Free Will and Determinism in relation to my life

As we discuss a lot of philosophical concepts, many from my point of view seem a little abstract in my life. The subject of free will and determinism wasn’t something I focused on a lot at the time of our class discussion but throughout the semester, the issue has become more relevant, challenging and less of an absolute in my life. I have spent the last few days trying to figure out something to write about and struggling with finding relevance or interest in the things we have recently discusses in class. Ironically in my real life, since at least Thursday, the majority of all personal conversations have been focused on the idea of pre-destination, the evaluations my friends and I are trying to make and the effects the struggle over this subject has caused in our lives. After starting several blog entries and not being able to finish, or them being crap, I realized all of the sudden that we this struggle is philosophical and something we have approached in class.

When we discussed it in class, I considered myself a soft determinist. Today, I would probably call myself the same, but I’m not sure that’s what I am supposed to believe. I have struggled with the issue within my own faith during the semester, but instead of calling it Free will and Determinism, it is more specified to one issue and called Arminianism and Calvinism. In most churches it isn’t discussed that often. But at the church I currently attend, the issue has been brought up this semester, and It was clearly stated that they believe that scripture states that God choses who will be saved. This could be called Predestination, Election or Calvinism. Calvinism has 5 points. Before now, I have thought it was both. That God choses every one of us and we also have the choice to choose him or not. I had never had any kind of relationship with anyone who was Calvinist, or at least not openly. I have read certain things in scripture that point towards predestination but there are plenty that talk about our freedom as well. I am going to explore the 5 points of Calvinism and explain the best I can what it means to me, or even to the general population and I am going to try and do it in a way that is understandable to someone who isn’t familiar with Christian Theology or Scripture. There are also posted links that go more in depth if anyone would care to read them for better understanding or if what I am saying doesn’t make sense or is confusing.

There are 5 points of Calvinism

1. Total Depravity (original Sin)

2. Unconditional election (God's election)

Limited atonement (Particular Redemption)

4 Irresistible grace (effectual calling)

Perseverance of the Saints

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/dabney/5points.htm

I understand the first point, is that all men are fallen. We as humans are sinful creatures after Adam and Eve at the forbidden fruit. No man besides Jesus who was 100% man and 100% God was without sin. Humans are incapable of going their entire life without sin. Sin might be a difficult concept to grasp, but it is inclusive of a multitude of things that most people do daily. It doesn’t have to be outward but sin can take place solely in your head and in your heart. Things like anger and lust, although not acted on outwardly are sins before they can be manifested physically in your life. This is something I agree with.

The second point is something that is a lot harder for me to accept. It is something I have not accepted yet but am learning about through scripture (both arguments for and against) in order to be educated. Neither Calvinist nor Arminianist believes (as far as I know) that whether you interpret scripture for or against Election has any effect on your salvation. This being said, I may never decide but I do want to be educated on the issue. So the second point is unconditional election. Charles Spurgeon states this.

“We believe that God's election of individuals is unconditioned and sovereign. They believe that while eternal and particular, it is on account of God's eternal, omniscient foresight of the given sinner's future faith and repentance, and perseverance in holy living.”

He also says

“Says the Arminian: God certainly foresaw that Saul of Tarsus would believe and repent, and, therefore, elected him. But I say that if God certainly foresaw Saul's faith, it must have been certain to take place, for the Omniscient cannot make mistakes. Then, if this sinner's faith was certain to take place, there must have been some certain cause insuring that it would take place. Now, no certain cause could be in the "free-will" of this sinner.”

I hope this is making sense. I don’t think I can explain it any better than Spurgeon but I will put it in my own words in hopes of simplifying it. Armenians do not question Gods Sovereignty. That God is in everything and over everything, but they do believe that he allows people to make the decision to follow Christ, to invite the Holy Spirit into their lives. Calvinist’s believe that if he is all knowing then he must have made the decision for them. That all humans, given the choice wouldn’t chose God, but themselves so knowing how everyone would chose, he chose for them. Elected them to his kingdom. To make this perfectly clear, he chooses who goes to heaven.

Particular Redemption, the third point of Calvinism To the best of my knowledge this means that Christ Died only for those who have been elected, not every person. With my current understanding of scriptures this is not something that I agree with.

The fourth Point of Calvinism is Irresistible grace. What I understand of this is that if you are called, or elected you have no free will. The short version of a very long and confusing description states,

The saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (the elect) and, in God's timing, overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to faith in Christ.-Wikipedia

I’m not sure I really understand or grasp this means that men cannot be convinced to serve God and participate in God’s will without God’s powerful intervention.

