Free Will

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_habeo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
blase6 said:
The very fact that you are considering different ideas of freedom and claiming to refute them implies that you choose
Click to expand...
The point is that if you are not free and merely moved to** think** in such a way then you cannot **think **otherwise. Your conclusions are not yours at all but the result of mindless events beyond your control. Do you think that is a trustworthy foundation for a rational conclusion? :confused:
Click to expand...
 
tonyrey said:
The point is that if you are not free and merely moved to** think** in such a way then you cannot **think **otherwise. Your conclusions are not yours at all but the result of mindless events beyond your control. Do you think that is a trustworthy foundation for a rational conclusion? :confused:
Click to expand...
If it appears this way, then yes, I am inclined to believe it. But I stubbornly hold belief in free will against reason with the faint hope, that I might be able to reconcile free will with the real world. But so far, it hasn’t happened.
 
blase6 said:
If it appears this way, then yes, I am inclined to believe it. But I stubbornly hold belief in free will against reason with the faint hope, that I might be able to reconcile free will with the real world. But so far, it hasn’t happened.
Click to expand...
In other words you accept the materialist’s doctrine that a person is the same as a physical object in having no control whatsoever over its activity? We are no more than helpless spectators of events without any responsibility for our thoughts, actions, conclusions and decisions - in direct contradiction of the teaching of Christ? We are not made in the image of God but are simply biological freaks that have magically become aware of our existence and impotence? Do you really believe that is a rational interpretation of reality? :confused:
 
tonyrey said:
In other words you accept the materialist’s doctrine that a person is the same as a physical object in having no control whatsoever over its activity? We are no more than helpless spectators of events without any responsibility for our thoughts, actions, conclusions and decisions - in direct contradiction of the teaching of Christ? We are not made in the image of God but are simply biological freaks that have magically become aware of our existence and impotence? Do you really believe that is a rational interpretation of reality? :confused:
Click to expand...
It is commonly observed that the physical world involves deterministic causality in pretty much everything. (except things like quantum physics, except that is a fairly new scientific idea and not fully understood). Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that the spiritual world works the same way. I am expected to believe that somehow, a person can ultimately choose their own actions with full responsibility, even though that contradicts either a deterministic or indeterministic world. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the real world that the idea of the will can be compared to, in terms of causality. So it seems to be an irrational idea accepted without deep thought.
 
blase6 said:
It is commonly observed that the physical world involves deterministic causality in pretty much everything. (except things like quantum physics, except that is a fairly new scientific idea and not fully understood). Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that the spiritual world works the same way. I am expected to believe that somehow, a person can ultimately choose their own actions with full responsibility, even though that contradicts either a deterministic or indeterministic world. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the real world that the idea of the will can be compared to, in terms of causality. So it seems to be an irrational idea accepted without deep thought.
Click to expand...
Try not to forget that The Holy Spirit gives the supernatural strength to choose with reason against desire. It is our cooperation with what God gives us that is needed for us to live a Christlike life. God makes possible what is ordinarily (naturally) impossible.
 
Vico said:
Try not to forget that The Holy Spirit gives the supernatural strength to choose with reason against desire. It is our cooperation with what God gives us that is needed for us to live a Christlike life. God makes possible what is ordinarily (naturally) impossible.
Click to expand...
But that then is just another motive, which must appear best to be chosen. I think you misunderstand what I mean by motive/desire. A motive/desire can be felt or just thought. An emotional urge is just as valid a motive as a merely intellectual motive.
 
blase6 said:
But that then is just another motive, which must appear best to be chosen. I think you misunderstand what I mean by motive/desire. A motive/desire can be felt or just thought. An emotional urge is just as valid a motive as a merely intellectual motive.
Click to expand...
What is just another motive?
 
