Hell and free will problem

[adrian1]

We know that the devils --don’t want-- to repent, he is too produs even to think to his repentance or to come to God with humility.

But what make the humans to --can’t repent-- after death, we know that they want to stop the suffering, (the health from the Gospel) want to seek God (five Virgins parable), --want to repent–we can say that a part of their free will want get away from hell, but what make this impossible?

 

[Vico]

We know that the devils --don’t want-- to repent, he is too produs even to think to his repentance or to come to God with humility.

But what make the humans to --can’t repent-- after death, we are that they want to stop the suffering, (the health from the Gospel) want to seek God (five Virgins parable), --want to repent–we can say that a part of their free will want get away from hell, but what make this impossible?

The angels have such knowledge that their decision is final, but humans have until the death of their body to make their final decision to love God. Those that choose not love God cannot be forced to love God.

Catechism

1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him …
1035 " … The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs."

 

[AveOTheotokos]

This recent thread discusses a similar topic:

The devils and hell dilema Philosophy

The devils can’t repent or (only) don’t want to repent? In hell, people can’t repent or (only)don’t want to repent?

 

[DavidCro]

How does free will function?

If we have free will, according to the Thomist definition, our will is still determined by what are reason contains. But, again, our reason contains only that we have attained in already deterministic circumstances. For example - I was born in Germany, in a small family, went to a liberal school etc, so my reason will in the end be determined by society, biology and what not. And if our free will is determined by reason, than there cannot be free will.

And again, if freedom is only in goodness, then again, my choices are predetermined, and again I don’t have free will.

Help me sort this out, it’s very important to me. Thank you!

 

[Kei]

Free will is a very special thing, I dare say a gift from God.
As one grows in right reason, it seems that our free will grows in ability.

 

[DavidCro]

But growing in reason as well must be willed. How does one choose to grow in reason?

 

[Kei]

By choosing. We all have free will, but it appears to diminish more so when one is a slave to his passions, and his will is weakened quite often to the point of mere subservience to instinct.

However, as men created in the Imago Dei, we have the ability to choose. To stop, and rely on God’s Power in these things. To grow in Christ, to grow in the Logos, to grow in right reason. A prompting of the Holy Ghost suffices.

 

[DavidCro]

But again, it’s circular. I cannot sort this out.

We grow in reason by choosing, yet we choose in accordance with are reason. This is why I have a problem with a notion of free will. Philosophically, it’s hard to maintain.

Can someone help me with this? It’s very troubling.

 

[Kei]

It’s not circular. They are supportive of one another. You as a normal human being have both reason and will already. You may be strong in both, or perhaps weak in both, or somewhere in between.
However, when one grows, it aids the other to grow as well, all by the Grace of God, who prompts us to grow.

To imagine it, imagine that you are in a race with a chain connected to a tire. When you walk, and extend the chain, eventually the chain will reach its end and pull the tire. Thus from the starting point, both the chain and the tire are going further.
Or like a bar graph, with unemployment and money troubles. Unemployment goes up, so does money troubles.

 

[DavidCro]

Ok, that’s a good basic starting point for me. I’m sorry for bothering you or any other of you. I’m having a serious faith crisis because of this question (and getting again too emotional about it because I care for my faith so much, will be less personal as of now).

Now, the question. Does my free will then breaks the causality chain? Not in the strict sense, but in the sens I (ego) affect the causality chain. Saint Thomas says are will is inclined to God or good, which means that all my motives and thoughts are deterministically chosen by will, in the sense, I cannot will nothing else, except that which is the best. And I think of the best deterministically, my opinion of good is shaped by my genes, intelligence, society, family, school etc. So my will is again restricted by the environment, internal or external. Where is this freedom then? What makes this will free?

 

[Gorgias]

our reason contains only that we have attained in already deterministic circumstances. For example - I was born in Germany, in a small family, went to a liberal school etc, so my reason will in the end be determined by society, biology and what not.

You haven’t proven what you think you’ve proven.

You’re claiming that your choices are fully determined by your past, but that doesn’t hold up. If it did, then everyone with your background (small-family Germans who attended liberal school, etc) would make exactly the same choices. And that’s just not true.

And if our free will is determined by reason, than there cannot be free will.

No… you’ve demonstrated that our lives inform our reason – but not that they force it.

And again, if freedom is only in goodness, then again, my choices are predetermined, and again I don’t have free will.

Free will is the freedom to choose the good. Not all choose the good. So, even here there’s no assertion that free will doesn’t exist – some choose good and others evil, even though free will is present!

 

[DavidCro]

hat your choices are fully determined by your past, but that doesn’t hold up. If it did, then everyone with your background (small-family Germans who attended libe

Thank you very much for your answers, they really help me as I’m anxious because of this really unnecessary doubt in my life. Anyhow…

How then there are people who, say, know something is good, say a very intelligent and sane murderer. He knows murder is bad, but thinks, what the hack, I hate the person and I’ll kill him/her. How did it happened he made a choice contrary to what his reason knows? You might say - it’s because of our fallen nature (in which I personally believe). And then, I’ll ask you, how come his will was at this time, not ruled by reason, but by passion? Then I will ask you, how was this possible, what made him to choose passion over reason? What was the motor behind choosing passion over reason? You cannot say, he reasoned to choose passion, when reason knows following passion is bad.

