Free will - what is it?

[grannymh]

The odds of selecting the proper choice of those given is greatly improved by honing the conscience. The more we obey the inclination to good, the better that becomes.

Andy

Good reply. Is this because our will directs us toward the ultimate good?

Christmas Blessings,
granny

The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert
The “Twelve Days of Christmas” are meant to be celebrated.

www.CatholicsComeHomeRockford.org or

 

[R_Daneel]

Here is where I would suggest that there are all kinds of things which contribute to making a decision (act of free will choice). Having the ability to accomplish a “wish” would raise it to a goal. But, at that point, there could still be other possible goals he could choose which is what we both agree on.

Where we differ is that I don’t consider being able to accomplish a decision is necessary for making a decision. Helpful, yes. To put it another way. Practically speaking, we often make decisions to do something before we truly know that we can physically carry them out.

In the light of what you said, please analyze the following thought-experiment: “A woman is being raped. She wants with all her might to escape. However the rapist is too strong, she is unable to carry out her wish”. What can you say about her “free will” to escape her predicament? Is her “free will” affected?

Would it help if I added that once a decision is made, it is not set in stone. Because the choice is due to our power to make choices freely, we can continue to make choices which help carry out the original one.
Being feminine, I can change my decisions at any time.

That is all fine. Certainly we all do the same.

 

[Fran65]

Is a child responsible for wielding a dangerous weapon, which was left by the parent? Can the parent use the defense: “but I told him to leave that loaded gun alone!”?

Gosh, you are taking a long route round to the question that you kept raising on the other thread: how can a loving and caring God leave us in such a dangerous world and isn’t it unfair that we are to be punshed in that world?

 

[R_Daneel]

Gosh, you are taking a long route round to the question that you kept raising on the other thread: how can a loving and caring God leave us in such a dangerous world and isn’t it unfair that we are to be punshed in that world?

The question is pertinent in many scenarios. And there are no answers to it.

 

[Fran65]

I’m genuinely interested - is this a circuitous route to ‘and that’s why God does not exist’ or are you angry with God for what you regard as unfair?

I don’t understand many of God’s ways - but then I’m a human being with human limitations. I know that you will not be satisfied with that answer - but you weren’t satisfied with any other answers that you’ve been offered before either. Maybe it is ‘unanswerable’ to everyone’s satisfaction; in which case it falls into the class of being a mystery.

 

[R_Daneel]

I’m genuinely interested - is this a circuitous route to ‘and that’s why God does not exist’ or are you angry with God for what you regard as unfair?

Honest question merits an honest answer. Of ocurse I am not “angry” with God. How could I be? I don’t believe that God exists. I keep wondering about the portrait the believers paint about God. It is so full of contradictions, and I am unable to comprehend that people are actually believe such a self-contradictory concept.

Naturally, I am able to contemplate that this universe of ours (3 spatial and 1 temporal dimensions) is not “all there is”. That we are part of something else, and our “little” universe was created by a being (or beings) in that “greater universe”. I see no need for such a hypothesis, but it would not be impossible. The being (or beings) who created our universe are almost “infinitely” more knowledgeable and capable than we are. Stands to reason, and nothing impossible about it. However, this setup is completely different from the Christian concept of God.

The picture Christianity presents is highly anthropomorphic. Worse is that the picture portrays God partly as a vain, vicious, vengeful, power-hungry, tyrannical being (Old Testament) and partly as a loving, caring being, who wants the best for us (New Testament). (Mind you that God is supposed to be immutable, unchanging.) This is already a confusing picture - mixing the best and worst human characteristics into one being. But the “solution” is simply mind-bogglingly childish. God wants to “redeem” us, by recreating himself in a human form, and sacrifices himself to be able to pardon our “sins” and trespasses. What kind of nonsense is this? Why can’t he simply forgive without going through that charade? Moreover, he does not pardon us unconditionally; there is a string attached. The ones who will be forgiven must obey, love and worship him. (As a bumper sticker said: “Christians are not perfect, just forgiven”). The “vanity” from the OT returns.

