God's Foreknowledge and Free Will Vs Choice

[dmar198]

Yes, this is the assertion that I keep hearing, but an asseration without evidence is not compelling.

Agreed.

I have provided evidence that we are largely subject to the whims of our passions. Pharmacology, marketing, phsychology, all provide evidence of this.

First, “largely” seems to be different from “completely.” Are you asserting that our choices are completely controlled by outside forces, or only partly? Second, I have not seen your response to some of the counterpoints made to your pharmalogical and marketing examples, and I did not see an argument from psychology apart from those examples. Am I missing something?

**UPDATE :: I have now seen your response to one of the counterpoints to your pharmalogical example, and I’ve replied at the end of this post.

I have yet to see good evidence to the contrary.

What did you think of the argument I provided in my previous two posts?

You cannot rationalize outside of your own brain.

What evidence do you have of that? Because I think there is evidence of people making choices without a brain, e.g. God, the saints, and the angels.

Yet the brain is a physcial tool which is subject to the stimuli it recieves.

Agreed. But I do not think those stimuli determine our choices. Do you have evidence that they do?

Buy why would they refuse it? They had no knowledge of good or evil.

When you say that, it makes me think that you think Adam and Eve didn’t know that disobeying God was wrong. But I think the text suggests that they did. Is your understanding different?

Yet something compelled them to disobey.

If they had free will, which is the point at issue, then it seems to follow that they were *not compelled to disobey, but freely chose to.

Somewhere there must have been a part of them that said, “Hey I have an emotional desire to be more like God”.

Agreed.

God could’ve created any Adam and Eve he chose. There is nothing he cannot do. Even one which chose to obey his command.

I do not think God can simultaneously create a person with free will and prevent them from disobeying His commands. Do you see why I think that involves a contradiction?

I don’t think a drug makes it impossible to commit suicide. Drugs are imperfectly created by men and women. BUT, there are many people who were suicidal and now feel better because doctor’s treated a chemical imbalance. My example doesnt need to show impossible action because it is only analogus.

That seems fair enough, unless you think the drug example proves that our choices are caused by chemical reactions. If you think it does prove that, then I think you would need to demonstrate, not just suggest, that the chemicals in the drug determine someone’s choices.

When we talk of God however, his creating is perfectly made therefore anything that follow is perfectly aligned with his will.

I don’t think that follows. Do you think it is possible that God made someone perfectly and with the freedom to contradict His will? Because I think that’s exactly what happened.

 

[Giovonni]

I think He created a free will in each of us, and I think it would contradict His power to destroy His creation.

I respect your thoughts on this because it seems to be a matter of faith. God says in the bible we have free will therefore it is so. I just don’t see a way of logically reconcilling foreknowledge, creation, and free will. Perhaps it is simply a matter of faith.

Earlier I gave an argument for the logical possibility of free will. What did you think of that argument? I will repeat it here, with small edits, for convenience’s sake:

Suppose you have made a choice. Either your will was determined or it was not determined. If it was determined, it was either determined by itself or it was determined by something other than itself. Apart from further argument, these alternatives must all be considered logically possible because the law of contradiction says that in any choice between an option and its negation, one and only one of them must be true.

My proposition is that the will determines its own choices. It is a cause that is free to produce any of a number of possible effects independently of any prior events. I think there is nothing logically contradictory in this definition of free will, and therefore I think that it is a logical possibility. In order to deny its possibility, I think you would need to show some internal contradiction or some contradiction of observed reality. Apart from that, self-determinism as defined above seems to be a real logical possibility.

What do you think? Is that a valid argument?

I think your argument assumes that will deterimines choice is unsubstantiated by any evidence, whereas the counter argument seems to have more support through scientific studies.

Here is an imperfect example: Fast food restaurants are colored Red and Yellow because that subconsiously stimulates our desire for food. We rationalize that we use our free will to eat a whopper without being cognizant of the underlying reason.

