RE: The Cosmological Argument and Free Will
September 2, 2014 at 3:00 pm
(This post was last modified: September 2, 2014 at 3:03 pm by Michael.)
Pickup,
Bill Craig's Molinist position is that God has chosen to actuate a world where people's free choices are compatible with the outcomes that God wants to achieve. So the Molinist seeks to find a balance between man's free will and God's sovereign determinacy. It's a form of compatiblism. But in terms of causation, the will is the cause of the action. Usual Christian thinking is that the cause of the will to do evil is something that has gone awry with us back in the mists of time, something often known as the 'fall'. It was debated early on in Christianity with Nestorius arguing that we might have the potential within us to avoid evil. He was condemned by the Western, but not by the Eastern Church. The Western Church, especially under the influence of Augustine, took a bleaker view of humanity than the Eastern Church. This state of 'fallenness' is something many of us find though; that though on one level we may 'will' to be and do good, on another level we, at the moment of decision, act in a way that is contrary to our stated intention. In Freudian language it is the battle between the id and the super-ego, with the ego, bruised, stuck between the battling two. But Freud was describing conflicts that have long been known about, as Paul wrote in his letter the Romans, 'For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate'.
Personally I find free will a challenge both theologically and scientifically. I find it enough to say that we have 'agency', that we are the agents of our actions (unless coerced), and so we are the ones accountable for our actions. I think we have to accept that, if only with a certain amount of 'faith', certainly as the general norm, in order for society to function. Abandon the notion of personal agency and accountability and I think we'd end up in a very strange and disordered place.
What about you - how do you see 'free will', 'agency' or 'accountability'?
Bill Craig's Molinist position is that God has chosen to actuate a world where people's free choices are compatible with the outcomes that God wants to achieve. So the Molinist seeks to find a balance between man's free will and God's sovereign determinacy. It's a form of compatiblism. But in terms of causation, the will is the cause of the action. Usual Christian thinking is that the cause of the will to do evil is something that has gone awry with us back in the mists of time, something often known as the 'fall'. It was debated early on in Christianity with Nestorius arguing that we might have the potential within us to avoid evil. He was condemned by the Western, but not by the Eastern Church. The Western Church, especially under the influence of Augustine, took a bleaker view of humanity than the Eastern Church. This state of 'fallenness' is something many of us find though; that though on one level we may 'will' to be and do good, on another level we, at the moment of decision, act in a way that is contrary to our stated intention. In Freudian language it is the battle between the id and the super-ego, with the ego, bruised, stuck between the battling two. But Freud was describing conflicts that have long been known about, as Paul wrote in his letter the Romans, 'For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate'.
Personally I find free will a challenge both theologically and scientifically. I find it enough to say that we have 'agency', that we are the agents of our actions (unless coerced), and so we are the ones accountable for our actions. I think we have to accept that, if only with a certain amount of 'faith', certainly as the general norm, in order for society to function. Abandon the notion of personal agency and accountability and I think we'd end up in a very strange and disordered place.
What about you - how do you see 'free will', 'agency' or 'accountability'?
