Something that is often confusing, is the difference between determinism and predestination, which are two terms surrounding this subject. According to Mark Rowlands, determinism is the idea that all of one’s choices, actions and decisions are inevitable, due to past actions, decisions, etc. Thus, the present is fixed by what has occurred in the past and the future is fixed because the present is fixed (p. 135-6). This differs from predestination in that: you have a choice over what you can do in the present. Predestination, simply stated, is the idea that you are able to make your own decisions and choices in the here-and-now, however, those actions make no difference as to the course of the future, for that is fixed (Rowlands, M., p. 136). This varies from fatalism, with the idea that, in a fatalistic world, everything is the way it is and there is no other way it could be, all actions and even physical characteristics are an “inherent necessity” (Feinberg et. al, p. 23). This suggests that fatalists who believe in God claim that God only had one option for creation and that is the world in which we now live (Feinberg et. al, p. 23).
One film that considers such issues as predestination, determinism and the free will of humanity is Steven Spielberg’s Minority Report. The film surrounds the story of John Anderton (Tom Cruise), a cop working for the Pre-Crime unit of Washington, D.C. The main premise of Pre-Crime is the prevention of future murders, through the use of 3 “precogs,” who are able to foresee these events. The precogs see a murder, the Pre-Crime cops identify who the killer is and quickly locate and stop the murderer before he can complete his task. However—plot twist—John Anderton finds himself in the middle of a dilemma, when the Precogs predict the murder of a Leo Crowe, by none other than himself. Then it’s a crazy race against the clock; one full of discovery and betrayal as Anderton struggles to uncover the truth about the man he is supposed to murder as well as the dark mystery hidden within Pre-Crime itself. One scene early in the film especially conveys the theme of predestination as seen through Pre-Crime. Danny Witwer (Colin Farrell), an officer for the Fed’s is investigating Pre-Crime and discussing the drawbacks of the system:
WITWER: Look, I'm not with the ACLU on this Jeff. But let's not kid ourselves, we are arresting individuals who've broken no law.This scene is fantastic from a philosophical point of view; it opens up so many channels for discussion. One of the main arguments against Pre-Crime, as mentioned by Witwer, is the idea of stopping the future before it happens. Can something be the future if you prevent it from even happening? Is it ethical and justified to charge someone for a crime that they did not commit? According to Pre-Crime, it is. Anderton tries to rationalize his reasoning by rolling a ball towards Witwer, who catches it. Anderton, Witwer and the rest of us all very well know that the ball was going to fall; the laws of gravity teach us that. Is that really a good illustration of predestination? Sure, it’s a simple and yet effective method to make one think, but what about issues out of our control? What about simple, everyday choices that we make? They are not confined by any laws of nature. Well, except for maybe enthalpy, but that’s a different discussion… The question this situation begs is: can one make a logical comparison between the inevitable effects of gravity on a ball, to that of the actions of an individual? Witwer sees a problem with the analogy as well and tries to rebut, but Anderton cleverly responds, “The Precogs don't see what you intend to do, only what you will do.”
JAD: But they will.
FLETCHER: The commission of the crime itself is absolute metaphysics. The Precogs see the future. And they're never wrong.
WITWER: But it's not the future if you stop it. Isn't that a fundamental paradox?
ANDERTON (O.S.): Yes, it is.
They all turn and look at Anderton as he comes into the room, takes the sphere from Fletcher.
ANDERTON: You're talking about predetermination, which happens all the time.
Suddenly, Anderton rolls the ball towards Witwer who catches it just as it's about to go off the table.
ANDERTON: Why did you catch that?
WITWER: Because it was going to fall.
ANDERTON: You're certain?
WITWER: Yes.
ANDERTON: But it didn't fall. You caught it.
Witwer looks at the ball in his hand.
ANDERTON: The fact that you prevented it from happening doesn't change the fact that it was going to happen.
WITWER: You ever get any false positives? Someone intends to kill his boss or his wife, but they never go through with it. How do the precogs tell the difference?
