directly the determining cause. A mob boss, on the other hand, intentionally and indirectly, causes people's death in a way that pretty much determines that it happens. When I turn on the light switch, the electricity is a cause (for without it, the light wouldn't turn on) but I am the determining cause.
So, every cause is a cause, and yet there are different kinds of causes. I think that all causes that can truly be called "causes" can be found somewhere on this three dimensional chart. Why does this all matter? Well, it helps one sort out in one's mind just who is responsible for what. Was it little Jonny's fault that Aunt Helen got all upset because he didn't like her baking? When he promised not to turn the lights off, and then used a stick to flip the light switch, is that a legitimate excuse? It's all food for thought.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Round 1: Free Will -VS- Foreknowledge
Now here's a question: how can foreknowledge and free will exist at the same time?
If you know for sure that someone will choose X, than that someone is not free to choose anything but X! How is that free? It obviously cannot be free, since that person had no other choice! On the other hand, if that person chooses Y, then you were wrong about the future, and foreknowledge is reduced to guesswork!
That is the dilemma. I don't claim to have the answer. But, I do have an idea that sounds like a plausible possibility to me. I think that it's quite possible for foreknowledge and free will to co-exist peacefully. How can this be? Before I begin, let me first say this: Foreknowledge is knowledge and is not guesswork, it cannot be wrong. That is a given.
________________________________________________________________________
I Spy the Future:
Now, I'd like to point out that it is possible to know something without causing it. I know that my mom called me several minutes ago. She called me of her own free volition, and I did not cause that. We all understand that. Now suppose I read a book, and then I read it again. I know how the characters are going to respond to each other, but I did not cause them to act in that way. Finally, suppose that I time travel to the future, and find out that in 2050, a guy named Brick Williams, who lives across the country will rob First National Bank. After that, I travel back in time, and continue living my life as usual. I know that Brick will rob that bank. Brick robs the bank. Then I think about it, and realize that even though I knew he would rob that bank, I did not cause him to rob that bank. Knowledge and causality are completely separate.
If a Being could see through time into the future, or if a Being was outside of time, that Being could know everything without causing any of it. Come to think of it, I once had a friend who often had foreboding dreams about the future that came true 100% of the time. One time, she dreamed that I was going to get into a car accident, and then next day, first thing in the morning, I got into a car accident! I don't think I would like to be able to see bad things happen in the future, and then be powerless to stop them from happening... But clearly even if she had knowledge, she did not cause me to be in that accident. Once again, knowledge and causality are completely separate. You cause it, and I know it. Or, I cause it, and you know it.
________________________________________________________________________
Determinism:
Secondly, I'd like to say that you cannot know something for sure if it is truly random. Is there anything truly random, is that sense of the word? However, you can know something that only appears to be random, but actually is determined. For instance, people learn to roll a dice to get the number they want. People write programs to pick a "random" number. There is not a 30% chance that it will rain tonight; no, there are very specific environmental factors that determine for sure whether it will or will not rain, but people don't measure all of those factors exactly. In the same way, it is easy to understand a Being could know the future actions of any being if we think that the actions of the being are determined and not random.
I would put forward that every human action is determined. Every animal's actions are determined also. Even God's actions are determined. But who or what determines all that? Some atheists are determinists and believe that everything is scientifically determined by some past, distance, and inanimate force. Some psychologists believe that a person's environment absolutely determines who that person becomes and what that person chooses to do: that the person is helpful to choose otherwise. Are our lives really determined by science and environment? I would say no. I believe that God determines His own actions. I also believe that animals determine their own actions. I believe that humans also determine their own choices. Every choice is determined. It is easy to understand, then, that a Being could look into the future and see, for sure, what will happen. But if our actions are determined, then how are we free? Because our choices are self-determined, and therefore we have free will and act as a free agent. (See previous note about The Bondage Of The Will) We choose for ourselves what to determine to choose to do. [As a side note - I am not saying that we can determine to do anything. We cannot choose to fly or to save ourselves. I'm only saying that everything that we do choose is determined by us. I determined to write this blog]
________________________________________________________________________
Let me say again that in this blog, I am not trying to prove that the world works this way. I am only trying to say that it could work this way. I am not trying to prove that foreknowledge and free will co-exist, but merely that it is possible that they could both exist and not contradict each other. We could freely determine our own actions, and another Being could, in the past, be able to look into the future and observe (without determining) our determined future actions.