Can you provide any real world example of your will apart from influence determines choice?

 

[Giovonni]

Because I think there is evidence of people making choices without a brain, e.g. God, the saints, and the angels.

.

Again, you’re equating choice with free will which I’ve shown are not the same. Some would argue that once we are in Heaven we can no longer disobey god.

I do not think God can simultaneously create a person with free will and prevent them from disobeying His commands. Do you see why I think that involves a contradiction? .

Sure He can. Just put them in a different environment. Don’t make a serpent. Instill in them the desire to love God in such a way that they will freely choose to obey.

If you think it does prove that, then I think you would need to demonstrate, not just suggest, that the chemicals in the drug determine someone’s choices. I don’t think that follows.

Put someone on LSD and then tell them there are monsters in the wall. They will freak out.

 

[davidv]

The ability to direct oneself to an end through reason is nothing more than our response to the external stimuli and our genetic make-up which predisposes us to act a certain way.

An assertion without evidence. I consider this a false statement unless proven otherwise.

Just as Baxter the dog reasons that he likes steak more than salad, we reason our choices, just in a more complex manner.

Red herring. The OP is about the free will of humans not dogs.

 

[dmar198]

I respect your thoughts on this because it seems to be a matter of faith. God says in the bible we have free will therefore it is so. I just don’t see a way of logically reconcilling foreknowledge, creation, and free will. Perhaps it is simply a matter of faith.

First, I don’t think the free will is entirely a matter of divine revelation, I think there are ways of knowing that we have a free will by reason alone.

Second, I don’t think free will is incompatible with foreknowledge because the only thing that could destroy our free will is coercive action upon our will, which is different from what foreknowledge is.

Do you think God’s foreknowledge inherently impedes self-determination? Because I think there is evidence that it does not. For example, if I can use an analogy, I think humans have relatively certain foreknowledge of some things, such as that the sun will rise tomorrow unless a catastrophe happens. But I don’t think our (relative) foreknowledge causes the sun to rise, and therefore I don’t think God’s (absolute) foreknowledge causes things either. Therefore, I don’t think it can pose a problem for free will. Does that make sense?

I like to put it this way: God knows what we will do. But what we will do is different from what we could do. It is 100% certain that I will do X in the future. But I could do Y. The latter sentence is where free will comes in, and the former sentence is where God’s foreknowledge comes in. I hope that helps.

Re: creation, it doesn’t seem logically impossible that God could create free-will beings as part of creation, at least not to me, and in fact I think the argument you answered below is evidence that it is not impossible. (I’ll get to your response in a bit.) Thus, I don’t see a problem to reconcile between creation as such and free will. I think it is possible, at least conceptually, that a certain kind of creation would be incompatible with free will, and some people allege that there is evidence that our world is incompatible with free will, but I don’t think their arguments are successful. The examples you gave from marketing and pharmacology are definitely worth answering, but I don’t think they pose insurmountable obstacles to belief in free will, partly for reasons I’ve mentioned in other posts.

I think your argument assumes that will deterimines choice is unsubstantiated by any evidence, whereas the counter argument seems to have more support through scientific studies.

I’m glad your objection is to the evidence for free will, rather than the logical possibility of free will. My argument was intended to establish the latter. (However, in a sense I think my argument does suggest at least a little bit that free will is a real thing, because it establishes its logical possibility. It seems more likely that free will is real if it is possible than if it is not. Thus, I think the argument for its logical possibility at least moves us in the right direction.)

If I understood you correctly, you said that scientific studies suggest that the will does not determine our choices. Then you gave the following example:

Here is an imperfect example: Fast food restaurants are colored Red and Yellow because that subconsiously stimulates our desire for food. We rationalize that we use our free will to eat a whopper without being cognizant of the underlying reason.

I think the latter sentence is a non-sequitur because it seems to deny that our free will is involved by saying that subconscious desires are involved. Why couldn’t both be involved?

