Pre-determination and pre-destination.

Question

[nq:1]All of Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Aquinas, and Jansen built their various edifices of predestination (not quite the same thing as ... to support these constructions are Matthew 22:14, John 15:19, Acts 4:28, Romans 9:13-22, and 1 Thessalonians 5:9. [/nq]
I do not have the time to obtain Suarez (presumably a book) from the library and to read it in detail. Could Martin, or anybody else who is interested, please provide me with a brief summary of the main differences between concepts of pre-destination and pre-determination.

To a philosopher, pre-determination is the theory that absolutely everything that happens in the universe is pre-determined by
(a) the exact position of starting point, and the exact speed in three dimensions, of every fundamental particle of the universe, when the universe started,
... combined with
(b) the laws of physics that determine how these particle interact with one another, for example when they collide.
This theory is just an extension (to the atomic or sub-atomic level) of the fact that if we know the starting positions and orbital speeds of the planets, we can use Newton's Laws and the Law of Gravitation to accurately predict all future configurations of the planets. The future motion of the planets is pre-determined.
Let us leave aside the complication introduced into this hypothesis by the discovery of Quantum Physics and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
God is assumed to be omnipotent and omniscient, and to have made the universe. God is therefore entirely responsible for the original configuration of all the atoms of the universe. Being omniscient, he could therefore have calculated in advance the movements and interactions of the atoms and electrical impulses inside Eve's head. He would have known in advance that these electrical impulses inside her brain would cause Eve to decide to pluck the forbidden fruit and eat it.

The fact that Eve did this is the inevitable outcome of a faulty initial design of the universe by God Himself. God has nobody but Himself to blame for this faulty design. Why, therefore, did God get angry with Adam and Eve, and (amongst other things) cast them out of the Garden of Eden? It was not their fault, but His. Is He the sort of God who is unable to accept responsibility for the shortcomings of his own engineering designs?
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]On 11 March 2005, in the thread "We must remove the octopus from the shoe store", Martin Ambuhl wrote[/nq]
[nq:2]All of Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Aquinas, and Jansen built their ... 4:28, Romans 9:13-22, and 1 Thessalonians 5:9. [/nq]
[nq:1]I do not have the time to obtain Suarez (presumably a book) from the library and to read it in detail.[/nq]
Francisco Suarex was one of the most important philosophers and theologians of the Renaissance. His Disputationes Metaphysicae was the first systematic work of Western philosophy on metaphysics since Aristotle that was not a commentary on Aristotle. Anyone who claims to tell us what philosophers think, as you do in the next paragraph, should be familiar with his work.
[nq:1]Could Martin, or anybody else who is interested, please provide me with a brief summary of the main differences between concepts of pre-destination and pre-determination.[/nq]
"Predestination" refers to a collection of theological doctrines; determinism (the 'pre-' affix is otiose) is a philosophical position.
[nq:1]To a philosopher, pre-determination is the theory that absolutely everything that happens in the universe is pre-determined by (a) the ... with (b) the laws of physics that determine how these particle interact with one another, for example when they collide.[/nq]
This is silly. Determinism has to do with what is 'real.' Many idealists as well as materialists have been determinist. Further, the form in which you state the materialist version of determinism is inadequate. In the form you have stated it, determinism has been completely untenable for almost a century even by complete materialists. Even though mechanistic determinism has a long history Epicurus hypothesized an uncaused swerve in atoms to escape it , it was Laplace and his "demon" that placed it in a ruling position for almost two centuries. Its current forms tend to be statistical, requiring the law of large numbers to play out at the macro-level, mechanical determinism being untenable at the micro-level.
Predestination doctrines consider ultimate outcomes the result of the will of *** and is often restricted to the fate of the "soul," usually conceived as something beyond the touch of your mechanistic version. Here's what Calvin said it was:
We call predestination ***'s eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Therefore, as any many has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life ot to death.
( Institutes of the Christian Religion , Book 3, chapter 21, section 5)

Determinism is, in its base form, the assertion that all events are effects necessitated by earlier events. It needs no claim about fundamental particles. The differences between various kinds of determinism have to do with defining "events," "cause," and "necessity." Even philosophers who have no problem with physical determinism have often not accepted it with respect to human actions. Not every philosopher is Hobbes or Hume. Philosophers have been concerned with the concept of moral responsibility as much as theologians have been by the question of how sin can be possible in a world in which what happens is the result of ***'s will.
If you really care about this stuff, many tomes have been written on these questions, as well as on the closely linked questions of free will, freedom, compatibilism, causality, and necessity are there for you to lose yourself in.
Note as well that scientific determinism is not the only kind. Economic determinism, historical determinism, and logical determinism have their own sets of questions, answers, and even categories.