The fifth and final point in Calvinism is perseverance of the saints. This in the words of my Baptist upbringing is what was described through the saying, “Once saved, and always saved.” An idea that people argued both ways that I had no idea was part of an entire system of beliefs. I think I agree with this. If someone falls away from the Lord, in my opinion they were probably never saved in the first place. If you have ever read The Screw tape Letters by C.S. Lewis though this doesn’t make that much sense. If you can’t fall away from the Lord, what is the purpose of demons? I do believe in Satan and the fallen angels that followed him and if Satan was indeed an angel he would know that there was nothing he or his demons could do to distract the chosen. They would never turn away so what is the point? This is not what was expressed in The screw tape Letters. C.S. Lewis is a very valued and intelligent theologian in my eyes so I just googled it and this is what I found about his views.

“I wore Calvinism for about 25 years, from a couple of years out of Bible college until a few years back when I hung it back up on the rack because it didn’t fit. It just doesn’t seem to be relevant to anything real. The whole point-counterpoint between Calvinism and Arminianism seems to be trying to answer questions that the Bible does not ask or means to answer.”

These are the points of Armenianism which counter the points of Calvinism and I don’t believe have any need for description.

(1) election (and condemnation on the day of judgment) was conditioned by the rational faith or nonfaith of man;

(2) the Atonement, while qualitatively adequate for all men, was efficacious only for the man of faith;

(3) unaided by the Holy Spirit, no person is able to respond to God’s will;

(4) grace is not irresistible; and

(5) believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/35372/Arminianism

So after reviewing this further than I have previously, I have no absolute answer. (Following at least one of the 14 precepts of Buddhism) I am open to change my mind. But in order these are my current views.

God elects all of us, he chases after every human and they have the choice to choose him too or not too. This is a way he shows us grace and love.

Jesus died for all of us, not just those who accept him; it only affects those who choose him though.

God had to have changed my heart, because by myself I am selfish and wouldn’t have chosen the betterment of the kingdom, at this point I don’t believe I could turn back on God. I don’t know if God has stripped my free-will from me to do so, or if I just wouldn’t change my mind given the chance because I have experienced God and wouldn’t chose anything else.

The verdict is definitely still out on whether a person can fall from the Lord. I have no idea. I know I belong to the Lord, and Jesus wins so how could Satan interfere in that? Maybe before I belong to the Lord, before my heart is officially his. So does that mean salvation is a process?

If you have noticed there are no Bible verses listed within this blog, that would make this go on forever and would create hours upon hours of evaluation. Make no mistake, my philosophy relies solely on scripture but both of these theologies have been taken from scripture and both are widely adopted so I’m not sure my interpretation of a scripture would say the same thing to another reader. If scripture referring to either is what you are looking for, don’t hesitate to contact me, I have and am continually collecting information on the issue that I am more that welcome to share. I guess at the end of the day, (at least today), I am still a soft determinist in the philosophy world. I think.

To live responsibly, lying, and the end of the world

After the presentation by Laura in class and reading the article by Wendell Berry on the Pleasures of eating I felt it was necessary to address this issue from a more rural point of view. The Article as well as the presentation, and class discussion the philosophical point was that people should eat responsibly and I definitely have no disagreements to this but I feel like it’s not just eating but living responsibly.

I am going to start with confessions from my eating habits and my credentials when it comes to eating. First of all, I believe I am in the minority of our class that will confess that I am not a vegetarian, nor have I ever been a vegetarian; however, MEAT DOES SCARE ME. As much as Berry emphasizes preparing your own food, (which I do) I have a hard time handling raw meat. The texture color, blood and the like kind of grosses me out. Mom says I will be a vegetarian one day but I doubt it. I plan to continue to overcome my aversion of meat handling. I usually don’t eat red meat when I go out to eat out of fear of food poisoning but recent research from knowledgeable people have educated me about the safety of eating red meat in public restaraunts.

My small tidbit of information I didn’t know before. I always order any type of red meat well done because I am fearful of food poisoning. A friend well versed in the industry informed me that the inside of a steak has never been exposed to oxygen thus, it cant have been tainted from bacteria making it safe to order your steak rare. But in regards to hamburger meat, never trust a place that asks you how you want your hamburger cooked. It has all been exposed to oxygen, thus they should all be cooked well done. Now moving on to philosophy.

