I would disagree with you Gabu on two points based on my former Christian world view.
1. God is capable of taking complete control of all those factors that affect people's decisions, but he does not often do this. God may act occasionally in human affairs to cause some event to happen, but there are usually extenuating circumstances for this, such as the conversion of Paul and the ministry of Jesus and ongoing one of the Holy Spirit.
2. I agree that those factors, which basically summed up equal nature and nurture, greatly affect peoples' decisions. However, in a Christian view of the world it seems human will trumps all other factors in the decision making process. God has instilled in us a moral compass that we can choose to obey or ignore and it is an individual's responsibility to obey it, regardless of all other factors, or be held accountable for it.
Ultimately, I agree with you about what controls people's decisions, however I do think the armenian Christian understanding makes sense within its own framework for understanding how free will can exist with an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God.
Plzhelpmelearn
But where does "free will" come into play? Â Like I said, any time someone does something, they do it because they want something and feel that their actions are the best option for bringing about what they want. Â And where does what we want come from? Â It can't come from within, because then you get into the infinite regress of, "Where did our desire to have that desire come from? Â And where did our desire to have that desire to have that desire come from? (Etc.)" Â So it must come from outside. Â But if it comes from outside, then that means that we are ultimately not in control of our desires. Â And since this holds for every human, that means that to find the true explanation for every human's actions, we must go beyond humanity, and this will inevitably lead us back to God, since he ultimately set everything else into motion.
I mean, for a very simple example, take the story of creation with Adam and Eve. Â As the story goes, the serpent tricked Adam and Eve into eating the apple of knowledge by basically telling them that God lied. Â Which is all well and good, until you ask a number of questions about it:
1. Why did Eve believe the serpent over God?
2. Why was the serpent in the garden in the first place?
3. Why was the tree of knowledge in the garden in the first place?
I mean, none of these can be answered just by saying "free will". Â People don't do things arbitrarily for no reason. Â Why would Eve believe the serpent over God? Â The only answer one can reach is because something led her to the conclusion that the serpent was more trustworthy than God. Â But what would have led her to that conclusion? Â Assuming for a moment that the events in the story actually happened, there must have been something present in the garden that would have led her to that conclusion.
And the other two - those are directly because God allowed them to be there. Â If you put a newborn baby next to Drano and he drinks it and dies, whose fault is that - the baby's, or the one who put the Drano there? Â I would imagine few would claim it's the baby's fault; rather, it's due to extreme negligence on the part of the parents.
So, where does that leave us? Â Yes, Eve ate from the apple. Â But why? Â Simple: there was a serpent present to trick her; there was an item present with which she could be tricked; and there was something in the garden that convinced her to trust the serpent over her own creator. Â Which one of these is her fault? Â None of them, that's which. Â All of them are ultimately due to the actions of God.
sorry disagree. thats like saying because my dad is a drunk i was raised around a drunk im therefore by influence bound to be a drunk when the fact remains at the end of the day i voluntarly picked up that beer and got wasted.
by the same affect its also like the BS in courts oh the guy commited murder well here comes his sob story about his tragic life sorry i dont care you voluntarly pulled the trigger on an innocent person.
kayoticdreamz
Crediting a human's actions to "free will" is entirely an oversimplification, really. Â If everything a human does is due to "free will", then why, for example, are criminals vastly disproportionately impoverished? Â If a person does things because they are "good" or "bad", then ought we to conclude that poor people are more "bad" than well-off people? Â This sort of twisted reasoning is precisely the sort of thing that led people to conclude that wealth was a product of divine favor - a conclusion that Jesus attacked mercilessly.
Bottom line, if "free will" existed, then humans wouldn't be so darn predictable. Â People do things because something has led them to conclude that the things they do are good ideas. Â Does this mean that we shouldn't convict people of crimes they commit? Â No - but at the same time it does mean that we shouldn't punish them because "they deserve it" or because they're "bad", but rather either to rehabilitate them, to deter others, or to protect society.Â
Log in to comment