blase6 said:
What you described. In your case, an influence of God is just another motive.
Click to expand...
OK, I understand. There is a conflict of motives, and one chooses freely. God makes it possible* to choose with reason.
*
 
blase6 said:
It is commonly observed that the physical world involves deterministic causality in pretty much everything. (except things like quantum physics, except that is a fairly new scientific idea and not fully understood). Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that the spiritual world works the same way. I am expected to believe that somehow, a person can ultimately choose their own actions with full responsibility, even though that contradicts either a deterministic or indeterministic world. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the real world that the idea of the will can be compared to, in terms of causality. So it seems to be an irrational idea accepted without deep thought.
Click to expand...
The “real world” is our inner world. We infer the existence of the physical world from our perceptions but our primary datum and sole certainty is our mind. We have power that material things lack: consciousness, insight and control of our environment. So it is a mistake to assume we are subject to the same causal laws as inanimate objects. Persons are not things. As Pascal remarked, our greatness is based on our power of thought. It is irrational to imagine thought is a mechanical process we can’t control because we know the limitations of computers. If our mind were programmed down to the last detail we would have no guarantee that any of our conclusions are trustworthy. The truth makes us free but we have to be free to recognise the truth!
 
tonyrey said:
The “real world” is our inner world. We infer the existence of the physical world from our perceptions but our primary datum and sole certainty is our mind. We have power that material things lack: consciousness, insight and control of our environment. So it is a mistake to assume we are subject to the same causal laws as inanimate objects. Persons are not things. As Pascal remarked, our greatness is based on our power of thought. It is irrational to imagine thought is a mechanical process we can’t control because we know the limitations of computers. If our mind were programmed down to the last detail we would have no guarantee that any of our conclusions are trustworthy. The truth makes us free but we have to be free to recognise the truth!
Click to expand...
It is foolish to assume that the spiritual world is exempt from the system of causation. It should be plainly evident. Actually, persons are things, except things that have self-awareness and awareness of the spiritual. This is where belief in the soul comes from, since people do not understand why awareness exists. Nowhere in that is free will necessary for spiritual awareness.
 
blase6 said:
If the choice comes from whichever motive appears to be the best choice, then yes, it is a predetermined choice.
Click to expand...
It does not come from whichever motive appears to be the best choice.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in Summa Theologica Q83, A1. Reply to Objection 4. “Man’s way” is said “not to be his” in the execution of his choice, wherein he may be impeded, whether he will or not. The choice itself, however, is in us, but presupposes the help of God.
newadvent.org/summa/1083.htm

We all have to keep in mind not to fall into the errors of Plagianism or Semi-Pelagianism. Pelagianism developed to deny the supernatural order and the necessity of grace for salvation. Semi-Pelagianism holds that mankind can make the first move toward God on his own… Second Synod of Orange, which condemned Semipelagianism as heresy. In twenty-five canons the entire powerlessness of nature for good, the absolute necessity of prevenient grace for salutary acts, especially for the beginning of faith, the absolute gratuity of the first grace and of final perseverance, were defined, while in the epilogue the predestination of the will to evil was branded as heresy (cf. Denzinger-Bannwart, nn. 174-200). As Pope Boniface II solemnly ratified the decrees in the following year (530), the Synod of Orange was raised to the rank of an œcumenical council.
Pohle, J. (1912). Semipelagianism. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
newadvent.org/cathen/13703a.htm
 
Vico said:
It does not come from whichever motive appears to be the best choice.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in Summa Theologica Q83, A1. Reply to Objection 4. “Man’s way” is said “not to be his” in the execution of his choice, wherein he may be impeded, whether he will or not. The choice itself, however, is in us, but presupposes the help of God.
newadvent.org/summa/1083.htm

We all have to keep in mind not to fall into the errors of Plagianism or Semi-Pelagianism. Pelagianism developed to deny the supernatural order and the necessity of grace for salvation. Semi-Pelagianism holds that mankind can make the first move toward God on his own… Second Synod of Orange, which condemned Semipelagianism as heresy. In twenty-five canons the entire powerlessness of nature for good, the absolute necessity of prevenient grace for salutary acts, especially for the beginning of faith, the absolute gratuity of the first grace and of final perseverance, were defined, while in the epilogue the predestination of the will to evil was branded as heresy (cf. Denzinger-Bannwart, nn. 174-200). As Pope Boniface II solemnly ratified the decrees in the following year (530), the Synod of Orange was raised to the rank of an œcumenical council.
Pohle, J. (1912). Semipelagianism. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
newadvent.org/cathen/13703a.htm
Click to expand...
What you posted contains absolutely nothing to refute that the choice of the will is based on which motive appears best. When a person commits a sin, it is because the motive to commit that sin was more appealing to the will than to not commit it. When a person commits a good act, it is because they were predisposed to see the motive for that act to be most desirable. So that the will chooses the most appealing motive is still obvious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top