Can Free-Will and Determinism Co-Exist?

[bogeydogg]

I think it is important, and will therefore restate it, that God’s knowledge of our actions and motives is not causative to those actions and motives.

One may argue that perfect knowledge is causative in its very nature, but careful study of Providence shows the fine distinction that Church has made on this matter.

Since God has given us free will one would argue that God could not know what we will do.

However, St. Augustine argued that God can know us because of the nature of sin. Augustine argued that man’s will is free but because of sin and the Fall he has no desire please God on his own. In other words, a man may believe that he has free will, but his every desire is self serving and not God pleasing and therefore a man determines his own course in a very predictable way.

A word about free will. Free will, I think, is that which is free in the sense that it is not compelled against itself, not that it is free of any influence at all. For example, if a horse has no preference for either hay or oats and is not compelled by hunger to choose one over the other, when the animal is presented with hay or oats, it starve to death because of its lack of preference. Hunger of course will compel the animal to choose, but that is not an action against the will of the animal but rather for it because by hunger the horse wills to eat rather than not eat and therefore it will choose either hay or oats.

In other words, a man can say that he has volition, but that does not mean that he acts apart from his own desires or needs and he never acts against himself, but his will is not now and never has been neutral.

Since man’s will is not neutral, he therefore will act according to that which h most desires to do. If that is true, then a man determines his own course completely, and God, having perfect knowledge of this self determination, can act according to His own will and work out His purposes through is without doing violence to us.

 

[Camron]

I actually don’t think we are very far apart.

The initial question seemed to me to framed in a way which sounded like, “Does God’s will reduce the universe to mechanical procedures which only serve to play out what God knows will happen before hand?” That is how I understand determinism, the end is determined and all events will therefore inexorably head toward that end. I don’t think that is right, which is why I brought up Providence.

But the problem with that, in my opinion, rises from this rejection which seems to be a denial that God has indeed fixed the finish line so to speak, with the final result being either heaven or hell. Barring the theoretical concept of limbo for a moment, there is really no escaping either of these two final destinations.

The main problem with many modern concepts of determinism (whether spiritual or biological) seems to be a fixation with the idea we have no control over our fates, which is something that I reject.

1. Yes, we do have some control, because God allows it.
2. No, we don’t have total control, because God doesn’t allow it.

The secondary problem with modern concepts of determinism (as I see it) is this inflexible insistence that there is only one ending possible, which is likewise something that I reject.

1. Again, we are indeed determining our own spiritual end in accordance with the “rules” that God set forth from before the beginning.
2. We don’t, however, have any control over finding some other spiritual ending beyond the realms of heaven and hell though.

So while there is not merely one ending in sight, there really is none other than two options available too. The fixed duality of our final end seems to be the wedge that cracks the stone of determinism right down the center.

Since God is able to know all things that will happen (I am not sure what could and will happen are different when concerning an omniscient being) and He knows us and our motives and dreams, desires, and all the inward workings of our hearts completely, He is therefore able to work out His will in our lives perfectly without violating the free will which He gave us. In other words, God can wait for us at the corner of the road without having to pull puppet strings in our heads to give us directions.

So what exactly is so bad about God “violating” our wills if the end result is us doing good and our final destination heaven?

First of all, I’m quite sure He does pull our strings. This doesn’t make us puppets either.

Furthermore, why is it called “violating” our wills at all?

If God was raping someone I would call it a violation. But God is raping no one.

Why can’t it be God “manifesting” His will, “sharing” His will, or “living out” His will within us?

God’s grace is God’s life within us according to PART THREE (LIFE IN CHRIST) found within the Catechism of the Catholic Church…

1997 Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an “adopted son” he can henceforth call God “Father,” in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.

Again, I can point to numerous examples according to our Catholic theology where baptized infants are gladly accepted into heaven even though they did not actually “choose” God, at least not choosing God in an “active” sense as far as we can tell. No one has really answered this point adequately yet in my opinion. And the sheer numbers of baptized infants and children within heaven seems to be a bold testimony against the idea that God has some reservations about “violating” our wills.

It is not a violation of our will if God steps in and saves us. He does this all the time whenever He lives within us.

Don’t you know that you yourself are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you?

It is, however, a violation of God’s will when we refuse to be saved by Him.