ANDERTON: The Precogs don't see what you intend to do, only what you will do (Frank, S., Minority Report Script)
However, Anderton is forced to eat his own words when he finds himself in a situation where he is predicted to kill a man, Leo Crowe, who he’s never even met. In order to figure out this mystery, Anderton kidnaps the most talented of the precogs, Agatha, and uses her to find Leo Crowe, while evading arrest by his (ex) fellow Pre-Crime cops. During the film’s climax, when Anderton is finally about to encounter Leo Crowe, Agatha tells him that she wants to go back and he replies, “I can't leave. You said so yourself, there is no Minority Report. I don't have an alternative future.” Agatha responds, “But you still have a choice. The others never had a chance to see future. You did.” And, in fact, John does decide not to kill Crowe; however, due to an unfortunate series of events, Crowe ends up being killed by Anderton’s trigger finger. It’s somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy in all actuality; Anderton knows nothing of this “Leo Crowe” and it is only after he sees the precogs vision, does he start to investigate and look for Crowe, eventually leading to the scene predicted by the precogs and the death of Crowe. If Anderton had not seen this vision, none of this would have happened. He would have been haloed and put away before he even knew what was going on. Then again, this was also a setup to get rid of John for digging up troubling events of the past. In Sci-Phi, Mark Rowlands analyzes the scene with Anderton and Crowe and comes to the conclusion that Anderton had no free will in the situation. Even though his action to not kill Crowe was caused by his own desire (or self-restraint), he must also have control over the cause of this desire, and the cause of the cause of the desire, etc. in order for it to be fully “free.” According to Rowlands, one would eventually run into a cause of the cause, etc. that Anderton has no control over; therefore, he can’t be free (p. 153).
I believe that Spielberg was getting at a completely different point concerning predestination and free will when filming Minority Report. Another pivotal scene occurs during the closing minutes of the film, when Anderton has solved the mystery, that Lamar Burgess, one of the founders of Pre-Crime and a friend of John’s, manipulated the precog system that he stands for, to murder Agatha’s mother and get away with it—until now. Now John has discovered his secret and encounters Burgess on a balcony outside the Gala Ball celebrating Lamar Burgess and the success of PreCrime.
ANDERTON: No doubt the Precogs have already seen this.Thus, Lamar was also able to change his future; he was able to choose suicide over murder; even though the precogs had seen otherwise. I believe that through this film, Spielberg is trying to suggest the freedom of human choices. The way I interpret the film, especially these key scenes, is that nothing is set in stone; that we all have the ability to pick the paths that we take in our lives and can change them if we wish to do so. As for the subject of determinism and that every choice we make is the cause of all of our previous choices, I am unaware of the film’s standpoint. From a determinist’s point of view, everything that happened in the film was determined to happen due to all prior causes, from the precogs predicting the crime, to the decision of the intended murderer to not follow through with it. Determinists would claim that everything that led up to the point of deciding whether or not to go through with the murder, caused the choice that was made to walk away instead of pull the trigger (or vice versa). Everything is fixed and there’s no way to argue that. Nevertheless, I perceived this film as more of an advocate of the free will of humanity. Now the question remains, how much free will do we have? Is it only when one can see the future that he/she can change it? Most people don’t get the luxury of viewing events in their life that are yet to come; does that mean they do not have the same capability for change? How can someone alter their future if it hasn’t happened yet and he/she is unaware of it? Would that person even realize that they had adjusted their future? It’s impossible to know the answers to these questions. The future cannot be seen and thus, we are unable to discern if the events and actions in our future are “determined” to happen, or if we have the ability to change them.
BURGESS: No doubt.
ANDERTON: Then go ahead, pull the trigger.
Burgess begins moving towards Anderton.
ANDERTON: What's the matter, Lamar? You see the problem, don't you? If you don't kill me, it means the precogs were wrong and Precrime is over. If you do kill me, you go away, but... it proves the system works. The precogs were right.
Burgess is now right in front of Anderton, the gun inches Anderton's chest.
ANDERTON: So what do you do?
ANDERTON: What's it worth? Just one more murder...
ANDERTON: You'll rot in hell with a halo, but people will still believe in Precrime.
ANDERTON: All you have to do now is pull the trigger like they said you would.
Burgess turns back, raises the gun: his hand shakes.
ANDERTON: Except... You've seen your own future. Which means... You can change it if you want to.
You still have a choice, Lamar...
BURGESS: Yes, I have a choice... and I've made it.
He lowers the gun. Anderton takes Burgess by the arm, but the man is unsteady, and Anderton holds onto him. Burgess looks him in the eye...
BURGESS: Forgive me, John. Forgive me...
