God's Foreknowledge and Free Will Vs Choice

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Rational thought is simply a chemical reaction in the brain. It may be a higher cognitive function than a survival instinct but stating “because we reason therefore we have free will” is begging the question. The reason marketing campaigns are so effective is because we’ve figured out how to manipulate the environment in a way that shapes our reasoning. Not unlike Pavlov’s dogs but at a more advanced level.

I would argue that you are substituting a reductive explanation (as yet unproven) for the subject it is meant to explain and then acting as if you are merely describing the subject. The subject is human freedom which has a first-person ontology. The explanation is a unidirectional reductive scientific account of the human mind that has not been proven by any scientist or team of scientists.

(a) The ultimate foundation for any understanding of freedom is the first-person data. Even current secular schools of thought regard the following as a sufficient definition: I am aware that I can choose between alternatives with the simultaneous awareness that I am not being compelled, driven, controlled, taken over by another agency or set of forces in making the decision.

(b) Any third-person reductive scientific account of human freedom in terms of structure and function must account for (a).

(c) How do objective, publically-observable, third-person neuronal events produce/become inner, first-person conscious experience(s)? This is what needs to be answered.

(d) Neurological researchers whose dearest aspiration is to reduce the conscious mind to neuronal processes or chemical reactions have all admitted that so far they have not been able to do so.

No one has demonstrated the reductive assertion that “Rational thought is simply a chemical reaction in the brain.” To make such a statement is actually assuming what is to be proven, begging the question.

(e) Aquinas–correctly IMO–distinguishes between voluntary action and freedom. The former is merely self-initiated activity in response to a stimulus. The latter involves rational deliberation regarding alternatives where one is not compelled to choose either or any. Babies and animals do the former. The later does require the conscious use of reason.

For your analysis to hold, you or someone else must have demonstrated (c). That has not yet been done.

 

[Giovonni]

I would argue that you are substituting a reductive explanation (as yet unproven) for the subject it is meant to explain and then acting as if you are merely describing the subject. The subject is human freedom which has a first-person ontology. The explanation is a unidirectional reductive scientific account of the human mind that has not been proven by any scientist or team of scientists.

(a) The ultimate foundation for any understanding of freedom is the first-person data. Even current secular schools of thought regard the following as a sufficient definition: I am aware that I can choose between alternatives with the simultaneous awareness that I am not being compelled, driven, controlled, taken over by another agency or set of forces in making the decision.

(b) Any third-person reductive scientific account of human freedom in terms of structure and function must account for (a).

(c) How do objective, publically-observable, third-person neuronal events produce/become inner, first-person conscious experience(s)? This is what needs to be answered.

(d) Neurological researchers whose dearest aspiration is to reduce the conscious mind to neuronal processes or chemical reactions have all admitted that so far they have not been able to do so.

No one has demonstrated the reductive assertion that “Rational thought is simply a chemical reaction in the brain.” To make such a statement is actually assuming what is to be proven, begging the question.

(e) Aquinas–correctly IMO–distinguishes between voluntary action and freedom. The former is merely self-initiated activity in response to a stimulus. The latter involves rational deliberation regarding alternatives where one is not compelled to choose either or any. Babies and animals do the former. The later does require the conscious use of reason.

For your analysis to hold, you or someone else must have demonstrated (c). That has not yet been done.

It does seem that consciousness remains a mystery that is unexplained by the scientific communtity.

Thank you for laying out the argument way you have above!

 

[rinnie]

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.

Well here is why. First of all God created us for good. That is as simple as I can put it. God created us in his image. The image of God is Goodness and Love and compassion for one another. God loved us enough to die for us. (enough of that, but you get my point).

Now with that said, think about this, if we did not sin, there would be nothing to bring good out of, because there would be nothing bad that happened to begin with. (hope that makes sense.)

But what God will do is take the sin of man, and somehow salvage something out of it. By saying that, the Church teaches God can make a good out of a sin. BUT and this is a big BUT, just because he can and does, does not mean its how he wants it to go down.

Example, a young girl is afraid and chooses to have an abortion. There is no good in that sin. But say down the road a woman is in the same bind as the first and the woman who felt she had no choice, and will grieve that baby and mistake the rest of her life, turns around and finds a way to help the second.