We are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in us. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

I don’t see the problem here. We can’t do anything pleasing to God unless Christ lives within us and enables us to live our lives for Him. In him we live and move and have our being. We are God’s children.

Does God directly sustain and interact with His Creation? Yes of course He does, the Bible makes that very clear. Also, to assert that God does not interact would slip into the heresy of Deism and Lord save me form that. I guess the point is that, concerning free will, God’s free will is higher than mine, so when and if He takes it upon Himself to interrupt my free will I have no problem with that.

How often do you feel He does this?

After all, the incarnation of Christ is the greatest violation of human volition in history, and yet it was absolutely necessary to accomplish God’s plans according to His sovereign rule of His Creation.

I admit that the Trinity is a great mystery and no one fully grasps the mechanics of it. But it seems to be a sensible mystery which, in my opinion, neatly fills in the paradoxes of the ultimate nature of God. I’ll talk more about this later in regards to the idea that “we love because God first loved us”.

 

[Chinwa]

Yes, the two can co-exist. In such a case we have A DETERMINED FREE-WILL:thumbsup:

 

[bogeydogg]

Whoa!!!

I never meant to argue that human will is inviolable. Never. Of course God governs His Creation minute by minute, I never meant to say otherwise.

However, what I am saying is that as a God who is all knowing God does not have to directly compel us to do every thing that we do in order to lead us where we are to go.

What I am arguing against is neo-socinianism.

I don’t believe that anyone seeks after God and were it not for grace no one would or could. I don’t think God gives grace to some and not others, but rather that grace is common to all people in some sense. However, I think the final fixed course of our lives is determined by our free will choice and (usually though I wouldn’t say always and please remember that I am supposing here not offering my own version of the Majesterium) that God will not act on behalf of those who continually refuse Him to save those who would not be saved.

 

[bogeydogg]

And yes God does fix the end, but once again as a God who exists every where and every when and is all knowing, but I don’t think it is necessary to assert determinism as the only means by which God can work out redemptive history.

 

[KingAlfred]

Yes, they can co-exist. Once one acts properly on his free will, God will lend a hand.

 

[Greg27]

I think it is very difficult to argue that unqualified freedom exists. I think science has demonstrated that everything in the universe is subject to necessarily physical laws that cannot be broken; we cannot break the laws of thermodynamics for example, by an act of will. I think it does not make sense to speak of human beings as having absolutely no freedom at all (as we might speak of a computer having no freedom for example) so no-one can be held responsible for their actions, but our freedom I think is very limited, especially when compared with the determinism of natural laws and processes.

 

[tobias]

I believe there tends to be a fundamental flaw inserted into most discussions of free will. I hope I can elucidate the point well.

 Will and action are NOT  one and the same thing. In other words it is a mistake to say 'I will 'a', therefore I do 'a'.'  Movement of will should be thought of as seperate from movement of body or desire. Man is able to will counter to his action, desire and nature. 

  A child may eat the vegetables set before him even though he wills not to.

 An addict may will to abstain from drugs, though he desires to partake.

 Mans nature is self preserving, though he may will to self destruct (suicide).

 There are 2 choices; God or not God. Therefore there can only be 2 types of will; good and evil (privation of good).  A good will, though imperfect, seeks good for himself and others, though it may fall it will return to what is good (of God). An evil will seeks what is good also but not for others, and even when offered grace does not accept the good (of God). That is how persons baptised can still turn their backs on grace, because even with this infusion of God's life, the will is evil and rejects the very good it seeks. Likewise the person who has never even heard of Christ, yet lives according to the new commandment ( to 'Love one another as I have loved you.') willing the good for others is finding the good he seeks. At least this was Paul advocated, and I agree. If it were not so God would not be just in condemning to Hell those who have not heard the gospel. 
 God's omnipresence must allow him to see which free agents will the good and which are evil. I believe that, since God knows all possibilities as well as actualities (omnicsience), that he knows which wills can be moved by grace and which do not will to be moved, or special graces would not be just.
 I see the concept of will laid out clearly in scripture by the use of the word heart. I see them as interchangable. ie ' For the one who looks at a woman with lust has already commited adultery in his heart (will)'. The same can be seen in the agape use of the word love in the new testament 'to will the good'.   ie 'Go and love (will the good) for one another as I have loved (willed the good for) you.'