The Theological Challenge to Freedom states that if anyone, in this case God, can literally foresee the future, then it must be already somehow laid out in advance and there’s nothing we can do to alter it. A perfect God can’t be wrong, so if he knows that you’ll go to U of M in the fall, then no matter how much you want to go to Butler, you’re going to be a Wolverine. You don’t have the flexibility, or the freedom, that you otherwise assume you have. God knows all the probabilities of anything we might freely do, but he does not know exactly what we will choose. However, because God created humans with free will, he has to wait, just like we do, to see what will happen. He’s prepared to deal with any option and he can work around our choices to …show more content…
So the problem of freewill is the idea of how choices can be free, knowing that one does in the future is already determined as true or false in the present. Either I will go to U of M in the fall, or I won’t. If I will go to U of M in the fall, then nothing I do between now and then will stop me from attending. I don’t have two equally available options to go or not to go, so I’m not really free with respect to anything in the future at all. However, if philosophical reasoning seems to call into question something that you naturally, strongly, and intuitively know to be true, then you are right. The Law of Excluded Middle can apply to future ideas only with an uncertain truth decision representing present tendencies, but changeable by freely willed actions. So if I eat an apple for lunch every single day of my life and we’re wondering if I’ll eat another one tomorrow, then you can probably presume that I will eat another apple tomorrow. However, unless I’m being forced against my will to eat this apple every single day, then there’s still the possibility that I could eat a banana instead. Routine does not imply
St. Augustine of Hippo, Boethius, and Anselm all address the concept of free will and God’s foreknowledge in their works “The City of God”, “The Consolation of Philosophy”, and “De Concordia”. While each work was written during a different time period, each of their approaches consists of a solution comprised of both unifying and unique points and arguments. While there is no clear contesting between one work and another, it is clear that free will is a complex and critical idea in Christian theology that has long since been debated. '
The view mentioned is alarming in two respects: First of all, in accordance with the way we see ourselves we are convinced that freedom is essential for man's being. Secondly, philosophers think they have excellent arguments against determinism.
This topic is one that has had my curiosity piqued for the last few years and is one I have made a point of discussing with many people over the course of that time. I have heard many different viewpoints, some who have been adamant for God's omniscience and knowledge of the future and others who have presented compelling arguments for free will. Most, however are of a third category who have come to grips with the fact that our mere brains cannot understand the workings of God and are content to wait for an answer until they are able to ask them themselves if/when they get to Heaven. I myself hold this latter idea to be a good fallback, but am restless in my pursuit for an answer. For neither the deterministic nor the liberalist perspective seem to have me convinced for it seems to me like both of these beliefs leave you in a dire catch-22: if you insist on complete freedom, you limit God's knowledge; but if you insist on God's knowledge, then you limit humanity's freedom; neither of which leave my mind at rest in who I know God to be and what His scripture has revealed to us in His creation of humanity.
Fate vs Free Will has always been one of the most controversial topics from early history, and for no surprise because everyone is fascinated about their future. Many people believe that life is predetermined and anything you do won’t transmute your future. Others believe that you are sanctioned to mold your own destiny and optate your own path. Your mind, for example, has total free will up to the point where you believe that everything you think is controlled by faith. Then you wouldn’t have a free thought because all that you will think was always going to be thought, and thus making faith decide you. Whatever the case may be, one thing is for certain and that is that we’ll never know the future because it is beyond our ken.
My first claim is, if God is all knowing, he knows where we will end up in life. Secondly, I believe when our consciousness comes into existence, God knows if we go to Heaven or Hell. Thirdly, no matter what choices we make throughout our lives, the end result will always be what it was meant to be before our existence. Therefore, no amount of free will during our time on earth, will change our end result which means our free will is
Hypothetically speaking, if there was a machine in the world that could able project the image of a person choosing to do tomorrow. Wouldn’t that entail tomorrow this person must do what was known in advance? In the end, despite the planning and deliberating, this person must choose exactly as the machine projected. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: “Does free will exist, or it just merely an illusion?” But, no machine with such capability existed in this world, and the only one with such power is God. The argument of God’s omniscient and human free will has gone for thousands of years, the core of this argument is if God was claimed to be all-knowing, hence in possession of infallible foreknowledge of human actions, therefore, humans should not have free will. The concept of God is all-knowing and human have free will is inherently contradictory, therefore, they cannot coexist. This argument implicated predestination and often resonated with the dilemma of determinism, because God was supposed to have given mankind free will.
