WJEC/Eduqas RS for A2/Yr2: Religion and Ethics (DRAFT)

T4 Determinism and free will

is freely conditioned by the faith (or unbelief) of the individual human being. Therefore, God’s omnibenevolent nature is supported by free will theory because it opens the possibility that all human beings can achieve salvation by freely following God’s eternal moral laws. Moreover, free will theory can also enhance the idea that God is omnibenevolent in nature because God is allowing human beings to make their own choices, as opposed to being mere pre-programmed robots. This is because if a human being’s life was predestined by God, they would be no more than an automated robot just carrying out their God-given pre-programmed life; with no will power to change anything, it could be argued this is not the behaviour of an omnibenevolent being. Arminius agreed with this, in his free will theory, because he wished to illustrate that: ‘man is not an automaton in the hands of God’. Therefore, it can be argued that free will views are convincing because it is only free will theory that enhances the notion that God is omnibenevolent. However, the above line of argument could be countered by a consideration of the theological consequences of predestination on God’s attributes. As we have seen earlier, monotheistic religions, like Islam, Judaism and Christianity, generally attribute the quality of omnipotence to their deity. Omnipotence is the quality of having unlimited power. The concept of predestination seems to support the concept of God’s omnipotent nature. This is because only an omnipotent deity could have had eternal predestination plan for all human beings, that He was able to execute. The above point can be exemplified from Augustinian theory. This is because, as we seen, Augustine reacted angrily to the teachings of Pelagius because his free will theology, according to Augustine, seemed to diminish the omnipotent nature of God. This is because Pelagius’ theories made it possible, according to Augustine, for a mere human being to decide freely whether to be morally good or sinful. The implication of this was that the human being would then be able to tell an omnipotent deity whether to give them salvation. That, argued Augustine, was an intolerable denial of God’s omnipotence, an insult to His divine majesty. This point is further supported by theologian Johnathon Edwards,

DRAFT

AO2 Activity Now you’ve read through this line of argument can you do the following: 1. For each line of argument try to evaluate whether or not you think this is strong or weak. 2. Think of any questions you may wish to raise in response to the arguments. 3. Can you evaluate here by drawing a mini conclusion about whether the consequences of free will, for God’s attributes, mean that religious views on free will are convincing. This activity will help you to start thinking critically about what you read and help you to evaluate the effectiveness of different arguments and from this develop your own observations, opinions and points of view that will help with any conclusions that you make in your answers to the AO2 questions that arise.

who argued that the concept of free will was incompatible with individual dependence on God. This is because if a human being could choose their own response to God salvation would become partly dependent upon the human being; therefore, reducing God’s omnipotent nature. Therefore, it can be argued that free will views are not convincing because it is only predestination theory that enhances the notion that God is omnipotent.

God is omnibenevolent

125