"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]On 11 March 2005, in the thread "We must remove the octopus from the shoe store", Martin Ambuhl wrote[/nq]
[nq:2]All of Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Aquinas, and Jansen built their ... 4:28, Romans 9:13-22, and 1 Thessalonians 5:9. [/nq]
[nq:1]I do not have the time to obtain Suarez (presumably a book) from the library and to read it in detail.[/nq]
Francisco Suarez was one of the most important philosophers and theologians of the Renaissance. His Disputationes Metaphysicae was the first systematic work of Western philosophy on metaphysics since Aristotle that was not a commentary on Aristotle. Anyone who claims to tell us what philosophers think, as you do in the next paragraph, should be familiar with his work.
[nq:1]Could Martin, or anybody else who is interested, please provide me with a brief summary of the main differences between concepts of pre-destination and pre-determination.[/nq]
"Predestination" refers to a collection of theological doctrines; determinism (the 'pre-' affix is otiose) is a philosophical position.
[nq:1]To a philosopher, pre-determination is the theory that absolutely everything that happens in the universe is pre-determined by (a) the ... with (b) the laws of physics that determine how these particle interact with one another, for example when they collide.[/nq]
This is silly. Determinism has to do with what is 'real.' Many idealists as well as materialists have been determinist. Further, the form in which you state the materialist version of determinism is inadequate. In the form you have stated it, determinism has been completely untenable for almost a century even by complete materialists. Even though mechanistic determinism has a long history Epicurus hypothesized an uncaused swerve in atoms to escape it , it was Laplace and his "demon" that placed it in a ruling position for almost two centuries. Its current forms tend to be statistical, requiring the law of large numbers to play out at the macro-level, mechanical determinism being untenable at the micro-level.
Predestination doctrines consider ultimate outcomes the result of the will of *** and is often restricted to the fate of the "soul," usually conceived as something beyond the touch of your mechanistic version. Here's what Calvin said it was:
We call predestination ***'s eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Therefore, as any many has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life ot to death.
( Institutes of the Christian Religion , Book 3, chapter 21, section 5)

Determinism is, in its base form, the assertion that all events are effects necessitated by earlier events. It needs no claim about fundamental particles. The differences between various kinds of determinism have to do with defining "events," "cause," and "necessity." Even philosophers who have no problem with physical determinism have often not accepted it with respect to human actions. Not every philosopher is Hobbes or Hume. Philosophers have been concerned with the concept of moral responsibility as much as theologians have been by the question of how sin can be possible in a world in which what happens is the result of ***'s will.
If you really care about this stuff, many tomes have been written on these questions, as well as on the closely linked questions of free will, freedom, compatibilism, causality, and necessity are there for you to lose yourself in.
Note as well that scientific determinism is not the only kind. Economic determinism, historical determinism, and logical determinism have their own sets of questions, answers, and even categories.

"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]I do not have the time to obtain Suarez (presumably a book) from the library and to read it in detail.[/nq]
[nq:1]Francisco Suarex was one of the most important philosophers and theologians of the Renaissance. His Disputationes Metaphysicae was ... claims to tell us what philosophers think, as you do in the next paragraph, should be familiar with his work. [/nq]
Yes, thank you for that. I was not aware of anything to do with Suarez, but now you have told me about him I have looked him up in the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, which says much the same as what you have said. The reference does not contain any substantial information on his views on determinism.

Yes, that has been true since the scientific acceptance of Quantum Theory and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Further nails in the coffin of determinism have been hammered by the recent advances in Chaos Theory.

I am more interested in the position *** must find himself in when, as an omniscient and omnipotent deity, he calculates the future state of the universe. He must be doing some kind of calculation :- "I reveal the end from the beginning, from ancient times I reveal what is to be".
Isaiah 46:10 , New English Bible.
The questions that immediately come to my mind are :-
1. Why would *** want to know in advance what is going to happen in thefuture in the universe? From His point of view, what value does this foreknowledge have?

2 What is the point in His putting me, Tony Cooper and Mike Lyle onto thisearth, if He pre-destines that all three of us shall never to go to heaven? If He does this, He is not giving the three of us a fair chance. It seems oddly cruel, at least for an infinitely loving ***, to bring us into existence at all if eternal **** and Eternal Damnation is the only outcome He can pre-destine for us. Why is He doing this? Is pre-destination a tenable hypothesis, even for an omniscient and omnipootent ***, if we also attribute to Him the property of infinite love? Or have we found a self-inconsistency in our theories of the Almighty.
A further question, this time to do with English Usage. 55 years ago, I was taught at school, and have never subsequently questioned it until now, that when you refer to *** by means of a pronoun such as He or Him, or a possessive pronoun such as His, you should use a capital "H". I notice that you, and almost everybody else in the world, now uses a small "h". Does this mean that I am now out of date? By how many years or decades have I allowed myself to slip?
The same teacher informed me that "blue and green should ne'er be seen together", which I started to disagree with 50 years ago, on the grounds that it was excessively prescriptionist on a question of artistic taste.

Richard Chambers Leeds UK.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]On 11 March 2005, in the thread "We must remove the octopus from the shoe store", Martin Ambuhl wrote[/nq]
[nq:2]All of Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Aquinas, and Jansen built their ... 4:28, Romans 9:13-22, and 1 Thessalonians 5:9. [/nq]
[nq:1]I do not have the time to obtain Suarez (presumably a book) from the library and to read it in ... Is He the sort of *** who is unable to accept responsibility for the shortcomings of his own engineering designs?[/nq]
Petty of him, wasn't it? You might enjoy this:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainlfe.htm
Letters From The Earth

john

Pre-determination and pre-destination.

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions