The discussion above introduces the various components, and the question now becomes what to make of it all. The following gives my solution.
First of all, science by definition avoids the ‘deus ex machina’ assumption. An understanding of reality is looked for without reference to a god. So our discussion is not burdened with the associations of eternal damnation (and predestination to this).
Secondly, science by definition aspires at a deterministic understanding. Scientists may adopt a stochastic approach with only a limited degree of accuracy, but the target remains a 100% accuracy - which is determinism. Hence, by definition, scientists have a deterministic predisposition. [ [61] [ [62]
Thirdly, the idea of a ‘free will’ is a moral category, differing from physics. Admittedly, the scientific approach would presuppose that our moral considerations depend on our brain, and the movements of electrons and molecules that could be caught in a determistic model - but the proper conclusion is that we don’t have that model yet. The existence of time, and in particular the uncertain future, is a precondition for morality. An ‘existence proof for God’ would be that in the limit of time, prediction accuracy rises to 100% and all moral beings are going to make the proper moral choices. [ [63] But we don’t know for sure that those choices will be really moral - and anyway it is hard to see how this could affect us. For example, we may predict, as social scientists, that when economic conditions worsen, that politicians then may be more inclined to morally dubious choices. But we need the passing of time to determine whether this prediction materialises - and, as human beings, we would still want to form a moral opinion and discuss the moral aspects. The conceptual gap between ‘ought’ and ‘is’ remains. Eventually there might be a practical (non-conceptual) bridge, but for those same practical reasons it isn’t there yet.
Though science does not refer to gods, we can use a god anyway for clarification. Janus, the Roman god and name-giver to the month of January, had two faces, one to the past and one to the future. Figure 17 uses the Janus head as an analogy to locate the various concepts.
Note: This only displays the three opposing concepts in one picture,
without implying that all concepts to the left are equal
or that all concepts to the right are equal.
The Janus head analogy works only up to some degree. We don’t know all that happened in the past, we can use probability statements for the past too, and thus we cannot replace ‘past’ with ‘certainty’. Similarly, as said, science has a deterministic predisposition, so the future basically is predetermined from a scientific point of view. Yet the head analogy is useful, since it focusses our attention to these various subtleties.
Thus, clearly, the Arminius and Gomarus debate can be seen as non-sensical if they got the two categories of science and morality confused. Even though we can have a deterministic predisposition, we still can have moral volition (and be judged by jurors on making wrong choices). Their debate would be proper in so far as Gomarus would take predestination in a moral sense - but then the debate is not relevant for us.