The Adjustment Bureau

The Adjustment Bureau is a movie directed by George Nolfi which I found raised many interesting questions surrounding the concepts of free will and determinism. The film is based on a book called Adjustment Team written by Philip K. Dick, a self-proclaimed “fictionalising philosopher”.  The film follows a Congressman called David who has just lost an election. David runs into a free-spirited woman who inspires him to deliver an honest concession speech which leads to the revival of his career in politics. By chance, he runs into her again on a bus where he begins to fall in love with her. However on that day he accidently discovers the existence of the “Adjustment Bureau”. A group of immortal men with omniscient powers who work to ensure that everyone’s life stays ‘to plan’ – kind of like a cross between angels and the FBI. He is warned that the young woman he has met is not part of his plan and that he must never see her again or else there would be dangerous consequences. They intervene with their lives to ensure they never run into each other again, this keeps up for 3 years when suddenly they see each other again and David decides that he won't let them keep them from her again. The Bureau are not happy with this and strike back, doing everything in their power to stop the relationship from happening.

The Bureau follows the orders of a ‘Chairman’, who is never seen nor properly described throughout the film. It becomes evident that the Bureau themselves do not know the reasons for the ‘plans’ and also don’t know what disastrous consequences would supposedly arise by not sticking to them. In this way they are seen to be blindly following orders from this ‘Chairman’ who, despite the fact his true nature is never revealed, can be assumed to be an omnipotent, omniscient deity figure of some kind - determining how everything will occur in the world. This raises a key question which is central to this film: “What happened to free will?” - A question David asks the Bureau.

“We actually tried Free Will before. After taking you from hunting and gathering to the height of the Roman Empire we stepped back to see how you'd do on your own. You gave us the Dark Ages for five centuries... until finally we decided we should come back in. The Chairman thought maybe we just needed to do a better job of teaching you how to ride a bike before taking the training wheels off again. So we gave you the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Scientific Revolution. For six hundred years we taught you to control your impulses with reason, then in 1910 we stepped back. Within fifty years, you'd brought us World War I, the Depression, Fascism, the Holocaust and capped it off by bringing the entire planet to the brink of destruction in the Cuban Missile Crisis. At that point a decision was taken to step back in again before you did something that even we couldn't fix. You don't have free will, David. You have the appearance of free will.”

I thought this was a pretty cool take on the nature of God and humanity surrounding determinism and free will, and whether or not the two can collide. It seems to suggest that God can control everything yet can also choose not to. This theory is similar to Descartes’ which states that God can bring about things that are logically impossible, yet he can also choose not to.

Determinism states that God ordains everything that happens. There are two groups of theological determinism: hard determinism and soft determinism. The former refers to an existence where everything is pre-determined; free will doesn’t exist and it is impossible to change the ‘plan’ that is set out for you. This is the type of determinism that the film originally leads us to believe is present. Soft determinism, however, states that humans do still have free will despite the fact that God ordains all events. Although God knows what will happen beforehand (omniscient), he does not have the omnipotence to ensure what will or will not happen. In other words, God can see a variety of possible paths which lead to a variety of different consequences however humans have the free will to decide which path it is they choose to go down. This links in with Plantinga’s possible worlds theory that suggests there is a different world for every different possible outcome; God can see all possible worlds however the outcome of which potential world becomes the individual’s actual world is in their hands.

This is when the God of Process Theology links in with the film. Although we have been led to believe that the Chairman and the Adjustment Bureau (God and angels?) work by enforcing a world run by hard determinism, the ending of the film suggests otherwise.

At first, I was really disappointed with the end of the movie. Mainly because it focused on predictably resolving the cheesy love story subplot and subsequently changed everything we had been led to believe about the supposed absence of free will, however I then realised that it raised some interesting points about the nature of the Chairman which could present a possible link to the God of Process Theology.

Throughout the film, David has been doing everything he can to pursue Elise – the woman he loves. The Bureau have meanwhile been doing everything in their power to stop him from running into her again, even causing a car accident and injuring an innocent man in the process just so that David can’t cross the road to her showing how any disruptions to the predestined plans will cause chaos in the universe. (This could relate to the problem of evil – does evil occur for some ‘greater good’ in order to prevent worse consequences arising/ to ensure that everything stays ‘to plan’?) . The film ends with one of the members of the Bureau acting as a kind of fallen angel and deciding to help David. It then concludes, predictably, that David and Elise end up together. When they question how it is they can now be together they are told “It says that this situation between the two of you is a serious deviation from the plan. So The Chairman rewrote it.”  This is interesting as it conflicts with the previous understanding that the pre-destined plans are final by suggesting that the Chairman is capable of changing his mind. This links in with the Christian understanding that God is immutable which conflicts with occurrences in the Bible where God changes his mind.

