Whenever I read about the ideas of determinism and free will, the first idea that comes to my mind is the idea that free will exists within God's determined plan in Presbyterian Church. When I was in the Youth Group and we first discussed why there is suffering in the world, my small group teacher told us that it is due to the existence of free will. Even though God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect, humans have free will in Presbyterian belief because there is a notion that we decide to sin/ask for forgiveness at our own volition. However, the master plan is already crafted by God.
When I was reading Strawson's piece though, I kept on wondering what he would think about the relationship between God and humans. In his argument, Strawson delineates a difference between reactive and objective attitudes. The former refers to the interpersonal relationships in which the intentions in interactions matter while the latter refers to a rather objective standpoint between two people that are not able to interact normally. If we try to use Strawson's divisions, the relationship between God and humans should take a reactive attitude because our intentions matter when we are being judged on judgement day. At the same time though, humans are flawed, so should we all be treated "objectively"? Should we all be free from moral responsibility? Our relationship with God is very different than a relationship from man to man because God is a superior being and humans are not able to understand God's "ultimate plan". Hence, it is not determinism that makes us morally free but the very fact that our relationship with God (if one is a believer) should take an objective attitude. So, I just wanted to ask what people thought about where this relationship would stand in terms of Strawson's idea because I thought it would be interesting to explore.
Furthermore, I think that the Presbyterian belief that free will and determinism are compatible is true because God has knowledge that no other person in this world can understand, and therefore he is able to determine the end. However, within our existence, we are able to make decisions for our own that affect each other's thoughts and existences but do not necessarily affect the grand scheme of things. Like Strawson, I do not think that whether or not the world is truly determined really matters to the idea that we do exercise free will because we have extremely short lives relative to the infinity of time.
Cristina -
ReplyDeleteInteresting discussion to be had on the intersection between Strawson and religion.
Keep in mind that Christianity, while the most obvious religion to bring into the discussion, tells a similar tale to other religions on the fallen nature of mankind, particularly the Abrahamic religions; your discussion is one that applies on a very universal level.
My gut reaction to reading your post is that it presupposes the existence of a God (obviously), but I actually don't see that as a problem for you, since on a second read-through, it seems to more pointedly ask "IF there is a God, how does this God interact with morality?" I do wonder, though, what you mean when you mention an "ultimate plan" - does having a greater, overarching vision of humankind's final destination even mean the little, seemingly insignificant details of our lives are also determined?
You draw an interesting distinction between foreknowledge and determinism. Surely an omnipotent God would have the foreknowledge as to whether or not I am going to show up to class tomorrow. I think that a God, being outside of time, having complete foreknowledge of human events is a completely reasonable inference to make. I am not sure of the link that you make, however, when you say that God having the foreknowledge of everything that was, is, and is to come means that these events are necessarily determined. Just because we would define God as being omnipotent doesn't mean that God exercises the powers in God's arsenal.
You write "At the same time, though... humans are flawed. Should we all be free from moral responsibility?". I think there's a distinction to be made between negative justice and positive justice, and religion, notably Christianity, deals with both. Not only do we deal with the ten commandments, but we also deal with commands like "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's..." an affirmation to follow the government's rules. Smith talks about how peer-to-peer relationships cannot mandate beneficence, but governmental ones can. Obviously, God would be an even higher authority than the state, so it makes sense that God could mandate positive justice.
Cristina, I think the question you propose about God and Strawson is profoundly interesting and worth discussing. Considering God's existence and His immense knowledge and plan/result for the world, it is difficult to determine the future. Yet, I wonder if God does have an established future for us, what is the point of free will? Do our actions matter if they have always been determined by the Almighty? I would argue that yes, they do. Take for example, if my intent was to get every question correct on a Calculus exam. The actions I take part in, such as studying prior to the exam and seeking any necessary help from my professor and/or peers, matter to a great extent. If I do not take part in any such prior activities it is highly probable that I will not get every question correct on the exam. Say also that it is determined by God that I will ace the exam. In order for God’s plan for me to be fulfilled I have to follow specific duties and responsibilities. God may have two different outcomes for me that are in His plan and truly determined by my free will. Nevertheless, what do you mean by your last sentence in your blog: “Like Strawson, I do not think that whether or not the world is truly determined really matters to the idea that we do exercise free will because we have extremely short lives relative to the infinity of time”? How does the length of one’s life play into the overall importance/role of determinism or free will? I am quite confused with this last statement.
ReplyDelete