Predestination and Free Will

[Mr. Tweedy]

Palimpset: First, I want to say that you haven't offended me.  I dig candor and I love when everybody says what they really think.  I love candor so much that sometimes I make stupid, thoughtless posts that get people (rightfully) pissed off at me.   

So don't include me on the list of offended parties if you feel the need to appologize.  If you think my beliefs are cow feces, then it doesn't offend me (personally) for you to say so.

You disagree that the Christian bible doesn't match up with reality, but I presume that you agree that other people's religions don't? You, as a Christian, can't argue about revealed truth on the basis of objective reality with -- say -- a Buddhist or Zoroastrian or animist, any more than I can argue with either of you.

If revealed truth is objectively provable, then why does it enter conversations? Why talk about "God said so" at all? If God would only say that which can be externally confirmed, then why don't we confine ourselves to talking about those things? Certainly it's the only way that you, me, the Zoroastrian, a quintet of Jainists, and the living embodiment of the sacred goddess (insert name here) can have a discussion in which we'll all agree on the terms.

I would say that all religions have some truth in them.  An idea that is totally divorced from reality won't last very long, so the fact that these religions have endured shows that they all have something going for them.  I think it's valuable to learn about other religions so that I can see what that something is.

About objective truth, I’ll turn to science for an ecxelent analogy.

I understand that water freezes in crystals because the H20 molecule is polar: The “O” side of the molecule has a negative charge relative to the “H2” side.  This causes them to line up in rows, which leads to crystalization.

This is like revealed truth: I have no means to confirm, for myself, that water molecules actually are polar and that there isn’t something else going on in my frapuccino when I leave it in the freezer too long.  I am taking the world of Discover magazine that it is true.

While I cannot directly test the polarity claim, I can see if it matches up with observed reality.  I can see that the water does indeed crystalize, and hence I have evidence (but not proof) that the claim is true.

Similarly, if God is God, then there will be things He can see and know that we can’t.  Hence He may reveal things that we could not discover or infer on our own, but the revelations will always be in line with our observation.

My principle is this: Revelation will not contradict reality.  It is quite possible that revelation will not be verifiable by logic, but it will not be in conflict with logic either.

[ClintMemo]

My principle is this: Revelation will not contradict reality.  It is quite possible that revelation will not be verifiable by logic, but it will not be in conflict with logic either.

Hypothetically speaking, what would you do if you discovered that something you considered to be revelation actually conflicted with reality? 

[Mr. Tweedy]

I would think and study (and pray) to try to determine where the error was, and it might take a long time.

Getting to the meat of your question: Yes, I would be willing to lay asside something that I had previously considered to be revelation if I found it to be incompatible with reality.  I.e. if my Book said that the Earth is flat (which it doesn't), then all the satelite dishes in my neighborhood would force me to resonsider and conclude either that 1.) the Book is wrong or 2.) I have no idea what the Book really means on this point.

[Rachel Swirsky]

One of many lists:

http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/tenbiblecontradictions.htm

[ClintMemo]

I would think and study (and pray) to try to determine where the error was, and it might take a long time.

Getting to the meat of your question: Yes, I would be willing to lay asside something that I had previously considered to be revelation if I found it to be incompatible with reality.  I.e. if my Book said that the Earth is flat (which it doesn't), then all the satelite dishes in my neighborhood would force me to resonsider and conclude either that 1.) the Book is wrong or 2.) I have no idea what the Book really means on this point.

I'm glad to hear that.  I've talked to many people who are not willing to.

I've never studied the bible. I can only go by what I was taught.  Let me bring up the issue that bothered me the most - predestination.  I was taught that God was all-knowing.  If God is all knowing then he knows what happens in the future. (Since the bible is full of prophecies, then that would seem to make sense.)  However, if God knows the future, then he knows every decision I am ever going to make.  That would mean that my destiny is already set. I do not have free will.  I am merely an actor in the play that God has written (assuming that God did make the universe). If I do not have free will, and I cannot freely make choices,  then the idea of receiving eternal punishment for my sins makes no sense since I could not actually choose to sin.  I only did what God has pre-ordained me to do.
Logically, the means that either a) God is not all knowing or b) God is creating people for the sole purpose of sending them to eternal damnation.  If a) is true, then what I was taught was wrong.  If b) is true, well, I guess nothing else really matters

[Thaurismunths]

<edit> Ok. Sorry everyone. That's what I get for cutting and pasting indiscriminantly at work... thankfuly it wasn't the whole 8,000 drawings.

