Free Will

[pzona]

I’m sure many of you have heard this argument before, so I won’t go into extreme detail (unless someone hasn’t heard it, in which case I will be happy to explain). If God knows everything that will ever happen (see: omniscience), which presumably includes human actions, how can one who believes in an omniscient God say that humans have free will?

I’ve spoken with many Protestants about this and I’m curious to see what the Catholic view is like. I’m looking forward to reading your responses.

 

[Areopagite]

Just because you know something is going to happen, it doesn’t mean you are thus the one who forces it to happen.

That’s the short of it.

Also, God sees all of time/history all at once. He doesn’t see things successively/chronologically like us. For him, time (in one sense) has already happened … there’s no past, present, or future from God’s perspective.

 

[pzona]

I understand the first part; I’m not trying to say that God causes human action. I suppose I should specify my interpretation of the semantics; this is the way I see it. To “know” something means that the something is an established fact (more or less; this isn’t exactly a dictionary definition). I take this to mean that for God to know what will happen, there needs to be a set event which must occur in the future. What determines this future occurrence? “Fate?”

Also, your description of God’s view of time is very interesting. It brings to mind the fourth temporal dimension in theoretical physics, which I’ve never really considered before.

 

[NowAgnostic]

I’m sure many of you have heard this argument before, so I won’t go into extreme detail (unless someone hasn’t heard it, in which case I will be happy to explain). If God knows everything that will ever happen (see: omniscience), which presumably includes human actions, how can one who believes in an omniscient God say that humans have free will?

I’ve spoken with many Protestants about this and I’m curious to see what the Catholic view is like. I’m looking forward to reading your responses.

No problem if compatibilist free will is true (our actions are completely predetermined by external factors, but we nevertheless perform them “freely”) - God obviously knows those external factors.

Big problem if one holds to libertarian free will (our choices are not caused or determined by external factors) - God then knows our choices because we make them, or because it is just a matter of brute fact that hypothetically person A does B in situation C - making God’s knowledge contingent.

 

[Mel_Stones]

God can know everything that will happen before it happens but he chooses not to.

Same with the old ‘can God make a rock so big even he can’t lift it?’. Yeah, he could if he chose to.

The above mentioned point on God and time is also at play here.

 

[Areopagite]

To “know” something means that the something is an established fact (more or less; this isn’t exactly a dictionary definition). I take this to mean that for God to know what will happen, there needs to be a set event which must occur in the future. What determines this future occurrence? “Fate?”

At our perspective, as we are at a particular point on the timeline, the future is not an established fact. However, for us, the past IS an established fact. And for God, it is as if all time has already happened, and thus is an established fact for Him. That’s what being outside of time is like.

Big problem if one holds to libertarian free will (our choices are not caused or determined by external factors) - God then knows our choices because we make them, or because it is just a matter of brute fact that hypothetically person A does B in situation C - making God’s knowledge contingent.

Good point, NowAgnostic. This does seem to be a problem. Here’s something I’ve thought about (and it’s probably wrong) … God knows every possible outcome in a universe with free will, and thus knows what would actually happen (because knowing all possibilities includes knowing what actually does end up happening). Eh? What do you think? There’s bound to be something wrong with my reasoning.

God can know everything that will happen before it happens but he chooses not to.

This is not true, Mel. This is very much heresy. To say that God doesn’t know something but gradually learns and gain knowledge over time, is to imply that God is changeable, but God is very much eternal and unchanging.

Same with the old ‘can God make a rock so big even he can’t lift it?’. Yeah, he could if he chose to.

No, He couldn’t. God’s omnipotence does not extend to creating metaphysical absurdities. When we say “God can do anything” it implies (correct me if I’m wrong) any real thing. That is, He can do anything that does not result in a contradiction in the thing’s essence. For example, a square circle is a thing with a contradictory essence, because by the very natures of a square and a circle, then two cannot go together to form a “square circle.” A square circle hence is not a real thing (you could say it’s a “logical thing,” i.e. an idea that can only exist in any way in the mind and not in reality), and thus God cannot create a square circle.

Now, Islam would disagree with me and the Church and say that God’s omnipotence can extend into logical absurdities. Islam, however, also tends to think it is okay if faith and reason contradict each other. Catholicism, on the other hand, firmly holds that faith and reason work together.

 

[James_S_Saint]

And then there is the definition concern;

**Free-will **== the ability to freely exercise your will.

…which of course has nothing to do with determinism and leaves nothing to senselessly argue about.