 

[Gorgias]

Thank you very much for your answers

You’re welcome!

How then there are people who, say, know something is good, say a very intelligent and sane murderer. He knows murder is bad, but thinks, what the hack, I hate the person and I’ll kill him/her. How did it happened he made a choice contrary to what his reason knows?

No, I don’t think that this is the inference here. Rather, there are a number of considerations that this person is weighing:

• is killing always bad?
• or, are there some cases in which killing is justifiable?
• does my hate justify killing the person?

He might reach a conclusion that we would say is illogical, or contrary to reason… but although his conclusion is faulty, it is a choice made by him – utilizing his (improperly formed?) conscience. To him, it’s the reasonable choice.

No one is saying, however, that everyone’s use of reason is perfect.

You might say - it’s because of our fallen nature (in which I personally believe). And then, I’ll ask you, how come his will was at this time, not ruled by reason, but by passion?

I’m not certain that I’d say that it was necessarily ‘passion.’

Then I will ask you, how was this possible, what made him to choose passion over reason? What was the motor behind choosing passion over reason? You cannot say, he reasoned to choose passion, when reason knows following passion is bad.

On the other hand, I might make recourse to the assertion that, due to the consequences of sin, our “intellects are darkened and our wills are weakened.” If we want to discuss ‘passion’, then I might suggest – in those cases in which we allow our passion to overrule our reason – that this is an example of imperfect intellect and/or weakened will.

 

[DavidCro]

d, I might make recourse to the assertion that, due to the consequences of sin, our “intellects are darkened and our wills are weak

Then he made the most reasonable decision he could, where is then sin in this?

 

[Gorgias]

Then he made the most reasonable decision he could, where is then sin in this?

Ahh… that’s an important question!

OK: ‘sin’ is an objective question… but ‘culpability’ is a distinct question, and depends on subjective factors!

We can ask the objective questions simply:

• is premeditated murder sinful?
• is it gravely sinful?

And then we have to ask the subjective questions:

• did the person have full knowledge that it was sinful?
• did he act with deliberate consent?

If the act is not sinful (i.e., self-defense), then we conclude “not a sin.”

If the act is a sin, then we consider culpability: if it was not gravely sinful, or there was not full knowledge, or there was not deliberate consent, then we say that it was objectively a sin, but a venial one.

Every person must act according to his conscience, whether it’s well formed or not. Every act is objectively virtuous or sinful. Culpability, however, is a subjective determination. (And, to be honest, one that really is only judged by God. We can talk about it, but we don’t get to decide authoritatively or with effect.)

 

[DavidCro]

But say I know murder is a sin, and I still commit the murder. The reason for committing the murder was that, although I knew it was sinful, somehow, I saw greater good in murder. Again, it cannot be my fault, for my reason and will were inclined to decide so by my own very nature. Saying that somehow I was able to choose less good, knowing of greater good, implies randomness.

 

[Gorgias]

But say I know murder is a sin, and I still commit the murder. The reason for committing the murder was that, although I knew it was sinful, somehow, I saw greater good in murder. Again, it cannot be my fault, for my reason and will were inclined to decide so by my own very nature. Saying that somehow I was able to choose less good, knowing of greater good, implies randomness.

No, it doesn’t imply that. Rather, it either demonstrates a lack of understanding of moral theology (as the Church teaches it) or a rejection of Church teaching.

(The Church teaches that one may not do evil for the sake of a perceived good result. That would still be a moral evil, and would be sinful.)

So, in the thought experiment you offer, either the person does not know the teaching of the Church or he explicitly rejects it. In the former case, there is reduced culpability (if he truly does not know), while in the latter, there would seem to be the opportunity to make an argument for ‘mortal sin’.

 

[DavidCro]

But rejecting the Church’s teaching would also imply choosing, which again was done by my reason and will which are inclined to choose good. So rejecting the Church’s teaching cannot be considered a sin either.

 

[Gorgias]

But rejecting the Church’s teaching would also imply choosing, which again was done by my reason and will which are inclined to choose good. So rejecting the Church’s teaching cannot be considered a sin either.

I disagree. Although your will is inclined toward the good, it does not follow that every instance of choosing is therefore an instance of choosing good. You are capable of erring in your use of reason, and therefore, you are capable of choosing something which is not good. This choice of the ‘not good’, then, is sinful.

 

[DavidCro]

You are capable of erring in your use of reason, and therefore, you are capable of choosing something which is not good.

But by erring in my use of reason, means I did not intentionally done a sinful act, but I done it wrongly relying on the use of my reason.