Free will and causality chain

  • Thread starter Thread starter DavidCro
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Doesn’t follow by absolute necessity. One might not will to eat a hamburger until the object (the hamburger) presents itself, and so the hamburger might in a sense be a cause of the choice you make, but it doesn’t follow by absolute necessity that you will choose to eat it.

God might will that an atom exist, and if so He must necessarily will that what makes the atom exist also exist (so as not to contradict his own will), but He wills that it exist according to its own nature. It might be in the nature of the atom to decay randomly in a way that isn’t caused mechanically. But that doesn’t mean the decay isn’t caused, it happens because the atom exists and its in its nature to decay. So each instance of radioactive decay is caused by the existence of the atom, but each instance might not happen by some mechanical chain of events in an absolutely necedsary fashion that it occur then and there.

The error is in viewing all things and all causes and effects in a purely mechanical fashion. The cause might be in the nature of the thing, and certain effects may follow contingently from those causes instead of by absolute necessity.
 
Wesrock said:
The error is in viewing all things and all causes and effects in a purely mechanical fashion. The cause might be in the nature of the thing, and certain effects may follow contingently from those causes instead of by absolute necessity.
Click to expand...
Then if my nature is faulty, I cannot fix it. Again, there’s no sin, for I was programmed by my nature to sin.
 
People are rational creatures. We might feel pulled by animal appetites, but reason should govern them. It’s an act of the will, an exercise of our rational thinking, if we ignore what our reason tells us is right. It doesn’t mean a computer program is producing incorrect results at no fault of its own. Computers are meant to imitate the mind, but minds are not merely computers.
 
Wesrock said:
ight feel pulled by animal appetites, but reason should govern them. It’s an act of the will, an exercise of our rational thinking, if we ignore what our reason tells us is right. It doesn’t mean a computer program is producing incorrect results at no fault of its own. Computers ar
Click to expand...
Again, doubt between our instincts and reason also necessitates choosing. What are the circumstances in which we choose between our instincts and reason?
 
Your nature gives you free will and rational thinking which means you are personally responsible for your actions. You’re not just a computer program that is programmed badly.
 
Again, what makes me to choose my instinct over reason and vice versa?
 
When you’re over-fed already but still want the taste of more pizza on your tongue, to give a light example.
 
A cause appears and you voluntarily choose how to respond, the effects following contingently from the cause, not by absolute necessity.
 
I’m very troubled by this, and losing my faith. I’m not asking these questions out of wit, but out of anxiousness that I have for months now. So be patient with me (I’m not saying you aren’t but for the sake of future correspondence).

Now, my choosing is led by my reason. Say, what if I was raised in my family where they thought me gluttony. These causes of my choice are determined by society/biology (or something else). How is this really my free choice? It seems to me, every discussion about free will runs in circles.
 
When one’s intellect and will are opposed, one must submit to the other for a free decision to be made. For the intellect to instruct the will is to choose rightly, for the will to instruct the intellect is to choose wrongly. Invincible ignorance means that this conflict will not be present, as the intellect will lack the knowledge to oppose the objectively disordered desires of the will in the first place.

Remember that while intellect and will are distinct faculties of the soul, they are not physically distinct in operation.
 
Intellect and will are not entities, as e.g. your hands are. They are powers of the soul. They are not controlled but used.
 
Two points:

(1) It is your will because who you are isn’t something separate from you but is you. However…

(2) I don’t deny, and more importantly the Church doesn’t deny, that we are influenced by society. Even if some effects don’t proceed by absolute necessity from their cause, people can have their knowledge and consciences formed badly by other people. A person only commits mortal sin when acting with knowledge and consent. A lack of either means there is no mortal sin. Furthermore, force of habit and addiction (masturbation, drugs) can mitigate a person’s responsibility for their sin. If they obtain knowledge they should certainly seek to stop and refusing to try might be a huge issue, but the stumbles themselves might not be mortal. We do have reason, and some things might, in general and apart from the cruelest of brainwashing, be reasonably apparent to be wrong even to someone who’s never had positive examples, but other things might not be so clear. The important thing is that your culpability, your knowledge and your consent isn’t being reviewed or judged by men. It will be judged by God, who you can be assured will know you perfectly and will fairly, justly, and also mercifully make the judgements about what was truly your deliberate choice and what isn’t. If you lack knowledge and consent, it’s not such a deliberate rejection.

Mortal sin is not doing bad things. It’s doing bad things with knowledge that they are wrong and full consent. It’s deliberately rejecting your knowledge of something’s wrongness and consenting to that rejection. It’s deliberately rejecting the Good, and therefore God.
 
Last edited:
This is what feaks me out.

“Determinism could be true; but it is very hard to see how it could ever be rationally affirmed, since its affirmation undermines the rationality of its affirmation.” The mere possibility of determinism, makes me sleepless, worrying and anxious all the time!

arminiantheologyblog.wordpress.com

William Lane Craig on Universal, Divine, Causal Determinism

Five Difficulties With the Reformed View of Universal Determinism “1. Universal, divine, causal determinism cannot offer a coherent interpretation of Scripture. The classical Reformed divines recog…
arminiantheologyblog.wordpress.com arminiantheologyblog.wordpress.com
 
To you this might be a little problem or funny, but for me it’s a serious problem.
 
The notion that one of the best Christian apologists states that “determinism might me true” is really, really scary. How do I overcome this?! Pray for me 🙂
 
I don’t think you should be worried by what some Protestant apologist is unable to disprove.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top