contingency, relationships, and freedom: are we as free as we think?
At the beginning of this quarter, my friend, Wess Hall, and I were at a coffee shop reading for class and talking about various topics. One of the professors at Fuller was teaching a class at the time titled "Evangelism in a Secular Society." If you know me, then you know I have huge issues with the word "secular." If you do not know me, well here is why I have qualms with those seven letters: secular connotes that God is devoid from areas of life. Additionally, it implies that God is part of the sacred realm, but devoid of the secular realm. Who is to say what is sacred and what is secular? I digress...
So we were sitting talking about this class, and I shared my feelings about the infamous "secular" word. Wes concurred with my observations and continued to add that the distinction between sacred and secular makes him think of the value people place in "free will." I cannot recall exactly how Wes connected the sacred vs. secular conversation to that of free will, but I think he commented that the secular realm is often thought of as the autonomous realm whereby people think they are completely autonomous in all they do. They have free will in all their decisions. On the flip side, the sacred realm would be the realm of contingency whereby our decisions are made in light of our relationships with God and other people. As he talked about this, I began to ask myself, "Are we as free as we think we are when it comes to making decisions and willing the things we desire? Are we free in desiring the things we desire?"
Philosophers make distinctions between freedom and determinism through talking about hard determinism, soft determinism, and libertarianism. Hard determinism states that things are completely determined. Thus, when you make a decision, you could not have chosen other than what you chose. Soft determinism says basically the same thing as hard determinism, but it maintains that since we can do the things that we choose, then we have freedom in our choices. Libertarianism says that when we make a decision, we could have chosen otherwise. In other words, simply because we chose P in situation S does not mean that we could have chosen not-P in situation S. A decision is simply one decision that became actualized among a myriad of possible decisions.
Which position do I prefer? Well, I am not a hard or soft determinist. Thus, I would place myself in the libertarian camp, but I have some qualifications for my camp of libertarianism.
I do not think God predetermines our thoughts, feelings, and actions. Thus, we have the freedom to choose and do what we like. However, we do have narratives or life stories or worldviews that have an effect on our freedom to choose and do what we like. When we are born, we are born into environments that affect our thoughts, feelings, and actions. Consequently, our relationships with friends, family, and strangers begin to affect our thoughts, feelings, and actions. Moreover, our experiences with God—whether we recognize them as experiences with God or not—begin to shape our thoughts, feelings, and actions.
Moreover, I think the Bible gives us evidence that we ought to be shaped by our relationships with friends and family and our experiences with God. For example, as I have been arguing in this blog series, as creations in the image of God we were created to be in relationships of mutual dependency, and as participants in the kingdom of God, we ought to be in relationships of mutual dependency because these relationships act as an anchor point for our participation in the kingdom of God. Without communities, we cannot fully participate and help others participate in the kingdom of God on earth. Thus, God created us as contingent beings. We have the freedom to choose what we like, but our experiences in life affect what we choose to do. For example, when I decided to move to California and pursue my degree at Fuller, I had the freedom to move or not to move. However, my relationships with my family and my friends in Waco affected the decision that I made. I asked myself these questions often, “How is my moving to California going to affect the close relationships I have with Matt, Ben, Dugan, etc? How will my relationship with my sister and parents change? With my extended family?” These were concerns that I had when I moved. Thus, when I decided to move, I did not make this decision autonomously. I made my decision contingent upon my decision’s effect on my relationships with the people I love.
Therefore, our individualism, sense of autonomy, and “I can go it alone” mentality is a false sense of security. God created us in God’s image so that we would participate in the kingdom of heaven on earth through our relationships and communities. We were not created to be autonomous individuals. We were created to be contingent upon each other, and ultimately God. As creations in God’s image and participants in the kingdom of heaven who are involved in relationships of interdependence, we continue to have free will do the things that we want. But our decisions affect more than ourselves. They affect the people we are in relationship with. peace
table of contents
conclusion
So we were sitting talking about this class, and I shared my feelings about the infamous "secular" word. Wes concurred with my observations and continued to add that the distinction between sacred and secular makes him think of the value people place in "free will." I cannot recall exactly how Wes connected the sacred vs. secular conversation to that of free will, but I think he commented that the secular realm is often thought of as the autonomous realm whereby people think they are completely autonomous in all they do. They have free will in all their decisions. On the flip side, the sacred realm would be the realm of contingency whereby our decisions are made in light of our relationships with God and other people. As he talked about this, I began to ask myself, "Are we as free as we think we are when it comes to making decisions and willing the things we desire? Are we free in desiring the things we desire?"
Philosophers make distinctions between freedom and determinism through talking about hard determinism, soft determinism, and libertarianism. Hard determinism states that things are completely determined. Thus, when you make a decision, you could not have chosen other than what you chose. Soft determinism says basically the same thing as hard determinism, but it maintains that since we can do the things that we choose, then we have freedom in our choices. Libertarianism says that when we make a decision, we could have chosen otherwise. In other words, simply because we chose P in situation S does not mean that we could have chosen not-P in situation S. A decision is simply one decision that became actualized among a myriad of possible decisions.
Which position do I prefer? Well, I am not a hard or soft determinist. Thus, I would place myself in the libertarian camp, but I have some qualifications for my camp of libertarianism.
I do not think God predetermines our thoughts, feelings, and actions. Thus, we have the freedom to choose and do what we like. However, we do have narratives or life stories or worldviews that have an effect on our freedom to choose and do what we like. When we are born, we are born into environments that affect our thoughts, feelings, and actions. Consequently, our relationships with friends, family, and strangers begin to affect our thoughts, feelings, and actions. Moreover, our experiences with God—whether we recognize them as experiences with God or not—begin to shape our thoughts, feelings, and actions.
Moreover, I think the Bible gives us evidence that we ought to be shaped by our relationships with friends and family and our experiences with God. For example, as I have been arguing in this blog series, as creations in the image of God we were created to be in relationships of mutual dependency, and as participants in the kingdom of God, we ought to be in relationships of mutual dependency because these relationships act as an anchor point for our participation in the kingdom of God. Without communities, we cannot fully participate and help others participate in the kingdom of God on earth. Thus, God created us as contingent beings. We have the freedom to choose what we like, but our experiences in life affect what we choose to do. For example, when I decided to move to California and pursue my degree at Fuller, I had the freedom to move or not to move. However, my relationships with my family and my friends in Waco affected the decision that I made. I asked myself these questions often, “How is my moving to California going to affect the close relationships I have with Matt, Ben, Dugan, etc? How will my relationship with my sister and parents change? With my extended family?” These were concerns that I had when I moved. Thus, when I decided to move, I did not make this decision autonomously. I made my decision contingent upon my decision’s effect on my relationships with the people I love.
Therefore, our individualism, sense of autonomy, and “I can go it alone” mentality is a false sense of security. God created us in God’s image so that we would participate in the kingdom of heaven on earth through our relationships and communities. We were not created to be autonomous individuals. We were created to be contingent upon each other, and ultimately God. As creations in God’s image and participants in the kingdom of heaven who are involved in relationships of interdependence, we continue to have free will do the things that we want. But our decisions affect more than ourselves. They affect the people we are in relationship with. peace
table of contents
conclusion
Comments