POPULAR VIEWS ON FREE WILL AND PRE-DESTINATION
Determinism, Indeterminism, Compatibilism, Incompatibilism, and Libertarianism
Determinism is the thesis that the past and the laws of nature together determine, at every moment, a unique future. The outright denial of this definition of determinism is indeterminism. Hard determinists accept determinism and reject free will. Incompatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are not compatible and cannot both be true. Soft determinists believe that free will is compatible with determinism. This view is compatibilism. Libertarianism is the view that determinism is false and free will occurs in the world.
Hard determinists believe that the world is predestined and that no person has ever had a choice about anything. Under the definition of pre-destination in this paper, Hard determinism would fall in line with pre-destination. On the opposite end of the spectrum is libertarianism, which incorporates incompatibilism. Libertarianism would be definition of this paper, fall in line with free will. Libertarianism states that humans have free will and that free will is incompatible with determinism.
Determinism was popular with many scholars because of the perceived evidence of determinism in the natural world, but in today’s modern world, determinism is widely rejected (due in large part to the rise of indeterministic interpretations of quantum physics). The majority of the world of today also asserts the finding of quantum physics, and
they believe that the world is indeterministic. The theory of the multiverse is rapidly changing some assumptions in quantum mechanics and will bring about new arguments about free will and pre-destination in the years to come.
REIMAGINING OF FREE WILL AND PRE-DESTINATION
For years scholars have been trying to fit the will of man into one of the aforementioned philosophical boxes. Unfortunately as the information of the natural world changes, theories must also change. Building philosophical theory on perceived traits and characteristics of the natural world is illogical because the world is always changing. The only unchanging truth in the world is the word of God, the Bible. The Bible gives clear direction for belief in this topic. By throwing out determinism, compatibilism and the other terms used to define how will works in the world, the issue of does man have free will can be boiled down to five possibilities. Those five possibilities include the ideas and premises of the scholarly philosophical labels, but they focus more on scripture and less on human perception, ingenuity, intellect, and perception. They focus on Biblical truth. The five possibilities are, pre-destination, pre-will, the sacred middle (grace), free-destination, and free will. Perhaps this new system, which I am introducing, can help to reconcile and the age-old question of is man predestined, or does he have free will? By allowing the biblical scriptures to reconcile themselves, I will show how free will can coincide with predestination. Free will, pre-destination, election, and grace are all symbiotic parts of God’s wonderful creation.
Figure 1: Reimagining of the Will
Pre-destination and Free Will
Absolute pre-destination and absolute free will both run counterintuitive to a thorough examination of scripture. It has been obvious from the aforementioned discussion on both pre-destination and free will, that the Bible is clear that the Earth and all that resides on it are neither one hundred percent pre-destined, nor do they have one hundred percent free will. The scripture passages showed with ample evidence that creation contains persons who are predestined and persons who have free will. With that information, it is easy to deduce that the five possibilities that can explain the will of man, should essentially be reduced to just three possibilities.
 Van Inwagen, Peter. “How to Think about the Problem of Free Will.” Journal of Ethics 12, (Aug 2008): 330.
 Ibid 330.
 Ibid, 330.
 Ibid, 330.
 Ibid, 330.
 Ibid, 330.
 Turner, Jason. “The Incompatibility of Free Will and Naturalism.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87, no. 4 (Dec 2009): 567.
 Ibid, 565.
 Vilhauer, Benjamin. “The Scope of Responsibility in Kant’s Theory of Free Will.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 18, no. 1 (2010): 46.
 Capes, Justin A. “Can ‘Downward Causation’ Save Free Will?” Philosophia 38 (2010): 133.
 Sarkissian, Hagop. “Is Belief in Free Will a Cultural Universal?” Mind & Language 25, no. 3 (June 2010): 353.
 Kraay, Klaas J. “Theism, Possible Worlds, and the Multiverse.” Philosophy Study 147 (2010): 363.