Free will revisited

[gardenswithkids]

Hitetlen:

If the Catholic theology is silent on the subject, we are free to use our reason and make our judgment.Yes!

Hitetlen:
(Of course even if the Church does make an utterance, I still have the righ and question it. But that is beside the point.)No, it’s not beside the point. Like some math text books provide the answers in the back so we can see if we are understanding the problem correctly, the Church provides us some answers to help us reason and learn to solve our problems correctly. People of faith haven’t lost their ability to reason–rather they are free to learn how to reason correctly!

But first we must break free of our addiction to our sins so that we can reason properly. Like an alcholic looses some of his ability to reason when they are drinking, we sinners loose some of our ability to reason when we are under the influence of sin.

Hitetlen:
I understand your conclusion (that people freely and voluntarily choose to stay in hell, in eternal suffering, torment and damnation), but find it highly unreasonable. People on earth often don’t use reason, so why do you expect people in hell would use it? Besides, the intellectual ability to use reason (that you seem to value so highly) is a gift from God. If people in hell have rejected His gifts, then they have also rejected their reason.

Hitetlen:

Even those posters who downplay hell, (and say that it is merely a separation from God) assert that the torment comes from finally understanding the loss they suffer from this separation and the knowledge that it could have been otherwise. Now, from this it follows logically that if they had a chance, they would change their status. After all if they enjoyed their alleged status, and would NOT want to change it, it would not be a torment.

That doesn’t follow logically. On this earth there are many things that we don’t have, we wish we had, but we aren’t willing to do what it takes to get. That doesn’t mean we aren’t “tormented” by not having something; it only means we sometimes won’t give up our bad habits in order to achieve something else.

Hitetlen:

And I want to say that you actually presented your opinion, and did not try to derail. My apologies for not making this distinction before.

I don’t think anyone tried to derail your thread, but you jumbled a lot of points together and it was hard to determine what your exact question was.

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

your approach is quite humane.

Our friend is lost. How could we understand otherwise the following statements?
“We are without total knowledge, especially when it comes to God’s very existence. There is no proof for that, merely “hints”, which can be reasonably doubted.”
“There is no empirical proof of God’s existence, so my (and other atheists’) skepticism is well founded.”
“In the real world only empirical proof counts, and precisely that kind of proofs are missing.”
“I, myself simply do not believe in God”
“Of course I would not serve the God as described in the Bible”
“The church (any church) is a man-made institution, without any real significance.”
“I don’t have a “soul” as far as I can see. And I don’t think that anyone could “know” what God wants from us. You cannot appeal to the Bible, since it is just a concoction of fallible humans.”
“The Catholic Church is just another human establishment, therefore fallible. I see no reason to trust it, unless it can prove or demonstrate its authority. And this demonstration is not forthcoming.”
“Actually I do love other humans (at least most of them). And I don’t need God to tell me that I should.”
“The church is just an establishment comprized of humans.”
“Nobody “chooses” eternal suffering and damnation - knowingly. Not even masochists would do that.”
It is clear that you are an Atheist. That’s OK. But, are you going to tell us what the Church is? Are you going to interpret the Scriptures for us?
“I am a mathematician”, you say. So what? You are going nowhere with your maths. Do you expect to “see” a “soul”? I’m sorry, it’s invisible.
The wrongdoers and the impious choose hell, God will not force them to do otherwise. Now it’s the time for the “free will”, not after you die. Those in Hell knew full well that what they were doing was wrong. No second chance here.
But you still ask: “Why is our free will taken away once we gain positive, empirical knowledge of God?” Let me ask you: Suppose that you would have seen Jesus resurrecting Lazarus; multiplying the bread; resurrecting the daughter of the leader of the synagogue; healing the leper, and so on. Would you have believed? According to you that positive, empirical knowledge of God, would have been enough to believe. But many of those who saw Jesus resurrecting Lazarus wanted to kill both of them! That’s why I stated earlier: #18 “Luke 16, 30-31: “…’if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ Then Abraham said, 'If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.””
Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith (1870):
“The same Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason: ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.”
If many people refuse to use reason properly, it’s not reason’s fault.