Imagine starting your day and not having a clue of what to do, but you begin to list the different options and routes you can take to eventually get from point A to point B. In choosing from that list, there coins the term “free will”. Free will is our ability to make decisions not caused by external factors or any other impediments that can stop us to do so. Being part of the human species, we would like to believe that we have “freedom from causation” because it is part of our human nature to believe that we are independent entities and our thoughts are produced from inside of us, on our own. At the other end of the spectrum, there is determinism. Determinism explains that all of our actions are already determined by certain external causes
How does one define religious freedom and prisoner rights? Religious freedom is defined in the First Amendment “to practice his or her own religious, or no religion at all”. Religious Freedom was established to help individuals express and/or practice their own beliefs without anyone having to say what they can’t believe in or practice. Prisoner rights under the eighth amendment, paraphrase Prisoners do not have full Constitutional rights as anyone else but they do have protection Constitution’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Yet each of these basic rights for someone gets violated in the correctional system, the definition of these words get stretched by people who have the higher authority to use them to their own advantage. Religious freedom shouldn’t be taken away from someone who was given that natural born right even if the person is seen as criminal by the state or country.
The argument of free will and determinism is a very complex argument. Some might say we have free will because we are in control; we have the ability to make our own choices. Others might say it’s in our biological nature to do the things we do; it’s beyond our control. Basically our life experiences and choices are already pre determined and there’s nothing we can do to change it. Many philosophers have made very strong arguments that support both sides.
Throughout history freedom has had many different meanings and definitions; based on race, gender, and ethnicity. According to the dictionary freedom means the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint (“freedom” def. 1). Freedom may seem like something given to everyone however it was something workers had to fight for. Not everyone believed that workers’ rights needed to be changed, which led to a long battle between workers, employers and the government. To the working class people freedom meant making higher wages, having regulated hours, workable conditions and the right to free speech.
Freedom, a seven lettered word that varies in meaning for every individual. Freedom is the basis of human rights, without the freedom to do as one please, one feels confine. This confinement leads to many interesting tales of human curiosity expanding and exploring, such as Leonardo DiCaprio fascination with corpses or the escaping of where freedom is not a necessity such as North Korea. There are many aspects to freedom, it is reflected in actions, decisions and thought. In existentialism, one’s philosophical approach is that one is free and is the deciding factor of everything that they choose in their life. In existentialism since one has ultimate freedom in everything, without any authority deciding for them, this vast array of thought that can come for anyone from anywhere creates hell for others, because one is unable to control others.
For Kant and Luther, the question of human freedom and the amount individuals are at liberty of, if any, is determined in an effort to achieve high morality. However, it precisely the outlook that Kant deems fatalist which Luther argues for, that is, freedom through faith. For Luther, we do not posses the liberty required to live a moral life without God’s guidance. On the other hand, for Kant, the predestination that Luther argues for places individuals in a state of “immaturity” and therefore unable to achieve freedom to be moral. In contrast to Luther’s argument, for Kant self-determination, autonomy, and morality are closely related to his notion of human freedom.
One thing that philosophers are great at is asking big questions, usually without providing answers. However, Saint Augustine has a more direct approach to his speculation, often offering a solution to the questions he poses. One such topic he broached in The City of God against the pagans. In this text, Augustine addresses the problem of free will and extends his own viewpoint. Stating that humankind can have free will with an omniscient God, he clarifies by defining foreknowledge, free will, and how they can interact successfully together (Augustine, 198). Throughout his argument, he builds a compelling case with minimal leaps of faith, disregarding, of course, that you must believe in God. He first illustrates the problem of free will, that it is an ongoing questions amongst many philosophers, then provides insight into the difference between fate and foreknowledge. Finally, finishing his argument with a thorough walk-through on how God can know everything, and yet not affect your future decisions.
Freedom, or the concept of free will seems to be an elusive theory, yet many of us believe in it implicitly. On the opposite end of the spectrum of philosophical theories regarding freedom is determinism, which poses a direct threat to human free will. If outside forces of which I have no control over influence everything I do throughout my life, I cannot say I am a free agent and the author of my own actions. Since I have neither the power to change the laws of nature, nor to change the past, I am unable to attribute freedom of choice to myself. However, understanding the meaning of free will is necessary in order to decide whether or not it exists (Orloff, 2002).
Freedom as defined is, the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. The quest for religious freedom is what drove many people to protest, or go as far as fleeing their native country to be able to practice and preach what they believe. There are many stories in history that show how people have stood up and fought for their religion even before we became the United States of America. The people that came over on the Mayflower, and Roger Williams, are both examples of people who weren't at first given religious freedom but went against what they knew to acquire it. By the means of George Washington’s letter he was able to ease the minds of not only the Hebrew Congregations but all religions. He states the natural rights apply to religious freedom. Independence is America’s trademark, it is what our country was built upon and has fought so hard to maintain. Even though Americans have struggled at times to accept the difference of religions, our government has kept a steadfast commitment to religious tolerance.