I've never studied the bible. I can only go by what I was taught.  Let me bring up the issue that bothered me the most - predestination.  I was taught that God was all-knowing.  If God is all knowing then he knows what happens in the future. (Since the bible is full of prophecies, then that would seem to make sense.)  However, if God knows the future, then he knows every decision I am ever going to make.  That would mean that my destiny is already set. I do not have free will.  I am merely an actor in the play that God has written (assuming that God did make the universe). If I do not have free will, and I cannot freely make choices,  then the idea of receiving eternal punishment for my sins makes no sense since I could not actually choose to sin.  I only did what God has pre-ordained me to do.
Logically, the means that either a) God is not all knowing or b) God is creating people for the sole purpose of sending them to eternal damnation.  If a) is true, then what I was taught was wrong.  If b) is true, well, I guess nothing else really matters

If I may:
It's because god is God, and mortal limits of reason, logic, and reality do not apply. Your question can be reduced to a very simple one "Can god make a stone so heavy that even it can't lift it?" The answer is "Yes. And it can still lift it."
The problem comes in to us applying human limits to a god. We only see one reality, the one that comes from the choices we make. Each choice, nay, each moment is full of billions of possibilities. Each of those possibilities forks off in to billions of related possibilities, and so on and so on. Strings of possibilities form paths. We, sad creatures that we are, only get to go down one of these paths.
A (I say "A" because there are many people and I don't mean to offend by playing favorites) god who is omniscient can see all of these infinite paths in totality. We get to pick which path we take, which reality we create, while god can see all paths and where they lead. Or, it can make a rock too heavy to lift while at the same time altering reality to where it can lift it. God(s) can create, exist in, and resolve paradoxes.
That, I'm pretty sure, is one of the things that makes it a god.

[ClintMemo]

I've never studied the bible. I can only go by what I was taught.  Let me bring up the issue that bothered me the most - predestination.  I was taught that God was all-knowing.  If God is all knowing then he knows what happens in the future. (Since the bible is full of prophecies, then that would seem to make sense.)  However, if God knows the future, then he knows every decision I am ever going to make.  That would mean that my destiny is already set. I do not have free will.  I am merely an actor in the play that God has written (assuming that God did make the universe). If I do not have free will, and I cannot freely make choices,  then the idea of receiving eternal punishment for my sins makes no sense since I could not actually choose to sin.  I only did what God has pre-ordained me to do.
Logically, the means that either a) God is not all knowing or b) God is creating people for the sole purpose of sending them to eternal damnation.  If a) is true, then what I was taught was wrong.  If b) is true, well, I guess nothing else really matters

If I may:
It's because god is God, and mortal limits of reason, logic, and reality do not apply. Your question can be reduced to a very simple one "Can god make a stone so heavy that even it can't lift it?" The answer is "Yes. And it can still lift it."
The problem comes in to us applying human limits to a god. We only see one reality, the one that comes from the choices we make. Each choice, nay, each moment is full of billions of possibilities. Each of those possibilities forks off in to billions of related possibilities, and so on and so on. Strings of possibilities form paths. We, sad creatures that we are, only get to go down one of these paths.
A (I say "A" because there are many people and I don't mean to offend by playing favorites) god who is omniscient can see all of these infinite paths in totality. We get to pick which path we take, which reality we create, while god can see all paths and where they lead. Or, it can make a rock too heavy to lift while at the same time altering reality to where it can lift it. God(s) can create, exist in, and resolve paradoxes.
That, I'm pretty sure, is one of the things that makes it a god.

I've heard the "Rock so heavy" example many times.  That's really an example of "God is all powerful" instead of "God is all knowing".  The two are not necessarily the same.  An easier hypothetical to argue against omnipotence is "Can God create  a being more powerful than itself."  If yes, then God is not all powerful because there is something God cannot do.  If no, then God is not all powerful because something can be more powerful than God.

I've also heard the alternate realities solution to predestination but it does nothing to solve the logic problem.  It only means that God knows all the outcomes that may occur and which version of me will pick each decision.  That only changes the answer to B) to be "God has created and infinite number of versions of me and predestined them each to either heaven or hell and each of them has a predestined fate."  If it is merely that God knows the outcome of every possible decision but lets me choose my own path, then God is not all knowing because God does not know which decision I will make.

Once you say that God is beyond logic, then not only can you not apply logic to God, you can't even logically claim that you can't apply logic to God because then you would be applying logic to God.