 

[Areopagite]

And then there is the definition concern;

**Free-will **== the ability to freely exercise your will.

…which of course has nothing to do with determinism and leaves nothing to senselessly argue about.

That’s not a very helpful definition. It’s a bit circular.

What we’re arguing is whether humans have the ability to self-determine (at least some of) their actions or if everything we do is solely a product of material forces/circumstances, and not even partly because of a non-physical factor (e.g. the soul).

There is a legitimate argument here. And it’s not senseless.

By the way, James, are you Baha’i? You sure seem to talk like one. No offense.

 

[James_S_Saint]

What we’re arguing is whether humans have the ability to self-determine (at least some of) their actions or if everything we do is solely a product of material forces/circumstances, and not even partly because of a non-physical factor (e.g. the soul).

To the truly logical minded, that statement is the “circular” one. It declares already what it presumes to question. And thus, yes, it really is “non-sense”.

But whatever keeps you off the streets and out of politics.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I’m sure many of you have heard this argument before, so I won’t go into extreme detail (unless someone hasn’t heard it, in which case I will be happy to explain). If God knows everything that will ever happen (see: omniscience), which presumably includes human actions, how can one who believes in an omniscient God say that humans have free will?

I’ve spoken with many Protestants about this and I’m curious to see what the Catholic view is like. I’m looking forward to reading your responses.

time doesnt exist. it may sound a little strange, but think on it for a bit. i mean, what is time? is it what a clock measures? no, a clock is simply measuring change, in this case the change of a set of gears as they respond to the tension wound into the spring. so we know change happens, it is real, but time itself isnt. in the same way, if one is placed in a room with no view for some period of time ones sense of what day it is, it quickly begins to disagree with the time kept by a clock out of sight. so we can see that what we call time is actually subjective. so in this way we that really is no such thing as time. physicists themselves doubt the reaity of time and it is called “the problem of time”

so if there is no time than all we actually have is an eternal now, a “temporal singularity”.

so His knowing, your doing, and every other event all occured simultaneously. hence, the question itself assumes a false state of affairs.

 

[Areopagite]

To the truly logical minded, that statement is the “circular” one. It declares already what it presumes to question. And thus, yes, it really is “non-sense”.

But whatever keeps you off the streets and out of politics.

I guess I’m not of the “truly logical minded.”

Can you explain how in the world it declares already what it presumes to question? If you’re going to say something like that … explicate it. Otherwise, do not talk and act like you have some special knowledge that us “less logically minded” people do not share. Does that sound reasonable, James?

 

[Katholish]

Free Will cannot be understood in depth without understanding God as the first cause of all things. God has necessary knowledge of contingent things because the thing is only contingent in regards to its secondary cause and not its first cause which is necessary.

St. Thomas address it in the Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q.14, A.13, ad1.

That being said, primary causality can be a terribly confusing subject to try to cover in a non-systematic fashion like on a message board. That being said, Areopagite is correct in almost everything that he has posted.

 

[seeker_of_God]

We do definitely have free will. To say that God knows what will happen is to put God in the context of time, and is invalid. Even to say that God sees everything at once is still to give Him a temporal context. Our language simply doesn’t support such a construct, nor can the intellect grasp it.

If we are predetermined, then the conscious has no purpose at all. We are conscious because we will, because we can be an original and unique being, separate from the forces and processes that have worked on us. Our essence is freedom, because that freedom is what separates us from things.

There was a French philosopher called Sartre who said there is no God, because for God to be in control of everything would be to infringe on our freedom, and so to objectify us and make us no more than things – mere puppets. Of course he failed to take into account the possibility that God respects our freedom.

Just finished recently reading a book by Luijpen, which contained quite a bit on this subject.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I guess I’m not of the “truly logical minded.”

Can you explain how in the world it declares already what it presumes to question? If you’re going to say something like that … explicate it. Otherwise, do not talk and act like you have some special knowledge that us “less logically minded” people do not share. Does that sound reasonable, James?

No, it doesn’t. What sounds more reasonable is that you do not tell me or anyone how to respond and instead you read and comment on what they say, or ignore what they say.

I make comments in the tone of “btw, if you are interested…”. I do not go into detailed explanation due to the possibility and even probability of distraction that you are insisting upon.

But since you asked;

The definition of “determinism” is;

Main Entry: de·ter·min·ism
Pronunciation: \di-ˈtər-mə-ˌni-zəm, dē-
Function: noun
Date: 1846

1 a : a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws

In this note that “acts of free-will” are already defined as being the result of cause and thus already determined and thus not-free of causation.

Thus the question of “Can free-will exist at the same time as determinism?” must either be a totally non-sense question or be using a different definition of free-will than commonly being discussed (free from causation).

If we accept that the only sensible definition of “free-will” is that it means to be free to exercise your will", then at least the question makes sense.

 

[Areopagite]

What sounds more reasonable is that you do not tell me or anyone how to respond …

Hmm. Sounds like you’re telling me how to respond. But perhaps this is technically more of a polite suggestion. In that case, I’ll rephrase my words in the same way you have expressed yourself here, “What sounds reasonable is that you explicate your bold and rather condescending statements, instead of just saying ‘The truly logical minded know this.’”

However, in your last post, you made some effort to do this. I applaud you.

… and instead you read and comment on what they say, or ignore what they say.

Are you saying this is what I do (but should not), or are you saying that I should, but do not?

I make comments in the tone of “btw, if you are interested…”. I do not go into detailed explanation due to the possibility and even probability of distraction that you are insisting upon.

Well, BTW, explaining yourself isn’t something I would consider a distraction. What IS distracting is when someone throws out a very controversial comment in a cryptic way and really doesn’t explain it.

But since you asked;

The definition of “determinism” is;

Main Entry: de·ter·min·ism
Pronunciation: \di-ˈtər-mə-ˌni-zəm, dē-
Function: noun
Date: 1846

This is a legitimate explanation. Very good.

I would say that the definition of free-will is definitely not “free from causation.” Rather, it pertains to having an internal power (of the soul) to cause your actions, rather than having purely physical/material forces cause your actions. So, you could say it’s “free from purely physical/material causation” and involves “immaterial causation (of the soul).”

That’s, I think, what the more common understanding is. But I expect major disagreements.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I would say that the definition of free-will is definitely not “free from causation.” Rather, it pertains to having an internal power (of the soul) to cause your actions, rather than having purely physical/material forces cause your actions. So, you could say it’s “free from purely physical/material causation” and involves “immaterial causation (of the soul).”

That’s, I think, what the more common understanding is. But I expect major disagreements.

You seem to be a very good example of the person, who having no actual understanding of the divine, interjects what the Atheists properly argue against.

Normally, I debate against the Atheist primarily trying to get his definitions and understanding straight such that in the end, the Christian actually turns out to be right even though the Christian had merely been holding onto faith without real understanding.

I don’t debate against the Christian much simply because he already admits that he is faithfully following and doesn’t necessarily understand everything about the subject. As long as I see the logic behind what the Christian is following, it doesn’t matter to me a great deal whether the Christian sees it, although they DO need to have at least a certain minimum percentage of their own who DO see the understanding and are not merely following along.

But the validity of concern from the Atheist is that the religions inject superstition into things in order to make sense of what they want to believe. He is right, they really do that, but I forgive that contingent on them having enough people within their higher ranks that actually understand beyond the superstition level. Atheists actually do that exact same thing with Science.

But then again, in forums like this, those faithful followers end up trying to debate logic with an unwarranted confidence in their ability to be logical (rather than faithful). You seem to be one of these and end up being not merely confident, but both arrogant and incorrect due to a particular mental fallacy that is very common and exactly what the Atheist is standing against.

So let me see if I can explain your rational fallacy…

 

[James_S_Saint]

You have come to the belief that there is “something” that you are calling “free-will” that has to ability to guide your decisions and yet is not a part of the physical universe and you relate that to your “soul” even though I’m sure you didn’t that thought from an educated source.

That thought is actually your “superstition”. You really do have a free-will and a soul, but your misunderstanding of their relationship is creating confusion, literally “con-fusion” as in “with-fusing of the parts”.

Existence
The ONLY way that we know of any existence is by something having effect upon us. This is not an issue of the senses being the ONLY source of knowledge. It is an issue of what we declare exists and how we (all of humanity) ended up declaring it as such.

If something truly seems to have no effect at all, we say that it does not exist. And if something does have effect, we say that it does exist. That is how we gain our concept of what exists in reality.

But that understanding does not deny the divine or the supernatural at all. It merely says that if the divine is going to be said to exist, then it must have effect. No one who accepts that God exists argues against God having effect.

Physical Realm
Similar to the understanding of how we declare existence is that of how we declare what is physical. Again, the idea that it is physical only if we can see or touch it, is not the issue and not really true either.

What is physical is what has effect within the physical realm, thus it “physically exists”. This does not deny the existence of any other realm. It merely qualifies what is a part of the physical realm. Anything and everything that has physical effect is a part of the physical realm (at least, not necessarily exclusively).

