Free will?

[Sair]

Okay, so lets say that you are taught that A is always right. Later in life you are confronted with B. Well, sinse you believe that A is right then you will never choose B. Now, you may choose A subconsiously and not realize that you have chosen A.
So the prior actions, what you were taught, determined what you were going to choose.

Now, predeterminism is bad. That is saying that action A will determine action Z, no matter what happens in the middle. Determinism says that A effects B, but can’t decide Z. Meaning that X will determine what Y is and then Y will determine what Z is.

This is a rough example, without specifics to avoid problems.

I must admit that I think it’s really interesting that you, as a Catholic, reject the notion of actual free will. This is not to pass any negative judgement, by any means - I actually find it refreshing.

I think you have hit on a very important sticking point, though, for many who reject determinism because they don’t like the idea that their entire life is predetermined by their genes, or by the physical conditions at their birth, or by the chemicals to which they were exposed in the womb, or the education they received as young children, or whatever. As you say, any given event only determines the next event in the sequence - it doesn’t have the power to determine events many years hence, what with the manifold other events occurring in the interim. As Daniel Dennett has pointed out, determinism does not equate to inevitability.

I do agree with you, in case it isn’t obvious, that free will does not exist, at least not in the sense that under any given circumstances, we can make any choice, independent of causal and influential factors. And I find I also agree with Sam Harris’s assessment, that the rejection of free will should, if anything, make us more understanding and compassionate towards our fellows.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Because its taught through learned behavior A is right, only means its “probable” the individual will choose A. Not absolute.

Christians are taught sin and evil, yet choose it daily. Hows that fit in the equation?

This type of analogy speaks of reason. We are talking cause and effect which reason has no action.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I do agree with you, in case it isn’t obvious, that free will does not exist, at least not in the sense that under any given circumstances, we can make any choice, **independent of causal and influential factors. **And I find I also agree with Sam Harris’s assessment, that the rejection of free will should, if anything, make us more understanding and compassionate towards our fellows.

How can anyone “reject” free will if their choices to so or not are determined ones? It doesn’t make any sense to hold that someone “should” reject free will unless that choice is one that is unencumbered by or free of other factors, which you claim always exist because we cannot make any choice “independent of causal and influential factors.”
Paradixically, you are advocating that a seemingly ‘free’ choice be made to reject free choice not based on existing causal factors but on future or prospective reasoning, as if reasons alone would be enough to alter the determining effects of those causal and influential factors. Interesting position. Inconsistent, but interesting.

 

[Sair]

How can anyone “reject” free will if their choices to so or not are determined ones? It doesn’t make any sense to hold that someone “should” reject free will unless that choice is one that is unencumbered by or free of other factors, which you claim always exist because we cannot make any choice “independent of causal and influential factors.”

Such causal and influential factors must include the insistence by most of one’s companions that free will exists. We are not necessarily aware of all the mechanisms that contribute to our decision making, after all.

Paradixically, you are advocating that a seemingly ‘free’ choice be made to reject free choice not based on existing causal factors but on future or prospective reasoning, as if reasons alone would be enough to alter the determining effects of those causal and influential factors. Interesting position. Inconsistent, but interesting.

I don’t think it’s a free choice, but one compelled by evidence and circumstance.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Such causal and influential factors must include the insistence by most of one’s companions that free will exists. We are not necessarily aware of all the mechanisms that contribute to our decision making, after all.

I don’t think it’s a free choice, but one compelled by evidence and circumstance.

You do understand that a proper Catholic perspective on free will and the nature of original sin means that true freedom of the will comes only as the result of salvation, not as a prerequisite for it. Salvation is the freeing of the will from forces outside of it that enslave it. According to Catholic thought our wills are enslaved by sin, much as an alcoholic is compelled by an addiction to act as they do. Freedom of the will was the Edenic state of humankind, but that freedom was lost by the fall, which brought about enslavement to compulsion and circumstance. This is why Exodus stands as a precursor and foreshadowing of Christian salvation.

According to Augustine, for example, all that is left to fallen man is a choice to cooperate with God’s supernatural grace in order to reinstate personal freedom (sanctity). However, even that choice is only possible when it is underwritten by God (through actual or preternatural grace) who provides the means by which we can choose to cooperate with grace to restore a truly free will in a sanctified state, one unencumbered by compulsion and circumstance.

Only “saints” have a fully functioning free will, the rest of us are to various degrees compelled by forces outside of us. So you may be quite correct with your assessment that your will is in a more or less “determined” condition precisely because it is. That, however, does not preclude the possibility that some humans are to a far greater degree “free” from those compulsive forces and circumstances outside of them which no longer control their will. Of course, that would be beyond your capacity to experience or understand if your own personal freedom has not been attained.

 

[Sair]

You do understand that a proper Catholic perspective on free will and the nature of original sin means that true freedom of the will comes only as the result of salvation, not as a prerequisite for it. Salvation is the freeing of the will from forces outside of it that enslave it. According to Catholic thought our wills are enslaved by sin, much as an alcoholic is compelled by an addiction to act as they do. Freedom of the will was the Edenic state of humankind, but that freedom was lost by the fall, which brought about enslavement to compulsion and circumstance. This is why Exodus stands as a precursor and foreshadowing of Christian salvation.

According to Augustine, for example, all that is left to fallen man is a choice to cooperate with God’s supernatural grace in order to reinstate personal freedom (sanctity). However, even that choice is only possible when it is underwritten by God (through actual or preternatural grace) who provides the means by which we can choose to cooperate with grace to restore a truly free will in a sanctified state, one unencumbered by compulsion and circumstance.

Only “saints” have a fully functioning free will, the rest of us are to various degrees compelled by forces outside of us. So you may be quite correct with your assessment that your will is in a more or less “determined” condition precisely because it is. That, however, does not preclude the possibility that some humans are to a far greater degree “free” from those compulsive forces and circumstances outside of them which no longer control their will. Of course, that would be beyond your capacity to experience or understand if your own personal freedom has not been attained.

It sounds like the odds are already stacked against anyone behaving like a ‘saint’, under the circumstances. Either certain individuals are just lucky enough to be more ‘free’ than others, or they have been chosen - through no will of their own - by God to be less susceptible to circumstance. Seems a lose-lose situation if you aren’t one of the lucky or the ‘chosen’…

 

[Peter_Plato]

It sounds like the odds are already stacked against anyone behaving like a ‘saint’, under the circumstances. Either certain individuals are just lucky enough to be more ‘free’ than others, or they have been chosen - through no will of their own - by God to be less susceptible to circumstance. Seems a lose-lose situation if you aren’t one of the lucky or the ‘chosen’…

Not at all. God’s omnipotence, omnipresence and omnibenevolence makes free choice a possibility for everyone. It comes down to an assent to cooperate with grace - a choice that is within anyone’s power because God’s mercy makes it freely available to everyone.

The problem is that God cannot force anyone to be free. That is a contradiction of the very idea of free choice. He has opened the door of our prison cell, leaves it ajar and calls us out. It is each of us that must choose to leave behind the confines and limitations of our own ego chambers. He even comes inside to guide us out.

Why do you make it sound like such a daunting task, except to talk yourself out of taking the first step?