If you know for sure that someone will choose X, than that someone is not free to choose anything but X! How is that free? It obviously cannot be free, since that person had no other choice! On the other hand, if that person chooses Y, then you were wrong about the future, and foreknowledge is reduced to guesswork!
That is the dilemma. I don't claim to have the answer. But, I do have an idea that sounds like a plausible possibility to me. I think that it's quite possible for foreknowledge and free will to co-exist peacefully. How can this be? Before I begin, let me first say this: Foreknowledge is knowledge and is not guesswork, it cannot be wrong. That is a given.
And now: Foreknowledge and FreeWill step into the ring - both look formidable - Who will win this historic battle??
________________________________________________________________________
I Spy the Future:
Now, I'd like to point out that it is possible to know something without causing it. I know that my mom called me several minutes ago. She called me of her own free volition, and I did not cause that. We all understand that. Now suppose I read a book, and then I read it again. I know how the characters are going to respond to each other, but I did not cause them to act in that way. Finally, suppose that I time travel to the future, and find out that in 2050, a guy named Brick Williams, who lives across the country will rob First National Bank. After that, I travel back in time, and continue living my life as usual. I know that Brick will rob that bank. Brick robs the bank. Then I think about it, and realize that even though I knew he would rob that bank, I did not cause him to rob that bank. Knowledge and causality are completely separate.
If a Being could see through time into the future, or if a Being was outside of time, that Being could know everything without causing any of it. Come to think of it, I once had a friend who often had foreboding dreams about the future that came true 100% of the time. One time, she dreamed that I was going to get into a car accident, and then next day, first thing in the morning, I got into a car accident! I don't think I would like to be able to see bad things happen in the future, and then be powerless to stop them from happening... But clearly even if she had knowledge, she did not cause me to be in that accident. Once again, knowledge and causality are completely separate. You cause it, and I know it. Or, I cause it, and you know it.
________________________________________________________________________
Determinism:
Secondly, I'd like to say that you cannot know something for sure if it is truly random. Is there anything truly random, is that sense of the word? However, you can know something that only appears to be random, but actually is determined. For instance, people learn to roll a dice to get the number they want. People write programs to pick a "random" number. There is not a 30% chance that it will rain tonight; no, there are very specific environmental factors that determine for sure whether it will or will not rain, but people don't measure all of those factors exactly. In the same way, it is easy to understand a Being could know the future actions of any being if we think that the actions of the being are determined and not random.
I would put forward that every human action is determined. Every animal's actions are determined also. Even God's actions are determined. But who or what determines all that? Some atheists are determinists and believe that everything is scientifically determined by some past, distance, and inanimate force. Some psychologists believe that a person's environment absolutely determines who that person becomes and what that person chooses to do: that the person is helpful to choose otherwise. Are our lives really determined by science and environment? I would say no. I believe that God determines His own actions. I also believe that animals determine their own actions. I believe that humans also determine their own choices. Every choice is determined. It is easy to understand, then, that a Being could look into the future and see, for sure, what will happen. But if our actions are determined, then how are we free? Because our choices are self-determined, and therefore we have free will and act as a free agent. (See previous note about The Bondage Of The Will) We choose for ourselves what to determine to choose to do. [As a side note - I am not saying that we can determine to do anything. We cannot choose to fly or to save ourselves. I'm only saying that everything that we do choose is determined by us. I determined to write this blog]
________________________________________________________________________
Let me say again that in this blog, I am not trying to prove that the world works this way. I am only trying to say that it could work this way. I am not trying to prove that foreknowledge and free will co-exist, but merely that it is possible that they could both exist and not contradict each other. We could freely determine our own actions, and another Being could, in the past, be able to look into the future and observe (without determining) our determined future actions.
FreeWill and Foreknowledge shake hands, leave the ring, and sit down together as friends...
Be here for Round 2!!!