Spirit
Realize that “spirit” does not mean “divine”. spirit is the “energy” or the “motion within” and it is also not the same as the “soul”. God exists in both the divine world (as Principle) and also the physical world (as Spirit). The word “spirit” is often in texts, improperly used in place of “divine” and this leads to common confusion and often people say, “divine spirit” just to clarify. Spirit is a physical thing which is governed by a divine thing. Spirit is the action itself.

Divine
The entire universe of the “supernatural” and the “divine” are what could also be called the “principles that govern the universe”. We say that they are “above” because they govern and thus they are the “super” of the natural. They are not directly a part of the physical universe and it is a misunderstanding that the divine actually push the universe in any way.

A principle is what something is governed by, but the principle does not actually push or pull on anything physical at all. This is largely an issue of language and is why we conceive of the universe as being in 2 separate realms of the divine/supernatural and the natural/physical.

All principles necessarily must be consistent with all others or be false. But principles can be arranged differently with different names so as to create a completely different understanding. This does not negate the first setting of principles, it merely establishes a different “divine realm” of the same reality. This is how we get Hinduism versus Judaism.

Superstition
What happens in the communication process, especially over thousands of years and little precise education, is that people get these concepts convoluted and especially in the sense that a divine being actually causes “on its own” a physical occurrence that had no other physical instigation. This is a mental temptation to “stitch the divine” into one universal understanding and is called “super-stition”. But the divine is not ever actually causing the physical to alter in any way else it would be a part of the physical universe merely due to the fact that it has effect on it.

Soul
Your soul is not the same as your spirit. Your spirit is a part of the physical world. It is your “behavior” both inside and out. But your soul is your part of the divine universe. It is the principle that represents exactly what you are in essence.

---

Now the result of getting these definitions straight is that there can be no effect on your decisions that is not a part of the physical realm and also that everything in the physical realm follows cause and effect just as everything in the divine realm follows perfect logic.

Thus either free-will means “free to exercise your will” or free-will does not exist in either realm.

 

[Areopagite]

You seem to be a very good example of the person, who having no actual understanding of the divine, interjects what the Atheists properly argue against.

Yeah, you might be right.

You seem to be one of these and end up being not merely confident, but both arrogant and incorrect due to a particular mental fallacy that is very common and exactly what the Atheist is standing against.

I am arrogant. But please tear down my arrogance. If you have knowledge I have not, and you know that I am incorrect, please save me. That is why I insisted you explain yourself. If you are wiser than I, I grow mad with jealousy that you do not reveal your secrets.

But behold! You have explained yourself in great detail now! And for that, I no longer have to criticize you and your cryptic sayings. I shall examine your words and hope to gain the insight which you have.

 

[Areopagite]

You have come to the belief that there is “something” that you are calling “free-will” that has to ability to guide your decisions and yet is not a part of the physical universe and you relate that to your “soul” even though I’m sure you didn’t that thought from an educated source.

Yeah, I kinda made it up. Well, I kinda gleamed it from Aristotle and Aquinas who said the will is the rational appetite, a power of the soul, and (as it is rational) is an immaterial power, much like the intellect. But perhaps I have reasoned this badly.

Existence
The ONLY way that we know of any existence is by something having effect upon us. This is not an issue of the senses being the ONLY source of knowledge. It is an issue of what we declare exists and how we (all of humanity) ended up declaring it as such.

Well, we’ve talked a little bit about this before, and I was never very confident we agreed on everything. For one thing (which comes to mind now), what do you mean by “effect.” For example, if you hear that “Bob” exists … would you say that Bob is having an effect on you? Even if he’s nowhere around?

If something truly seems to have no effect at all, we say that it does not exist. And if something does have effect, we say that it does exist. That is how we gain our concept of what exists in reality.

Once again, what do you mean by “effect.” Does hearing about something, even if the something isn’t acting on you, technically still an effect on you from that something?

But that understanding does not deny the divine or the supernatural at all. It merely says that if the divine is going to be said to exist, then it must have effect. No one who accepts that God exists argues against God having effect.

I would agree that God definitely has an effect on everything. However, I would not agree that “No one who accepts that God exists argues against God having effect” … because Deists seem to think that God does not have an effect on us, but that He still exists.

Spirit
Realize that “spirit” does not mean “divine”. spirit is the “energy” or the “motion within” and it is also not the same as the “soul”. God exists in both the divine world (as Principle) and also the physical world (as Spirit). The word “spirit” is often in texts, improperly used in place of “divine” and this leads to common confusion and often people say, “divine spirit” just to clarify. Spirit is a physical thing which is governed by a divine thing. Spirit is the action itself.

