How can a person have free will and yet God is in control?

[Peter_Plato]

The only rational way would be this: “the starting assumption is that the universe is self-sufficient, it needs no external ‘anything’ - this is the null-hypothesis”. Starting from here you need to use reason and logic, and arrive at a contradiction. If there would be a contradiction, then you could come to the conclusion that there “needs to be something” to resolve that contradiction. But that would not be the christian God, with its peculiar “attributes”.

The flow of the argument is that the null-hypothesis (the universe is self-sufficient) cannot be true because the universe is not self-explanatory. It (with all its attributes: matter, space, energy and time) came into existence 13.7 billion years ago. Therefore, there can be no resort to anything material, temporal or spatial to explain its existence. The universe does not explain itself and therefore does not demonstrate its self-sufficiency. None of the following, matter, energy, space and time, nor the laws of physics, nor cosmological constants can be used to explain how the universe came to be, since all of these came into existence with the universe itself.

Therefore, presuming the universe just “popping” into existence from nothing is not a tenable explanation, some reality that is immaterial, non-temporal, uncaused by anything in the universe but capable (i.e., having sufficient potential) of bringing the universe into existence, with the necessary intelligence to create, fix and align at least 34 cosmological constants to bring about the organizational structure of the universe and life, must be proposed as the new “null hypothesis.” These “peculiar” attributes are very much in agreement with the classic theistic conception of God.

Where is the problem that makes this a circular argument?

 

[Portofino]

The flow of the argument is that the null-hypothesis (the universe is self-sufficient) cannot be true because the universe is not self-explanatory. It (with all its attributes: matter, space, energy and time) came into existence 13.7 billion years ago. Therefore, there can be no resort to anything material, temporal or spatial to explain its existence. The universe does not explain itself and therefore does not demonstrate its self-sufficiency. None of the following, matter, energy, space and time, nor the laws of physics, nor cosmological constants can be used to explain how the universe came to be, since all of these came into existence with the universe itself.

Therefore, presuming the universe just “popping” into existence from nothing is not a tenable explanation, some reality that is immaterial, non-temporal, uncaused by anything in the universe but capable (i.e., having sufficient potential) of bringing the universe into existence, with the necessary intelligence to create, fix and align at least 34 cosmological constants to bring about the organizational structure of the universe and life, must be proposed as the new “null hypothesis.” These “peculiar” attributes are very much in agreement with the classic theistic conception of God.

Where is the problem that makes this a circular argument?

I think most scientists would agree that we simply do not know how the universe came into existence. At the moment, they leave it and that, and continue to seek answers about the origins of the universe.

To posit a “reality that is immaterial, non-temporal, uncaused by anything in the universe but capable of brining the universe into existence, with the necessary intelligence to create, fix and align at least 34 cosmological constants to bring about the organizational structure of the universe and life” as the default explanation, which safely can be assumed until proven otherwise, is going too far, in my honest estimation. Most physicists would seem to agree with me.

As I understand it, it is no crime in science to say “we do not yet know.” Science, in that sense, is extremely patient. But I think we should acknowledge that the believer has a vested interest in not being patient, in not being content for humanity to suspend judgment for millenia, if necessary. Namely, it is because the believer holds that this question is of such vital importance to one’s eternal salvation that suspending judgment – filing it away in the “unsolved mysteries” folder – is not acceptable. Science, qua science, knows nothing of this sense of urgency. Its urgency is in studying a phenomenon, but not in feeling that it has to solve the mystery of the ultimate origins of the universe all at once, at the very time that it is still learning about the properties of the universe itself (e.g., dark matter; quarks; black holes, etc.). To solve this in a lifetime would be even more ambitious than deriving a fabled “theory of everything!”

The other problem, as I see it, is that intelligent design does not have explanatory power on a purely scientific level. It may run parallel to science, but it ultimately doesn’t add anything – by way of explanatory power – to science. As I understand it, this is because science does not simply content itself with “what” but with “how” (meaning, the mechanism of how it happens). If it cannot be explained how an intelligent designer brought the universe into existence and established its laws, then the invocation of that intelligent designer adds nothing to the discussion, from a scientic standpoint. If it cannot be studied scientifically – because it is supernatural – and cannot be measured or quantified, or observed empirically, because it is non-naturalistic – then it is beyond the ken of science altogether.

That being said, I respect those who would say, “science will never solve the riddle of the origins of the universe, which is why there will always be room for faith.” For those who lack faith – faith being commitment to a single possibility, rather than contemplating multiple possibilities or suspending judgment – there is still an appreciation for mystery, which is something most good scientists can appreciate (Einstein certainly did, at least).
The more they study the universe, the more mysterious it becomes (in terms of a greater recognition of what is not yet understood).

