Catholic definition of free will

[CatholicSoxFan]

Because this is a debate forum and the onus is upon you to make a succinct counterargument. Links are only to supplement an argument, not to substitute for one. Besides, you’re just posting these two videos to divert attention away from the fact that you can’t refute my argument.

My argument is that everything is either determined or it is not. If everything is not determined, then indeterminism holds true by default. So, regardless how you define free will, it must either be compatible with determinism or indeterminism. The second video invoked the “two-stage model of free will” to give an intelligible account of libertarian free will. The two-stage model (a model that I have not only discussed on various threads on this forum, but a model that I have specifically discussed on this very thread here) employs indeterminism to accomplish this! (It has to, because libertarianism must reconcile itself with indeterminism).

These videos don’t refute my argument. They make it!

I’ve refuted your argument numerous times on other threads. I posted the links to contribute to the conversation going on on this one. To be quite frank, we’ve had the same thread numerous times, and the fact that you continue to use the same argument no matter how many times it’s refuted demonstrates that there is no point in having the same exchange with you again. Perhaps I should have sent it to you in a pm, though.
Indeterminism isn’t a problem on IP’s model of free will, because the mind is the ultimate cause of the decision. And if the mind is what determines the decision, that’s exactly what free will is. Applying the determinism-indeterminism dilemma to this model makes about as much sense as applying the Euthyphro dilemma to the nature of God. It attempts to win some kind of rhetorical victory by being able to put the label “random” to the mind’s decision, even though it doesn’t have the implications that is implied. The mind’s choice might be undetermined, but that does nothing to change the fact that the decision is still up to the mind, ergo free will.

 

[Counterpoint]

You need to explain how your posts have been misconstrued. You seem to be putting mental activity is in the same category as physical activity by excluding self-determinism as if the self doesn’t exist or is simply the brain in action…

You keep implying that I am arguing for physical determinism and/or materialism. I am not. So, stop implying that I am.

 

[Counterpoint]

Indeterminism isn’t a problem on IP’s model of free will, because the mind is the ultimate cause of the decision.

The problem is that you can’t bring yourself to acknowledge that libertarian free will does not make anyone more morally responsible than compatibilist free will.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

The problem is that you can’t bring yourself to acknowledge that libertarian free will does not make anyone more morally responsible than compatibilist free will.

Assertions are not arguments.

 

[Counterpoint]

Counterpoint:

The problem is that you can’t bring yourself to acknowledge that libertarian free will does not make anyone more morally responsible than compatibilist free will.

Assertions are not arguments.

It’s a bullet-proof argument.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

It’s a bullet-proof argument.

It isn’t, and I explained why. If the mind is what makes the decision, we have free will, and we have moral responsibility.

 

[Counterpoint]

It isn’t, and I explained why. If the mind is what makes the decision, we have free will, and we have moral responsibility.

Either our decision-making process is a completely deterministic process or it is not. If it is a deterministic process, then every choice we make could not have been otherwise. If it is not a completely deterministic process, then this necessarily implies that it is an indeterministic one. And if it is an indeterministic one, then the only reason why any of our choices could have been otherwise is due to some element of chance or randomness.

What does this all mean? It means that I cannot be held any more morally responsible for a choice that ultimately reduces to some element of chance or randomness than I can for one that is completely predetermined. (The first stage of the “two-stage model of free will” ultimately reduces to some element of chance or randomness. If it didn’t, then it would be a completely deterministic process.) IOW, the moral implications are exactly the same regardless of whether libertarianism or compatibilism holds true.

This is not a difficult argument to intellectually grasp. The problem is that some cannot bring themselves to accept it because it threatens some other cherished belief they hold. If we are truly seeking the truth, then we will have to commit ourselves to intellectual honesty. Such a commitment may result in some of our cherished beliefs falling by the wayside.

 

[tonyrey]

You keep implying that I am arguing for physical determinism and/or materialism. I am not. So, stop implying that I am.

The very fact that you reject self-determinism implies that you do not regard persons as capable of transcending our physical nature. In your view all our activity is determined by factors beyond our control and we are no more than biological computers **programmed **by our genetic makeup and environment.

Even if you believe in the reality of the mind you do not believe it can act independently of the brain. At the very least you are arguing for mental or spiritual determinism which rules out genuine originality and creativity because in your view all events are in principle scientifically explicable. If you can regard God as an automaton there is no reason why you should regard yourself or anyone else as any different.

