The question of whether people can influence their fate has always been of significance for many philosophers and religious figures. Some of them argue that a person is responsible for their current and future life, while others stipulate that supreme forces determine these issues, and individuals witness what is predetermined. One should mention that behaviorist and Christian approaches are examples of conflicting schools of thought regarding the concepts under consideration. Thus, the paper will compare Christian and behaviorist views on free will, determinism, and responsibility to demonstrate how differently they interpret these issues.
To begin with, one should explain that behaviorism is a theory that sees interaction with the environment as a driving motive of all behaviors. This philosophical school states that people “have a mind that has free will and produces behaviors” (Powell et al., 2012, p. 8). Furthermore, behaviorism offers a particular interpretation of determinism; this notion stipulates that every behavior has a specific cause. Thus, Powell et al. (2012) admit that actions and decisions are responses to environmental events as well as thoughts and feelings, which represents the principles of Bandura’s reciprocal determinism. This information denotes that people are responsible for their behavior. It is so because they have free will to act voluntarily, and no external factors determine their fate.
Simultaneously, Christianity addresses the issues under consideration from a different perspective. This religion stipulates that human beings do not have free will (Chilton, 2018). The idea behind this claim is that God predetermines everything, and people cannot change anything. In addition to that, Christianity offers a robust concept of determinism, meaning that people do not have the power to change their fate. This school of thought demonstrates that supreme forces play a crucial role in shaping people’s lives and their future. The given approach implies that individuals cannot be responsible for their behaviors. It is so because people’s inability to influence their lives exonerates them from this responsibility.
At this point, it is reasonable to compare the two approaches above regarding their interpretation of the free will, determinism, and personal responsibility. On the one hand, behaviorism stipulates that human beings bear the primary responsibility for their actions. It is so because they have free will to act in a particular manner or make various decisions. That is why their fate is not predetermined because it depends on people’s actions that are responses to their thoughts and the environment. On the other hand, Christianity offers the opposite perspective and insists on the fact that people do not have free will to influence their lives. It is so because supreme forces are responsible for determining individuals’ fates. It is evident that people cannot bear full responsibility for their actions and decisions in this scenario.
In conclusion, free will, determinism, and responsibility for one’s behavior are essential issues in philosophy and religion. The interpretation of these concepts demonstrates how a specific school of thought approaches human beings and their role in shaping the future. The paper has compared behaviorist and Christianity views on these notions and concluded that the two address them differently. It is so because behaviorism emphasizes the people’s ability to act voluntarily and face appropriate consequences, while Christianity focuses on the dominating role of supreme forces. Thus, it depends on a person which point of view to follow.
References
Chilton, B. G. (2018). 4 views of free will. Christian Post. Web.
Powell, R. A., Honey, P. L., & Symbaluk, D. G. (2012). Introduction to learning and behavior (4th ed.). Cengage Learning.