Predestination

Post Reply New Topic

This is one of the most confusing things to me regarding my faith.

I'm surprised nobody else has brought up the issue of accountability yet. While not directly related to free will, accountability and free will are linked together in the legal system.

If a person commits a terrible crime, rape or murder for example, they could argue they had no free will, they were simply following their own predestined actions. Of course we would not let them use such a defence? But it raises the question of why there is punishment - what is its purpose. I see the following:

1. As an example to others (and to the person committing the crime) that such behaviour has unpleasant consequences and is thus a deterrent.

2. Keeping the person locked up so he physically cannot commit the same crime again.

3. To satisfy societies emotional need to "hurt" the hurter. How many of us do not feel a sense of satisfaction when a nasty criminal gets punished?

Any other?

I never really understood predestination. Causality I get. I understand how causality and free will may be adversaries, but what causes predestination? Why would fate exist?

EDIT:

I don't feel any satisfaction out of criminals getting punished. The penal system exists to prevent reoccurance of crime (by criminal or other aspiring criminals) and to rehabilitate the criminal. I know life isn't that nice, I know people are emotional and just want revenge, and I see that punishment is often used more to be revenge than rehabilitation or deterrence (capital punishment is revenge) but that's what I see it as ideally.

If we all caved to this idea that there is fate, and we have no free will, I'm pretty sure society would collapse. People may stop trying and/or stop holding themselves accountable. Even if free will is an illusion, it is one we must accept for society to function.

Now, I'm not one for making assumptions or deluding oneself because it has some other benefit, like making you feel good. But here's how I see it. If there's nothing I can do to change life, my efforts aren't even efforts, and it is pointless. But if I can forge my future myself, then my efforts are of extreme importance. I suppose it's a sort of Pascal's wager. It's basically how I defeat nihilism. (in practice, not in theory)

Last edited by Malsane on 20 Aug 2008, 4:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I simply see predestination and fate as the unfolding of causality over time. Nothing more.

Right, it can be the unfolding of causality, there also can be some religious notions of a divine being impacting/orchestrating events so that the predestined event occurs.

If you're predestined to commit the crime, you're predestined to do the time

That's also what I have to say to people who do things like kill people in the name of God...

Last edited by ToadOfSteel on 20 Aug 2008, 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The question is, why there is punishment and rewards? if free-will is ruled out by predestination, then we would lack of responsability, wouldn't we?

Interesting. In principle you could extend the argument to include a hypothetical God too. You could equally argue that such a figure would also not have any free will (as per the previous discussion) and any actions he made would also fall within a wider causality.

The reward or punishment becomes a cause. Being rewarded or punished has certain psychological effects. I guess, doling out the punishment or reward was in turn caused by a need to punish the bad and reward the good. We really could reduce this whole discussion to causality. We act as if we have free will because we have a psychological need to.

I think that sums it up nicely. Without the feeling that we had free will there may be a sense of despair and hopelessness.

So despite free will not having any basis in reality, we need to cling to the notion of it for our sanity.

True, in fact, some theologians have argued that the nature of God's will only allows him a single choice out of all possibilities, because he has to maximize goodness.

Which sounds a bit like deism, with God being more of a force than an agent. Meh, I explained that poorly.

I think I see what you are saying: That a hypothetical God would actually be another force of nature, just another part of the physics of the universe.

Not really, such a view does not undermine God having personal characteristics, only states that God does not have a libertarian free will, as this is a Christian conceptualization of God, that I think stems from Peter Abelard(I got the reference from a book by Liebniz that I read quite a while ago, so I do not remember for certain). I mean, does a non-libertarian concept of man undermine man's ability as an agent? I don't tend to think so.

So the hypothetical God would be physics with attitude?

Umm.... the hypothetical God could be anything, he just would have to maximize goodness. I mean, like I said, I was pulling this from Christianity, a religion that accepts a God that turned himself into a human being to get killed on a cross by some Roman dudes.