 

[estesbob]

doomhammer:

Our friend is lost. How could we understand otherwise the following statements?
“.

True-he has made his intellect his God. He figures that even if their is a God and he ends up in hell his intellect will get him out of it.

 

[Hitetlen]

Since my flight was cancelled, I can reflect on some of the posts today. There are many posts, I may not be able to respond to all.

itsjustdave1988:

You can gain knowledge about the word from the testimony of others and from reason, as well as from experience.

That is true, but it is merely a shortcut. If you learn from other people’s testimony, there are two possibilities. One, that you can replicate their experiments, and then the testimony is no loger important. Or, if the experiment cannot be duplicated (as in the case of an alleged personal revelation) you can coose to believe them or not. Without evidence, testimonials are not useful. In science it does not matter WHO says something, what matters is WHAT is being said.

Einstein rejected Quantum Mechanics and expressed his doubts in his famous words: “God does not play dice with the universe”. Now Einstein was a genius, everyone admits that. But in this case he was wrong. If one relies on authority ONLY, and foregoes personal verification, that is their own business. But since people can be wrong, it is their fault, if they accept unfounded testimonials. The final word is ALWAYS the personal verification. If that fails, the hypothesis should be discarded.

This is what I mean when I say that only emipirical evidence counts. At the end of the testimonial chain there is either a repeatable experiment which will render the testimonials unnecessary, or there is none. In the latter case it is just hearsay, not to be taken seriously.

itsjustdave1988:

Just because you cannot prove something doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Science is built upon postulates, many of which cannot be empirically proven, but remain rather speculative. Nevertheless, most people decide based upon incomplete evidence, and thus, believe things based upon non-empirical proofs. For example, we rarely have proof in the absolute sense of someone being murdered. So we rely upon incomplete evidence and witness testimony to decide with moral certainty that someone is guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt. There’s another less strict evidentiary standard, however, for civil law called “preponderance of evidence” which is also another method of epistemology which many decisions rely upon, without having absolute proof based upon complete evidence.

That is true, too, and far too many cases are abound when the innocent person was convicted on improper evidence. Your example just underlines how shaky the foundation the “testimonial evidence” is! In science there is no preponderance of evidence, there is no reasonable doubt, there is either an empirical experiment, which can be repeated, or there is just a bunch of hot air.

 

[Hitetlen]

Semper Fi:

You come to your conclusions without complete information, so I think you need to understand what the Catholic definition of sin is. There are 2 types of sins in Latin-Rite Catholic theology, mortal and venial. Ultimately, sin is what separates us from God: the source. God is sinless so He wants us to try and live our lives like Him so we can be closer to Him. Now we can get into the definitions of sin, mortal and venial.

For a mortal (deadly) sin to occure, 3 conditions have to be met:

1. its subject must be a ‘grave matter’ (i.e. you know it’s already wrong and deadly);
2. it must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and the gravity of the offense;
3. it must be completed with deliberate and complete consent

So, in order to even get this point you have to really try hard or be a very depraved individual.

venial sin on the other hand:

1. its subject matter does not concern a ‘grave matter’;
2. it is not committed with full knowledge or,
3. it is not committed with both deliberate and complete content.

in the gospels we see how sin is separated into the categories of deadly and non-deadly, however sin in and of itself is still a sin.

so in order to even get to the point to where you’re talking about the person in question must be really trying hard to make an offense against God. Ultimately, once we die, we will be judged based on our actions. if we committed a mortal sin, we did it with full knowledge and consent so any punishment rendered (hell, whatever), is just. Some people will need to go onto purgatory (not necessarily a physical plane but a plane in which the person is cleansed from all earthly attachments) and then ultimately on to Heaven to be with God.

