I was having a conversation with a friend about the difference between intentions and expectations. My friend is a Christian, and his claim is that God didn’t intend for Christianity to become a religion, but he probably expected that it would. That seems fishy to me. If God expects something, that means he knows it will happen. God wouldn’t expect things the way we do simply because we can’t be certain the way God is. So, God knew Christianity would become a religion. By choosing to share his message with people anyway, he intended for that to happen. Or at least that’s how I think about it.
Say you know for a fact that if you perform action A, you’ll get result B. You fully expect that A will result in B. By doing A, are you intending B?
For example, you let someone borrow your car knowing that they will crash it and die. By choosing to lend your car anyway, you’re intending for that death to happen, right?
But, wait. Car manufacturers manufacture cars knowing with all probability that people will die as a result. But they aren’t intending those deaths, are they?
I think the difference there, as with the God example, is a lack of certainty. Car manufacturers don’t know specifically who will die, when, and from which cars. So we can say that they aren’t intending deaths even though they probably expect them to happen eventually. But what if they had perfect knowledge like God might? Would they be intending those deaths if they expect them?
I don’t think so. I think the best you can say is that God accepted that Christianity would become a religion. But you could still see that as a side effect to what God really intended.
It’s like if I want to tell someone some harsh truth that I know will offend him, but I want to say it so that he will address it and overcome it. I don’t want him to be offended by it; what I want is for him to know it so that he can rectify it. That he will get offended is something I accept in telling him, but if there was a way to tell him without offending him, I surely would choose that instead. That means that it can’t be my intention to offend him. I only accept offending him because it seems necessary in order to achieve what I actually intend.
But if you say it anyway, I’d think you clearly do want him to be offended. Maybe you just think it’s worth it in the grand scheme of things. If there were a way for you to tell him without offending him, then you wouldn’t have to intend for him to be offended. It’s your intention to offend because you know it will happen and do it anyway. Now I’m not saying you intend it in the same way, or for the same reasons, that you intend to make your point. I’m just saying that it looks as if you do intend to offend him if you choose to go forward. You accept the fact that you intend to offend him in order to make your point.
You do raise a really point when you say you’d avoid offending if you could, though.
There is the kind of expectation where we want something, then there is the kind of expectation where we believe that a certain thing will happen, even if we do not want it to happen.
Intentions are what we want. They are want.
What if you know for certain that something undesirable will happen and do it anyway? Are you accepting that you are desiring what should be undesirable in order to serve some other purpose?
Say I intend to throw a rock in a pond and expect it to make a splash. So I throw the rock and get the splash. Can I now say that I didn’t intend for the splash to happen?
What if I say I accepted the inevitability of a splash but would have avoided it if possible?
I think it has to do with goals. If you can say it’s part of your goal, then you can say it’s part of your intention. This is why I don’t think offending the guy should be considered part of your intention; it may be necessary in order to achieve your goal but it isn’t part of the goal itself.
This is why we often say “I’m not trying to offend you but…” or “I don’t mean to be insulting but…”. “Trying” and “meaning” are synonymous with “intending” in this context, I think.
Maybe we are intending to do those things, but it sounds better when we say we aren’t.
And keep in mind that you’re assuming omniscience here for now, so you know what will happen. If you know for a fact your friend will be offended, can you say you didn’t intend for it to happen? It’s part of your goal insofar as it is a necessary consequence that you’ve already taken into account.
I’m with James in that I think intentions and expectations are just about synonymous for God, but not people. For a Christian, I’d think they believe everything that happens is intended by God.
I think we can say we intend to allow it to happen.
Not in the sense that it surprised you that it happened, as in “Oh, shit, I didn’t intend for that to happen.”
I still don’t think so. I think you can say this if it were a stepping stone towards your goal–it would be like a prerequisite goal, like fueling up the car being a prerequisite goal to the goal of going on a road trip–but I don’t think you can say this of things that happen as a side effect, like polluting the atmosphere from your car exhausts. It may be necessary in order to achieve your goal in the sense that you have to accept it if you are to strive towards your goal at all, but not in the sense that you need it as a causal factor that brings about the attaining of your goal. ← That’s the key right there for me: you could conceivably take that factor out, in principle if not actually, and still achieve your goal.
I think we both know the answer to that kind of question.
Especially if the being making an action is god-like and knows for sure that a certain outcome will happen if they do a certain thing.
For humans the splash is all part of the choice they make. They know it is a natural consequence.
