Stumbled Upon…About Free Will
Feb 6th
This quote isn’t world-shaking, but it does, in my opinion, correctly state the question(s) of free-will. In my various and sundry debates with Roger on this issue, we seem to stumble at what I think is the primary question of freedom, which is not “Could I have done otherwise?” Rather, the primary or first question regards the nature of the universe, “Is the universe determined, or in other words, is the future open?”
Here’s the quote from an authoritative libertarian, Robert Kane:
Those who are convinced that there is a conflict between free will and determinism…are called incompatibilists about free will. They believe free will and determinism are incompatible. If incompatibilists also believe that an incompatibilist free will exists, so that determinism is false, they are called libertarians about free will.
from Four Views on Free Will Blackwell, 2007.
So, there are two questions involved, one which has a dual consideration:
1) Hypothetically, is free will incompatible with determinism?
2) Does the world exhibit determinism? Do humans exhibit freedom?
It should be noted that according to Kane, one can answer “No” to 1) and “Yes” to both aspects of 2), and one would NOT be a libertarian. He would be a compatibilist. One is only a libertarian (on free will, not politics obviously), if one is BOTH an incompatibilist and a believer in freedom, (Yes to 1 and No/Yes to 2).
Also, it should be noted that question 1 is on a very different plane of reasoning that 2. It may be that we can philosophize about the interaction between hypotheticals without actually believing in the existence of either free will or determinism. However, question 2 is different, in that it asks us to actually claim the reality of these concepts. This question must answer to Scripture, if we are men of faith.
Thoughts? Obviously, this quote doesn’t define “freedom”, but if you’re interested here’s Kane’s criteria for freedom:
1) we could have chosen/acted otherwise
2) the ultimate sources of our actions lie in us, and not outside us in factor beyond our control
Reading…
Feb 5th
I am going to start doing write-ups on the books I’m reading for my thesis and for class. This will provide a good outlet for the task of explicating thoughts that often go un-expressed, and perhaps some conversation if any of these posts pique interest.Here are the books I’ll be posting on:
- The Domestication of Transcendence: How Modern Thinking about God Went Wrong by William Placher
- Transforming Vision: Imagination and Will in Kierkegaardian Faith by M. Jamie Ferreira
- Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament by Peter Enns
- Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul by Richard B. Hays
Working
Feb 5th
I’m going to begin blogging again. I now have the time/structure to be at the computer and able to write my thoughts down more easily. I don’t know if I ever had any readers other than a few church friends, but hopefully this blog will achieve its goal, which is to provide a room for commentary. If Steve G., Nate, JT, Roger, Matt McD, etc. are reading this, take this as my plea for us to re-establish a conVerge blogging community. I sure miss it.
Now, at conVerge Lynchburg we are returning, in our mid-week group and also our teaching on the Sermon on the Mount on Sundays, to some pretty deep ideas about what it is people are for, that is, not just what is our job, but what gives meaning to our lives. In our midweek groups we are going through Dallas Willard’s Spirit of the Disciplines, which is a pretty standard classic on the “why” of spirituality/discipline. I have had the blessing/curse of reading this book in groups a few times before (i’m especially thinking of the time we read it in RA groups at LU). The reason for the blessing/curse ambiguity is that for perhaps the first time I am being forced to really consider doing what Willard is calling us to do, echoing Christ. I’d, of course, wanted to want to try to attempt to get around to doing some of these things before, but what has been so revolutionary this time (and we are only on chapter 5) is that we’re reading it as a church. We now have the actual structure and posture to encourage each other to live this way, certainly more naturally/healthily than we did in that RA group.
This past group, we talked pretty abstractly about the idea of work. I think we all pretty much assume that we know what work is, and then make the perennial mistake of conflating that idea with what work OUGHT to be. I don’t wanna make this a 5,000 word post, but I do wanna just put it out there that doing some WORK and thinking about work will be a profitable experience for all. One thing that we’ve gradually been concluding at conVerge is that most “jobs” are not work, properly understood. I am arguing in imprecise and unsystematic terms for a higher view of work, one that even goes beyond the call to Mission. In these terms, I have been highly impacted by such cultural critics as Wendell Berry and Neil Postman. Berry especially, in his book of essays What Are People For?, gets the mental gears turning with respect to what is a the proper understanding of work. I don’t mean to here give my theology of work, but I think this would be an appropriate place to ask some questions and see what I get back in response:
Basic to this discussion is a biblical understanding of “dominion”, cf. Genesis 1.26. Are you comfortable with the equation of this “dominion” with “work”?
Postman comments that our generation is going to be mainly employed as symbol-analysts. Of the top of your head what are the problems with calling symbol-analysis work in any substantive sense? Are we willing to accept a, *gasp*, compartmentalization in our concept of work? (ie. the difference between biblical work and wage earning)
If we admit a growing crisis, a growing illiteracy with biblical categories of work, then how do we expect to: 1) speak relevantly to the secular, and 2) make biblical work practical?
I think it is our job as Christ-followers to in some sense pull a Jerry Maguire and abort the attempt to compromise with regard to work. We will be culpable for rationalizing this away, if indeed the radical call to Work is indeed biblical. I’ve already grabbed the fish, who’s coming with me?
Recent Comments