Omniscient God and Free Will

Free will is having a choice from a set of alternatives in order to independently and freely define ones own future (O’Conner). There is always a first cause and the cause is what determined the effect or consequences. Where Pikes argument comes in is the contradiction between an all-knowing God and the matter of free will (Pike 57-73). Pike (57-53) claims this if God is all knowing he must know our life course from beginning to end. If this is true then all action I am to commit have already been determined and known to be, so how is one to do otherwise (Pike 57-73)? Essentially there are two choices, God is either not all knowing or we are truly aren’t free if our life is already known. Free will is to make spontaneous decisions and not to have a predetermined future.

So if God knows our life course does that mean it is already determined? We live in a world of physical laws in which we have no choice but to follow (Sosa). We live in a world that was created by a cause or the “big bang,” and the Earth is merely a byproduct of it all (Sosa). Furthermore, we are byproducts of the Earth. Our lives were created by a cause (physiological forces) and while we may have the choice to not wake up in the morning or go out for a run, our choices aren’t determined by free will (Pink), but rather by the neurological-receptors in our brain (Sosa), for without them we wouldn’t be capable to make a choice. Our bodies are simply elements of the world put together as a complex organism.

So if our bodies are nothing other than byproducts of this world and the things we do are nothing other than chemical reactions and physiological forces obeying the laws of physics, than what is the point of living? If there is no such thing as “free will,” than what is the purpose of what we do? Why do we try so hard to be successful if it is already determined? These questions are important to humanities meaning. However people believe in free will not because they are simply ignorant, but because it gives purpose to life, and without purpose we are nothing other than an object. A rock (an object) has no purpose other than to be a rock, but humans’ like to believe that they have a higher purpose (although rocks an humans are both byproducts of the world) and that we don’t live by the physiological rules of the world.

The bottom line:

• If God doesn’t know the entire plan of my life, then God is not all knowing (omnicient). 
• If God is indeed omniscient (all knowing), he/she will know the entire plan of my life. 
• How can I truly act otherwise if my life’s plan is already known? 

Works Cited:

O'Conner, Timothy. "Free Will." 2. 2010. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/>.

Pike, Nelson. Divine Omniscience and Voluntary Action. 57-73. Web. <http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Pike-Divine-Omniscience-and-Voluntary-Action.pdf>.

Pink, Thomas, perf. "Thomas Pink on Free Will." Philosophy Bites. N.p., 09 Mar 2008. web. 3 Apr 2013.

Sosa, David, perf. Waking Life-Free Will. Dir. Richard Linklater. 2001. Film. 3 Apr 2013. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veqkUUOlLLE&feature=player_embedded>.

Morality Without God

A preacher of the Christian faith in many cases make it a point to say that the Bible is the key to living a moral life, when in fact morality and religion have no connection. People do not do what is right and what is wrong because God has told them too, but because morality is based off of the notion of happiness and suffering (Harris). The Bible while many see it as a “perfect guide to morality,” they ignore the more obscene advice such as “whenever children [gets] out of line, we should beat them with a rod (Proverbs 13:24, 20:30, and 23:13–14)” (Harris). Good Christians for example ignore these scriptures and interpret them in a different perspective because they are relatively good people and that the basis of morality doesn’t literally lie within the Bible.

If morality was necessary based off of God then what about different religions? Are they immoral because they do not believe in the same God or are atheist more likely to be immoral than a theist? “According to United Nations’ Human Development Report (2005), the most atheistic societies... [Tend to be] the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per-capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality” (Harris). Most importantly, these facts prove that atheist societies do not need a God to be moral and live in a civilized manner (Harris).

Many churches will preach of the necessity to listen to God's commandments and impose Gods will on our morality, but as seen above not all the Bible can be taken as a guide for morality nor is it necessary to have to believe in a God to be moral. In a sense morality is all relative to a circumstance, but morality shouldn’t be simply based off of opinions, but rather explanations and reasons whether something is moral or not. For example the morality of human murder would need strong justifications to be considered moral, but because murder is always poorly justified it is a mutual societal agreement that ending one life for their own ideology is unacceptable. Instead of God being the guideline for morality one should use reason to seek choices that permit happiness and prohibit suffering rather than the word of God.

Works Cited

Harris, Sam. "The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos." Council for Secular Humanism. N.p.. Web. 10 Apr 2013. <http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=sharris_26_3.

Sinnott, Walter, perf. "Walter Sinnott-Armstrong on Morality Without God." Philosophy Bites. N.p., 28 Aug 2009. web. 12 Apr 2013.

Social Contract Theory & the Divine Command Theory

Sometimes the media and people are pessimistic about how society is on a downslope of chaos and hopelessness, but if you look at how far we have come you will begin to understand how grateful we should be to the freedoms we have especially in America. Below is a discussion I had written for my philosophy class on how the United States deviated away from the Divine Command Theory for a more free society and adopted principles from the Social Contract Theory instead. Please feel free to comment if you have alternate perspectives or if you refute anything I have said.

According to Thomas Hobbes the Social Contract Theory starts with the fact that men are “naturally self-interested and rational…to submit to an authority” rather than to live in the “State of Nature” where there is no reasonable guideline of limits for a person to pursue their interests (Friend).  Hobbes states that the State of Nature would be “unbearably brutal” because people could then act in extreme ways such as killing another man for his resources or property (Friend). The State of Nature would then “provide no capacity to ensure the long-term satisfaction of [peoples] needs or desires” (Friend). This unpredictable state would make happiness in a society impossible.

Instead Hobbes suggests the Social Contract Theory is the deterrent of such extreme acts and creates guidelines for which people live (Friend). Laws are pointless without authority, and for a civilized society to exist people must conform to the laws in which they reside in order to live a prosperous life (Friend). To live within a civilized society a person becomes limited in which people act to prevent harm to others, and therefore aren’t fully free. Hobbes states that while people have to give up freedom, it is still better than living in a State of Nature, and any rational man would submit to an authority than to live in a state of unpredictable behavior (Friend). The Social Contract Theory is an obligation such as Socrates’ unwillingness to escape prison regardless of his unjust sentencing (Jowett), and instead face the obligations of the Athenian laws which provided him the opportunity his way of living (philosophizing). Socrates saw escaping prison as immoral and rationally inconstant and therefore refused Crito’s offer of escaping prison. Socrates’ obligation to submit to authority is similar to the United States’ constitution and obligations of being a citizen of the United States.

In the United States we follow the Social Contract Theory and resist the Divine Command Theory. Divine Command Theory requires people to practice the same religion and follow the rules of that particular religion as a guideline for a person’s actions (Austin). The Divine Command Theory makes living in a free society like the United States impossible due to the fact that people believe in different religions. Divine Command Theory forces people conform the rule of a particular religion creating problems in a free society (United States) where all religions can be practiced. Different religions would create different rules and beliefs, leading to religious conflict. To prevent these problems the founders of the United States separated church from the state and instead the Constitution symbolizes a neutral social contract derived from the basis of morality and fairness. The federal government then acts as the absolute authority in defending the Constitution or what Hobbes describes as the enforcement mechanism of a social contract.

Works Cited

Austin, Michael. "Divine Command Theory." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2006. <http://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/>.

Friend, Celeste . "Social Contract Theory." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2004 . <http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/>.

Jowett, Benjamin. "Crito ." . MIT. Web. 23 Apr 2013. <http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/crito.html>.