First I want to share some observations that I have made with no intention of passing judgement. I will be discussing my observations of two separate groups: My hometown, population 1,011 and our philosophy class. Population 18(or so). My Hometown goes by the name of O’Donnell and is located in west Texas. Most all people that live there are farmers, mostly cotton, or Ranchers. That isn’t everyone, we have teachers that teach at the school district and few bankers, one postmaster and a few people who work at the two restaurants in town. All kids are raised around agriculture with most of them participating in Stock shows and FFA. Stock show is where students raise steers, pigs, lambs, goats and chickens. I might add they are fed often, cleaned, clipped and exercised to put them in the best show shape. After their last show, they are sent to the truck, which means they are to be slaughtered. People in my area, I would say are very knowledgeable about animals. Agriculture and horticulture are all they know. I grew up in that town my whole life, I would say I know everyone there and I have only ever met one girl who transferred in who is a vegetarian. Guesstimation ratio non-veg to vegetarians: 1,010/1.

In our class, we are comprised of 18 or so students, they are all intelligent, very educated honors students. From what I know, (and I have made observations and asked questions) none of these students have agricultural backgrounds but have watched videos and read articles about animals and their treatment and our of those 18 people there are at least 5 vegetarians. I find this a very interesting statistic.

In the article and in class we discussed lying a lot. Is it morale? When is ok to lie? And the discussion of Pork providers lying. I feel like this is a necessary to discuss. In the video we saw a mistreatment of animals. There is no argument that it happens, that companies try to lie about it and cover it up. In my view, lying about this is wrong. I will discuss my philosophy on lying and then discuss why what these companies do is morally wrong from my point of view.

Once again we are going to start with the basis of my moral compass: The Bible.

The 9^th commandment states : Do not bear false witness against your neighbor.

In class I started to wonder well, what exactly does it mean? How do I interpret that. I looked it up online and the most easily comprehended and complete analysis can from Wikipedia. Every group of people that follows the ten commandments, interprets the commandments differently and each interpretation is listed. I am protestant and this is the interpretation give on the wiki page.

“Requires the maintaining and promoting of truth between people, and of our neighbor’s good name and our own, especially in witness-bearing.
Forbids whatsoever is prejudicial to truth, or injurious to our own, or our neighbor’s, good name.”

This is my basis although Im still unsure where I fall on the Santa Clause issue but I am sure that I believe that companies who hide the way they treat animals is lying and immoral and the things that they are doing are immoral in other ways as well, but does this mean that out of respect for animals, we should stop eating meat?

Now in the article and in class, we discussed the concept of eating responsibly. I have no problems with that philosophy, but my philosophy goes deeper than that and is for the purpose of survival, and my philosophy is to Live Responsibly. In class, the same day we discussed eating responsibly and educating ourselves of where your food is coming from, we also discussed the end of the world. I do not believe that the end of the world is in December of next year but I do believe tough times are coming and that people should be able and capable to live if things become worse and we cannot be dependent on imports, exports and prepackaged food.

What I mean by this is people should be educated on the things they need to know in order to survive. This is how to grow all kinds of food, not just knowing how to check out in the grocery store. That includes fruits, vegetables, grains and animals. Everyone wants humane treatment for animals. Do they even know what a humane death of an animal looks like or how to do it? Someone who has grown up in a large city their entire life makes it improbable. Do they know basic survival skills? Like how to build a fire or tie a knot? All of these skills have faded from our society as it has advanced and I think it’s a very scary thing that the children of this country aren’t learning these things. Instead they learn to use a computer at age 3.

I have discussed previously in a blog my views on animals so if you are unsure on them you can review my previous blogs.

To tie the lying and this industry together, I will state why the lies of some people in the meat industry should not be the basis of vegetarianism. Disclaimer: I hope my views have never come across as anti-vegetarian. I have absolutely not problem with it, but I do have a problem with people making that decision based on limited information. Here is my claim.

There are people that are immoral and lie in every industry. Would you stop voting because many politicians have been exposed of their lies? Then why would you quit eating meat because some of the meat producers have been exposed of their lies? If you like meat, and you don’t feel like its too much effort, step out and find out where you meat is coming from, how the animals are treated, and evaluate whether they violate what you feel like moral responsibility entails.

But if you would like to follow my philosophy, go spend the summer with the Amish or with a family member that lives on or near a farm and learn the basics of survival so that you might be able to be responsible for yourself.

My analysis of Plato's Ideal Society

So, for anyone reading this that isn’t in my philosophy class, I am going to sum up what my understanding of what Plato’s Ideal society is before I try and rip it apart.