Of course, this is just a miniscule portion of all the problems. I probably could write a whole book about my questions. But what would be the point? I like to present one or two little problems and see the result. Let me tell you, the result is depressing. I did present the same problem before in a slightly different fashion, and the answers were diametrically opposite. Not only there is no coherent view presented, the answers keep contradicting themselves.

Just one example: When contemplating the “problem of evil” in a direct fashion, the answers all try to “whitewash” God, by stating that our lack of knowledge prevents us from making a correct assessment, whatever we consider “gratuitous” evil is really just a part of God’s greater plan - there is really no “evil”. We are not privy to that plan, of course - and that is why have this misperception. Everything is hunky-dory, this is the best of the possible worlds, or is on the way to get there… Never mind the fact that it “looks like” evil.

Now, when the problem is presented differently, the existence of evil is not denied, but it is “explained” as a necessary, foreseen but unwanted corollary of “free will”. Of course, this is also a lame excuse. According to the Catholic belief Mary was without sin, and yet she had free will. It is therefore possible to have beings with free will and yet sinless. A world could have been populated by Mary-like beings. If that required a “special” grace, so what? That special grace could have been extended to everyone.

And there is a third kind of “explanation”. God is all-good, he cannot tolerate evil. Yet he allows it, unwanted, but foreseen. This is probably the worst kind of defense. If someone explicitly does not want something, and is able to avoid it, then why would he allow and tolerate it? No one benefits from evil. The people who practice it will forfeit they possibility to get to heaven. The ones who suffer the consequences will experience pain and horror. God does not explicitly want anyone to suffer, it cannot be “good” for God to see it happen. Why would he allow something that is “bad” for everyone, God himself included?

Poor God is presented as a hapless idiot, who cannot tolerate evil, but since he “omnipresent”, he is surrounded by it - against his wishes. As I said before, nothing I could say about God could possibly be more disrespectful than the assertions of the believers…

I will stop here, don’t want to bore you with more. But let me reiterate. I am not “angry” with God or anyone. If anything, I feel very sorry for those who are unwilling to take a step back, and contemplate these questions without the emotional attachment. It might be quite enlightening to try. The name “Lucifer” is a beautiful one, to bring light into the darkness of unquestioning, blind faith.

I hope I did not offend you or anyone. It was not my intent. But you asked and I answered to the best of my ability. Wishing you the best.

I don’t understand many of God’s ways - but then I’m a human being with human limitations. I know that you will not be satisfied with that answer - but you weren’t satisfied with any other answers that you’ve been offered before either. Maybe it is ‘unanswerable’ to everyone’s satisfaction; in which case it falls into the class of being a mystery.

You are perfectly capable to understand the human concept about God. And so am I and many others. There is nothing “mysterious” about the picture - it is simply muddy and nonsensical.

 

[grannymh]

In the light of what you said, please analyze the following thought-experiment: “A woman is being raped. She wants with all her might to escape. However the rapist is too strong, she is unable to carry out her wish”. What can you say about her “free will” to escape her predicament? Is her “free will” affected?

Should I mention that as a student, I was in theatre? Not only can I think about this thought-experiment, I can step into her shoes with theatrical ease.

In my predicament, obviously, I exercise my free will and choose to escape. But, my innermost choice is not the same as my physical strength which is not enough to free me. I can make a choice and wish with all my might but that does nothing to stop my assailant. At this point, my gut instincts to survive kick in.

You asked: “What can you say about her “free will” to escape her predicament? Is her “free will” affected?

My making a choice should not be confused with my physical strength what little
I have. My choice did not make me superwoman so I could escape my predicament. However, making that choice helped me in my recovery from the truama.

In one sense, my assailant affected my free will by not giving me choices to choose. In another sense, my power or will to determine my actions is not material so it cannot be affected. The next time I walk in that part of town, I will carry mace.npatrol:
May I step off the stage?

Catholics view intellect and will as immaterial powers beyond natural sentience in animals. An example would be the wild fires in California. When faced with a raging fire, both humans and animals will flee. Both may gather up family and lead them away from danger. From experience, both may seek known safe escapes. The difference is in the answer to this question. Do animals choose to set backfires?