Can you provide any real world example of your will apart from influence determines choice?

It might be possible to completely take away all influences other than the will under laboratory conditions, but I don’t think it has ever been done, and I think laboratory conditions would be the only possible way to take away all outside influences at least in this world. (And it might not even be possible in a lab.)

However, I don’t think all influences have to be taken away in order for a choice to be free. I think we can know that a choice is free even if it is influenced by outside factors, for several reasons. One is, we hover between choices all the time before making a decision, and I think that is incompatible with the view that we are slaves to outside influences.

If I could format that as an argument, it would look like this:

Premise 1. If choices are determined by the influence of external things, then they must happen as quickly as external things influence them.
Premise 2. Choices do not happen as quickly as external things influence them.
Conclusion. Therefore, choices are not determined by the influence of external things.

What do you think of that argument?

 

[lmelahn]

Yes, this is the assertion that I keep hearing, but an asseration without evidence is not compelling. I have provided evidence that we are largely subject to the whims of our passions. Pharmacology, marketing, phsychology, all provide evidence of this. I have yet to see good evidence to the contrary. You cannot rationalize outside of your own brain. Yet the brain is a physcial tool which is subject to the stimuli it recieves.

Well, let’s think this through: could you or I refuse the steak, or not?

Our experience tells is that we are influenced by our passions and appetites, but not completely determined by them.

There is a saying in logic: Contra factum non fit argumentum. Against a plain fact (for example, that we can choose or fail to choose certain goods) no argument can prevail.

Buy why would they refuse it? They had no knowledge of good or evil.

We have to be careful when interpreting Genesis: “knowledge” in Hebrew idiom means a lot more than simple speculative knowledge. (A sign of this is that the same verb, to know, signifies the marital act in many places in the Old Testament. Adam knew his wife Eve, etc.) Knowledge in the Bible is more like direct experience—like eating an ice-cream sundae, which is very different from knowing all about an ice-cream sundae.

So the fact that they had not yet eaten of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil doesn’t mean that Adam and Eve lacked speculative knowledge of good and evil—it is not as if they couldn’t tell the difference between them—it just means that they had not yet experienced the evil of sin in the first person.

As far as why they refused to obey God, we have to keep in mind that no one sins, except in order to obtain something that, in and of itself, is good. It is a sin precisely because they sacrifice a greater good for the sake of a lesser one. The way the Bible portrays it, Eve desired the fruit for its sensual goodness, and also the “knowledge of good and evil” so as to become equal to God. Note that both of these things are, in a certain respect, good: sensual goodness brings pleasure, and imitation of the Creator—indeed, divinization—is the aspiration of all spiritual creatures. The problem is that she wished to gratify her pride and obtain that “godliness” independently of God.

Yet something compelled them to disobey.

Something enticed them to disobey. But they were not compelled.

Somewhere there must have been a part of them that said, “Hey I have an emotional desire to be more like God”.

That is doubtless true, but it would not have overwhelmed their wills. If it had, they would not have committed a sin. (Passions and similar extra-rational phenomena diminish the voluntariness of our actions—hence the culpability of our sinful actions. But our experience shows us amply that we do have control over a good portion of our actions.)

God could’ve created any Adam and Eve he chose. There is nothing he cannot do. Even one which chose to obey his command.

It is not a defect in His creative power to allow Adam and Eve to choose as they see fit. On the contrary: it shows that God can create creatures so excellent, that they participate in His freedom of action.

I addressed this in the orignial post.

Below, I reproduce your original argument, with more detailed replies:

Poster: If God knows how we will act we cannot have free will.

Responder: God’s foreknowledge does not equal causation. Example: I have a son and I give him the choice of ice cream or vegetables. I know he will pick ice cream, but my knowing does not cause his choice.

I would have to respond to the responder, here. Actually, God’s foreknowledge does equal causation, but causation need not be deterministic.