Thus, what I think it comes down to is that science knows no moral urgency whatsoever in suspending judgment, and taking a “wait and see” attitude. This “wait and see” attitude, however – and its neutrality – seems fundamentally anti-pathetic to the religious sensibility, according to whom the question is believed to be of such ultimate personal importance.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think most scientists would agree that we simply do not know how the universe came into existence. At the moment, they leave it and that, and continue to seek answers about the origins of the universe.

To posit a “reality that is immaterial, non-temporal, uncaused by anything in the universe but capable of brining the universe into existence, with the necessary intelligence to create, fix and align at least 34 cosmological constants to bring about the organizational structure of the universe and life” as the default explanation, which safely can be assumed until proven otherwise, is going too far, in my honest estimation. Most physicists would seem to agree with me…

Physicists, as scientists, are limited by their very method to the observable and measurable properties (matter, space, time and energy) of the universe. Since all of these quantifiable properties essentially “began” at the Big Bang, as far as we can tell, then scientific inquiry has a boundary where it essentially comes to a stop.

Certainly, physicists have a professional obligation to verify that the Big Bang event really is the birth of the universe, but if that becomes verified beyond the shadow of a doubt, then scientific inquiry must cede its jurisdiction to metaphysics, logic, reason and theology. Scientific evidence then becomes corroborative in nature because it would have nothing definitive or special to add regarding what is outside matter, time, space and energy.

Appeals to science beyond this point, as in, “Science shows…” would be just as speculative as other fields of knowledge. It wouldn’t matter if physicists agree with a proposed explanation, because, as scientists restricted by their methodology, they would no longer have a special, privileged or advantageous perspective. The playing field would be levelled.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

First, there is no offical “philosophy” endorsed by the church (Thomist, Molinist, Aristotelian, whatever…).

Agreed. No problem. I merely pointed out that Thomas employes the same terminology and reasoning.

Second, the quoted sentence explicitly declares that faith is not needed, rational thinking (philosophy) is “enough”.

Right. But if you read Part 1 of the Catechism it points out that some, for a variety of reasons, cannot follow the evidence provided by the things of creation. Thus, the Church, following the teaching of Revelation and Tradition declared the truth in a formal way by means of a Defined Dogma, so the truth would be a valid object of Faith for all, including those unable to follow reason to this truth.

Even if one would accept the Thomistic arguments seriously (and they have been refuted zillions of times) they would never lead to the the christian God, at best they could lead to a faceless “first cause” (or whatever…).

If you actually read Thomas ( e.g. Summa Theologiae ) he shows that the First Cause has many of the attributes of the Christian God. So there is no contradiction in identifying the First Cause as the Christian God, since it is per se impossible for more than one such Being to exist. Thomas covers this possibity in Part 1 of S.T. I believe. Of course Revelation is ultimately required to discover that the First Cause of creation is the God of Christianity.

I would agree some have tried to refute Thomas’ arguments. Emphasis on " tried, " since no one has succeeded except in their own minds and these only of a certain mind set. I mean that only those with a certain predetermined mind set reject him absolutely. I exclude those Christian confrers who reject or do not understand some points.

The only rational way would be this: “the starting assumption is that the universe is self-sufficient, it needs no external ‘anything’ - this is the null-hypothesis”. Starting from here you need to use reason and logic, and arrive at a contradiction. If there would be a contradiction, then you could come to the conclusion that there “needs to be something” to resolve that contradiction. But that would not be the christian God, with its peculiar “attributes”.

But you see, your " starting assumption " is neither rational nor reasonable. It is not reasonable to assume that the universe is the cause of its own existence. Nor is it reasonable to assume it can sustain its own existence. Nor could this ever be demonstrated. This also illustrates the value of having assess to the Doctrines of the Catholic Church.

Further, there is psychological evidence that your assumption is not possible. For example, I am not aware that I am keeping myself in Existence. And I am not aware that I caused the Existence of my children ( just a pretend example for I am a bachelor). It is true that I can " follow the rules " and a child will be conceived. I caused the " coming to be " of the child, but I did not cause its " to be, " its actual Existence. If either instance were true I would certainly be aware of it, I would know How I Did It.!! It is the kind of thing I could not be ignorant of.

Nor can I cause the Existence of anything else. I can do things obviously but I cannot cause the " to be " of anything. So there is psychological evidence that nothing in nature is the cause of its own Existence. Therefore the universe is not self-sufficient.

Again, I point out that there is no contradiction in identifying the First Cause with the Christian God. Of course that is an act of Faith. But it is an act of Faith that happens to be profoundly reasonable, as I pointed out above.

But the quoted sentence does not do that. It simply “pre-asserts” that the “things” are “created”, and that somehow points to God. The circularity is obvious. If you could prove that God exists, and that God actually created everything, then and ONLY then could you assert that all those “things” were created. However, if you could do it, then there would be no reason for the whole dogma.