Do you see what I am saying, the other still and will continue to struggle and suffer for her wrong choice, BUT she does help the other from having to suffer the way she does and did. But see what I am saying, there is no good in sin. First women still suffers.

See what you need to realize is this, God does not care that we sin against him, he cares that when we sin we hurt ourselves and others. God sees no fun in sin, only the outcome grief, tragedy and constant fear and suffering.

But being that he created us free, he gives us the right to choose to sin or not to sin. And when we choose to sin we suffer, and what does God do??? He suffers right along with us.

If you have kids you can relate. You love your child, he does wrong, and goes to jail. How can you not suffer and grieve everyday that child is in jail? You don’t want you child to sin because he will go to jail. See what I am saying. Although the child may help others in jail, it by no means makes it the way you would choose your child to help someone. That is how God sees it.

 

[oldcelt]

Predestination of any degree is logically incompatible with free will. Free will must be absolute or it is a mere illusion. Foreknowledge combined with preordination of future events (taught by the church) by a deity eliminates the possibility of free will.

John

 

[rinnie]

Predestination of any degree is logically incompatible with free will. Free will must be absolute or it is a mere illusion. Foreknowledge combined with preordination of future events (taught by the church) by a deity eliminates the possibility of free will.

John

This is not true. Just because God knows what your life ends up like in the end, by the choices you have made, in no way takes away the free will of the person who made them.

Say I was sitting with God at your death bed, and God says this person will or will not enter heaven because of this, this and this.

I think what your problem is this, Why would God give us free will, if we could choose it and turn against him. that is truly what I think your problem is. I truly do.

 

[beckie_clark]

knowing what someone will do isn’t the same as forcing them to do it

 

[rinnie]

knowing what someone will do isn’t the same as forcing them to do it

But some people cannot get that. They believe because we know what someone will do, we take away their free will, and because God knows what someone has done, he took away their free will.

 

[Giovonni]

I think Fr. of Jazz has given me the response I was looking for and definitely something to mull. I appreciate everyone’s time and responses. I will no longer be debating the replys people have provided. Thanks and God bless!

 

[Giovonni]

Well here is why. First of all God created us for good. That is as simple as I can put it. God created us in his image. The image of God is Goodness and Love and compassion for one another. God loved us enough to die for us. (enough of that, but you get my point).

Now with that said, think about this, if we did not sin, there would be nothing to bring good out of, because there would be nothing bad that happened to begin with. (hope that makes sense.)

But what God will do is take the sin of man, and somehow salvage something out of it. By saying that, the Church teaches God can make a good out of a sin. BUT and this is a big BUT, just because he can and does, does not mean its how he wants it to go down.

Example, a young girl is afraid and chooses to have an abortion. There is no good in that sin. But say down the road a woman is in the same bind as the first and the woman who felt she had no choice, and will grieve that baby and mistake the rest of her life, turns around and finds a way to help the second.

Do you see what I am saying, the other still and will continue to struggle and suffer for her wrong choice, BUT she does help the other from having to suffer the way she does and did. But see what I am saying, there is no good in sin. First women still suffers.

See what you need to realize is this, God does not care that we sin against him, he cares that when we sin we hurt ourselves and others. God sees no fun in sin, only the outcome grief, tragedy and constant fear and suffering.

But being that he created us free, he gives us the right to choose to sin or not to sin. And when we choose to sin we suffer, and what does God do??? He suffers right along with us.

If you have kids you can relate. You love your child, he does wrong, and goes to jail. How can you not suffer and grieve everyday that child is in jail? You don’t want you child to sin because he will go to jail. See what I am saying. Although the child may help others in jail, it by no means makes it the way you would choose your child to help someone. That is how God sees it.

Thanks rinnie for the comments. Although I don’t have kids of my own yet, I do understand your point. Just to be clear I do intuitively believe in free will, and I also agree with you when you say God created us for good. The problem I was having was in refuting determinism because it seemed impossible to seperate choice/reason from neurological process. The responses provided though have given me reasons to do so. Cheers!

 

[oldcelt]

This is not true. Just because God knows what your life ends up like in the end, by the choices you have made, in no way takes away the free will of the person who made them.

Say I was sitting with God at your death bed, and God says this person will or will not enter heaven because of this, this and this.

I think what your problem is this, Why would God give us free will, if we could choose it and turn against him. that is truly what I think your problem is. I truly do.

