A question to all of you who defend unlimited "free will"

[e_c]

How can you reconcile the desirability of unbridled “free will” with the events in Orlando?

Better question: how can you reconcile your preconceived notion of freedom and goodness with what we Christians believe about the Cross?

The permissive will issue is critical… But it’s being treated poorly. A better way to look at it might be through the lens of legislation. Does the king approve of white lies? No, but he will not outlaw them. Why?

A solid anthropology is extremely important to have in order to grasp what it is for a creature to possess freedom. Freedom is in proportion to rationality. Only God is perfectly free.

So long as we focus on the merits and demerits of free will in this world alone, without reference to the nature of sanctifying grace, the question is answered clearly: it would be better not to have it.

 

[Solmyr]

Better question: how can you reconcile your preconceived notion of freedom and goodness with what we Christians believe about the Cross?

I cannot. Not until you can prove that the “cross” was a logically necessary event, without which God would have been unable to forgive us.

The permissive will issue is critical… But it’s being treated poorly. A better way to look at it might be through the lens of legislation. Does the king approve of white lies? No, but he will not outlaw them. Why?

Sorry, I have no idea what your are talking about. What “king”? Why would a white lie be objectionable?

A solid anthropology is extremely important to have in order to grasp what it is for a creature to possess freedom. Freedom is in proportion to rationality. Only God is perfectly free.

Freedom is simply the ability to choose between two or more options.

So long as we focus on the merits and demerits of free will in this world alone, without reference to the nature of sanctifying grace, the question is answered clearly: it would be better not to have it.

Well, a certain level of freedom is desirable. What is that level could be discussed.

 

[DCNBILL]

I believe the issue here is understanding what free will means in a Christian sense. Free will does not mean that we have the option of doing anything we please, that can lead only to two ends, jail or death as in the example cited.

The Christian concept of free will is the choice to follow Gods will in our lives or to not follow the will of God in our lives. The results of this choice have eternal consequences. One would question what the will of God is in my life? The answer to that question for the Christian lies in the Gospel and discernment.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

I cannot. Not until you can prove that the “cross” was a logically necessary event, without which God would have been unable to forgive us.

This part of EC’s post doesn’t apply to you if you don’t know the teaching he refers to.

Sorry, I have no idea what your are talking about. What “king”? Why would a white lie be objectionable?

That’s why he doesn’t outlaw it.

Freedom is simply the ability to choose between two or more options.

Exactly.

Well, a certain level of freedom is desirable. What is that level could be discussed.

Exactly the level we’ve got.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… Only God could give me the information as to “why” he permitted this act, and he is silent.

So far.

… 1) The “free will” of the attacker is “sacrosanct”. To interfere with it would be an greater evil, than allowing it. (This is the “free will defense”)

You sound as if you are complaining about reality, as 1L1F described in no. 50.

1. The “reward” for the victims overcompensates for the “evil” that happened. (This is the “greater good defense”)

Personally I would not presume to say this because presuming is what it is (unless perhaps it’s a believing relative of a believing victim saying it, in which case I have no opinion).

1. There are a few more attempts, but I will not enumerate them. They are too nauseating to tell.
   …

I fully agree that some people’s arguments are nauseating. Maybe that’s because I’m a “henotheistic agnostic” (which phrase is my “disguise” as forum members don’t believe I’m Catholic! ).

The main reason the discussion stays off the rails is that you make it sound like you are complaining about plain ordinary real life (instead of about some Christian people’s bad explanation of it).

Neither you or I nor any CAF member can make God give anyone any more, or less, freedom of will than they have.

(There is a tragic contrast between the Orlando and Birstall occurrences.)

People are going to give a theological-sounding reply containing some of the truth but you don’t help them word themselves more clearly if you’re not too clear about your questions.

 

[kdbueno]

A consecrated free will is consecrated to God, a bad free will is a result of satanic conversion.

 

[Bahman]

A consecrated free will is consecrated to God, a bad free will is a result of satanic conversion
.

There is no good and bad free will.

 

[ynotzap]

Unbridled free will, in my understanding is when a person does anything he desires to do, right or wrong. Real freedom is to act according to one’s nature, and design. eg. A bird’s nature is to fly by flapping it’s wings, not it’s feet, although perhaps it might flap it’s feet, but if it does it will not fly. When it flaps it’s wings it is free to fly because it follows it’s natural design (purpose) So too, a human is truly free, when he follows his nature (which is a rational one) But even his power of reason must follow the laws that govern it, reason must be right, in accordance with the truth, for the truth is the natural object of reason and intelligence (purpose) also the object of appetite for the will is for what is good. Unjustified killing is an intrinsic evil (the complete absence of the good, nothing redeemable from the act To commit the act is irrational, it is not in accord with right reason, or the good, and ultimately not in accord with man’s nature. In this sense the will is not free. There are moral laws that govern reason that dictate what actions should be taken in order to accomplish or achieve the right thing, or the good’, when in line with these laws, the mind and the will are truly free ( to function as they were designed to function)

Also the INTENT OF ACTION MUST BE CONSIDERED. A person may intend to murder, but not be able to accomplish the act, again he is willing an intrinsic evil, and contradicting his own nature, a rational one. Hatred (an intense feeling of revultion based on ignorance )governs the will of a murderer. By killing some see it as “good” which is not consistent with right reason. That is why we need moral laws based on truth to govern our actions.

I make reference to the words of Jesus : If a man looks at a woman with lust, he has already committed adultry (in his mind-intent)

 

[o_mlly]

I refer to the ability to commit acts like the one in Orlando. Our freedom to act is always limited…

Free will or choice is independent of circumstances. That is, we maintain the faculty to choose freely even if we lack the circumstantial freedom to act in accordance with our will. The choice of the prisoner to be free sustains even in his incarceration.

