Free Will?

[Irish_Eyes_826]

I was wondering, to what extent are we able to freely and willingly able to make choices? For better or for worse, so much of what we do is dependent on what is culturally acceptable and what we grow up seeing. Much of the way we see and react to the world depends on our inborn temperaments and our subconscious (physorg.com/news149345120.html). How can we freely make choices when for many decisions when, through millions of years of evolution, we are hard-wired to react a certain way? For example, we have so many fears that we are not really in control of. I know for many women, the fear of having another child far outways their desire to obey church teachings on contraception. Is a person who has a phobia of public places mortally sinning by missing mass? Is a person who was abused by a priest sinning if they leave the Church? So basically I’m asking if most people who do wrong are not actually sinning because there is some psychological explanation for their actions.

 

[ASimon]

Not that this is any help, but it appears free will is not only a non-starter from an evolutionary standpoint, but also from a neuro-scientific standpoint. There have been studies done where subjects have been hooked up to an fMRI machine to monitor brain function, then asked to lift one of their hands. From monitoring the brain function, neuro-scientists can successfully predict in some cases several seconds beforehand, which hand the subject will raise.

 

[erine]

This is why mortal sin is only mortal when done with full consent of the will; and why we can’t judge other’s hearts but only God can. It is definitely not black and white on a surface level. We do however, have free will and with the grace of God are free to choose the best options. We are also free to follow baser instincts. We have free will because we are not slaves to instinct like animals, but have intellects and conciousness and the ability to make decisions…which is not to say we aren’t influenced by numerous factors in these choices.

 

[John21652]

Not that this is any help, but it appears free will is not only a non-starter from an evolutionary standpoint, but also from a neuro-scientific standpoint. There have been studies done where subjects have been hooked up to an fMRI machine to monitor brain function, then asked to lift one of their hands. From monitoring the brain function, neuro-scientists can successfully predict in some cases several seconds beforehand, which hand the subject will raise.

Another unsabstantiated claim by an atheist determined to prove to us that there is no God.

If you are going to make claims based on “science”, then at the very least cite them, or what you suggest can be construed as little more than nonsense.

From what you post, it can be inferred that the subject of the tests you are referring to have some sort of nuerological problem, because it takes several seconds for the thought processes to make a physical change take place. Man, that suggests really bad relexes! While you are at it, find out, if you can, if anyone has ever actually seen a thought.

The OP was primarily referring to constraints which operate upon and effect our decision making. In terms of the cultural constraints we are given from birth onwards, it can be argued that none of us is ever really ‘free’. However, even within the constraints society imposes on us, we are free to determine what we do and when. We can even choose to break the laws which constrain us, if we so desire. We can ignore a red light, hit someone, throw in a job and even choose a career. In general terms, we are free to be whatever we want to be.

However, to accept that we are constrained by society is no argument against free will. For that argument is the same as saying we are constrained by being human. mankind can even chose to act more like an animal if he so chooses and he is also free to turn his back on all of societies mores and standards.

No matter how we define free will, we usually use it within some form of constriants, none of which proves we don’t have it.

 

[ASimon]

Another unsabstantiated claim by an atheist determined to prove to us that there is no God.

If you are going to make claims based on “science”, then at the very least cite them, or what you suggest can be construed as little more than nonsense.

You are perfectly free to construe it that way (except, I guess you’re not perfectly free to do that - heyo!). Although, I would be remiss in pointing out that there’s nothing in principle that says we can’t have a God who doesn’t grant us free will. So, my trying to snooker you decent people into believing that the free will dog just won’t hunt wouldn’t seem to be a great strategy for disproving God.

 

[John21652]

You are perfectly free to construe it that way (except, I guess you’re not perfectly free to do that - heyo!). Although, I would be remiss in pointing out that there’s nothing in principle that says we can’t have a God who doesn’t grant us free will. So, my trying to snooker you decent people into believing that the free will dog just won’t hunt wouldn’t seem to be a great strategy for disproving God.

I am indeed free to construe it that way. You gave no scientific evidence that would constrain my reply!.

There is nothing in principle to suggest there might be a God who doesn’t grant free will. Hpwever, there is nothing in lo0gic to support such a claim because the evidence is that no-one has even heard of such a god. And I’m free to say so!

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

There are many varying theories as to the philosophy of the mind, some materialistic and some not. They all have problems and arguments against them, we just don’t have a definitive answer to this, but hylomorphic dualism, also known as Thomistic Dualism, seems the best given what we know from divine revelation. What the world offers us is purely materialistic or a combination (dualism) that is totally distinct substances without unity, and cannot answer the intentionality arguments that Thomism can.

In Thomistic dualism the soul is the form of the body and is a higher principle that informs matter. They are united but the soul being immaterial can live after the death of the body, though this is not what God intended at creation. It is this principle, the soul, that moves man by its powers of intellect and will. God made us for good, Ultimate Good: Himself, but we can choose lesser goods in place of this and other true goods. We always desire the good, even evil we choose is done because we think in some way it is good for us.

Mere materialistic habits, no matter how ingrained, are of a lesser quality than the informing principle of immaterial substances as it is the spiritual soul that makes us in the likeness of God. Angels too are a higher creature than man owing to their immateriality. Thus they are closer to God even though they are also creatures.