Your argument that everything is “either determined or it is not” clearly puts persons in the same category as things. Neither determinism nor indeterminism is an adequate basis for rationality or responsibility. According to you we can think but **we cannot choose **what to think or reach our own conclusions and are no more than impotent cogs in the machine of nature…

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Either our decision-making process is a completely deterministic process or it is not. If it is a deterministic process, then every choice we make could not have been otherwise. If it is not a completely deterministic process, then this necessarily implies that it is an indeterministic one. **And if it is an indeterministic one, then the only reason why any of our choices could have been otherwise is due to some element of chance or randomness. **

What does this all mean? It means that I cannot be held any more morally responsible for a choice that ultimately reduces to some element of chance or randomness than I can for one that is completely predetermined. (The first stage of the “two-stage model of free will” ultimately reduces to some element of chance or randomness. If it didn’t, then it would be a completely deterministic process.) IOW, the moral implications are exactly the same regardless of whether libertarianism or compatibilism holds true.

This is not a difficult argument to intellectually grasp. The problem is that some cannot bring themselves to accept it because it threatens some other cherished belief they hold. If we are truly seeking the truth, then we will have to commit ourselves to intellectual honesty. Such a commitment may result in some of our cherished beliefs falling by the wayside.

This is what I was talking about. You can have your rhetorical victory of calling our decision making “random”, but the fact of the matter is that 1) the decision making is up to us and 2) our choices could have been different. In other words, we have free will.

 

[Counterpoint]

The very fact that you reject self-determinism implies that you do not regard persons as capable of transcending our physical nature.

I have never argued against self-determinism. You’re simply making things up.

Even if you believe in the reality of the mind you do not believe it can act independently of the brain

This is another false assertion.

At the very least you are arguing for mental or spiritual determinism which rules out genuine originality and creativity because in your view all events are in principle scientifically explicable. If you can regard God as an automaton there is no reason why you should regard yourself or anyone else as any different.

God has either compatibilist free will or libertarian free will. Apparently, you believe there is another option but you’re incapable of giving us an intelligible account of what that may be.

By the way, randomness is actually required for true novelty and creativity. That’s why it constitutes one of the two basic principles of Darwinian evolution (random variation and natural selection).

Neither determinism nor indeterminism is an adequate basis for rationality or responsibility.

Rationality tells us that either everything is determined or it is not. To argue otherwise is to dispense with all rationality (which apparently you have done).

 

[Counterpoint]

This is what I was talking about. You can have your rhetorical victory of calling our decision making “random”, but the fact of the matter is that 1) the decision making is up to us and 2) our choices could have been different. In other words, we have free will.

I have never argued that our decision-making process is a completely random one (despite your morally reprehensible tactic to imply that I have). What I have argued is that libertarian free will involves an element of randomness. And it is only because of this element of randomness that we could have chosen otherwise. (The first stage of the two-stage model of free will is (partially) indeterministic. The second stage is completely deterministic. This should not be misconstrued to imply that the two-stage model is a completely random model. So stop making that implication.)

 

[tonyrey]

The very fact that you reject self-determinism implies that you do not regard persons as capable of transcending our physical nature.

You have stated:

Your present mental state was caused by your previous mental state. If you argue otherwise, then your present mental state just randomly emerged. To reiterate: there are only two options here - determinism or indeterminism.

In your scheme of things self-determinism doesn’t exist because our mental states are beyond our control. From the moment we are born we are dominated by previous events and are simply mental automatons incapable of thinking for ourselves.

Even if you believe in the reality of the mind you do not believe it can act independently of the brain

This is another false assertion.

How can the mind act independently of the brain if from the moment of birth mental states are caused by previous mental states? What is the initial mental state of a new-born baby?

At the very least you are arguing for mental or spiritual determinism which rules out genuine originality and creativity because in your view all events are in principle scientifically explicable. If you can regard God as an automaton there is no reason why you should regard yourself or anyone else as any different.

God has either compatibilist free will or libertarian free will. Apparently, you believe there is another option but you’re incapable of giving us an intelligible account of what that may be.

Automatons do not have libertarian free will.

By the way, randomness is actually required for true novelty and creativity. That’s why it constitutes one of the two basic principles of Darwinian evolution (random variation and natural selection).

You are confusing spontaneity with randomness. Nor are random variation and natural selection the only explanations of development. To pin your faith on Darwinian evolution implies that the mind is produced by matter.

Neither determinism nor indeterminism is an adequate basis for rationality or responsibility.

Rationality tells us that either everything is determined or it is not. To argue otherwise is to dispense with all rationality (which apparently you have done).

Rationality tells us that persons are not automatons which lack insight, intuition and inspiration. The dogma that everything is determined or undetermined has never been verified scientifically let alone philosophically.