We hear a gunshot and everybody freezes. Anderton falls to his knees. Looks up at Burgess. A red stain now spreading around Burgess' heart... (Frank, S., Minority Report Script)
However, there is more that goes into this issue than simply if we are destined to do the things we do or if we have the ability to choose them. What is free choice? What about standpoints other than determinism? According to Joseph Boyle, Grisez and Tollefsen, free choice is described as a choice made in the actual world, wherein there is a possible world in which a choice could have been made, but was not made, and yet, everything about the possible world is the same as in the actual world, minus the fact that the choice was not made and the probable differing consequences had the choice been made (p. 11). In other words, the choice must be of one’s own will, having an equal ability to choose otherwise, but the only factor which brings about the selected option is one’s own choosing. Determinism, on the other hand, would only allow the making of a different decision in another world, if there is a difference between that world and the actual world; or else, if there was some sort of variation in the causal history of that decision. Another viewpoint, which stands in the middle, combining aspects of determinism and free choice, is soft determinism, or compatibilism. This is a widely accepted theory, which can be explained as the belief that an action can still be free even if it is causally determined, as long as the causes do not force the person to act against his/her will (Feinberg, et. al, p. 24). This view holds true the ideals of causal determinism, yet we still have freedom; it is often expressed as the ability to have done otherwise (Boyle et. al, p. 105). Meanwhile, on the other end of the spectrum are indeterminists. In the simplest of definitions, indeterminism is the claim that a person’s act is free if it is not causally determined (Feinberg et. al, p. 20). Most indeterminists believe that there are causes that influence a person’s will to choose, but there is not one single cause that determines an action, rather there are various influences that affect the decision, but ultimately it is up to the person to decide. These decisions are not random and uncaused, but there is nothing that forces a person to make a certain decision; there is no causal explanation as to the final decision, only influencing factors (Feinberg et. al, p. 20-21).
The film industry can be examined to discern some of the different sides surrounding predestination and free will. Minority Report is one of the only films that seem to focus specifically on this debate; however, there are several films that hint at this topic. Time travel appears to be a major player in many films relating to the subject of human free will, which makes perfect sense, due to the nature of going back in time or moving forward into the future, in order to determine the effect of human choices. One such interesting film is, The Time Machine, directed by Simon Wells. In this science fiction action flick, a scientist, Alex Hartdegen, becomes obsessed with the idea of time travel and eventually completes the construction of a working time machine. He first uses this machine to travel back in time, in hopes of preventing the death of his girlfriend, Emma, whom he had witnessed four years earlier. Although he is able to stop Emma’s previous encounter with a robber, he is unable to prevent her from dying, as this time, she is trampled to death. Thus, much to Alex’s dismay, he realizes that even if he is able to prevent one means of Emma’s death, another will inevitably take its place. This, in-and-of-itself, seems to hint at the theory of predestination. For even though Alex has the power to go back and change events in his past, he cannot change the ultimate outcome—all roads lead to the same destination. Hartdegen recognizes this concept and decides to travel far into the future, looking for some answers. Not satisfied with his first stop, he decides to move farther, hits a bump, and ends up being vaulted into the year 802,701 AD; a time in which civilization has all but devolved. However, it is in this time period that Alex learns the reason why he is unable to alter Emma’s fate: he is caught in a temporal paradox. It was Emma’s death that drove him to maddeningly slave over the construction of his time machine, and without that event, he would have had no reason to build the time machine in the first place (IMDb, ¶12). This idea of a temporal paradox—such as the Grandfather Paradox—fits in nicely with the idea of predestination and the concept that all paths, no matter how diverse, will eventually converge upon one pinnacle outcome.
Another interestingly bizarre film is The Butterfly Effect, directed by Eric Bress and J. Mackye Gruber. This movie centers upon the story of Evan Treborn, a man who suffered blackouts as a child, finds that he is able to go back in time through his journals, in order to redo parts of his past, thereby causing the blackouts he had experienced. Even though his efforts to undo the most traumatic moments of his childhood are done with good intentions, they do not go without consequences, those of which affect not only his future, but also the future of those he cares about. Of course there is a love interest, Kayleigh Miller, whom he repeatedly travels back in time in order to save. However, it seems that no matter how hard Evan tries to make everything right, things just get worse and worse. This film, as its name suggests, centralizes on the notion of “the butterfly effect,” which is the idea in meteorology that the flapping of a butterfly’s wings can create a disturbance that in the chaotic motion of the atmosphere, may be able to become amplified, such that it can affect atmospheric motion on a large scale (Cross, ¶1). It also has implications in the realm of time travel, in that, changing any event in the past, or even the mere presence of a time traveler in the past, would have an unpredictable impact on the future (Wikipedia ¶6). Thus, unlike The Time Machine and the theory of predestination, The Butterfly Effect appears to focus on the idea that we do have the ability to choose our actions and even the slightest alteration of those actions can have an enormous effect on the future. Every time Evan would change his past, he would wind up with a radically different future, suggesting that we have countless opportunities for decision-making and any change in which would result in a different path, with a different outcome in the future.