Good summary, but I don’t see the relevance. If I am not mistaken even the most depraved sinner is allowed to repent even on his death-bed, and God will forgive ALL his sins, and embrace him in heaven. That does not explain why God imposes this deadline and does not allow repentance when the person finally meets him and has actual evidence of his existence. This is the essence of the question I keep asking - in vain.

 

[Hitetlen]

itsjustdave1988:

I disagree. You equate perfect knowledge with actual knowledge, which is false. I have actual knowledge of many things right now. However, I do not have perfect knowledge.

No I don’t. I am questioning the lack of actual knowledge (not perfect knowledge) of God’s existence. No matter how many posters will assert that they find the evidence conclusive and sufficient, they can only speak for themselves and not for anyone else. If there would be actual, empirical evidence of God, there would be no atheists. No one can doubt the existence of an apple, once they hold it in their hands.

 

[Hitetlen]

You question my commitment to keeping an open mind in the post:

estesbob:

I think you fit the classic definition of an agnostic “swears ther aint no heaven and prays there aint no hell”

Well, open mind does not mean that one is expected to entertain any idea that someone else brings up. It only means that if there is evidence which shows that my ideas about a subject are incorrect, I am willing to admit my mistake and abandon my previous misconceptions.

 

[Hitetlen]

MichaelLewis:

Apparently, it is impossible for those in Hell to leave. While this story does not directly contradict the notion that those in Hell prefer it to the alternative, it does imply it; for why else would Abraham mention the fact that no one can travel from Hell to Paradise?

It is much more reasonable to believe that they are not allowed to leave. Does the Bible not speak of eternal torment and damnation?

 

[Hitetlen]

gardenswithkids:

No, it’s not beside the point. Like some math text books provide the answers in the back so we can see if we are understanding the problem correctly, the Church provides us some answers to help us reason and learn to solve our problems correctly. People of faith haven’t lost their ability to reason–rather they are free to learn how to reason correctly!

Good analogy, especially if you consider how many errors are in those textbooks. The usage of a textbook is only useful if you are aware that it MAY contain errors, and stay open to the possibility that an discrepancy between your result and the one in the textbook can be the textbook’s error. Those who accept the textbook’s answer uncritically (as you seem to suggest) are up for some bad surprises.

gardenswithkids:

But first we must break free of our addiction to our sins so that we can reason properly. Like an alcholic looses some of his ability to reason when they are drinking, we sinners loose some of our ability to reason when we are under the influence of sin.That is a non-sequitur. Alcohol directly influences our brain, it has a physical effect on it. Sin is a vague concept, not something physical.

gardenswithkids:

People on earth often don’t use reason, so why do you expect people in hell would use it? Besides, the intellectual ability to use reason (that you seem to value so highly) is a gift from God. If people in hell have rejected His gifts, then they have also rejected their reason. People do not ALWAYS use reason, but most people use it most of the time. And you don’t need reason when you try to avoid unpleasant experiences. If a child touches a hot surface, he will instinctively jerk his hand away, and will learn very quickly not to touch the same object again. The child does not use reason to avoid heat.

I understand your overall reasoning, and I don’t find it illogical that MAYBE some people would prefer to stay in hell despite its unpleasant (what an understatement!) nature. Maybe there are a few masochists who actually crave that kind of torment and suffering - though I seriously doubt it.

Where your analysis fails is that you assume that EVERYONE prefers to stay in hell, rather than switch over to God and heaven. THAT is totally unreasonable. People instinctively and also consciously avoid unpleasant experiences and will not elect to experience the same unpleasantness if they can avoid it.

The question is still the same: what if just ONE person would like to repent in hell, honestly would ask for forgiveness, why would God close his ears and NOT exercise his alleged “merciful” nature. You should not answer this with the assumption that no one would. That is not the point. If tossed into hell, I WOULD.

