We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
What is the difference between “libertarian” and “compatibilistic” freedom?
Question: I often hear philosophers and theologians talk about “libertarian” and “compatibilistic” freedom. What do these terms mean?
Answer: A person who holds to “libertarian” freedom believes that an agent (human or angelic) is truly free and morally responsible for their choices only if it resides in an agent’s power to determine his or her own choices. Their decisions, in other words, can’t be completely determined by causes outside of themselves. Given any choice an agent makes, a libertarian holds that the agent must have had the power to choose differently if their choice is to be truly free and morally responsible. This is sometimes called “the power of contrary choice.” It is also sometimes referred to as “incompatibilistic freedom,” since the belief is that free will is incompatible with determinism.
By contrast, a person who holds to “compatibilistic” freedom believes that an agent (human or angelic) can be said to be truly free and morally responsible for their choices if there is no obstacle to their choosing what they want, even though what they want is completely determined by causes outside of themselves and even though their choices are completely determined by what they want. In other words, compatibilists believe that free will is compatible with determinism.
Category: Q&A
Tags: Free Will, Predestination, Q&A, Responding to Calvinism
Topics: Free Will and the Future, Providence, Predestination and Free Will
Related Reading
Podcast: Will We Have Free Will in Heaven?
Greg discusses the afterlife and the type of freedom we might have there. http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0103.mp3
How do you respond to Bart Ehrman’s book, “Misquoting Jesus”?
Question: I just read Bart Ehrman’s book Misquoting Jesus and it’s sort of rocked my world. How can we believe the Bible is God’s inerrant Word when we don’t even know what the original Bible said? Answer: I actually went to graduate school with Bart Ehrman (at Princeton). We used to smoke pipes together up…
How do you respond to Romans 9?
The Deterministic Interpretation of Romans 9 Many people believe that Romans 9 demonstrates that God has the right and power to save whichever individuals he wants to save and damn whichever individuals he wants to damn. I’ll call this the “deterministic” reading of Romans 9, for it holds that God determines who will be saved…
Three Arguments Against Determinism
There was an interesting article in the NY Times yesterday by John Tierney entitled “Do You Have Free Will? Yes, It’s The Only Choice.” The article reviews research that suggests that everybody intuitively believes people are morally responsible only for actions they could have refrained from doing and that when people don’t believe they are free…
How do you respond to Isaiah 44:28–45:1?
This passage is one of the most persuasive evidences of divine foreknowledge in the Bible. The verse proclaims the Lord as the one “who says to Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and he shall carry out all my purpose’; and who says of Jerusalem, ‘It shall be rebuilt,’ and of the temple, ‘Your foundation shall…
Does the Open View Undermine God’s Sovereignty?
A common objection to the concept of a risk-taking God is that it seems to undermine God’s sovereignty. If any particular individual can opt out of God’s plan, then every individual could conceivably opt out of God’s plan, and it seems that God’s entire plan for world history could ultimately fail. Some have argued that…