As in other discussions on this very matter, people avoid the preordination part. Preordain, to determine and bring into existence future events. In other words, setting the stage on which the actors will act…predestination…establishing the destination before the fact.

All those concepts are entirely incompatible with free will…that is fact.

 

[lmelahn]

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.

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.

I said she was created without pride. In fact, all of us are created without pride. Pride is entirely our own contribution, so to speak. Eve became prideful when she committed her sin.

Agreed.

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

A desire is not the same as a compulsion. See below.

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.

Just because some physical factors can affect our behavior doesn’t mean that our behavior is entirely determined by physical factors.

These are, moreover, both examples of people with abnormalities. Note that, if the abnormality is really the sole cause of their evil actions, these people are not responsible for their actions.

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).

First of all, motivation is not the same as compulsion. You motivate someone with an ice-cream sundae. You compel him with a pistol. One increases the voluntariness of an action; the other reduces it.

Talent, moreover, cannot be reduced to genetics. We know very well that between two identical twins, one may end up being an opera singer, and the other, no. Nor can desire be reduced to instinct (by which I assume you mean “sensual appetite”). ,Sensual appetite can be mortified if necessary; and, there are goods that are greater than sensual appetite (like honor, justice, and moral rectitude). We desire those, as well.

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.

There is certainly a brain process involved, but can you be so sure that there is nothing besides the brain process? We already established that our self-awareness shows that we are more than our brains.

 

[Bahman]

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.

There are two possible scenarios available 1) God sees future (our acts) hence he knows our decision, 2) God always guess the correct decision, very unlikely. The is however a problem with (1) too since what is seeing is actual hence the main question is why we only experience now and how creation is sustained.

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.

Please read the previous comment.

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…)

The act of consciously choosing from options is equal to free will…Motive does not define the act of decision but it is needed.

If free will is not simply the ability to choose, what is it?

Free is the ability to consciously choose.

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.

That is correct.

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.

Only high level decision are left to consciousness.

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.

This is problematic. Please read the first comment.

 

[oldcelt]

Originally Posted by Giovonni
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.

Well stated…at least as it applies to the Christian God.

John

 

[rinnie]

As in other discussions on this very matter, people avoid the preordination part. Preordain, to determine and bring into existence future events. In other words, setting the stage on which the actors will act…predestination…establishing the destination before the fact.

All those concepts are entirely incompatible with free will…that is fact.

Actually you could not be more wrong. You seem to be blaming the Church for the Calvin or Luther definition.

CCC 600 could not be more clear.

This is what the RCC teaches.Original sin indeed makes us unable to reach salvation WITHOUT being MOVED by the GRACE of God.

The Church teaches rather dogmatically on how God predestines the elect. Catholics believe God predestines no one to go to hell and takes no pleasure to mans sin.

We not only believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, But even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing they are Anathema.
Council of Orange (529AD).

The Church teaches God gives EVERYONE SUFFICIENT GRACE to all the Freedom to turn to God and be saved.

Positive Conditional Reprobation

When God created the world, he being omniscience foresaw the reprobates rejection to is grace and let them us their freedom to do so.

Yet God still grants that to be saved he still gives them sufficient grace.

So this pretty much disagrees with everything you just said.

 

[rinnie]

Well stated…at least as it applies to the Christian God.

John

Not at all. Completely opposite to the Christian God. If God created a world in which Adam and Eve had no free will, then yes.

Actually the Church teaches the opposite actually of Adam and Eve. They were thrown out of the garden to repent. And they must have, because Jesus indeed has taken them up to heaven for in spite of their sins. A great great example actually of what the Church teaches.

By the GRACE given to them by God which they ACCEPTED, were free from their sin, and given entrance to heaven.

So really what is the big deal, they still ended up into heaven. although they chose to take the long road to get there. It in no way changes the free will of Man to repent or not repent. They chose to repent, some do not. Adam and Eves sin, in no way takes away the Grace given to them by God, anymore then their accepting the Grace of God takes away the free will of men to reject his grace.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

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. [SIGN]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.

[/SIGN]

This makes once again free will impossible. I challenge you to show me how God could have created a world in which Adam and Eve could freely choose obedience or reject it and still have free will to do either.

God created Adam and Eve in a world where he gave them free will to obey or reject his Grace. Ironically it ended up that they did indeed freely chose to obey him, by the merit of the Grace that was given to them after the fall, they indeed repented and ended up in heaven with God.