 

[Hitetlen]

doomhammer:

Our friend is lost. How could we understand otherwise the following statements?
It is clear that you are an Atheist. That’s OK. But, are you going to tell us what the Church is? Are you going to interpret the Scriptures for us?

Actually I asked a question, nothing else. And if I am lost, and ask for guidance, why does not anyone try to answer me?

“I am a mathematician”, you say. So what? You are going nowhere with your maths. Do you expect to “see” a “soul”? I’m sorry, it’s invisible.

So is an electron, but there are instruments which can prove the electron’s existence. Is there an instrument to detect a “soul”?

doomhammer:

The wrongdoers and the impious choose hell, God will not force them to do otherwise.

If the built-in editor would not edit it out, I would say: bull-excrement. Is there an evidence of hell? No. So those who do not believe in its existence cannot “choose” to be sent there. How can anyone “choose” something he or she does not BELIEVE in???

doomhammer:

Now it’s the time for the “free will”, not after you die. Those in Hell knew full well that what they were doing was wrong. No second chance here.

That is the point!

doomhammer:

But you still ask: “Why is our free will taken away once we gain positive, empirical knowledge of God?”

Yes, that is what I was asking now many times. Why does God deny his allegedly infinite mercy? And you don’t answer it either.

doomhammer:

Let me ask you: Suppose that you would have seen Jesus resurrecting Lazarus; multiplying the bread; resurrecting the daughter of the leader of the synagogue; healing the leper, and so on. Would you have believed? According to you that positive, empirical knowledge of God, would have been enough to believe. But many of those who saw Jesus resurrecting Lazarus wanted to kill both of them!

Irrelevant.

doomhammer:

Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith (1870):
“The same Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason: ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.”
If many people refuse to use reason properly, it’s not reason’s fault.

That is nonsense. Accepting the existence of God is ONLY possible by faith, the faith as so aptly described by Tertullian: “Credo quia absurdum est”. Or in other words: If reason is sufficient, there is no need for faith. If faith is necessary, it is not reasonable.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

As a remark, I think that addressing this issue from a free-will perspective was a bad idea, in that it was confusing. Given a classical conception of free will, a person is free if they can choose what actions they take - but what the results of those actions are is irrelevant to whether or not they are free. In that sense, even people in Hell have free will.

But Hitetlen’s question still remains. Free will was just a red herring. Why is it that God would only value a person’s choice to worship when they’re not in a position to make an informed decision to do so?

 

[Hitetlen]

estesbob:

True-he has made his intellect his God.

No. Intellect is a very useful tool, not to be “worshipped”.

estesbob:

He figures that even if their is a God and he ends up in hell his intellect will get him out of it.

If there WOULD be a God, he would be truly merciful, and would not create a hell in the first place. I would not claim to have “infinite” mercy, but I would never think about inflicting eternal punishment on anyone, no matter how horrible they behave. I am not a monster, but - according to your testimony - God IS. Of course I don’t accept your testimony.

 

[Hitetlen]

EnterTheBowser:

As a remark, I think that addressing this issue from a free-will perspective was a bad idea, in that it was confusing. Given a classical conception of free will, a person is free if they can choose what actions they take - but what the results of those actions are is irrelevant to whether or not they are free. In that sense, even people in Hell have free will.

But Hitetlen’s question still remains. Free will was just a red herring. Why is it that God would only value a person’s choice to worship when they’re not in a position to make an informed decision to do so?

Most probably you are correct. Oh, well, what the heck.

As an explanation for my choice, usually “free will” only includes selection which are possible. For example it does not count that I wish to exercise my free will and fly as a bird, by flapping my arms. If God does not allow one to repent in hell, that is not a valid choice. So, in a sense my mistake was not a grave one, though it was confusing.