[slic]

An easier hypothetical to argue against omnipotence is "Can God create a being more powerful than itself." If yes, then God is not all powerful because there is something God cannot do.

The answer to this is that God creates the being and then grows in power Himself.

Let me bring up the issue that bothered me the most - predestination.

My answer to this is that predestination only exists if you know what will happen yourself.  If I come to an intersection and turn left then run over some glass and blow a tire.  You could see how my decision resulted in the blown tire(predestination), but clearly I would have taken a different route if I was aware of the consequences - we all have free will when our decisions are not made for us.

When you think about it, our future is someone else's past - be it my Great Great Great grandson (assuming on will exist) or some other creature from the future). Columbus' future is my past.

The general concept that the future is "in flux" while the past is written is stone to be flawed.  The future is just as solid - we just don't see it yet.  The analogy I use is about a pre-recorded "live" football game.
You are watching a copy of a game you know nothing about. As you watch it, it is completely new to you - for all you know it is being broadcast live.  You could even place bets with friends as none of you have any idea about the outcome.  There is however, nothing at all you can do to change the results.  Whether you fast forward or rewind.
Now imagine the entire history of the universe from beginning to end(?) is pre-recorded, and we are watching (living in) it.  Everything has happened "already", all our decisions have been made, but we are just haven't got there yet, and don't know what decisions we will make or their results - hence free will.
"You can choose not to decide, but you still have made a choice." - Rush from the song Free Will (from the album Permanent Waves).

[Mr. Tweedy]

The predestination thing used to bother me, especially since the Bible seems to variously advocate free will and predestination.

I think the answer is ontological: We understand, in modern physics, that time is a dimension of the Universe, not independent from the three spatial dimensions.  If we posit that God created the Universe, then God created time, and if God created time, then He must be outside of time.  God does not exist on a linear timeline like we do.  He's outside of it, and so he can see everything along its length simultaneously.  To God, all events are in the present.  Do we have free will?  Yes.  Does God know what's going to happen?  Yes.  If we understand that our frames of reference are radically different, then I don't think this is a contradiction.

This analogy works for me: You're watching a movie.  The characters in movie make their choices and do their thing, which drives the plot along to its conclusion.  At any moment, you can skip ahead and see what happens, or you can skip back and see what happened.  You're outside the timeline.  The people in the movie aren't affected by your observations.  You observation of the end doesn't moot the choices they make in the middle and the fact that you can rewind and see the past again doesn't mean they can.  Their freedom is not effected by your knowledge, owing to your different viewpoints.

...And that's pretty much exactly the same as slic's analogy above.

[Anarkey]

Honestly, Clintmemo?  I struggle with the freewill thing too, and not just in a religious context.  I'm not comfortable enough to go into it all here (nor do I believe there is enough interest for it to be warranted, plus yadda yadda thread drift) but I definitely consider it a recurring life-question. 

Like you, I've heard about a gillion arguments and counterarguments, and I'm not all that interested in them.  Heard Thomas Aquinas' God stands outside of time explanation, been told God's like the master chessplayer who knows all the pieces' potential moves all the way to end game, and if I had a dime for every time someone explained the concept of "middle knowledge" to me I'd be a wealthy woman, not to mention the slippery God can know all things but it doesn't mean he does argument of the inherent omniscient folk.  Answers that do a bunch of mental gymnastics or follow some long convoluted threaded logic to arrive at their conclusion violate my sense of how I derive meaning from my existence. 

I want the Occam's razor answer: the one that is simple, yet makes sense and gives me inspiration instead of explanation.

All that explaining strikes me as rationalization, and feels hollow.  I'm not saying that it's incorrect to go there, nor that it doesn't help other people on their faith journey to think of it that way, but for me, personally, it's deeply unsatisfying -- even tiring. 

I'll get back to you if I've ever got an answer, but don't wait up for me.

[Rachel Swirsky]

I don't think you're alone, Ana.

The moderately famous philosophy prof. I had at Sarah Lawrence more or less said that predestination and free will had never been satisfactorily reconciled. (He moderated an NYC-based debate series on it while I was taking from him.)

[Mr. Tweedy]

I don't think you're alone, Ana.

The moderately famous philosophy prof. I had at Sarah Lawrence more or less said that predestination and free will had never been satisfactorily reconciled. (He moderated an NYC-based debate series on it while I was taking from him.)

They are reconciled as far as I am concerned.   

Thanks for link to the errors list.  I'll check it out over the weekend.