 

[Solmyr]

Exactly the level we’ve got.

This is where we diverge. The freedom to perform rapes, tortures and other assorted mayhems is NOT desirable. Not just by my standards, but by the standards of every decent person. The fact that this kind of “freedom” is not acceptable is reflected by the legal system, which “demands” that the criminals be caught ad isolated in prisons, so that their “next” freedom will be curtailed or be taken away.

Free will or choice is independent of circumstances. That is, we maintain the faculty to choose freely even if we lack the circumstantial freedom to act in accordance with our will. The choice of the prisoner to be free sustains even in his incarceration.

You mean “The -]choice/-] desire of the prisoner to be free sustains even in his incarceration”. You confuse the word of “choice” with the word “desire”. If that “desire” cannot be put into practice, it is NOT a choice. Why does one HAVE to correct this simple grammatical error over and over again?

 

[o_mlly]

…You mean “The -]choice/-] desire of the prisoner to be free sustains even in his incarceration”. You confuse the word of “choice” with the word “desire”. If that “desire” cannot be put into practice, it is NOT a choice. Why does one HAVE to correct this simple grammatical error over and over again?

No, I mean exactly what I posted. Studying philosophy would cure one’s shallow understanding of the concept of freedom. Adler would be a good start.

“An individual in prison or in chains is circumstantially free to remain in his cell or manacled, should that be his choice. But bars or chains prevent him from going elsewhere or doing otherwise if he wishes to. The restraints imposed by imprisonment impair his freedom of action, not his freedom of choice, and not his moral liberty—his freedom to will as he ought.”
Six Great Ideas
The Freedom to Do as One Pleases p143
Mortimer J. Adler

 

[Solmyr]

No, I mean exactly what I posted. Studying philosophy would cure one’s shallow understanding of the concept of freedom. Adler would be a good start.

I wonder why do you think that referring to some “authority” lends credence to an incorrect analysis.

Let’s use a slightly different wording. A girl being gang-raped is still free to lay back and enjoy the experience - if that would be his choice - according to Adler. I think that Adler has a twisted and sick concept of freedom.

 

[Solmyr]

…if that would be -]his/-] choice…

Sorry for the typo… her choice.

 

[o_mlly]

I wonder why do you think that referring to some “authority” lends credence to an incorrect analysis.

Only for those who think that they are not the authority.

Let’s use a slightly different wording. A girl being gang-raped is still free to lay back and enjoy the experience - if that would be his choice - according to Adler. I think that Adler has a twisted and sick concept of freedom.

The source of this sick scenario is not Adler.

 

[DCNBILL]

There is no good and bad free will.

But there is good and bad use of free will.

That which is ordered to the “good” being God.

That which is ordered toward “evil” turning away from God.

 

[Solmyr]

Only for those who think that they are not the authority.

In ethical questions there are NO authorities, since ethical problems do not deal with “IS” questions, rather with “OUGHT” questions.

The source of this sick scenario is not Adler.

SSDD. If the person in jail and chains “retains” his free will, then the girl being gang-raped does too. Neither one can act on his/her desire.

 

[e_c]

I cannot. Not until you can prove that the “cross” was a logically necessary event, without which God would have been unable to forgive us.

Sorry, I have no idea what your are talking about. What “king”? Why would a white lie be objectionable?

Freedom is simply the ability to choose between two or more options.

Well, a certain level of freedom is desirable. What is that level could be discussed.

1. Right, you cannot. Read Cur Deus Homo for a quick rundown on the necessity of the Cross. This is THE response in theodicy.
2. Just because something is wrong morally doesn’t mean that it should not be allowed to happen by those in authority. Think about it.
3. Be careful to distinguish between the different meanings of the word, “freedom”… There is some equivocation going on, I think.

 

[e_c]

In ethical questions there are NO authorities, since ethical problems do not deal with “IS” questions, rather with “OUGHT” questions.

This is absurd. But it sums up secular “morality” quite well actually.

 

[Solmyr]

Be careful to distinguish between the different meanings of the word, “freedom”… There is some equivocation going on, I think.

Some? That is the crux of the problem. The impossibility to start from a mutually accepted platform.

The libertarian concept of free will rests on three “legs”:

1. The agent has a goal in mind, which he/she wishes to achieve.
2. There are at least two ways to achieve it.
3. The locus of the decision is with the agent.

That is it. The concept of “free will” is inseparable from the ability to act on that will. The internal “workings” of the agent are not available to us. So HOW the agent arrives at the solution to the problem is unknown. And if it is unknown and unknowable, it is irrational to take it into consideration.

I am starting to think that it is simply impossible to have a rational conversation with some believers. Without SOME common platform as a starting point we are talking past each other. Now the sad part is that in “mundane”, every day matters the believers are just as rational and sane as atheists. But as soon the conversation turns into the questions of “supernatural”. the rationality of the believers goes out the window. They redefine the simplest terms, like “good”, “bad”, “love” etc…

 

[DeckerdS]

Oh, I agree, that the word “unlimited” is a poetic exaggeration. The events in Orlando are horrific, and they were committed because the perpetrator had ENOUGH freedom to commit it. Many people put the “freedom” to a very high pedestal, saying that having such freedom is “worth” whatever is committed because of it. The question is: what is your opinion? Needless to say I say that it is not worth it. If I had the power to prevent such acts, I would do it in a heartbeat.

Jesus made it clear how he felt about those obedient to the letters of the law but not the spirit of the law. He said they were like white washed tombs full of dead men’s bones. In your universe there might be no sins of the flesh because you can prevent all that. But inwardly, your creations might be extremely perverse but unable to express themselves. How sad a god you might be when you tried to talk to them only to see that. Will you slap their mouths when they do not say the words you like too?