**Well, boys and girls, this is the final post for the day. Hopefully my flight will not be cancelled tomorrow, so I can see your new posts in a week. **

 

[thistle]

I don’t understand why everyone engages in discussion with our athiest friend. His threads and posts have one theme. God does not exist, religion and faith are man-made, and anyone who believes in God and has faith is stupid because we believe in something that can’t be scientifically proven.
We should wish him well on a very very very long vacation and pray that one day he will see the light.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

thistle:

I don’t understand why everyone engages in discussion with our athiest friend. His threads and posts have one theme. God does not exist, religion and faith are man-made, and anyone who believes in God and has faith is stupid because we believe in something that can’t be scientifically proven.
We should wish him well on a very very very long vacation and pray that one day he will see the light.

Indeed, we should just ignore the people who disagree with us, and hope that one day, they see the light. And, of course, it’s amazing that atheists posting on religious discussion boards actually advocate atheism… just about as amazing as theists posting on religious discussion boards seem to actually advocate theism. Crazy!

 

[dragonfly]

God HAS given us all proof!! Even those in other countries or tribes will hear his word!

I could be wrong in my assumption, and if so, I am sorry and do not appose any enlightment.
But it seems that you are struggling w/ your faith. It sounds like you are challenging his Love for you rather than the proof of his exsistence. So what do you want?? What would be actual proof for you to know he is real?? And once you are in his presence, the reason for the “cast out” sense if you did not believe is because of this, “I do not know you for you did not know me”

How long would you stay w/ a person if they did not love you?? would you stay at all?? How badly would it break your heart if the child you loved kept rejecting you over and over and never wanted anything from you when you could give him so…much?? Now, imagine God’s heart!!

It’s almost like you are saying, “show yourself to me now Lord and I will believe” knowing he probably won’t in the physical sense you are demanding of him to. So then you can say to him when you are face to face w/ him and YOU WILL BE FACE TO FACE with him, “but you did not show me Lord, so why punish me for you not doing something I asked” Well, you too are not doing something he asks of you, open your heart to him first and let him “show” himself to you through great works.

This is why he gives us so…many chances, and forgives us. But to expect yet, forgiveness once in his presence by forgiving you for rejecting him; Well, he has already done that!! Countless times. So much so, that he gave his one and only begotten son so that you MAY have eternal life!! And because he DOES warn those of what will take place for not accepting him, that his him giving you your “last” chance. You have been told, therefore, once in his presense you are judged!! Much like parent warns a child of the discipline that will take place if he does something wrong. When he does, the parent has to discipline the child.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

dragonfly:

God HAS given us all proof!! Even those in other countries or tribes will hear his word!

Indeed.

I could be wrong in my assumption, and if so, I am sorry and do not appose any enlightment.
But it seems that you are struggling w/ your faith. It sounds like you are challenging his Love for you rather than the proof of his exsistence.

As I recall, under “Religion,” my profile reads “Strong Atheist.” I like to believe that I am a fairly open-minded person, but as of right now, strong atheism appears to be a fairly reasonable position to me.

So what do you want?? What would be actual proof for you to know he is real?? And once you are in his presence, the reason for the “cast out” sense if you did not believe is because of this, “I do not know you for you did not know me”

Any reasonable argument will do. By reasonable, I don’t mean “scientific.” It’s a broader category. I’m not a logical positivist (for their position wass unreasonable), and I don’t hold that all meaningful statements are falsifiable (for this is also unreasonable). Just any sort of good, reasonable argument.

How long would you stay w/ a person if they did not love you?? would you stay at all?? How badly would it break your heart if the child you loved kept rejecting you over and over and never wanted anything from you when you could give him so…much?? Now, imagine God’s heart!!

…

Your response seems, to me, to be something like this. An atheist asks, “Why should I believe in God?” You respond, “Well, let’s assume that God exists…”

 

[gardenswithkids]

Hitetlen:

The question is still the same: what if just ONE person would like to repent in hell, honestly would ask for forgiveness, why would God close his ears and NOT exercise his alleged “merciful” nature. You should not answer this with the assumption that no one would. That is not the point. If tossed into hell, I WOULD.