For example, let’s look at someone with a great talent, like the late opera singer Luciano Pavarotti. We know that Pavarotti did not come by his great voice by accident: he spent thousands of hours under the guide of a voice teacher (probably a number of voice instructors).

So, is Pavarotti’s voice teacher the cause of Pavarotti’s great voice? Sure he is. Not the only cause, obviously, but without the voice teacher, Pavarotti would never have made it big.

However, no one can reasonably say that, because that teacher imparted certain abilities to Pavarotti, that Pavarotti was compelled to sing opera. There was nothing stopping him from saying, “I’d rather study law instead of voice,” or retiring early.

The same could be said for any teacher–student relationship.

God works with us in a similar way: he imparts to us a spiritual nature, by which we are capable of choosing certain aspects of our lives for ourselves.

Now, your responder’s example—the child who chooses ice cream—has two defects: first, it is assuming that the child has not yet learned to control his appetites. Young children are frequently unable to make difficult choices on their own—that is something we have to learn. Second, the “foreknowledge” that the mother has of what her son will choose is based on the deduction of what will necessarily happen. That is not how God’s foreknowledge works: He is completely outside of time, and so what is future for us, is present for Him.

A better example is as follows: right now, I could be sitting or standing. That is a contingent condition. Suppose that you are seeing me sitting in my chair. In that case, you know that I am sitting, but you did not compel me to sit. That is how God observes our actions, even our future actions.

 

[dmar198]

Again, you’re equating choice with free will which I’ve shown are not the same.

Sorry, I meant free choices.

Some would argue that once we are in Heaven we can no longer disobey god.

It is my understanding that they are intellectually able to disobey God but morally incapable.

Sure He can. Just put them in a different environment. Don’t make a serpent. Instill in them the desire to love God in such a way that they will freely choose to obey.

I do not think your first two examples would prevent a man from disobeying God. Your third reason would seem to work, but I don’t think God puts that kind of love into anybody without them meriting it, and in order for them to merit it, I think they first have to exist without it, and be given a choice to love God or to disobey Him.

Put someone on LSD and then tell them there are monsters in the wall. They will freak out.

It is my understanding that LSD impairs freedom by damaging the instrument through which we currently *will. But I don’t think the will is absolutely tied to that instrument, which is the brain. When the silver cord is severed, as the proverb says, LSD will no longer be able to harm us.

 

[Giovonni]

Well, let’s think this through: could you or I refuse the steak, or not?

Our experience tells is that we are influenced by our passions and appetites, but not completely determined by them.

I can easily say that our brains take into account more influences than we are consciously aware of and guide our actions. This would still be determinism.

As far as why they refused to obey God, we have to keep in mind that no one sins, except in order to obtain something that, in and of itself, is good. It is a sin precisely because they sacrifice a greater good for the sake of a lesser one. The way the Bible portrays it, Eve desired the fruit for its sensual goodness, and also the “knowledge of good and evil” so as to become equal to God. Note that both of these things are, in a certain respect, good: sensual goodness brings pleasure, and imitation of the Creator—indeed, divinization—is the aspiration of all spiritual creatures. The problem is that she wished to gratify her pride and obtain that “godliness” independently of God.

The key to this whole paragraph is she wished to gratify her pride. Why did she have pride to begin with? Perhaps it was a part of her to begin with. She could’ve been created prideless and still have been able to freely choose.

That is doubtless true, but it would not have overwhelmed their wills. If it had, they would not have committed a sin. (Passions and similar extra-rational phenomena diminish the voluntariness of our actions—hence the culpability of our sinful actions. But our experience shows us amply that we do have control over a good portion of our actions.)

Actually you haven’t shown that we have control over a good protion of our actions. Give us any action you think you are in control of and we can explain an instinctual/brain proccess of why it happens.

So, is Pavarotti’s voice teacher the cause of Pavarotti’s great voice? Sure he is. Not the only cause, obviously, but without the voice teacher, Pavarotti would never have made it big.