Interesting words. I have no thought about this. You may be right.

Divine
The entire universe of the “supernatural” and the “divine” are what could also be called the “principles that govern the universe”. We say that they are “above” because they govern and thus they are the “super” of the natural. They are not directly a part of the physical universe and it is a misunderstanding that the divine actually push the universe in any way.

Maybe.

Divine
A principle is what something is governed by, but the principle does not actually push or pull on anything physical at all. This is largely an issue of language and is why we conceive of the universe as being in 2 separate realms of the divine/supernatural and the natural/physical.

The word “principle” is used more broadly than this of course. It means “the beginning of any kind of thing in anyway whatsoever.” What you seem to be referring to here are laws. No?

All principles necessarily must be consistent with all others or be false. But principles can be arranged differently with different names so as to create a completely different understanding. This does not negate the first setting of principles, it merely establishes a different “divine realm” of the same reality. This is how we get Hinduism versus Judaism.

Um … are you saying that Hinduism and Judaism are both true because they have different “divine realms?”

Superstition
What happens in the communication process, especially over thousands of years and little precise education, is that people get these concepts convoluted and especially in the sense that a divine being actually causes “on its own” a physical occurrence that had no other physical instigation. This is a mental temptation to “stitch the divine” into one universal understanding and is called “super-stition”. But the divine is not ever actually causing the physical to alter in any way else it would be a part of the physical universe merely due to the fact that it has effect on it.

Very trippy. I probably don’t understand what you’re saying.

Soul
Your soul is not the same as your spirit. Your spirit is a part of the physical world. It is your “behavior” both inside and out. But your soul is your part of the divine universe. It is the principle that represents exactly what you are in essence.

Very interesting. I have often wondered what the distinction between soul and spirit are. Perhaps you are right here.

Now the result of getting these definitions straight is that there can be no effect on your decisions that is not a part of the physical realm and also that everything in the physical realm follows cause and effect just as everything in the divine realm follows perfect logic.

This may be true if you’re right about everything that exists is in the physical realm. I still take issue with what the means. A lot of equivocation can happen with that phrase, I think. But the main thrust of the issue is that … does the will operate simply like a deterministic law of nature? That is, is causation as seen in physics the only factor that goes into determining human action, or is there something that is immaterial that directs it as well and does not have a deterministic nature (unlike the laws of physics)?

Thus either free-will means “free to exercise your will” or free-will does not exist in either realm.

I honestly haven’t followed you perfectly (and that may be my fault). However, perhaps to better clarify everything, what do you mean by “the will.”

Also, where are you getting this stuff? It might be true. But did you make it up? Is it from Plotinus? Is it Baha’i? Or is it all completely taken from Christian writings that I don’t know about? I want to know.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Yeah, you might be right.

I am arrogant. But please tear down my arrogance. If you have knowledge I have not, and you know that I am incorrect, please save me. That is why I insisted you explain yourself. If you are wiser than I, I grow mad with jealousy that you do not reveal your secrets.

But behold! You have explained yourself in great detail now! And for that, I no longer have to criticize you and your cryptic sayings. I shall examine your words and hope to gain the insight which you have.

Oh there you go being all humble and stealing the wind out of my sails…

Well, we’ve talked a little bit about this before, and I was never very confident we agreed on everything. For one thing (which comes to mind now), what do you mean by “effect.” For example, if you hear that “Bob” exists … would you say that Bob is having an effect on you? Even if he’s nowhere around?

I am amazed at how many people (typically Atheists) question what that word means. I feel like I am having to explain the word “circle” or the number “1”. I am not using it in any unorthodox fashion.

“Effect” means a difference or change of state. It is the resultant state of the verb “to affect” or to “cause change or resist change”.

Although difficult to conceive, an electron that is 1000 lightyears away swarming around a hydrogen atom on the other side of the galaxy, actually does have an extremely small and insignificant effect upon you. ALL existence affects all other existence.

99.99999% of effect occurs without your conscious awareness and is independent of your awareness. The new-age idea that your awareness creates reality is a bit absurd when you consider how long effects were taking place long before you even existed such as to have a consciousness. And the idea that “if you can’t see it, it can’t hurt you” is almost the exact opposite of the truth.

Most effects are through a causal chain (El) such that the final effect upon you is via a chain of effects upon other things gradually closer to you in the chain. “Eloha” means the causal chain of spiritual effect. “Elohim” is the sum harmony of all Eloha.

These are Melchizedek understandings not typical revealed in Abramic Scriptures, but supported none the less.

Continued…