I have a problem with understanding free will

[proof_man]

i want to start by first stating that i do believe in free will, as it is fairly necessary for the framework of most catholic philosophy. i accept the teachings of the church over my own limited intellectual abilities, but it would be nice if i didn’t have to suspend my own judgment just so i could still live as a catholic. i also realize that this is a common topic, but i did not see any threads that addressed my specific question

my problem is that i do not understand the concept of free will and i am writing here because i would like some clarification in clear language, as the terminology used by the church “talks past” my chain of thought. according to what i have perceived and have been taught, when a decision is made, the individual weighs his or her values and which ever is most important will decide the course of action. if a student’s appreciation of pleasure is more important than his or her commitment to education, he or she might go to a party instead of studying for a test. when the moment of decision comes, it seems to me that the “choice” ends up looking like a type of mechanical equation, where different psychological forces come into conflict and play themselves out in narratives (imagining consequences, thinking about the examples of others, referring to one’s self-narrative, etc), and an inevitable answer comes out in the end.
i do not see in this process where there is any agency, if agency is defined as something more than a series of thoughts that we have been trained to follow. i believe strongly that values are a product of ideology. there is no way to completely step outside of ideology, although we can be aware of it in certain ways. (not all ideologies are bad and being entrenched in one does not necessarily mean that one is deceived, but we are not capable of escaping them.) this is because the mind itself is given shape by society through the learning of language, exposures to hierarchies, adopting roles, etc. by this, i mean that since the mind’s faculties are trained by society, the mind is incapable of thinking about things in a way that is truly independent. you can do things that are opposed to what society tells you explicitly, but the spectrum of options you have is given to you by ideology. so, basically, my description of things is similar to determinism, but not the biological/physical kind.

anyways, since i am highly critical of the idea that the mind is capable of thought that is not structured by culture and society, i am having trouble of understanding where free will fits in. i know that the simple answer is that i am wrong about determinism, but even if that is so, i do not “get” how the concept of free will describes what happens when somebody acts. does it mean that the soul somehow intervenes upon the activities of the mind? in which ways is the mind free? does damage to the mind (insanity/being brainwashed/intoxication/retardation) limit free will? if i decide to do something wrong but then i change my mind midway through, at what point do you judge my agency? how do you cut up a continuous flow of thoughts and movements into discrete moral decision and actions?

this is important to me because i am committed to catholic theology and i realize the full consequences of rejecting the concept of free will. my basic problem is that i do not understand what this concept actually describes and accepting it is pretty much just a matter of forcing myself to repeat the patterns of words associated with the phrase, rather than really getting it. when i act, i do not feel as if i am actually making any decisions, but instead just responding to the different forces in my mind. for instance, when i am tempted, i feel the tension between my understanding of goodness and my desires, and whichever one is stronger at that instant will win. sometimes i am weak and sometimes i am strong, but i do not really see at what point i am asserting agency. i do accept guilt for my sins and feel relief when i avoid them, but it almost seems like these are symptoms for some condition that i enter passively.

if you have an explanation for agency that does not simply return to the language used by the church, i would much appreciate it. i am not opposed to the explanation offered by the church…i just don’t understand how their terminology fits how i perceive actual decision making. free will is supposed to be a gift from God and a necessary tool for accepting Him. i am afraid that my tendency to see determinism in things distances myself from God.

Thank you very much.

 

[twb1621]

[Edited]

According to St. Thomas Aquinas “…Man does not choose of necessity. And this is because that which is possible not to be, is not of necessity. Now the reason why it is possible not to choose, or to choose, may be gathered from a twofold power in man. For man can will and not will, act and not act; again, he can will this or that, and do this or that. The reason of this is seated in the very power of the reason. For the will can tend to whatever the reason can apprehend as good. Now the reason can apprehend as good, not only this, viz. “to will” or “to act,” but also this, viz. “not to will” or “not to act.” Again, in all particular goods, the reason can consider an aspect of some good, and the lack of some good, which has the aspect of evil: and in this respect, it can apprehend any single one of such goods as to be chosen or to be avoided. The perfect good alone, which is Happiness, cannot be apprehended by the reason as an evil, or as lacking in any way. Consequently man wills Happiness of necessity, nor can he will not to be happy, or to be unhappy. Now since choice is not of the end, but of the means, as stated above (Article 3); it is not of the perfect good, which is Happiness, but of other particular goods. Therefore man chooses not of necessity, but freely.”