[SFEley]

I want the Occam's razor answer: the one that is simple, yet makes sense and gives me inspiration instead of explanation.

Here's my tiny little stab at it:

Do you feel like you have free will?

Yes?  Then either you have free will, or God wants you to act like you have it.  And isn't that functionally the same as having it?


I'm sure there's a flaw in this, and welcome any criticism.  Really, though, I've never found the question interesting enough to stop doing anything that I was doing.  >8->

[Rachel Swirsky]

And isn't that functionally the same as having it?

I think there's no flaw in this.

However, it's not actually a reconciliation; it's bowing over to the predestination side.

[DKT]

And isn't that functionally the same as having it?

I think there's no flaw in this.

However, it's not actually a reconciliation; it's bowing over to the predestination side.

You mean potentially, right?  Because the way I look at that quote, you still might have it. 

[SFEley]

And isn't that functionally the same as having it?

I think there's no flaw in this.
However, it's not actually a reconciliation; it's bowing over to the predestination side.

Saying that free will and no free will are the same is a denial of free will?

*thinks*

...No, I'm sorry, ma'am.  I don't get it.

[Rachel Swirsky]

Right. I mean, it's still one or the other. Either real free will, or predestination + fake (but good enough, because can you notice you don't have it?) free will. Which is, IIRC, sort of the mainstream position on it at this point.

Rusty memory, but I think the metaphor is -- if you're in a locked room, and you never try to leave, has your free ability to leave really been constrained?

[Rachel Swirsky]

I guess I assumed you were implying a logical jog in there that wasn't overt.

I mean, point A, it's not even a problem if you don't believe in an omniscient God -- or, conversely, a predictable universe. So, if you believe in a God that isn't omniscient, or in a fundamentally chaotic universe, then you get out scot free, right? I assumed this is what you meant by real free will.

But if you're taking a predictable universe, or an omniscient God, then you're trapped into point B) predestination. At which point, what your compromise gains is an illusion of free will which is as good as the real thing.

But you still don't end up with A (real free will) + B (predestination), you end up with B (predestination + approximation of free will which is as near the real thing as makes no difference)

I'd heard this argument before, and assumed you were referring to it (it's actually what I believe when I'm not thinking too deeply about chaos theory). Sorry if I misread.

[Mr. Tweedy]

There's another way of looking at it that C.S. Lewis brought up in his very excellent book "The Great Divorce."  He offers a theory (which he admits is just a theory, not necessarily what he was sure to be true) that the human soul exists outside of time and is itself without a linear beginning or end.  Like God, the soul is off the timeline.  Our lives on Earth are the expression of the soul.  Life is like a book the soul write to express itself.

The actual metaphor he used was this: A number of figures are sitting around a chess board, all of them still and unchanging.  On the chessboard, each has an avatar which expresses the will of the figure to which is coresponds.  The figures are the souls, which never move but simply are, while the pieces on the board are their representation in linear time.

It sounded a lot cooler the way he wrote it, though...  Read the book!

To me, that is a handy union of free will with predestination.  The scenario is free will if you look at it from the inside, from on the chessboard, and predestination if your perspective is outside, with the still figures.  Thus, the two are simply different words for the same process.

[Rachel Swirsky]

I've read the book.

He's a good writer. I find his theology unconvincing (not suprisingly).

[Anarkey]

Do you feel like you have free will?

Yes?

Actually, not so much.  If I felt like I had free will, then I almost certainly wouldn't worry about whether I have it.

I don't feel like I'm being mind-controlled or anything, but sometimes, when I analyze my actions, I find they all follow pretty predictably from what went before...sort of like...the flow of water, I guess.  If I can't jump the bank, or flow backward, or be condensed in a cloud that will rain elsewhere then...it looks awfully predestined.

Incomplete and awkward analogy, of course, but I find it's difficult to explain inside the setting of a rational discourse.  It's mumbo jumbo in my head, too.

I appreciate you giving it a shot, though.  If you could have solved in one five minute post what I've been wrestling with for two decades, I would have been more impressed with you than I am already.

And thanks, palimpsest, for the "you're not alone" acknowledgement.  Even unsolved, the mystery is less onerous by being shared.  I'm glad the skilled philosophers are still working on it, maybe someone will ultimately be able to put me at ease on this issue.

[slic]

I'm not getting the problem.  What do you mean by/define as predestination?

I don't feel like I'm being mind-controlled or anything, but sometimes, when I analyze my actions, I find they all follow pretty predictably from what went before...