This links to Process theology as it presents a God-like figure (or figures) that uses persuasion rather than coercion.  Although the Chairman and the Bureau did everything in their power to persuade David to give up trying to be with Elise, they were unable to force him to change his mind about wanting to be with her and therefore could not keep him from her. Additionally when David asks them how it is he ran into Elise again on the street after 3 years if it was determined for them not to be together. He gets told that it was 'just chance'. This suggests that although the Chairman has the ability to see how a plan should and will go, there is still a chance that things can change along the way. This isn't fully explained in the film so it's a bit paradoxical but could still be considered to link to the limited God of Process Theology who is omniscient but not omniprescient. This means a God who knows what will happen, but not when it will. I.e the Chairman knew that David and Elise would run into each other again and thus had the Bureau running around trying to stop it but he didn't know when or where it would occur - they could not prevent the chance of them meeting on the street.

The ending of the film is pretty rubbish because it does contradict everything you’ve been set out to believe throughout it but I would recommend seeing it anyway because I think the concept is really interesting (and there were other ways I remember I found it linked to process theology but I’ve completely forgotten now and I'm starting to ramble).

Plantinga's Ontological Argument - The "Possible Worlds" Argument

Alvin Plantinga begins his argument through presenting his concept of "possible worlds". A possible world is a certain way in which things can be. Therefore, there are an infinite number of possible worlds - one for every possible difference (no matter how seemingly insignificant) that there could be between them. Plantinga developed his argument in response to Malcolm, as he believed Malcolm's argument - although demonstrating the possibility for God's existence in some possible worlds - did not demonstrate the necessity of his existence in all possible worlds.

Plantinga defines God as "A being of maximal greatness". As a being of maximal greatness, it must therefore exist necessarily rather than contingently as if it depended on other factors for its existence it would not be maximally great. Plantinga uses the same logic as Malcolm for the next part of his argument; the existence of this maximally great being in a possible world must be either necessary or impossible. Since the existence of a maximally great being is not self-contradictory, its existence is not impossible. Therefore, a being of maximal greatness must exist necessarily in the possible world in question. In order for it to be necessarily true that this being exists, it must exist in all possible worlds. Therefore, a being of maximal greatness (God) exists necessarily in all possible world, including the actual world.

Malcolm's Ontological Argument

Norman Malcolm, an American philosopher, outlined his version of the ontological argument for the existence of God in his essay "Anselm's ontological arguments". He took Kant's criticism of Descartes which states that 'existence is not a real predicate' and responded through focusing his argument on existing necessarily rather than merely existing. This is because the property of existing necessarily does meet Kant's 'real predicate' standards as it adds something to our concept of a thing, rather than existence alone which simply states that the thing as described has an instance in the world.

Malcom's argument begins with two statements. The first, is that if God does not exist then his existence is impossible. The second is that if God does exist, his existence is necessary. God's existence would have to be necessary as the definition of God states that he is immutable (unchanging). Therefore, an immutable God would be unable to change from a state of non-existence to a state of existence. He would have to infinitely and unchangingly exist i.e exist necessarily.

For the next part of his argument, Malcolm developed 4 possibilities for God's existence, which are as follows:
1.God can't exist; God's existence is necessarily false (impossible).
2.God could exist, but doesn't; God's existence is contingently false.
3.God could exist, and does; God's existence is necessarily true.
4.God must exist; God's existence is necessarily true.

Malcolm argues that the second and third statement could not possibly apply to a being like God as they automatically suggest his existence to be contingent, which goes against the definition of God. Therefore, God's existence must be either impossible or necessary.  Malcolm says that, in order for a statement to be necessarily false, or impossible, the statement itself must be contradictory. For example, "this square is round" or "2+2=5" would be impossible statements as, by definition, a square cannot be round and 2+2 cannot be 5. It would go against the essence of a square for it to be round, therefore the statement is necessarily false.
Malcolm therefore argues that the statement "God exists" cannot be considered to be an impossible statement, as it does not contradict himself. Existence does not go against the essence of God, therefore it is not impossible for him to exist. This leaves only one possibility, which is that God exists necessarily. In other words; if God is possible, God is actual.