I think I explained this above. Let me add that the Church accepts the Revelation as found in Genesis that God " created " the universe. To begin its Defined Dogma with that fact does not involve it in a circular argument because the Church is not engaging in argument here, it is stating a Fact of Revelation. So it says that mankind can discover the God of creation by observing the things he created. Thomas on the other hand proceeds differently because he is trying to demonstrate something. The Church is not demonstrating anything, it is stating a fact. I don’t expect you to accept the Fact the Church is teaching but I don’t think you should call it circular reasoning when it is not even reasoning. Stating a known truth is not the same as trying to demonstrate by argument that something is true.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

I’ve mentioned this in other forums, but Free Will is just a theoretical concept. For all practical purposes, there is no such thing.

God gave us “free will” ostensibly so that we would choose to follow him as opposed to be compelled to follow him. But when you consider the consequences of not following him (e.g. going to Hell) you really don’t have much choice, do you?

 

[fhansen]

I’ve mentioned this in other forums, but Free Will is just a theoretical concept. For all practical purposes, there is no such thing.

God gave us “free will” ostensibly so that we would choose to follow him as opposed to be compelled to follow him. But when you consider the consequences of not following him (e.g. going to Hell) you really don’t have much choice, do you?

I don’t think we look at this from the proper perspective. For any part of creation, to be out of sync with God is hell. God is the source and essence of order and harmony. In this life we’re born sort of half way in and out of this order, this order that we can ultimately reject, half way between heaven and hell with neither the pure joy of the former nor the pure misery of the latter. He won’t compel us to follow Him-and the fact that man can’t obtain happiness and integrity via the Old Covenant is proof of that. Anyway, our choice is simply that of the Prodigal.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Im sorry if this is in the wrong forum, not sure which one this would come under. I was wondering what is the churches stance on the aspect of Free will and God’s control over everything?

e.g. If we ask God for protection from bad things happening from other people, would he not have to control them in some way and thus remove their Free Will?

God’s grace works in a way that respects our free will. As humans, we inherit the stain of original sin; that is, we are deprived of sanctifying grace and have concupiscence (tendency towards sin). However, to over come this tendency Christ merited for us on the Cross sufficient grace, a grace that is undeserved that allows man to respond to God’s calling to love and follow him.

The real question becomes, how does God do this? Salvation is entirely because of God’s grace, so if it is our response to God’s grace that determines our salvation, isn’t it by our merit? One way to counter that is to say that Christ gives some people efficacious grace that ensures the elect (those predestined by God to receive salvation) salvation, and this as a result of God’s grace. This is the position held by the Thomists in the tradition of Banez. But then the problem they are presented with (imo) is how is this any different from double predestination? God wants all to be saved, but if he saves only a few by his divine decree, does that not show how God doesn’t will that all be saved?

The Jesuits, following the tradition of Suarez, say that God through his scientia media knows all possible worlds of all possible combinations of responses to his grace. This group states, following St. Augustine, a theory that God’s grace is congruous (hence, the name for this system of grace is Congruism), meaning God gives men grace that make it congruous for him to accept salvation and sufficient grace. It is from his scientia media that God knows that best possible world for how man would respond to his congruous grace given by Him. When man accepts this sufficient grace, that is what makes it efficacious.

On the surface, Congruism seems to solve this great mystery: God saves us by his grace in that our will is persuaded by the congruous/favorable circumstances the grace is given under. It is like a supernatural push to do good. However, our will is still given the opportunity to reject this grace, thereby respecting man’s free will. All man has to do is to allow God’s grace to do the work, nothing else; he’s just along for the ride. This system of grace only goes so far though, merely kicking the problem farther down the road. Because what it results in is that although man is merely along for the ride in God’s grace, it is still his will and not God’s grace resulting in the outcome even if God does everything else; some merit still must be attributed to man, a merit that seemingly isn’t just God’s grace. Because in the end a congruist must say that it is God’s grace that man chooses to go along for the ride.

These are the two major Catholic systems of grace. There is a third one called Augustinianism, which is similar to Thomism but starts by focusing on human nature. It should be noted that Augustinianism and Thomism aren’t what Augustine and Aquinas actually believed, but how they were interpreted by later (often famous) theologians.

In the end all we can say is that it is a great mystery. What we do know is:

-Christ merited on his Cross sufficient grace for all of humanity, which overcomes the sinfulness of our tainted human nature
-There is efficacious grace which is God’s grace granting salvation
-God predestined some to be saved, and those damned are damned because of their rejection of God
-Salvation is entirely a gift from God; we are saved by God’s grace alone, and he gives us this grace through the Sacraments
-Humans respond to this grace by their free will, but the response is driven by grace.