Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Molinism, Or On God's Providence and It's Compatibility with Free Will

John Henry · 11-29-2004, 04:23 PM

Prologue: The following was intended to be a short and neat illustration of a point, but I started getting into it and it all got a bit out of control. Funny when you consider its content. If you can't be bothered to read it - and I really wouldn't blame you - just skip to where it says "THE BOTTOM LINE"

Let us consider God by analogy with an engineer. Unoriginal, I know, but for good reason.

This engineer designs and builds a car. He then sells it to a gentleman who, though it be unknown to him, is mentally unbalanced. This man then decides to drive his car through a crowded high street, killing countless people.

Our engineer, ignorant of the event until after its passing is unable to intervene. Save for the fact that he could have checked this fellow's background before selling him the car, he is not culpable. He did not ever create the car with this end in mind. More importantly, he did not create or design the agent of this destruction. What the driver did was his own choice. He chose the action of his own free will. Although he was asked to give evidence in court, there was never even a thought of charging him.

And yet our engineer is struck with grief and guilt, because he is a kind man and a loving man. 'Never shall this happen again.' he says to himself. 'No vehicle of mine will ever be used to destroy human life from hereon. I will build a car that can pilot itself, and not just with one of those GPS thingies. This one will be dead clever.'

He loves cars so much that no disaster, no tragedy could ever stop him designing and making more. So he sets about planning and designing his car. 'This one will take in data from it's environment, it will learn, it will make judgements and decisions based on experience and available data. It will drive itself wherever it deems fit. Without the intervention of human mind, it can be used for no malice.'

Ten years pass as he develops this vehicle and finally it is ready to see the road. It emerges from the garage and, with much hesitation and a lot of small zigzags to begin with, it begins to make its way. With moist eye and a registered patent, he watches it leave, then heads back to his garage to begin designing a mass production process.

Ten more years and the car has seen a lot of road. It has learnt to refuel, maintain and recharge itself, driven on A-roads and motorways, covered the country from top to bottom and even ventured through the channel tunnel (Thats a big hole under the sea that connects Britain and France). Then one day, as it is driving past a crowded high street, whether because of a passing cosmic ray, a static charge on an IC, or perhaps a decaying capacitor, it makes the decision to rev down that high street, ploughing down tens of innocent people.

This time, our engineer is guilty. Although he did not program his car specifically to kill and although he was not responsible for the circumstances in which the event occured, or for the experiences his car had in those ten years of it's life, he was the designer and progenitor of the agent of death, not just the medium. And he chose to let it run free. Had he, at the time of creating the vehicle's artificial intelligence, been able to predict that exactly this would happen, he would have surely been all the more culpable.

THE BOTTOM LINE:

If God creates everything, that includes our free will, or whatever collection of phenomena we observe as free will.

If at the point of creating this free will, he knows what decisions it will cause it's posessor to make and chooses not to alter its form then, although he may not be 'responsible' in the most literal sense, any actions which result from it result from his own.

If God does not create our free will, then either all is not created by him or it does not exist.

If free will does not determine our actions, then it is not truly our 'will' and our actions must be determined by something other, meaning we are not free.

If the nature of our free will does not govern how it determines our actions, then it must be governed by something external and is therefore not truly 'free'.

11-29-2004, 04:23 PM	#15 (permalink)
John Henry Addict Location: Grey Britain	Prologue: The following was intended to be a short and neat illustration of a point, but I started getting into it and it all got a bit out of control. Funny when you consider its content. If you can't be bothered to read it - and I really wouldn't blame you - just skip to where it says "THE BOTTOM LINE" Let us consider God by analogy with an engineer. Unoriginal, I know, but for good reason. This engineer designs and builds a car. He then sells it to a gentleman who, though it be unknown to him, is mentally unbalanced. This man then decides to drive his car through a crowded high street, killing countless people. Our engineer, ignorant of the event until after its passing is unable to intervene. Save for the fact that he could have checked this fellow's background before selling him the car, he is not culpable. He did not ever create the car with this end in mind. More importantly, he did not create or design the agent of this destruction. What the driver did was his own choice. He chose the action of his own free will. Although he was asked to give evidence in court, there was never even a thought of charging him. And yet our engineer is struck with grief and guilt, because he is a kind man and a loving man. 'Never shall this happen again.' he says to himself. 'No vehicle of mine will ever be used to destroy human life from hereon. I will build a car that can pilot itself, and not just with one of those GPS thingies. This one will be dead clever.' He loves cars so much that no disaster, no tragedy could ever stop him designing and making more. So he sets about planning and designing his car. 'This one will take in data from it's environment, it will learn, it will make judgements and decisions based on experience and available data. It will drive itself wherever it deems fit. Without the intervention of human mind, it can be used for no malice.' Ten years pass as he develops this vehicle and finally it is ready to see the road. It emerges from the garage and, with much hesitation and a lot of small zigzags to begin with, it begins to make its way. With moist eye and a registered patent, he watches it leave, then heads back to his garage to begin designing a mass production process. Ten more years and the car has seen a lot of road. It has learnt to refuel, maintain and recharge itself, driven on A-roads and motorways, covered the country from top to bottom and even ventured through the channel tunnel (Thats a big hole under the sea that connects Britain and France). Then one day, as it is driving past a crowded high street, whether because of a passing cosmic ray, a static charge on an IC, or perhaps a decaying capacitor, it makes the decision to rev down that high street, ploughing down tens of innocent people. This time, our engineer is guilty. Although he did not program his car specifically to kill and although he was not responsible for the circumstances in which the event occured, or for the experiences his car had in those ten years of it's life, he was the designer and progenitor of the agent of death, not just the medium. And he chose to let it run free. Had he, at the time of creating the vehicle's artificial intelligence, been able to predict that exactly this would happen, he would have surely been all the more culpable. THE BOTTOM LINE: If God creates everything, that includes our free will, or whatever collection of phenomena we observe as free will. If at the point of creating this free will, he knows what decisions it will cause it's posessor to make and chooses not to alter its form then, although he may not be 'responsible' in the most literal sense, any actions which result from it result from his own. If God does not create our free will, then either all is not created by him or it does not exist. If free will does not determine our actions, then it is not truly our 'will' and our actions must be determined by something other, meaning we are not free. If the nature of our free will does not govern how it determines our actions, then it must be governed by something external and is therefore not truly 'free'. __________________ "No one was behaving from very Buddhist motives. Then, thought Pigsy, he was hardly a Buddha, nor was he a monkey. Presently, he was a pig spirit changed into a little girl pretending to be a little boy to be offered to a water monster. It was all very simple to a pig spirit."