Ahh! What you fail to understand is we require the grace of God to repent. Those in hell have rejected the grace of God. Despite having been given adequate opportunities to accept God’s grace on earth, they gave their final answer to God–they said “no”. And He allows us to make that choice. But without grace, they are unable to repent. So rather than it being an issue of free will, it is an issue of grace.

We require the grace of God to do anything, even to accept His grace. While you seem to think that if people are in hell then God is cruel because no one deserves hell, I see instead that I deserve hell but my loving, merciful God offers me a chance to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand. If you think you would repent when you are tossed into hell, I strongly suggest you ask the loving, merciful God that you aren’t sure exists to give you the grace to repent NOW. I’ll pray God gives you the grace to do that.

 

[estesbob]

Hitetlen:

No. Intellect is a very useful tool, not to be “worshipped”.

.

St Bernard adresees your total reliance on “intellect” far more eloquently thad I can

From a sermon by Saint Bernard, abbot
​

On the search for wisdom

Let us work for the food which does not perish – our salvation. Let us work in the vineyard of the Lord to earn our daily wage in the wisdom which says: Those who work in me will not sin. Christ tells us: The field is the world. Let us work in it and dig up wisdom, its hidden treasure, a treasure we all look for and want to obtain.

If you are looking for it, really look. Be converted and come. Converted from what? From your own wilfulness. “But”, you may say, “if I do not find wisdom in my own will, where shall I find it? My soul eagerly desires it. And I will not be satisfied when I find it, if it is not a generous amount, a full measure, overflowing into my hands”. You are right, for blessed is the man who finds wisdom and is full of prudence.

Look for wisdom while it can still be found. Call for it while it is near. Do you want to know how near it is? The word is near you, in your heart and on your lips, provided that you seek it honestly. Insofar as you find wisdom in your heart, prudence will flow from your lips, but be careful that it flows from and not away from them, or that you do not vomit it up. If you have found wisdom, you have found honey. But do not eat so much that you become too full and bring it all up. Eat so that you are always hungry. Wisdom says: Those who eat me continue to hunger. Do not think you have too much of it, but do not eat too much or you will throw it up. If you do, what you seem to have will be taken away from you, because you gave up searching too soon. While wisdom is near and while it can be found, look for it and ask for its help. Solomon says: A man who eats too much honey does himself no good; similarly, the man who seeks his own glorification will be crushed by that same renown.

Happy is the man who has found wisdom. Even more happy is the man who lives in wisdom, for he perceives its abundance. There are three ways for wisdom or prudence to abound in you: if you confess your sins, if you give thanks and praise, and if your speech is edifying. Man believes with his heart and so he is justified. He confesses with his lips and so he is saved. In the beginning of his speech the just man is his own accuser, next he gives glory to God, and thirdly, if his wisdom extends that far, he edifies his neighbour.

 

[Neithan]

Hitetlen:

If there WOULD be a God, he would be truly merciful, and would not create a hell in the first place. I would not claim to have “infinite” mercy, but I would never think about inflicting eternal punishment on anyone, no matter how horrible they behave. I am not a monster, but - according to your testimony - God IS. Of course I don’t accept your testimony.

There is a prevalent theological opinion that Hell is no different from Heaven except in how the inhabitants respond to the Love of God. For those in Heaven, God’s presence is paradise; for those in Hell, His presence and all-consuming love is like a terible fire, an eternal torment. This difference lies in the state of the soul itself, and no positive torment is inflicted by God on them. He simply loves them. His infinite mercy is of no avail because the damned constantly reject him forever.
Try reading this article on Judgement which explains it from an Eastern Orthodox perspective.

EnterTheBowser:

Any reasonable argument will do. By reasonable, I don’t mean “scientific.” It’s a broader category. I’m not a logical positivist (for their position wass unreasonable), and I don’t hold that all meaningful statements are falsifiable (for this is also unreasonable). Just any sort of good, reasonable argument.

Are you honestly saying that you have never come across any reasonable arguments for the existence of God