There are many reasons Pavoratti could be compelled to sing Opera. Perhaps he grew up listening to it. His family told him he had an amazing talent. His teacher gave him the tools to utilize it. His school provided him an understanding of music. I can go on an on…
All of these compulsions add up to Pavoratti’s choice to become an Opera singer.

Suppose that you are seeing me sitting in my chair. In that case, you know that I am sitting, but you did not compel me to sit. That is how God observes our actions, even our future actions.

But God didn’t just see you sitting there in a chair. He made the chair. He made you. Perhaps he gave you weak legs which caused you to get sore and then want to sit down. In that sense you were compelled.

 

[Giovonni]

It is my understanding that they are intellectually able to disobey God but morally incapable…

I’m not sure I know how you can intellectually disagree with God but morally not do so.

I don’t think God puts that kind of love into anybody without them meriting it, and in order for them to merit it, I think they first have to exist without it, and be given a choice to love God or to disobey Him.

Yes, God gave us a choice. The question is, was that choice influenced in such a way as to be a certainty, and could God have created a world which resulted in a different choice.

 

[dmar198]

I’m not sure I know how you can intellectually disagree with God but morally not do so.

I mean I think they have the power to disobey God but I don’t think the desire can arise in their state.

Yes, God gave us a choice. The question is, was that choice influenced in such a way as to be a certainty

In that case I don’t think it would be free. I think there is evidence that the human will is free, and I gave some evidence of that in my last post. Therefore, I think we can exclude the suggestion that their choice was predetermined.

could God have created a world which resulted in a different choice.

I don’t think God can control a creature’s choice if He gives the creature free will. Perhaps He could have created a world without free will, in which case I think any events in that world would only be able to follow the divine will. But in a world *with free will, I don’t think that’s a possibility, not if I understand logic correctly.

 

[lmelahn]

I can easily say that our brains take into account more influences than we are consciously aware of and guide our actions. This would still be determinism.

I think it would simply prove that there are more influences than we are aware of. I never said that we are perfectly autonomous. Only that we have considerable say in how we wish to order our lives.

The very fact that we are aware of anything shows that that there is portion of us that transcends the merely material world.

The key to this whole paragraph is she wished to gratify her pride. Why did she have pride to begin with? Perhaps it was a part of her to begin with. She could’ve been created prideless and still have been able to freely choose.

She was created prideless. She did not start out with pride: pride is a privation of humility—it comes about when we wreak our love for God and substitute love of ourselves. We are always free to destroy what God in His goodness has placed in us.

Notice that gratification (love of self) is in itself a good thing. It is abusive when love of God is sacrificed for it.

Actually you haven’t shown that we have control over a good protion of our actions. Give us any action you think you are in control of and we can explain an instinctual/brain proccess of why it happens.

It is a logical fallacy to demonstrate things that are easier to know (like our choices and our motivations for them—or lack thereof) from things that are more difficult to know (like the internal workings of our brains).

Otherwise, we would be left with the logically contradictory idea that neurologists choose to study the internal workings of the brain, only to discover that they never really chose to do so.

Neuroscience can explain, in part, the mechanisms of the physical processes by which our appetites work, but it is incapable of showing that those processes are deterministic. (Indeed, it is the nature of neural networks not to be deterministic—that is why they are so powerful.)

(It is that kind of fallacious logic that brings us conspiracy theories and things like that.)

There are many reasons Pavoratti could be compelled to sing Opera. Perhaps he grew up listening to it. His family told him he had an amazing talent. His teacher gave him the tools to utilize it. His school provided him an understanding of music. I can go on an on…
All of these compulsions add up to Pavoratti’s choice to become an Opera singer.

All of these things are doubtless influences, but they did not compel him to sing opera. At some point, or at various points, he had to get out of bed and go to his singing lessons. Now, it is (at least theoretically) possible that he was forced to become, or remain, an opera singer. (It is possible that the Mafia was making money off his singing, and they threatened him with a morte nera if he did not continue). But that would not be his voice teacher’s fault (not as such, anyway).