This sounds like being in a rut, not that you have no control over your actions. We are all constrained by our own choices and our environment - as much as I am capable of empting my bank account and driving to Texas, I won't.  But that doesn't mean there is no Free Will.

My arguement is that the future is not in flux.  Just because we don't know it, doesn't mean it can change.  That's not predestination, that's history - just history for people in the future.  My theory is that the Colts winning SuperBowl XLI was true before it happened and after.  In the case of before, we just hadn't "uncovered" it yet, as our memory only works backwards in time.

That would mean that my destiny is already set. I do not have free will.

These are not mutually exclusive.  If, just before the last SuperBowl game, a little bird had whispered the aforementioned victory into Peyton Manning's ear and had given him irreputable proof that it was true, Manning would still have had to choose who to pass to, when to run, etc.  Granted he may have been more cocky, certainly would never have been stressed about the score, but nevertheless he would still have had to put in the work, so to speak.  Not knowing obviously made it much harder, but that's Life_tm as we know it

It's like your sig quote "Life is a multiple choice test. Unfortunately, the answers are not provided.  You have to go and find them before picking the best one."  Whatever happens at the end of the test, you are the one answering all the questions.  How you decide to pick those answers is entirely up to you - study, roll a die, pray to a god, cheat off of someone else, always choose C because that is what you've done in the past or because that's what is expected of you, whatever.  You still end up being the person putting the mark on the paper.

[Bdoomed]

While this discussion is great and all, tis WAY off topic, but would make for a great topic of its own, so thats just what i did!

Do i feel like i have free will?
yes, personally I don't think about predestination.  If my life is predestined, thats just fine with me too, but as long as I feel like I can control my life, I'm in great health.
to use a psychological term (recently learned in class), I have a high internal locus of control.

I am wondering this though: those of you who don't believe you have free will, does it prevent you from doing things? does it leave you with no motivation or do you still work hard?  This is not to insult you guys or anything im just generally curious.
what im getting at is that im wondering if the fact that you believe your life is predestined effects you daily.

[Rachel Swirsky]

Well, no.

The issue of whether or not one possesses free will is largely abstract, and really only comes up because of A) theological implications, and B) implications for whether or not it is moral to punish people for their behavior if it is not the result of free will.

I suppose the theological implications are still valid, but I think in the post-psychology era we should all be aware that our thoughts and actions are the result of both conscious and subconscious processes not always in our control. In essence, I don't think this is the kind of issue that keeps people up at night the way it did in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries when it was a Hot Topic of Discussion; the paradigm shift has been significant enough that Free Will and Predestination are things that exist, mostly, in a state of abstraction.

I mean, from a psychological perspective -- no, you don't have free will. Isn't there a lot of research suggesting that the brain activity for justifying decisions only occurs after the actions have already been carried out?

But since the various impediments to free will are part of our self-definition, there's no realistic difference in introspection or interaction between a predestined behavior or a free one. If we're to use a more modern psychological model for analyzing behavior, then of course we're looking at diathesis/stress -- an interaction of propensity and actual decision-making. Free will and predestination as cosmological opposites are replaced, in a more social science oriented view, with an interaction of will and tendency that rejects the archaic binary frame.

This only functions on an individual level, of course. The predestination question gets at more cosmic truths. If we rewind time and replay it, will it replay out the same way again? Chaos theory might suggest otherwise. But if we agree that it does, then reality is predestined -- from first cause, all other actions and reacitons are predetermined; they exist within the potential of first cause. And if that's the case, then free will -- as it is theologically defined as the possibility for a person to make moral or immoral decisions without constraint -- is a logical impossibility.

There are easy theological outs from this, including, but not limited to, Calvinism.

[Edited for clarity.]

[SFEley]

I don't feel like I'm being mind-controlled or anything, but sometimes, when I analyze my actions, I find they all follow pretty predictably from what went before...sort of like...the flow of water, I guess.  If I can't jump the bank, or flow backward, or be condensed in a cloud that will rain elsewhere then...it looks awfully predestined.

I've read some of your fiction.  For me it's a great big QED.

But, of course, you know what was going on in your head better than I do.  If you say, for instance, that "The Way Before" was simply an inevitable output of accumulated inputs, and that there was no spark or magic inside you that synthesized the inputs to put those words in that order...  Well, I don't have the data to contradict you.

I can choose not to believe you, however.  That story had soul.  By inheritance, I conclude its author does too.

And by induction, the rest of us.