Anselm's ontological argument

Anselm's Ontological Argument for the existence of God is written by his philosophy of Fides Quarens Intellectum which translates to Faith Seeking Understanding. This means that Anselm's argument begins from a theistic stance, with the aim to further establish and validify God's existence using deductive reasoning to highlight how an absence of belief is foolish, rather than seeking to prove his existence to those which don't believe in him. Psalms 14:1 and 53:1 begin with the line "The Fool says in his heart 'There is no God'". Anselm's Ontological Argument provides a possible explanation as to why it is foolish to state that there is no God.
The argument begins with defining God; "that than which nothing greater can be concieved". This means that God is the greatest concievable being and it is therefore impossible for anyone to imagine anything greater. Anselm infers that we all have this idea of God in our minds, and we know what the definition of God is. As it is greater to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone, God must therefore exist. This argument can be used to suggest why it is foolish to state "there is no God" as it explains how the statement itself proves that the speaker has a concept of God and is aware that they are referring to "something" specific by using the word 'God'. By admitting you have the concept of God in your mind (regardless of whether or not you claim to believe in him) and the definition of God being the greatest possible being, he must therefore exist in reality as well as just the mind.

Gaunilo criticises this version of Anselm's argument in his thesis entitled 'On Behalf of the Fool'. Gaunilo argues that you cannot simply define things into existence. He states how "An object can hardly or never be conceived according to the word alone" meaning that just because we can conceive the word 'God' to mean 'greatest conceivable being', it doesn't have to mean that he exists. To explain this further Gaunilo uses an analogy of an island to replicate and essentially parody Anselm's argument through replacing the word God with island:

• My island is the island than which no greater island can be conceived
• I have an idea of my island
• It it greater to exist in reality than in concept
• Therefore my island exists

In doing this, Gaunilo uses reductio ad absurdum to show the flaws in Anselm's original argument, as clearly - the island does not exist in reality. Gaunilo's argument concludes his point that just because a person is capable of conceiving of something, it doesn't mean it exists.

Anselm responds to Gaunilo with the claim that using an island in place of God is an unfair comparison. Infact, anything would be an unfair comparison as God is necessary (doesn't rely on anything to exist) and existence is therefore part of his essence, whereas everything else in the world is contingent (relies on something else to exist) and therefore may or may not exist. In order to take this into account and make it clearer, Anselm revised his argument and produced a second version.

Anselm begins with the same premise, that nothing greater than God can be conceived. He continues by saying that a God who cannot be thought of as not existing is greater than a God who can be thought of as not existing. In other words, a necessary God is greater than a contingent God, as a necessary God must exist by definition whereas a contingent God could be thought of as either existing or not existing. Anselm deduces from this that if God exists in the mind alone then he is not God, as he would not be necessary and subsequently would not be the greatest being. Therefore, he concludes, God can't not exist i.e God exists.

I've started reading Fear and Trembling by Kierkegaard which I think is going to link well with the topic of evil and suffering. I'm finding some of the language and how it's laid out a bit hard to understand but I think it will start to be easier as I keep reading. The beginning of the book tells the story of Abraham who is asked by God to sacrifice his son Isaac in order to prove his faith. When Abraham is about to carry out with the sacrifice, God calls out to him and tells him that he doesn't need to harm his son as he has proven his faith through being willing to do it. After reading this I did some research into the story and found the original passage. In my opinion the story is one of the more controversial bible stories as it depicts a God who is willing to trick his followers and risk their happiness which goes against the idea of an omnibenevolent God. In Fear and Trembling Abraham is described as (before preparing to sacrifice Isaac) pretending to Isaac that he is not his father and is sacrificing him because he wants to, not because it is God's will. He is written as thinking 'Lord in heaven I thank Thee; it is after all better that he believe I am a monster than he lose faith in Thee'. This variation on the story suggests that Abraham himself is aware that the action God is requesting he carry out is immoral and wrong, and that if Isaac or others become aware that it it's God's will then their eyes will be opened to his true nature which isn't that of an all loving God. Stories such as this exist in the Bible, along with the story of Job and others which hint at God being willing to  make a bet with the devil, trick his followers, make them ill, kill their children and lose their friends simply in order for them to further prove their faith to him seemingly contradict the fact that the God of Abraham is defined as omnibenevolent, however accepting that he isn't infact all-loving provides a possible explanation as to why he allows so much evil and suffering in the world.