So I see where you are more in making a statement that God indeed does give us free will to sin, and loves us so much that even after we do, gives us sufficient grace to turn away from that sin and be back in his good standing. Which is indeed the teaching of the RCC.

So I challenge you to show by your example God determined their fate, and they did not have free will to do so?

 

[Bahman]

Actually you could not be more wrong. You seem to be blaming the Church for the Calvin or Luther definition.

Actually you could not be more wrong as well. Please read the following.

CCC 600 could not be more clear.

This is what the RCC teaches.Original sin indeed makes us unable to reach salvation WITHOUT being MOVED by the GRACE of God.

That was part of God’s plan. God knows very well that what would be the consequence of creation yet did it. Could God have another plan and create something different? A creation without original sin? Sure yes.

The Church teaches rather dogmatically on how God predestines the elect. Catholics believe God predestines no one to go to hell and takes no pleasure to mans sin.

What is the purpose? So you mean that God also create hell with no purpose? Or do you mean that there is no hell at all?

We not only believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, But even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing they are Anathema.

Could God create another creation?

Council of Orange (529AD).

The Church teaches God gives EVERYONE SUFFICIENT GRACE to all the Freedom to turn to God and be saved.

Oh thanks. We are not responsible for original sin if there is any yet God gives us each enough grace so we could make it this time. What is the price? Turned to God. Deal or no deal? Are you serious with your conception of God. That looks very cheap to me. A all powerful God give you some grace for turning to him.

Positive Conditional Reprobation

When God created the world, he being omniscience foresaw the reprobates rejection to is grace and let them us their freedom to do so.

Yet he still did it. Yes, we deserve a better creation!

Yet God still grants that to be saved he still gives them sufficient grace.

Who is responsible for this situation? God. Why we should owe God anything?

 

[rinnie]

Actually you could not be more wrong as well. Please read the following.

That was part of God’s plan. God knows very well that what would be the consequence of creation yet did it. Could God have another plan and create something different? A creation without original sin? Sure yes.

What is the purpose? So you mean that God also create hell with no purpose? Or do you mean that there is no hell at all?

Could God create another creation?

Oh thanks. We are not responsible for original sin if there is any yet God gives us each enough grace so we could make it this time. What is the price? Turned to God. Deal or no deal? Are you serious with your conception of God. That looks very cheap to me. A all powerful God give you some grace for turning to him.

Yet he still did it. Yes, we deserve a better creation!

Who is responsible for this situation? God. Why we should owe God anything?

God could do anything he chooses. But he choose to create a world that was good and free from sin, because of the fall (original sin) entered the world. And yes God knew when giving Man free will to sin or not to sin there would be consequences, and gave him sufficient grace to turn away from his sin. What is your problem with that?

How you even got me saying God predestines no one to hell, mean a denial of hell, or no purpose for hell makes like no sense. The purpose of hell is for people who choose to be separated from God with their own free will. How can a persons choice to not want God, change the mind of God to want the person. Makes no sense what so ever.

Again God could create anything he wants. But we know what he did create and live in his creation. We don’t have the ability to create as God creates, and trust him completely.

Deal or not deal, truly could we look at it that way? Why not. We do have a God that gives us commands and we have free will to follow them or not. you follow him, you got the real deal, you reject him and you get to deal with yourself. Either you are god or he is God. No biggie. You choose him you get him, you reject him, you don’t get him. Why does that sound so unreasonable to you?

We owe God everything, the air we breath, the love we have the goodness in our life. But when you love someone as we love him, although we indeed owe him EVERYTHING, it is a debt that can never be paid enough.

Someone asked one day God how much do you love me, He stretched out his hands on the cross and said this much. Died for all men, Men who love him, Men who hate him.

 

[rinnie]

Also please do not put words in my mouth. God gives us SUFFICIENT GRACE to turn away from sin. Not just some.

 

[rinnie]

What we owe God. Col. 2: 6-15 Fitting is it not?

I say this so that no one may deceive you by specious arguments. For even if I am absent in the flesh yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing as I observe your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ. So as you received Christ Jesus and the Lord walk in him, rooted in him and built upon him, and established in the faith as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. See to it that no one captivate you with an empty seduction philosophy according to human tradition, according to the elemental powers of the world and not according to Christ.

No one can tell it better then the word of God.