B
belorg
Guest
Isn’t ‘out of love’ following a set of impulses, whether ‘bizarre’ or not?
- Status
D
davidv
Guest
No
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
In Catholic theology free will is paramount. It is established as the first principle of conduct in Genesis when God gives Adam and Eve a choice to make: eat or do not eat the fruit of a certain tree.
God even gives us the greatest choice of all: to seek heaven or hell. We are free to obtain either. God does not send us to either place without our having freely made the choice.
In other words, God tolerates everything including the stupidest choices we can possibly make.
God even gives us the greatest choice of all: to seek heaven or hell. We are free to obtain either. God does not send us to either place without our having freely made the choice.
In other words, God tolerates everything including the stupidest choices we can possibly make.
A
Alindawyl
Guest
You are doing the same thing everyone does who rejects free will. You are presenting a false dichotomy of extremes, that decisions must either be forcibly determined by preceding events or have no causal relationship whatsoever with preceding events. Neither of those is true. Quite possibly the source of this confusion is your mistaken belief that “to cause a thing” means “to forcibly determine a thing”. There is a huge difference between influencing something and forcibly determining it. Parents, for example, know this through experience. They can influence the behavior of their children, but they cannot determine it.
Causality has frequently been misused by those who do not understand what it really means. Aristotle was one of if not the first person we know who used the word cause in his philosophical writings. He defined four different causes that are all present together: material cause, formal cause, efficient cause, and final cause. In the past few centuries, many people who like to consider themselves philosophers or intellectuals have talked about and used Aristotilean causality in their ideas without understanding that all four causes are implicit in everything Aristotle wrote about causality.
As St. Thomas Aquinas famously said, “An error in the beginning is an error indeed”. Make an error at the level of a basic principle such as causality, and everything built on the foundation of that principle will carry with it the same error. You are making such an error.
The word cause today is usually used in only one of the four senses it was used by Aristotle (and St. Thomas, and anyone else who used Aristotilean language prior to the past few centuries). That is the efficient cause. An efficient cause is that which brings about or halts change.
For example, consider a table. The material cause of the table is the matter out of which it is comprised. The formal cause of the table is the way in which the matter is arranged (ie, its form). The efficient cause of the table is the acting subject (ie, the carpenter) who constructs the table. The final cause of the table is the purpose the acting subject has in mind (ie, a surface on which things such as dinner or homework or floral arrangements may be placed). The emphasis of modern philosophers seems to be on the efficient cause, with the other three causes almost always never mentioned or dismissed as irrelevant.
But a key component of the concept of cause is the final cause, the purpose. Purpose means there is a design. Design means there is a designer. Everything Aristotle writes about cause and effect includes within it the principle of free will, of actions chosen rather than fixed by what has come before. You can’t simply rip the final cause out of the picture, replace it with random chance or some undefined “laws of human behavior” in order to claim that causes don’t involve free will, and go about your business assuming that the whole framework will retain its coherence.
The very definition of causality contains within it the concept of an active will desiring a specific end. You have to rework everything that relies upon that foundational principle if you want it to remain coherent. Using the concept of cause and effect as presented by Aristotle only minus the concept of free will, is as nonsensical as using the concept of computer programming only minus the concept of source code.
If you want to treat causality as a system of forced determination with humans as nothing more than biological machines, then some sort of explanation is in order. If you have a philosophical explanation, it should be at least as long and thorough as Aristotle’s treatment of the subject in both Physics and Metaphysics. If you have a purely scientific explanation, then present that instead. I expect purely scientific evidence from a purely scientific explanation. Experiments in which multiple subjects comprising an accurate cross-section of humanity always choose a correctly predicted outcome in a variety of different scenarios should suffice.
If you cannot present either of these things, then what you’re offering is nothing more than your personal testimony to your personal belief. As a man of faith, I’m willing to accept such testimony as evidence. But first you’d have to present some sort of credentials explaining why you’re an authority on the subject, as well as an explanation of what the object of your faith is. Being a man of faith does not make me a man of blind faith.
I have yet to find any evidence that humans do NOT make free choices.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
A reminder to the O.P., this is a Catholic website. Catholics believe and hold on very solid ground ( i.e. that they are created to God’s image and likeness ) that the human Person is a rational being with an intellect ( mind ) and free will, which are attributes of the soul, through which all thought, knowledge, understanding, and free decisions are made and occur, and by whose governance all vegitative and sentient activities occure, and by which all bodily functions are directed to the nutrition, growth, reproduction and well being of the entire composit Person, and through which the Person has life and being.
We do not concede that the O.P.'s argument has any merit whatsoever, however unsetteling this may be to certain cherished propaganda so current in academia. That world view we do not hold. Nor are we under any obligation to " prove " we are correct, because certain minds cannot be convinced no matter what arguments are presented. All we can really do is refer the O.P. to the Scriptures, to Catholic teaching as is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas and other Scholastics and to Catholic psychologists.