Christmas Blessings,
granny

The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

The “Twelve Days of Christmas” are meant to be celebrated.

 

[Fran65]

There is so much in your post that it is difficult to know where to start. The first thing to be said, I think, is that as humans our knowledge and understanding is imperfect and that applies to our concept of God. The writings that you refer to were written at a particular period for a particular purpose by men with a radically different understanding of the world to that that exists today. I have no doubt that OT records their understandings of God, but there are aspects of God as you point out that are emphasised at the expense of other aspects. The NT corrects that and balances the portrait with one of a God willing to sacrifice His only son for our sake. A God who provides a way back to Him despite our persistent and willful disobedience. From reading your post it seems to me that you read the Bible literally and do not see the tremendous range of books and purposes therein. The Catholic Church has always taught that we need scripture and reasoning to arrive at a more complete understanding.

The point about the absurdity of the Crucifixion and Resurrection I understand. It is challenging to believe that Christ rose again on the third day. It is sobering to contemplate Christ’s suffering as a result of our sinfulness. It is a tremendous gift from God to know that by believing in Christ we are no longer condemned. That is the heart of Christianity and it is one that is rejected by many millions - not just by you. There are so many reasons to believe that it would be impossible to go over them all here. It is worth investigating though -if you’ve a mind to.

My personal reasons for believing include a deep sense that this is true (intuitive); having explored other faiths and none and practiced some of them, none of them are as intellectually satisfying and beneficent as Catholicism; and the more I learn about theology the more I understand about the nature of God and see that the contradictions are a result of imperfect knowledge and reasoning.

Wanting God to be simple is a very human desire, but as the creator of all things how can we expect his ways to be easy to understand? We don’t understand our own nature despite thousands of years of study, so how can we expect to understand something so very much above us?

 

[grannymh]

I keep wondering about the portrait the believers paint about God.

When I wonder – I check
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4

Or I use this handy link

A good place to start is Paragraph 1730 – Man’s Freedom (search freedom, 86 results or will or anything to do with human nature)

Christmas Blessings,
granny

The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

The “Twelve Days of Christmas” are meant to be celebrated.

 

[R_Daneel]

There is so much in your post that it is difficult to know where to start. The first thing to be said, I think, is that as humans our knowledge and understanding is imperfect and that applies to our concept of God.

No question about that. It is not the complexity that I have problem with, it is the illogical nature of those concepts. More on this later.

The writings that you refer to were written at a particular period for a particular purpose by men with a radically different understanding of the world to that that exists today. I have no doubt that OT records their understandings of God, but there are aspects of God as you point out that are emphasised at the expense of other aspects.

Here I have some problems. The Bible is presented as the word of God. It is asserted that the writers were “inspired” - whatever that means. You cannot just sweep the some parts of the OT under the rug as written by fallible humans with certain understanding. If those descriptions are all incorrect, then the whole OT should be discarded as pure mythology (especially along with the concept of original sin) - which is of course my opinion.

The NT corrects that and balances the portrait with one of a God willing to sacrifice His only son for our sake. A God who provides a way back to Him despite our persistent and willful disobedience.

As I said it is a childish and illogical concept. When there is a need for forgiveness, there is no need to go through all those “hooplas”. God could have just forgiven everyone, without any strings attached. But why creating those beings who will disobey all the time? Makes no sense at all. The description of God is not merely “strange”, it is downright illogical.

From reading your post it seems to me that you read the Bible literally and do not see the tremendous range of books and purposes therein. The Catholic Church has always taught that we need scripture and reasoning to arrive at a more complete understanding.

Oh, yes. The two possible ways to read the Bible. One is fully literal in every respect. That is usually done by the so-called fundamentalists, but not by Catholics. The other one is called cherry-picking - selecting certain passages as literal, and selecting others as allegorical. Who will do the selection? Catholics maintain that the Church should be the one to do so. However, the Church is composed of fallible human beings, which presents the same problem. The “solution” is being “mythological” and therefore unacceptable. You cannot “escape” the problem by positing the Holy Spirit as a solution - because it comes from the Bible.