But God didn’t just see you sitting there in a chair. He made the chair. He made you. Perhaps he gave you weak legs which caused you to get sore and then want to sit down. In that sense you were compelled.

He certainly made the chair and me, but He did not (thankfully) give me sore legs. You are right in saying that, when God knows something, in the very same act, He is creating it (or maintaining it in existence). But there is nothing stopping Him from delegating certain powers to me, so speak—including the power to sit or stand.

But anyway, the protagonist in my analogy is not God, but a human observer; it shows that it is possible to know a present contingent state (and all contingents are present to God) without taking away the contingent nature of that state.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’ve enjoyed reading the many discussions on this forum about God’s foreknowledge and the implications for free will, however I frequently encounter the same argument which I don’t think establishes free will. Typically the discussion goes something like this:

Poster: If God knows how we will act we cannot have free will.

Responder: God’s foreknowledge does not equal causation. Example: I have a son and I give him the choice of ice cream or vegetables. I know he will pick ice cream, but my knowing does not cause his choice.

This response equates choice with free will, but I’m not sure they are the same. For example, let’s say I give my dog Baxter a choice between a steak and a salad. I know he will choose the steak because that is his favorite, but we would not therefore say Baxter has free will. We would say he made a decision based off some underlying motive or instinct (physical requirement, taste, etc…)

If free will is not simply the ability to choose, what is it? A standard definition is making a choice that is not determined by prior causes. But it seems impossible for us to be the source of our choices. We may rationalize our decisions, but this is really just the brain’s way of dealing with an overwhelming amount of internal and external information. Often our decisions are made at a subconscious level before we are aware of them. Since we can’t fathom all the factors involved in a decision, we allow ourselves the illusion of free will.

God however does not have this problem since he is both omniscient and transcends time. God knew before the universe existed how we will respond to the stimulus we encounter. He could have created a world in which Adam and Eve would freely choose obedience or where Judas would choose not to betray Jesus. Since ours is the world God actualized, it logically appears God is the only one with free will.

Giovanni,

You are going down a dangerous road. The Church teaches and always has taught that man was created in God’s image and likeness, that he has an intellect and free will. This is supported by the whole revelation of God, the teaching of Christ and the Apostles, and was taught by all the Fathers of the Church, and by the long line of Catholic philosophers and theologians down to the present moment. The whole concept of Faith and morality, as held and taught by the Catholic Church is based on these truths. It is impossible to be Catholic, in good standing, and deny these truths. Therefore, I imagine you must be bringing these things up to find infallible arguments in their support.

A number of posters here have given you good arguments suppoting the idea that man is a free agent, responsible for his actions. This is supported by the reasoning behind the legal systems in every nation and country throughout history. How could we be guilty of committing a crime if we did not possess, by nature, the freedom to choose between right and wrong?

But can anyone present you with such a solid argument that the proposition that we are totally free agents, that it could not be denied? In my opinion, no. But you have been given reasons good enough that to deny the truth of that proposition is very unreasonable. And of course, it cannot be denied by faithful Catholics.

Linus2nd

 

[Giovonni]

The very fact that we are aware of anything shows that that there is portion of us that transcends the merely material world.

Agreed. The fact we even exists implys that there is a portion of us that transcends the material world. This is applicable with or without free will.

She was created prideless. She did not start out with pride: pride is a privation of humility—it comes about when we wreak our love for God .

Earlier you stated that Eve “wished to gratify her pride” but now you say she was prideless. These are two contridictory statements. Either she had pride or she did not before the fall. If she did not have pride then perhaps she would not have chosen to want to be like God to the point she disobeyed.

Notice that gratification (love of self) is in itself a good thing. It is abusive when love of God is sacrificed for it.

Agreed.

It is a logical fallacy to demonstrate things that are easier to know (like our choices and our motivations for them—or lack thereof) from things that are more difficult to know (like the internal workings of our brains).