"There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy… "

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

I have never argued that our decision-making process is a completely random one (despite your morally reprehensible tactic to imply that I have). What I have argued is that libertarian free will involves an element of randomness. And it is only because of this element of randomness that we could have chosen otherwise. (The first stage of the two-stage model of free will is (partially) indeterministic. The second stage is completely deterministic. This should not be misconstrued to imply that the two-stage model is a completely random model. So stop making that implication.)

My point stands. The choice was up to us, and we could have done otherwise. Free will.

 

[DanAl]

The debate over free will often hangs around what in fact free will is. Some say that it means an agent could have done differently, and some reduce it to just a decision done voluntarily irrespective of whether or not the decision was determined. Is there any official Catholic teaching on what free will is?

There’s no official position that I am aware of, but Aquinas defended a type of compatiibilism (that free-will and determinism are compatible) and others like blessed Duns Scotus and saint Anselm defended libertarian free-will.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There’s no official position that I am aware of, but Aquinas defended a type of compatiibilism (that free-will and determinism are compatible) and others like blessed Duns Scotus and saint Anselm defended libertarian free-will.

I am absolutely certain that neither Aquinas nor Scotus or Anselm would know what the heck you are talking about. It is an injustice to these great thinkers, loyal Catholics, two of which are Saints, and one ( Scotus ) whose cause is in process, as belonging to a particular school of thought which came into existence hundreds of years after their death. They may or may not agree to certain aspects of these schools, I’m sure they would not accept either school in toto.

Aquinas and Scotus were ecclectic in their thinking, taking the truth wherever they could find it.
That would indicate that they cannot justly be pigeonholed.

Linus2nd

 

[Counterpoint]

There’s no official position that I am aware of, but Aquinas defended a type of compatiibilism (that free-will and determinism are compatible) and others like blessed Duns Scotus and saint Anselm defended libertarian free-will.

What evidence do you have for that? From what I have ascertained, it would appear that Aquinas subscribed to libertarian free will. Although he may not have explicitly used that term, his writings implicitly supports libertarianism.

God does move the will, “since he moves every kind of thing according to the nature of the moveable thing…he also moves the will according to its condition, as indeterminately disposed to many things, not in a neccesary way” (QDM 6). pp. 149-150, “Aquinas: Beginner’s Guide” by Edward Feser

 

[tonyrey]

You have stated:
In your scheme of things self-determinism doesn’t exist because our mental states are beyond our control. From the moment we are born we are dominated by previous events and are simply mental automatons incapable of thinking for ourselves.

How can the mind act independently of the brain if from the moment of birth mental states are caused by previous mental states? What is the initial mental state of a new-born baby?

Automatons do not have libertarian free will.

You are confusing spontaneity with randomness. Nor are random variation and natural selection the only explanations of development. To pin your faith on Darwinian evolution implies that the mind is produced by matter.

Rationality tells us that persons are not automatons which lack insight, intuition and inspiration. The dogma that everything is determined or undetermined has never been verified scientifically let alone philosophically.

“There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy…”

A fitting conclusion!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What evidence do you have for that? From what I have ascertained, it would appear that Aquinas subscribed to libertarian free will. Although he may not have explicitly used that term, his writings implicitly supports libertarianism.

Every day you prove that you aren’t interested in truth. Yes, God can nudge the will, that is well known also through Revelation. But we do not have to follow these inspirations, therefore they are " indeterminate " in respect to our freedom, we are free to accept or reject.

Linus2nd

 

[tonyrey]

Every day you prove that you aren’t interested in truth. Yes, God can nudge the will, that is well known also through Revelation. But we do not have to follow these inspirations, therefore they are " indeterminate " in respect to our freedom, we are free to accept or reject.

Linus2nd

Otherwise we are irrational because our conclusions would be beyond our control.

 

[DanAl]

What evidence do you have for that? From what I have ascertained, it would appear that Aquinas subscribed to libertarian free will. Although he may not have explicitly used that term, his writings implicitly supports libertarianism.

Yes, Aquinas spoke of freedom quite a bit (not libertarian freedom). For him, freedom was dia-chronic (one option available), the notion of choosing between alternatives (liberterian freedom) did not appear until a few decades after his death. Many Thomists are aware of this and defend his view implicitly or explicitly. But look it up here from a philosophical non-partisan: shell.cas.usf.edu/~thomasw/thomist.htm

This paper contrasts ST.Thomas Aquinas theory to a real libertarian theory by Blessed Duns Scotus.