The point about the absurdity of the Crucifixion and Resurrection I understand. It is challenging to believe that Christ rose again on the third day.

But that is not question I raised. It was the absurdity of need for it. Why cannot God simply forgive without that “self-sacrifice”?

Wanting God to be simple is a very human desire, but as the creator of all things how can we expect his ways to be easy to understand? We don’t understand our own nature despite thousands of years of study, so how can we expect to understand something so very much above us?

If this would be asserted in a consistent manner, it would be much more acceptable than the current situation. But Christians assert (vigorously) that they can comprehend God’s love (along with many other attributes), and only the skeptics suffer from muddy thinking when they ask for evidence of that. What adds insult to injury is that the skeptics are “blamed” for not asking God long enough and/or hard enough. It is asserted that the skeptics are lazy, if only they would implore God to enlighten them, God would do so… But that is a whole different ballgame.

Going back to the logical problems.

God is supposed be all “love”. God is supposed to have created us with the desire to share that love with us. So far, so good. It is a starting point. But the question arises: if that was God’s desire, why didn’t he do it? Why didn’t he create us with the disposition of Mary, someone without sin? Everyone would have been better off. God would have all those untold zillions to love, and they would reciprocate that love with their own. A win-win situation.

Why create Satan and other “bad guys”? There was no logical need for it. You see, asserting God’s omniscience and omnipotence the Christians painted themselves into this very tight corner. God could foresee the fall of the angels, God was under no obligation to create them, so why do it? God could foresee that some humans will disobey. Why create them? There is no obligation for God to create anyone at all. He could have just cherry-picked the ones who are good and obedient; who are happy to serve God (whatever that means - again) and just leave the bad boys uncreated.

And that is not a “mystery”, that is downright stupidity. Why do you Christians think and say that God is so stupid that he does not do what is the best interest of everyone?

 

[R_Daneel]

When I wonder – I check
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4

Or I use this handy link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

A good place to start is Paragraph 1730 – Man’s Freedom (search freedom, 86 results or will or anything to do with human nature)
Thank you. Here is an interesting paragraph:

1737 An effect can be tolerated without being willed by its agent; for instance, a mother’s exhaustion from tending her sick child. A bad effect is not imputable if it was not willed either as an end or as a means of an action, e.g., a death a person incurs in aiding someone in danger. For a bad effect to be imputable it must be foreseeable and the agent must have the possibility of avoiding it, as in the case of manslaughter caused by a drunken driver.

This is inapplicable for God. There is no difference between “foreseen, but unintended” and “directly willed” - as far as God is concerned. Every evil “foreseen but unintended” by God is God’s responsibility, just as those evils which he directly willed (if any). This follows logically from God’s omniscience and omnipotence.

 

[grannymh]

Thank you. Here is an interesting paragraph:

1737 An effect can be tolerated without being willed by its agent; for instance, a mother’s exhaustion from tending her sick child. A bad effect is not imputable if it was not willed either as an end or as a means of an action, e.g., a death a person incurs in aiding someone in danger. For a bad effect to be imputable it must be foreseeable and the agent must have the possibility of avoiding it, as in the case of manslaughter caused by a drunken driver.

This is inapplicable for God. There is no difference between “foreseen, but unintended” and “directly willed” - as far as God is concerned. Every evil “foreseen but unintended” by God is God’s responsibility, just as those evils which he directly willed (if any). This follows logically from God’s omniscience and omnipotence.

Thank you for taking the time to check the Catechism.

Pardon me. Naturally, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not applicable to God. It was not written for Him to follow.

Christmas Blessings,
granny

The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

The “Twelve Days of Christmas” are meant to be celebrated.

 

[R_Daneel]

Thank you for taking the time to check the Catechism.

Pardon me. Naturally, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not applicable to God. It was not written for Him to follow.

That brings up a question. Do you subscribe to the ancient Latin saying: “Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi”? Or in other words, God and humans are not measured by the same rod? If a human actively does or passively allows something, which we consider “evil” (provided that in the second case it would be within his power to prevent it), then we call that human “evil” for doing so. Do you think that God must be measured differently? If so, on what grounds? Isn’t there an objective standard for everyone - which is usually called absolute morality? Think about the ramifications of this question.

