Why I Believe in Libertarian Freedom
I have been thinking that giving my reasons for believing in the libertarian theory of free will can only help in the dialog on this topic. From the comments that I have read, many compatibilist Christians do not really know why libertarian Christians believe as they do. I do not claim to represent the majority in all respects, but I think my reasons are characteristic of those Christians who are libertarians. I have (as far as I can remember) alway held to these beliefs. My reasons have changed as I have matured, so I am only going to give the reasons I have now.
My first reason comes directly from Christian belief. Adam and Eve fell from a state of innocence by their own choice. This is referred to as the "original sin". They were created good by God, had a sinful condition after and fell by their own free choice. These are all points of orthodox Christianity. Since this is true, we must find an explanation of freedom that does not violate them when it is consistent. Libertarianism is the only option. I am not proving anything here, I am merely stating my opinion. This same dilemma for other forms of freedom is also found in the fall of Satan.
My second reason also comes from Christian belief. Libertarianism is a consistent and meaningful theory at least in the case of God. We believe that God could have created nothing, could have not send redemption, and could have decided not to give any other grace to human beings. Since these are also points of orthodox Christianity, denying them is not an option. Libertarian freedom for God is required for orthodox Christianity.
My third reason is the connection between moral responsibility and freedom. This is a reason I share with non-Christian adherents of libertarianism. If I am responsible, then I am the source of that act. But if I am its source, then the act is free in a libertarian sense. Once again, I am merely stating my opinion, I am not giving an argument.
My fourth reason has to do with information. I do not believe that any combination of law and chance is capable of generating information. I believe this on the basis of the work of William Dembski. If true, then every case of information generation is also a case of the exercise of libertarian freedom. I find it quite implausible to account for all information in the world by God's direct intervention, so this is also an argument for libertarian freedom in human beings.
These are basically my reasons. My reasons do NOT start of as arguments for freedom and then further arguments for having a libertarian freedom. I believe in freedom because I believe in libertarian freedom. These reasons are not all philosophical: two are theological and one is mathematical/philosophical. It would be helpful to note that these reasons are not feelings, nor are they based on feelings. I have not given my arguments, but only a very brief summary of the arguments. I do not mention such arguments as 'freedom to choose God' because I believe they do not fit with the Bible as a whole and suffer other problems as well. Other than that, these arguments are independent. You would have to refute all of them in order to change my mind on this issue. No one I have read has come close to refuting one of them (and I have read Calvin).
My first reason comes directly from Christian belief. Adam and Eve fell from a state of innocence by their own choice. This is referred to as the "original sin". They were created good by God, had a sinful condition after and fell by their own free choice. These are all points of orthodox Christianity. Since this is true, we must find an explanation of freedom that does not violate them when it is consistent. Libertarianism is the only option. I am not proving anything here, I am merely stating my opinion. This same dilemma for other forms of freedom is also found in the fall of Satan.
My second reason also comes from Christian belief. Libertarianism is a consistent and meaningful theory at least in the case of God. We believe that God could have created nothing, could have not send redemption, and could have decided not to give any other grace to human beings. Since these are also points of orthodox Christianity, denying them is not an option. Libertarian freedom for God is required for orthodox Christianity.
My third reason is the connection between moral responsibility and freedom. This is a reason I share with non-Christian adherents of libertarianism. If I am responsible, then I am the source of that act. But if I am its source, then the act is free in a libertarian sense. Once again, I am merely stating my opinion, I am not giving an argument.
My fourth reason has to do with information. I do not believe that any combination of law and chance is capable of generating information. I believe this on the basis of the work of William Dembski. If true, then every case of information generation is also a case of the exercise of libertarian freedom. I find it quite implausible to account for all information in the world by God's direct intervention, so this is also an argument for libertarian freedom in human beings.
These are basically my reasons. My reasons do NOT start of as arguments for freedom and then further arguments for having a libertarian freedom. I believe in freedom because I believe in libertarian freedom. These reasons are not all philosophical: two are theological and one is mathematical/philosophical. It would be helpful to note that these reasons are not feelings, nor are they based on feelings. I have not given my arguments, but only a very brief summary of the arguments. I do not mention such arguments as 'freedom to choose God' because I believe they do not fit with the Bible as a whole and suffer other problems as well. Other than that, these arguments are independent. You would have to refute all of them in order to change my mind on this issue. No one I have read has come close to refuting one of them (and I have read Calvin).
Labels: christian theology, philosophy of freedom
posted by Matthew at 2:51 PM
3 Comments:
hey matt-
this is totally random, but i was wondering if i could get your address to help plan for caitlin and greg's upcoming wedding. my email is pray_mo14@hotmail.com. I would really appreciate hearing from you!
Larissa
Matt,
I appreciated the summary of your views and how you categorized them. Maybe you could write a post or series of posts to elaborate on the arguments for each of the four points: (1) the Fall, (2) God's freedom, (3) moral responsibility, and (4) the generation of information.
I thought I would mention an interesting issue that arose in my Atonement class with Dr. Carter, which relates to the second point, on God's freedom. One of the people we studied was Colin Gunton and in the class we discussed how he viewed justice as essentially restorative in contrast to a retributive understanding. I criticized this view of justice because it would require the denial of God's redemptive actions as free actions. For since God is just by nature, it would necessitate that all his responses and interactions are just. Does it not then follow that God must seek to restore relationships in creation--in other words, that God must seek to redeem creation? If this is the case, then is it even possible for a restorative view of justice to be reconciled with orthodox Christian tradition?
I know that one could claim that God's redemptive action was free even though he was obligated to act to restore creation. I believe the only valid argument to support this claim is to argue that his creative act was a free act and that, knowing his creation would rebel, he would be obligated to justly respond by seeking to reconcile creation. Although I believe this argument is valid and lends better support to the claim, I still don't believe it fits with orthodoxy because orthodox tradition would require not only that God's creative and redemptive acts were free but that God could have chosen both to create and not to redeem.
What do you think?
I am planning to write on the individual arguments, but I am unsure when I will do so.
As for the freedom of God, I agree that the orthodox tradition requires both creation and redemption to be free actions, and for them to be free on their own. As for restorative justice, I rejected that on a different basis. C.S. Lewis has an excellent paper on that very topic. One comes out with the distinct impression that when restorative justice is divorced from retributive justice one has injustice.
Post a Comment
<< Home