Otherwise, we would be left with the logically contradictory idea that neurologists choose to study the internal workings of the brain, only to discover that they never really chose to do so.

It is not a logicall fallicy if I say, God instilled in him the desire for his vocation.

Neuroscience can explain, in part, the mechanisms of the physical processes by which our appetites work, but it is incapable of showing that those processes are deterministic. (Indeed, it is the nature of neural networks not to be deterministic—that is why they are so powerful.)

Actually this is not true. For example, there is a case reported by Russell Swerdlow out of the University of Virginia, in which a man who had all his life been a decent, family oriented man, one day started having uncontrollable urges to do unspeakable acts. It turns out that an MRI scan revealled he had a tumor in the right orbital cortex. The tumor was removed and the man healed. Later he started having urges again and they found that the tumor had regrown. When it was removed he returned to normal.

In aother case, Charles Whitman who shot 15 students was shown to have a tumor in his amygdala, an area of the brain involved in emotional reactions.

All of these things are doubtless influences, but they did not compel him to sing opera. At some point, or at various points, he had to get out of bed and go to his singing lessons. Now, it is (at least theoretically) possible that he was forced to become, or remain, an opera singer. (It is possible that the Mafia was making money off his singing, and they threatened him with a morte nera if he did not continue). But that would not be his voice teacher’s fault (not as such, anyway).

I would say the sum of all these influences did compel him to sing opera. Why did he get out of bed? Because our survival instincts tell us sleeping all the time is not conductive to survival. The fact he sings opera is determined by a) opportunity (circumstance) b) talent (genetics) c) desire (instinct).

He certainly made the chair and me, but He did not (thankfully) give me sore legs. You are right in saying that, when God knows something, in the very same act, He is creating it (or maintaining it in existence). But there is nothing stopping Him from delegating certain powers to me, so speak—including the power to sit or stand.

The decision whether I sit down or stand is a result of a brain process. Perhaps I am tired, perhaps I have a better view which brings me pleasure, perhaps I want to be at eye level with someone because I can connect with them better. These can all said to be derived from inherent desires placed in us by God.

 

[Giovonni]

Giovanni,
Linusthe2nd;12799020:

You are going down a dangerous road. The Church teaches and always has taught that man was created in God’s image and likeness, that he has an intellect and free will. This is supported by the whole revelation of God, the teaching of Christ and the Apostles, and was taught by all the Fathers of the Church, and by the long line of Catholic philosophers and theologians down to the present moment. The whole concept of Faith and morality, as held and taught by the Catholic Church is based on these truths. It is impossible to be Catholic, in good standing, and deny these truths. Therefore, I imagine you must be bringing these things up to find infallible arguments in their support.

Is it a dangerous road to pose questions about the strength of an argument? My question is about the logical validity of an agrument (Foreknowled v. Free Will). This topic has also been debated and discussed from the time of apostles and the church fathers. The Church says we have free will therefore we do. This seems to be supported in the bible to varying degrees. It is possible that this is a matter of faith that we cannot logically prove. The great thing about philosophy is it constantly evolves. We challenge assumptions and through that make stronger arguments, which makes a stronger church. It’s dangerous to stifle thought by saying “the church says so, don’t question it”. I don’t necessarily disagree that we may have free will, but I am looking for a logical way to reconcile two seemingly contridictory ideas. Perhaps it is a case that God limited his foreknowledge to give us free will or perhaps there is some other mechinism. I’ve never said the Church is wrong. I am posing an argument to foster discussion. I hope you recongize the difference.

 

[Giovonni]

Because I think there is evidence of people making choices without a brain, e.g. God, the saints, and the angels.

This is a very interesting topic. How do we make decisions in Heaven? It seems we are purified before entering heaven. What is this purification? Is it removing things like pride, envy, un-pure desires? Perhaps we are more free to love after the bad stuff is removed from us. I’ll have to contemplate this one.