 

[twb1621]

second submission to your issues
Excerpt of “Free Will” from the Catholic Encyclopedia
Free will does not mean capability of willing in the absence of all motive, or of arbitrarily choosing anything whatever. The rational being is always attracted by what is apprehended as good. Pure evil, misery as such, man could not desire. However, the good presents itself in many forms and under many aspects—the pleasant, the prudent, the right, the noble, the beautiful—and in reflective or deliberate action we can choose among these. The clear vision of God would necessarily preclude all volition at variance with this object, but in this world we never apprehend Infinite Good. Nor does the doctrine of free will imply that man is constantly exerting this power at every waking moment, any more than the statement that he is a “rational” animal implies that he is always reasoning. Much the larger part of man’s ordinary life is administered by the machinery of reflex action, the automatic working of the organism, and acquired habits. In the series of customary acts which fill up our day, such as rising, meals, study, work, etc., probably the large majority are merely “spontaneous” and are proximately determined by their antecedents, according to the combined force of character and motive. There is nothing to arouse special volition, or call for interference with the natural current, so the stream of consciousness flows smoothly along the channel of least resistance. For such series of acts we are responsible, as was before indicated, not because we exert deliberate volition at each step, but because they are free in causa, because we have either freely initiated them, or approved them from time to time when we adverted to their ethical quality, or because we freely acquired the habits which now accomplish these acts. It is especially when some act of a specially moral complexion is recognized as good or evil that the exertion of our freedom is brought into play. With reflective advertence to the moral quality comes the apprehension that we are called on to decide between right and wrong; then the consciousness that we are choosing freely, which carries with it the subsequent conviction that the act was in the strictest sense our own, and that we are responsible for it.
CONSEQUENCES.—Our moral freedom, like other mental powers, is strengthened by exercise. The practice of yielding to impulse results in enfeebling self-control. The faculty of inhibiting pressing desires, of concentrating attention on more remote goods, of rein-forcing the higher but less urgent motives, undergoes a kind of atrophy by disuse. In proportion as a man habitually yields to intemperance or some other vice, his freedom diminishes and he does in a true sense sink into slavery. He continues responsible in causa for his subsequent conduct, though his ability to resist temptation at the time is lessened. On the other hand, the more frequently a man restrains mere impulse, checks inclination towards the pleasant, puts forth self-denial in the face of temptation, and steadily aims at a virtuous life, the more does he increase in self-command and therefore in freedom. The whole doctrine of Christian asceticism thus makes for developing and fostering moral liberty, the noblest attribute of man. William James’s sound maxim: “Keep the faculty of effort alive in you by a little gratuitous exercise every day”, so that your will may be strong to stand the pressure of violent temptation when it comes, is the verdict of the most modern psychology in favor of the discipline of the Catholic Church.

 

[JDaniel]

You have asked a really good question. In fact, there is another thread under the heading of Philosophy that is titled, “The Problem of Evil and Free Will Defense”. I am about four-fifths through it, but, I am reading (and re-reading) it slowly so that I can look at each distinct part of it. It is really worth the read.

I see “free will” in the following manner so that I can get my mind around it: (1) “will” can either be a verb(i) or a noun(ii), in other words, it can be an “action(i)” or a “subject(ii)”; (2) “free” means “freely given(j)” or, “’absolute’ freedom(jj)” – within the constraints of the imperfections of our beings and our involvement(s) in a trans-finite universe.

As a noun or subject(ii), the “will” cannot be “free(jj)”, in my opinion, except in the sense that it didn’t cost us anything to obtain (notwithstanding the “fall”!). As a noun(ii), the “will” does not present anything to us except what is directly derived from our intelligences and reason. And that, as you stated, is limited by what we have “learned” and by the finitude of those variables that can in fact be presented to us.

However, irrespective of the limits on what the “will”, as a noun(ii), can present to us, we do have freedom(jj) of “choice”. Thus, if we are presented with but two choices, by the will, due to its limitations, we are “determined”, in a broad sense of the word, to make only one of those two choices. This, however, does not hamper what the Church teaches, nor does it hamper our understanding of what “free(jj) will(ii)” means, if you replace the word “will” with “choice”.