 

[grannymh]

That brings up a question. Do you subscribe to the ancient Latin saying: “Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi”? Or in other words, God and humans are not measured by the same rod? If a human actively does or passively allows something, which we consider “evil” (provided that in the second case it would be within his power to prevent it), then we call that human “evil” for doing so. Do you think that God must be measured differently? If so, on what grounds? Isn’t there an objective standard for everyone - which is usually called absolute morality? Think about the ramifications of this question.

Think?

I don’t even recognize the Latin phrase. Who made up that one and when? More important, what was the context? Citation? Never mind. I know I’m not strong enough to hold any kind of a rod which would measure a supernatural being. And if I had to use a rod to measure a human, it would have to be one of those wooden yardsticks or my tape measure.

I need my morning Pepsi.

Seriously, when there is a mixture of concepts, there must be clarification before ramification. Is there anything above which could use some clarification? That question is my ploy so I can go get my Pepsi, do some pesky errands, and gain the advantage of time in order to actually think.

By the way, is the phrase which we consider “evil” referring to the legal system, the philosophy of relativism, or the Ten Commandments? Evil humans may be a common phrase, but what does that say about human nature which has a will.

“Do you think that God must be measured differently?” Is that question like “Have I stopped beating my hubby?” As for an objective standard, I try to avoid threads about any version of absolute morality because of the frustration over the confused usage of objective and subjective. No one is going to change their mind anyway.

In other words, I view free will as an essential element of human nature. Its ramifications do lead to all of the above. Now I need two Pepsi’s

Christmas Blessings,
granny

The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

The “Twelve Days of Christmas” are meant to be celebrated.

 

[R_Daneel]

I don’t even recognize the Latin phrase. Who made up that one and when? More important, what was the context? Citation? Never mind.

Google is your friend. Here is the source and the explanation: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quod_licet_Iovi,_non_licet_bovi

I know I’m not strong enough to hold any kind of a rod which would measure a supernatural being. And if I had to use a rod to measure a human, it would have to be one of those wooden yardsticks or my tape measure.

I hope you are just joking. Every time you say that God is good, you are applying a measuring standard.

 

[grannymh]

Google is your friend. Here is the source and the explanation: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quod_licet_Iovi,_non_licet_bovi

When I was studying/working, the stacks were my friend and I am not referring to anything connected with computer science. So all you younguns, be kind to granny and keep reminding her about Wikipedia and Google. (Note to R Daneel. Link to Terence was very interesting.)

I hope you are just joking. Every time you say that God is good, you are applying a measuring standard.

I said something very serious in a lighthearted manner.

From post 52. I know I’m not strong enough to hold any kind of a rod which would measure a supernatural being. And if I had to use a rod to measure a human, it would have to be one of those wooden yardsticks or my tape measure.

There is a tendency in posts about free will to apply all kinds of measuring standards as if measuring standards are the rule of life. (quasi-pun intended) It gets to the point that the reality of the item being measured can be misjudged.

If one is seeking the definition of free will, then first one has to decide if it is real or not. I respect different worldviews, so I am not asking the following question based on my worldview. However, I do need a clarification from your personal viewpoint.

As the OP, are you asking for a definition of something real?

Christmas Blessings,
granny

The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

The “Twelve Days of Christmas” are meant to be celebrated.

 

[AndyF]

granny:

The will is an appetite of the faculty of choice. The object of the will is an apprehended good, and it benefits greatly through the exercise of self control. In the infant this is usually impulsive.

The point of scrutiny this self control produces presents to the conscience it’s opportunity to apply* a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform.

*A well honed conscience properly…

a/…enables one to assume responsibility for the acts performed. It becomes a witness to a man’s evil acts.
b/…must be informed and moral judgment enlightened.
c/…is educated through a life long task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience…The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.
d/…is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time “from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith.”
e/… is a moral conscience, present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil.
f/…is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. Everyone must avail himself of the means to form his conscience.

*search conscience at: ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search

AndyF