Up till now, I have focused on the secular viewpoints regarding predestination and free will, but there are other standpoints that take into account a more theological outlook. A common standpoint is theological determinism, as discussed in class, which supposes that everything that happens is determined to happen by the will of God. Thus, we arrive at the major issue troubling Christians today; how does God fit into this idea of human free will? Or rather, how do we fit in to God’s will? God is supposed to be an all-powerful, all-knowing being, the Alpha, Omega, Beginning and End. He knows all things, sees all things, hears all things. He is the past, present, and future. So… Where does that leave us? As Christians, we are taught of the grace and blessings God bestows upon us, and one of those is the ability to make our own decisions—free will. This may seem both a blessing as a curse, as many times it is our choices that cause us pain and hardship, and we may regret countless occurrences. However, without this gift, we would be a mechanistic people, living out our lives in a rigidly deterministic manner. Or would we? Many compatibilists that believe in a higher power argue that it is possible to apply the notion of causal determination and freedom to the relationship between God’s sovereignty and the free will of humanity (Feinberg et. al, p. 26). God can decree all things and yet we can still act freely in the compatibilist’s sense because God’s decree includes not only His chosen ends, but the means to those ends (Feinberg et. al, p. 26). These means may include any conditions or factors necessary to convince, but not coerce, an individual that an act decreed by God is one that he/she wants to do, and given the proper conditions, the person will do the act (Feinberg et. al, p.26). Regardless of its form, there is agreement among the Christian community about the existence of freedom. There are numerous scripture passages, which allude to the idea of the free will of human kind.
Deuteronomy 30:15 "See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, 16 "in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the Lord your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess. 17 "But if your heart turns away so that you do not hear, and are drawn away, and worship other gods and serve them, 18 "I announce to you today that you shall surely perish; you shall not prolong [your] days in the land which you cross over the Jordan to go in and possess. 19 "I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live.Why would a God who controlled all ask us to keep his commandments? In Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom, Samuel Fisk begs the questions, “Why would God reason with men or plead with them, why call upon men to repent and turn from sin, why express grief over man’s refusal to heed his Maker?” (p. 52). Without the will to choose, we would have no use for religion, no room for human responsibility or accountability, no ground for final judgment, no ability to think and respond to our Creator (Fisk, p. 52). If our actions were completely predetermined by God, we would be like puppets on a string, just going through the motions. Furthermore, if He had predestined those who would be saved, our actions to change our fate would be utterly futile—and that is a depressing thought in deed, especially considering our Maker is said to be merciful and all-loving. I suppose that God could create a world full of people simply for the purpose of loving and worshiping Him, however that clearly is not the case in our planet. Since that is not the case and God is not a vain God, we must come to realize that He gives us the ability to choose; to make decisions about our actions and our beliefs. Compatibilists may say that God will convince us to believe or act in a certain way regardless. But certainly God desires for all of His creatures to come to know and love him and to be with Him in eternal paradise. So why then, decree some of us to not believe? On the other hand, to just freely decree all people to know and love Him—thereby granting everyone the gift of salvation—I believe, would defeat the purpose of even living this life on Earth. Fisk says it beautifully when he asserts that, “The free act of God in bestowing salvation is grace; the free act of man in accepting it is faith” (p. 36).
The debate over predestination and free will has overwhelmed the minds of philosophers and common people alike. Even the film industry has tried to explore the subject. Donnie Darko, 12 Monkeys, Groundhog Day, Paycheck, Next… What do all of these films have in common? Time and freedom of choice. Even if the story may not centralize on the theme of predestination and free will, there are key aspects that link themselves with these issues. Even an animated Disney film, such as Meet the Robinson’s, implies as to the significance of the free will of humanity. These topics are ever-present in the minds of people throughout the world. It is a challenging debate, one in which I will probably never understand. Whether or not we are granted free will on this Earth, one thing is for certain; when I do meet my Father in heaven, this is one of the first questions I will bring up.
Works Cited
Boyle, J.M., Grisez, G., Tollefsen, O. 1976. Free Choice: A Self-Referential Argument. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
Cross, Michael. 2001. The Butterfly Effect. Retrieved online from: http://crossgroup.caltech.edu/chaos_new/Lorenz.html
Feinberg, J., Geisler, N., Reichenbach, B., Pinnock, C. 1986. Predestination and Free Will. Downer’s Grove, Illinois: InterVersity Press.
Fisk, S. 1973. Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom. Neptune, New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers.
Frank, S. 2001. Minority Report Script. Retrieved online from: http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/MINORITY_REPORT_--_May_16th_2001_revised_draft_by_Scott_Frank.html
IMDb: The Internet Movie Database. 1990-2009. Synopsis for The Time Machine. Retrieved online at: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0268695/synopsis
Rowlands, M. 2003. Sci-Phi: Philosophy from Socrates to Schwarzenegger. Great Britain: Ebury Press.
Wikipedia. 2009. Butterfly Effect. Retrieved online from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
This is a well written essay. Very clear
ReplyDelete