T
- Status
B
blase6
Guest
V
Vico
Guest
Aquinas removes from consideration all questions of determinism using the metaphysical system in which God acts as first cause for all secondary causes. This includes both deterministic or voluntary.
B
blase6
Guest
The first cause is necessarily the determinant cause. Unless a “voluntary” cause can exist. But I do not see that it exists. The will is determined by external factors, always. I tested my own free will earlier. I wanted to see if I could open my hand without it being determined by an external force. I noticed that I opened my hand when the motive to test my free will appeared more good than the motive to keep my hand relaxed. Thus I see that I did not really choose for myself.
T
tonyrey
Guest
False deduction! It does not explain why people sometimes choose the lesser good - or even evil. If your hypothesis were true you would be incapable of thinking rationally because all your conclusions would be determined by appearances rather than objective facts. In other words you - and everyone else - would always be guilty of wishful thinking!
Moreover the terms “innocent” and “guilty” would become meaningless because our wills would always be determined by external factors. If we cannot choose to think independently we are no more than a cogs in a machine which are incapable of rational insight. A self-destructive hypothesis is worthless…
B
blase6
Guest
In a philosophical sense, persons cannot directly will evil. They can only indirectly will evil by choosing what appears good but is understood to bring about evil. In a situation where an evil action appeared most good to the will, then the will would choose it.
J
joemccarron
Guest
Catholics have defended that people freely choose good or evil and thereby are judged by God. Martin Luther argued that we have no free will and our actions and will have nothing to do with how we are judged. “It’s all God.”
I never understood Luther’s view. It seems incoherent. After all if it’s all God then God is not really judging us, but himself. Sadly it seems that Catholic Church’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity is encouraging the the church to move in the direction of incoherence. For the we sake of keeping Catholicism coherent I hope the Catholic Church continues to separate itself from these teachings.
Here are some of the problematic quotes:
"22…Because Catholics and Lutherans confess this together, it is true to say that:
23.When Lutherans emphasize that the righteousness of Christ is our righteousness, their intention is above all to insist that the sinner is granted righteousness before God in Christ through the declaration of forgiveness and that only in union with Christ is one’s life renewed. When they stress that God’s grace is forgiving love (“the favor of God”[12]), they do not thereby deny the renewal of the Christian’s life. They intend rather to express that justification remains free from human cooperation and is not dependent on the life-renewing effects of grace in human beings.
24.When Catholics emphasize the renewal of the interior person through the reception of grace imparted as a gift to the believer,[13] they wish to insist that God’s forgiving grace always brings with it a gift of new life, which in the Holy Spirit becomes effective in active love. They do not thereby deny that God’s gift of grace in justification remains independent of human cooperation. [cf. Sources for section 4.2]."
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html
I never understood Luther’s view. It seems incoherent. After all if it’s all God then God is not really judging us, but himself. Sadly it seems that Catholic Church’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity is encouraging the the church to move in the direction of incoherence. For the we sake of keeping Catholicism coherent I hope the Catholic Church continues to separate itself from these teachings.
Here are some of the problematic quotes:
"22…Because Catholics and Lutherans confess this together, it is true to say that:
23.When Lutherans emphasize that the righteousness of Christ is our righteousness, their intention is above all to insist that the sinner is granted righteousness before God in Christ through the declaration of forgiveness and that only in union with Christ is one’s life renewed. When they stress that God’s grace is forgiving love (“the favor of God”[12]), they do not thereby deny the renewal of the Christian’s life. They intend rather to express that justification remains free from human cooperation and is not dependent on the life-renewing effects of grace in human beings.
24.When Catholics emphasize the renewal of the interior person through the reception of grace imparted as a gift to the believer,[13] they wish to insist that God’s forgiving grace always brings with it a gift of new life, which in the Holy Spirit becomes effective in active love. They do not thereby deny that God’s gift of grace in justification remains independent of human cooperation. [cf. Sources for section 4.2]."
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html
V
Vico
Guest
Desire may be against reason. The Holy Spirit gives the strength to choose with reason against desire.
T
tonyrey
Guest
People are not always reasonable. They **can even choose what is against their own and everyone else’s interest in a fit of pique but they are still held responsible for their behaviour. They know perfectly well what they are doing is wrong and irrational without being compelled to behave in that way. To deny that we can ever **choose what to think or how to behave is absurd, self-contradictory and self-refuting. Simplistic explanations of human behaviour - such as free will is an illusion - are widespread but unrealistic…
B
blase6
Guest
The strongest motive for an action does not have to be perfectly reasonable. I never implied that.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Do you believe all your conclusions are determined by your motives? If so are all your motives determined by factors beyond your control?
B
blase6
Guest
The motives a person experiences are the only things by which a person can act. A person cannot act without a motive. And if the will chooses based on which motive appears most good, then one’s actions are determined by external forces.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Are your motives the result of your present situation and past experiences?
B
blase6
Guest
Yes, one or the other, or both.
T
tonyrey
Guest
In that case you are a cog in a machine and not responsible for your thoughts, choices, decisions or actions - in which case your conclusions are unreliable.
B
blase6
Guest
It figures. But I am still going to believe in free will since I would never be happy with that thought. But of course it will be difficult when the world seems to work differently from what you believe.In that case you are a cog in a machine and not responsible for your thoughts, choices, decisions or actions - in which case your conclusions are unreliable.
T
tonyrey
Guest
B
blase6
Guest
I have yet to see how my arguments are self contradictory. I am considering different ideas of freedom and refuting them.
T
tonyrey
Guest
The very fact that you are considering different ideas of freedom and claiming to refute them implies that you choose to do so. If you are compelled to do so you are a fallible robot which is very likely to be mistaken. Would you trust computers to make all your decisions for you? If not why not?
B
blase6
Guest
No, it does not prove that I freely chose to consider different ideas of freedom and to refute them. I was merely moved to act in such a way. If it is ultimately me who moved myself, then I am free. If not, I am not free.
- Status