As for Angels, they definitely seem to have pride. As for how they think, I’ll make sure to ask when I see one!

 

[rinnie]

I’ve enjoyed reading the many discussions on this forum about God’s foreknowledge and the implications for free will, however I frequently encounter the same argument which I don’t think establishes free will. Typically the discussion goes something like this:

Poster: If God knows how we will act we cannot have free will.

Responder: God’s foreknowledge does not equal causation. Example: I have a son and I give him the choice of ice cream or vegetables. I know he will pick ice cream, but my knowing does not cause his choice.

This response equates choice with free will, but I’m not sure they are the same. For example, let’s say I give my dog Baxter a choice between a steak and a salad. I know he will choose the steak because that is his favorite, but we would not therefore say Baxter has free will. We would say he made a decision based off some underlying motive or instinct (physical requirement, taste, etc…)

If free will is not simply the ability to choose, what is it? A standard definition is making a choice that is not determined by prior causes. But it seems impossible for us to be the source of our choices. We may rationalize our decisions, but this is really just the brain’s way of dealing with an overwhelming amount of internal and external information. Often our decisions are made at a subconscious level before we are aware of them. Since we can’t fathom all the factors involved in a decision, we allow ourselves the illusion of free will.

God however does not have this problem since he is both omniscient and transcends time. God knew before the universe existed how we will respond to the stimulus we encounter. He could have created a world in which Adam and Eve would freely choose obedience or where Judas would choose not to betray Jesus. Since ours is the world God actualized, it logically appears God is the only one with free will.

Free will is the ability to choose. If God did not give us free will how could Adam and Eve disobey him? The same with Judas.

You are saying he could have created a world where Adam and Eve chose to obey him, how could he do that if he gave them free will to obey or disobey?

It seems to be you are saying God did not give Adam and Eve free will to sin, he made them sin. Is that what you are saying?

 

[Giovonni]

Giovanni,
This is supported by the reasoning behind the legal systems in every nation and country throughout history. How could we be guilty of committing a crime if we did not possess, by nature, the freedom to choose between right and wrong?

The American legal system appears to be broken. We incarcerate more than any other nation, and a large portion of that population is minorities or impovershed people. We jail people who have addictions instead of rehabilitating them and giving them help. Many of the people we jail are mentally ill. We don’t have an adequate way to deal with mental illness so we incarcerate those that have it.

But can anyone present you with such a solid argument that the proposition that we are totally free agents, that it could not be denied? In my opinion, no. And of course, it cannot be denied by faithful Catholics.

If I knew the answer to this question I wouldn’t be posting in this forum. And I never said the Church is wrong. It is quite a real possibility my understanding is wrong. It is possible there is an answer we haven’t considered. Or perhaps God’s ways are so above our ways it is a matter of faith.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . It is quite a real possibility my understanding is wrong. It is possible there is an answer we haven’t considered. Or perhaps God’s ways are so above our ways it is a matter of faith.

ya think?

 

[Giovonni]

It seems to be you are saying God did not give Adam and Eve free will to sin, he made them sin. Is that what you are saying?

I am saying that I am stuggling with the logic presented to reconcile forekowldege, God’s creation, and our ability for free will. The idea that God would cause us to sin so that he can bring about a greater good is not something taught by the Church and so I am seeking to discuss why. I am humble enough to know I might not understand correctly, but I also seek to challenge myself through discussion of the ideas and how that reconciles to our worldly experiences.

 

[davidv]

I am saying that I am stuggling with the logic presented to reconcile forekowldege, God’s creation, and our ability for free will. The idea that God would cause us to sin so that he can bring about a greater good is not something taught by the Church and so I am seeking to discuss why. I am humble enough to know I might not understand correctly, but I also seek to challenge myself through discussion of the ideas and how that reconciles to our worldly experiences.

What logic are your referring to? It is not clear from this and your other posts what the logical objection is.