“Free will” is a term that was appropriate at that time, but, after several centuries, we have constrained it to mean something that has universal (in the sense of “infinite”) implications. In other words, “freedom” now implies a sort of “limitlessness”. Limitless free will (or, choice) is obviously impossible, but, that should not hamper our understanding of the concept of free will.

Dan

 

[glowingembers]

My understanding of free will is that it is an ability to decide independently of any physical or mental things. It is an ability to be influenced by nothing. Yet we can use this ability to allow things to influence us. Actually, there would be no point in having free will if we didn’t use it to allow things to influence us, because then we would have no goal, no purpose, and we wouldn’t even be conscious of anything, because being conscious of a thing means allowing that thing to interact with you via perception (physically or mentally) and hence allowing that thing to influence you.

Free will stands at the beginning of a causal chain: it is caused by nothing and can be a cause of something. It is a first cause, a prime mover.

 

[ilovekittens]

My understanding of free will is that it is an ability to decide independently of any physical or mental things. It is an ability to be influenced by nothing. Yet we can use this ability to allow things to influence us. Actually, there would be no point in having free will if we didn’t use it to allow things to influence us, because then we would have no goal, no purpose, and we wouldn’t even be conscious of anything, because being conscious of a thing means allowing that thing to interact with you via perception (physically or mentally) and hence allowing that thing to influence you.

Free will stands at the beginning of a causal chain: it is caused by nothing and can be a cause of something. It is a first cause, a prime mover.

This is what free will is supposed to be, but can you give any examples where one might make a choice that is wholly independent of circumstance? Every single situation that I can think of, in which we might have a “choice” in the matter, ends up being colored by lots of other things - societal norms, education, previous experience, biology, psychology, personality, etc.

 

[KingAlfred]

i want to start by first stating that i do believe in free will, as it is fairly necessary for the framework of most catholic philosophy. i accept the teachings of the church over my own limited intellectual abilities, but it would be nice if i didn’t have to suspend my own judgment just so i could still live as a catholic. i also realize that this is a common topic, but i did not see any threads that addressed my specific question

my problem is that i do not understand the concept of free will and i am writing here because i would like some clarification in clear language, as the terminology used by the church “talks past” my chain of thought. according to what i have perceived and have been taught, when a decision is made, the individual weighs his or her values and which ever is most important will decide the course of action. if a student’s appreciation of pleasure is more important than his or her commitment to education, he or she might go to a party instead of studying for a test. when the moment of decision comes, it seems to me that the “choice” ends up looking like a type of mechanical equation, where different psychological forces come into conflict and play themselves out in narratives (imagining consequences, thinking about the examples of others, referring to one’s self-narrative, etc), and an inevitable answer comes out in the end.
i do not see in this process where there is any agency, if agency is defined as something more than a series of thoughts that we have been trained to follow. i believe strongly that values are a product of ideology. there is no way to completely step outside of ideology, although we can be aware of it in certain ways. (not all ideologies are bad and being entrenched in one does not necessarily mean that one is deceived, but we are not capable of escaping them.) this is because the mind itself is given shape by society through the learning of language, exposures to hierarchies, adopting roles, etc. by this, i mean that since the mind’s faculties are trained by society, the mind is incapable of thinking about things in a way that is truly independent. you can do things that are opposed to what society tells you explicitly, but the spectrum of options you have is given to you by ideology. so, basically, my description of things is similar to determinism, but not the biological/physical kind.

anyways, since i am highly critical of the idea that the mind is capable of thought that is not structured by culture and society, i am having trouble of understanding where free will fits in. i know that the simple answer is that i am wrong about determinism, but even if that is so, i do not “get” how the concept of free will describes what happens when somebody acts. does it mean that the soul somehow intervenes upon the activities of the mind? in which ways is the mind free? does damage to the mind (insanity/being brainwashed/intoxication/retardation) limit free will? if i decide to do something wrong but then i change my mind midway through, at what point do you judge my agency? how do you cut up a continuous flow of thoughts and movements into discrete moral decision and actions?

this is important to me because i am committed to catholic theology and i realize the full consequences of rejecting the concept of free will. my basic problem is that i do not understand what this concept actually describes and accepting it is pretty much just a matter of forcing myself to repeat the patterns of words associated with the phrase, rather than really getting it. when i act, i do not feel as if i am actually making any decisions, but instead just responding to the different forces in my mind. for instance, when i am tempted, i feel the tension between my understanding of goodness and my desires, and whichever one is stronger at that instant will win. sometimes i am weak and sometimes i am strong, but i do not really see at what point i am asserting agency. i do accept guilt for my sins and feel relief when i avoid them, but it almost seems like these are symptoms for some condition that i enter passively.

if you have an explanation for agency that does not simply return to the language used by the church, i would much appreciate it. i am not opposed to the explanation offered by the church…i just don’t understand how their terminology fits how i perceive actual decision making. free will is supposed to be a gift from God and a necessary tool for accepting Him. i am afraid that my tendency to see determinism in things distances myself from God.