We do not concede that the O.P.'s argument has any merit whatsoever, however unsetteling this may be to certain cherished propaganda so current in academia. That world view we do not hold. Nor are we under any obligation to " prove " we are correct, because certain minds cannot be convinced no matter what arguments are presented. All we can really do is refer the O.P. to the Scriptures, to Catholic teaching as is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas and other Scholastics and to Catholic psychologists.
B
belorg
Guest
What exactly is love then?
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Man has free will. So says St. Augustine, St. Thomas, Scriptures, and the Catholic Church. Here is St. Thomas on the subject. S.T., Part 1, Ques 83, Art 1
On the contrary, It is written (Sirach 15:14): “God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel”; and the gloss adds: “That is of his free-will.”
I answer that, Man has free-will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain. In order to make this evident, we must observe that some things act without judgment; as a stone moves downwards; and in like manner all things which lack knowledge. And some act from judgment, but not a free judgment; as brute animals. For the sheep, seeing the wolf, judges it a thing to be shunned, from a natural and not a free judgment, because it judges, not from reason, but from natural instinct. And the same thing is to be said of any judgment of brute animals. But man acts from judgment, because by his apprehensive power he judges that something should be avoided or sought. But because this judgment, in the case of some particular act, is not from a natural instinct, but from some act of comparison in the reason, therefore he acts from free judgment and retains the power of being inclined to various things. For reason in contingent matters may follow opposite courses, as we see in dialectic syllogisms and rhetorical arguments. Now particular operations are contingent, and therefore in such matters the judgment of reason may follow opposite courses, and is not determinate to one. And forasmuch as man is rational is it necessary that man have a free-will.
Linus
On the contrary, It is written (Sirach 15:14): “God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel”; and the gloss adds: “That is of his free-will.”
I answer that, Man has free-will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain. In order to make this evident, we must observe that some things act without judgment; as a stone moves downwards; and in like manner all things which lack knowledge. And some act from judgment, but not a free judgment; as brute animals. For the sheep, seeing the wolf, judges it a thing to be shunned, from a natural and not a free judgment, because it judges, not from reason, but from natural instinct. And the same thing is to be said of any judgment of brute animals. But man acts from judgment, because by his apprehensive power he judges that something should be avoided or sought. But because this judgment, in the case of some particular act, is not from a natural instinct, but from some act of comparison in the reason, therefore he acts from free judgment and retains the power of being inclined to various things. For reason in contingent matters may follow opposite courses, as we see in dialectic syllogisms and rhetorical arguments. Now particular operations are contingent, and therefore in such matters the judgment of reason may follow opposite courses, and is not determinate to one. And forasmuch as man is rational is it necessary that man have a free-will.
Linus
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Unsubstantiated assumption based on hostile prejudice. Love is an intellectual virtue. You have confused love with animal passion or desire. Christ’s love for man is an intellectual love which he willed because man was created good by the Will of the Father. I know this is a tough nut for you and " some " others here to bit into. But there it is. Linus
O
Offdoodykcrn
Guest
Interesting topic, and my opinion sort of links with a thread I started in “Other Religions” forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=754770
There, I drew a distinction between the mind and the soul. I view the mind, the brain - an organ of the body, seat of intellect, where our knowledge of facts and memories of our experience are stored in electro-chemical substrate. The soul manifesting in intent.
If it were possible, it would be interesting to take pairs of identical twins that have each experienced the world simultaneously, then provide a stimulus - let us say a minor car accident and see how each twin reacts. Some might be angry and seek to lay blame at something or someone, while their counterpart shrugs it off and is thankful nobody was hurt.
I don’t think I have an answer yet, but interesting debate.
There, I drew a distinction between the mind and the soul. I view the mind, the brain - an organ of the body, seat of intellect, where our knowledge of facts and memories of our experience are stored in electro-chemical substrate. The soul manifesting in intent.
If it were possible, it would be interesting to take pairs of identical twins that have each experienced the world simultaneously, then provide a stimulus - let us say a minor car accident and see how each twin reacts. Some might be angry and seek to lay blame at something or someone, while their counterpart shrugs it off and is thankful nobody was hurt.
I don’t think I have an answer yet, but interesting debate.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Off
There, I drew a distinction between the mind and the soul. I view the mind, the brain - an organ of the body, seat of intellect, where our knowledge of facts and memories of our experience are stored in electro-chemical substrate. The soul manifesting in intent.****
It’s an interesting question as to how our memories are stored in neurons that can be ignited at will. Are we really no more than sophisticated computers? It really begs the question, doesn’t it? If the materialists are right, they have to argue that evolution naturally selected to create a computer system (the human brain) so vast and intricate (with billions of neurons) that it cannot even understand itself. Then there is imagination to top it off. Where does that come from in the materialist’s menu of abracadabras?
There, I drew a distinction between the mind and the soul. I view the mind, the brain - an organ of the body, seat of intellect, where our knowledge of facts and memories of our experience are stored in electro-chemical substrate. The soul manifesting in intent.****
It’s an interesting question as to how our memories are stored in neurons that can be ignited at will. Are we really no more than sophisticated computers? It really begs the question, doesn’t it? If the materialists are right, they have to argue that evolution naturally selected to create a computer system (the human brain) so vast and intricate (with billions of neurons) that it cannot even understand itself. Then there is imagination to top it off. Where does that come from in the materialist’s menu of abracadabras?