From what I understand, Plato’s Ideal society breaks everyone into two classes. The workers and the guardians. The guardian class has two parts, the guardians and then the leaders. The worker class is comprised of most vocations, they are allowed to have families and work whichever jobs they would wish except for those that are given to the guardians. The guardians are not allowed to have their children although they do reproduce. To become a guardian you must be more advances physically as well as intellectually. What I understand as the guardians “job” would be most government jobs: police, army, legislature, etc. The leaders are only a select few from the guardian class that have reached “enlightenment”. No one in the guardian class is allowed to own property of any sort. This is not hereditary; everyone takes the physical test to see if they are eligible to become a guardian.

Im going to start with the guardian class because I feel like their situation is the most troubling, granted, I might not be placed into that class so my mindset might not be one that can even comprehend how satisfying being a guardian could be for some people. I am a communication studies minor so I study lots about the necessity of interpersonal relationship. So in relationship to my presentation over leadership, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, what some say is necessary for successful relationships and happiness, I will use the combination of these things to describe to you my philosophy on happiness to describe how, at least for me, the guardian class would be a very unhappy place.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs are as follows: physiological needs, safety needs, belonging and love needs, self-esteem needs, and self-actualization needs. The physiological needs are met by the support of the working class, the purposed of the guardian class is for safety. But what about belonging and love needs?

From what I understand from discussion in class is that the guardians are not allowed particular relationships. They are a community, they do have relationships but they cannot place favoritism in one man or woman or even particular children whether they are their blood child or not. What I have learned about relationships in my communication classes is that three things are needed for happiness and success in relationships.

These are as follows: Inclusion, affection, and control. To a certain extent there is inclusion of everyone equally as one group, but the inclusion discussed in class is more of a particular inclusion, it’s a sense of feeling wanted. Think of your relationship with your best friend, when he/she does things you want to be included. People often, identify you as one, like my friends Kelsey and Zack. They are referred to in this way, because they always include each other. This special relationship is what creates happiness and fulfillment.

People also need affection. Physically, this isn’t something the guardian class members get on a normal basis. They are very job and task focused and they aren’t allowed to show specific affection to anyone, and when they can get it at all, its regulated.

As for control, the guardians have none. An example of this type of control is when you allow someone you love to have a say in the decisions that you make; however, most decisions are made for all guardians by the rulers so this isn’t even an option to give to someone in order to create that bond. When I think about a life without all that it is a very sad existence.

As for the self-esteem and self-actualization needs, I believe those are met to a certain extent for the guardians through their work. As discussed in my presentation, Satisfaction comes from Purpose, Mastery and Autonomy. It seems as if the guardians find their purpose in their jobs, there is no wealth to be gained so mastery and purpose are clearly what they are working for, but I am unsure how much autonomy they get in their jobs. Is everything they do, directed by the rulers? If they do have autonomy, I can see how maybe this job is satisfactory that members of this class are not concerned with the relational aspects missing from their life, but is definitely not for me. My sister, I can see this working for, so maybe it’s just not my class but whether it is acceptable for some, I will say that I don’t believe it is ideal. There are better ways.

My next issue with Plato’s Ideal society is the other part of the Guardian class, the rulers. As described earlier, the leaders are those who have reached enlightenment. My issues with this might come from the disconnect between the idea of enlightenment and its absence in today’s society. First of all, even in a different time, I feel like enlightenment it subjective. How can there be an objective, definitive way of deciding who has reached enlightenment and who has not. Could anyone (within the guardian class) just say “I have reached enlightenment.”? And become a leader? This is only my opinion but most of the people we have discussed in our class that think they have reached “enlightenment” are way out of touch with the everyday people of society. It is like they are a completely different species.

If we did become a society like the one Plato thinks is possible, who would be the rulers of our country? Do you know anyone who is enlightened and should be running our society? What are the characteristics of this person that give you the idea that they are enlightened?

I also have an issue with the separation of classes. Why? What is the purpose? And if this is an ideal society, why is there a need for “protectors”? In an Ideal society, I would choose peace. Why would Plato choose the need for an army group if he can create whatever he wants for this society? For that reason alone, I feel like it invalidates his society for me. I would never chose a society with war, if I could choose one without it.

I also don’t like that peoples identity is defined on their physical ability and intellect. Wouldn’t this create low self-esteem for those that done measure up? Why does your identity have to come from 2 measurable qualities? There are a lot of things that do not fall into these two categories. I also don’t think people should do one specific thing their entire life. At least for me, I need variety. Nothing should be so fixed and Permanente.

When the word Ideal passes through my head, I think of the best possible. I’m not saying that Plato’s Ideal society is the worst ever but it is definitely not the best possible situation for all people. For this reason I declare that Plato’s Ideal society is not my ideal society.