It is our intellect that should drive our will to choose the ultimate good and all lesser goods that lead to and come from the Ultimate Good which is God. The will, following the intellect, should control and rule the passions but because of the separation from God due to Original Sin we are left to a natural physical state that, like the world, is separated from the source of its life.

It is in this state that we must pray for God’s Grace to overcome the passions that can rule the body and will, overriding the intellect and causing us to choose freely that which is contrary to God or which is lesser than Him. It is the soul that is more ingrained in us prior to any material adaptations and is also a higher principle than matter.

 

[Lisa44]

Another unsabstantiated claim by an atheist determined to prove to us that there is no God.

If you are going to make claims based on “science”, then at the very least cite them, or what you suggest can be construed as little more than nonsense.

From what you post, it can be inferred that the subject of the tests you are referring to have some sort of nuerological problem, because it takes several seconds for the thought processes to make a physical change take place. Man, that suggests really bad relexes! While you are at it, find out, if you can, if anyone has ever actually seen a thought.

The OP was primarily referring to constraints which operate upon and effect our decision making. In terms of the cultural constraints we are given from birth onwards, it can be argued that none of us is ever really ‘free’. However, even within the constraints society imposes on us, we are free to determine what we do and when. We can even choose to break the laws which constrain us, if we so desire. We can ignore a red light, hit someone, throw in a job and even choose a career. In general terms, we are free to be whatever we want to be.

However, to accept that we are constrained by society is no argument against free will. For that argument is the same as saying we are constrained by being human. mankind can even chose to act more like an animal if he so chooses and he is also free to turn his back on all of societies mores and standards.

No matter how we define free will, we usually use it within some form of constriants, none of which proves we don’t have it.

“Constraint” is the opposite of “free” so are we constrained, or are we free? Can you explain how we are both constrained and free at the same time?

 

[Lisa44]

You are perfectly free to construe it that way (except, I guess you’re not perfectly free to do that - heyo!). Although, I would be remiss in pointing out that there’s nothing in principle that says we can’t have a God who doesn’t grant us free will. So, my trying to snooker you decent people into believing that the free will dog just won’t hunt wouldn’t seem to be a great strategy for disproving God.

Would you rephrase that for a simpleton please. I’m not sure I catch your drift.

 

[RWMorris]

Hell is the greatest monument to free will and human dignity God ever created.

 

[John21652]

“Constraint” is the opposite of “free” so are we constrained, or are we free? Can you explain how we are both constrained and free at the same time?

OK

We ‘accept’ the restraints ‘freely’.
You can operate freely within the constraints of family and society.
If you don’t, you may be sanctioned and maybe even restrained, in which case you will lose all your freedom.

If you don’t like the constraints, you are free to either risk being restrained, or you can turn your back on the constraints by moving to another society, or even go live by yourself in the wilderness.

Societies have ‘constraints’ or else societies wont function.
Some of those constraints are moral constraints, most of which you are free to accept or reject. Some are man made positive law, which you are free to accept or reject, but, obviously, there are risks of being restrained associated with their breaking. The moral constraints are just rules for associating with other people and with God, if you beleive in God.

Traffic lights constrain you. Imagine approaching a busy intersection with no traffic lights.
Of course, you are free to take your chances!

If you are referring to total freedom, then to achieve it you will need to reject all moral and legal constraints and do as you please all the time.

A desert island may be the place to achieve it, but, without a boat…

 

[Lisa44]

I was wondering, to what extent are we able to freely and willingly able to make choices? For better or for worse, so much of what we do is dependent on what is culturally acceptable and what we grow up seeing. Much of the way we see and react to the world depends on our inborn temperaments and our subconscious (physorg.com/news149345120.html). How can we freely make choices when for many decisions when, through millions of years of evolution, we are hard-wired to react a certain way? For example, we have so many fears that we are not really in control of. I know for many women, the fear of having another child far outways their desire to obey church teachings on contraception. Is a person who has a phobia of public places mortally sinning by missing mass? Is a person who was abused by a priest sinning if they leave the Church? So basically I’m asking if most people who do wrong are not actually sinning because there is some psychological explanation for their actions.

If we were gambling and I had to place a bet I would say you are correct, their actions or behavior is predetermined by who they are which is a genetic sum total received at birth. (genetics and family/or situation born into).

Who we are, determines what we believe, and what we believe, determines how we act.

This is true for the atheist as well as the believer.

It is difficult to see any “free” will in this human condition. And I’ve tried.

There are possibilities for a true free will but those are determined on how the universe is ultimately ordered and the laws affecting us.

Since we don’t know for a fact how the universe is ordered and runs then we can’t know how we operate, or on what laws, for a fact.

Both the atheist and the believer has a certain set of assumptions which they work off of.

However, within known laws there are possibilities for free will.

Perhaps we could discuss what those possibilities are.

 

[tonyrey]

Hell is the greatest monument to free will and human dignity God ever created.

A profound insight!

Hell is also the inexorable consequence of the capacity for love (which presupposes free will) and the reality of evil.

Karl Marx was correct in his view of history as a dialectical process but mistaken in his view that it has a material basis. The dialectical process is one of spiritual development because the most significant conflict is between love and evil. In the words of John Keats the world is “a vale of soul-making”…