O
Offdoodykcrn
Guest
It’s an interesting question as to how our memories are stored in neurons that can be ignited at will. Are we really no more than sophisticated computers? It really begs the question, doesn’t it? If the materialists are right, they have to argue that evolution naturally selected to create a computer system (the human brain) so vast and intricate (with billions of neurons) that it cannot even understand itself. Then there is imagination to top it off. Where does that come from in the materialist’s menu of abracadabras?
Some might argue that the brain is a supercomputer. Imagination really is the big difference. Computers - no matter how sophisticated, cannot produce new ideas. They can follow their programming, they may appear to make decisions based on probability, but the choice on how to value the likely outcome lays with the programmer.
Is imagination tied to the brain or the soul? I think about the products of imagination - art, literature, music and tend to think it is the soul. Not only is the artist, author and composer able to express themselves through their work, but also spark the imagination of everyone who comes in contact with it.
Some might argue that the brain is a supercomputer. Imagination really is the big difference. Computers - no matter how sophisticated, cannot produce new ideas. They can follow their programming, they may appear to make decisions based on probability, but the choice on how to value the likely outcome lays with the programmer.
Is imagination tied to the brain or the soul? I think about the products of imagination - art, literature, music and tend to think it is the soul. Not only is the artist, author and composer able to express themselves through their work, but also spark the imagination of everyone who comes in contact with it.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Off
**Is imagination tied to the brain or the soul? I think about the products of imagination - art, literature, music and tend to think it is the soul. Not only is the artist, author and composer able to express themselves through their work, but also spark the imagination of everyone who comes in contact with it. **
Imagination is somehow connected with both the brain and the soul. The problem for the materialist is to explain how it is that a thing of beauty can produce comparable sensations in thousands of people. Clearly, the medium of all arts is physical, but why does certain music produce one kind of emotion and other music produce a very different kind, all of them recognizable as possessing universal currency. If you listen to Mozart’s Ave Verum Corpus, the mind flies to God. There is hardly anything else it can fly to. But if the materialist is right, he has to explain why the felt presence of God produces so much heartfelt reaction in everyone except the most hard-shelled materialist.
**Is imagination tied to the brain or the soul? I think about the products of imagination - art, literature, music and tend to think it is the soul. Not only is the artist, author and composer able to express themselves through their work, but also spark the imagination of everyone who comes in contact with it. **
Imagination is somehow connected with both the brain and the soul. The problem for the materialist is to explain how it is that a thing of beauty can produce comparable sensations in thousands of people. Clearly, the medium of all arts is physical, but why does certain music produce one kind of emotion and other music produce a very different kind, all of them recognizable as possessing universal currency. If you listen to Mozart’s Ave Verum Corpus, the mind flies to God. There is hardly anything else it can fly to. But if the materialist is right, he has to explain why the felt presence of God produces so much heartfelt reaction in everyone except the most hard-shelled materialist.
P
Pugsly
Guest
Look…if you guys want to believe that you are just cogs in an evolutionary machine…and that there really is no such thing as human freedom…have at it. That’s your choice ; )
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Pugsly
That’s your choice.
No. Their genes makes them do it.
The dilemma of the materialist is that he cannot prove his thoughts are no more than charged neurons. If he could, he could prove that determinism is true. But as it stands, he can only assume his thoughts are physical. So when he commands proof that they are not, he should remember that he needs to command of himself proof that they are.
That’s your choice.
No. Their genes makes them do it.
The dilemma of the materialist is that he cannot prove his thoughts are no more than charged neurons. If he could, he could prove that determinism is true. But as it stands, he can only assume his thoughts are physical. So when he commands proof that they are not, he should remember that he needs to command of himself proof that they are.
B
belorg
Guest
If we are right, then it isn’t our choice, Pugsly. Charlemagne hits the nail on the head. Not because our thought are ‘merely charged neurons,’ but because, even if materialsim is false, our thoughts are either determined by the constitution of whatever immaterial entity our mind is, or not determined by anything. The first option does not make us more free than we would be if we were just a machine. In the second case, we would have no more ‘choice’ than a dice has when it is rolled.
S
shoe
Guest
If all human thoughts and decision-making tasks were not based on logical reasoning, then, according to those who believe in determinism, human thoughts and choices would be merely the consequence of certain causes, which ultimately would make all human thoughts non-rational. If human thoughts were non-rational, however, then human beings would be unable to realize if a thing, such as determinism, was actually true, false, or even existed. Therefore, for humans to realize whether a thing is true or not, they must depend upon a rational and objective standard (God), not an arbitrarily determined one.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
In the determinist’s universe the nearly universal resistance to determinism is itself predetermined. 
S
shoe
Guest
In the determinist’s universe the nearly universal resistance to determinism is itself predetermined.
B
belorg
Guest
Yes, of course.In the determinist’s universe the nearly universal resistance to determinism is itself predetermined.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Irrefutable!- Status