Thank you very much.

We have to earn salvation. We can only do that by freely choosing to accept God’s grace and becoming His servants.

 

[Starwynd]

There is no real free will. You either serve God or burn in hell for all eternity. Those are the only two choices.

 

[glowingembers]

This is what free will is supposed to be, but can you give any examples where one might make a choice that is wholly independent of circumstance? Every single situation that I can think of, in which we might have a “choice” in the matter, ends up being colored by lots of other things - societal norms, education, previous experience, biology, psychology, personality, etc.

The proof of free will is surely complicated by the fact that there are many things that influence us and it’s not even clear how many things or how they influence us. So I’m afraid I can’t think of a situation in which a person clearly makes a choice independently of all circumstances.

It seems obvious though that a completely free will act would be impossible to predict from any things preceding it because it’s not a consequence of any thing. However, modern physics shows that such inherently unpredictable events, which are not caused by any thing, do happen - and they happen all the time everywhere in the universe. It is an unpredictability that lies at the core of reality and I suspect it is the source of free will or the free will itself, and actually the root source of all things.

 

[GailMac]

Dear Proof man - you could think of it this way, your free will is a gift from God, what you do with it is your gift back to Him.

Peace,

Gail

 

[GailMac]

Dear Proofman - Your ask this:" if i decide to do something wrong but then i change my mind midway through, at what point do you judge my agency?" Being tempted to sin is not a sin if you stop yourself. If you have allowed sin to take flower in your mind, I suggest you go to Confession and talk it over with your priest. The healing balm of forgiveness found in the Sacrament of Mercy may help your wounds.

Peace,

Gail

 

[twb1621]

"i want to start by first stating that i do believe in free will, as it is fairly necessary for the framework of most catholic philosophy. i accept the teachings of the church over my own limited intellectual abilities, but it would be nice if i didn’t have to suspend my own judgment just so i could still live as a catholic. i also realize that this is a common topic, but i did not see any threads that addressed my specific question

my problem is… "

To respond to the op’s question, Putting aside all the collegiate terminology and getting to the point, is it not free will for a person to Choose to accept a path that is not as “successful” in life for a path that is more spiritual?

Is it not rewarding to those who are fulfilled spiritually rather than seeking fulfillment materialistically or financially in a world centered on materialism?

To choose to live in a place that offers less in a worldly sense, that retains family involvement rather than utilize one’s talents by “going out into the world” to seek societal “goals” or financial success, is it not free will?

To acquire an education that could without question lead to total worldly success but decide to become a religious or missionary, priest, nun or other, to share the knowledge and its benefits with those who can not offer reward to you, is this not free will?

To choose to trust and hold faith and learn love for God, a spiritual being, in a life that centers around that which is physical by physical beings who relate otherwise only to what is physical, is that not free will?

And once a person has succeed in reaching materialistic or financial goals and finds more reward in seeking a relationship with God, giving up all but what is needed for a reasonable life in a spiritual relationship, is this not free will?

Just as it is free will to choose the opposite in these cases, it is free will to search knowledge of and grow in love with God, sight and senses undetermined.

 

[crowonsnow]

Hi proof_man,

Your OP essentially asks whether free will exists. Well, that depends on if you believe perfection exists. If perfection exists then free will can exist. If perfection does not exist, or is off limits, then free will cannot and does not exist.

For example, I could believe that every electron or elementary particle is perfect, that perfection therefore exists and that free will therefore exists. If however perfection has been corrupted then so has free will. Maybe you want to call it limited perfection and limited free will, but limited perfection is certainly a nonsensical notion.

Personally, I believe we have a will, but that calling our will a “free will” just confuses the subject. Our alleged “free will” is abundantly limited, if by nothing else the fact of our own ignorance. It is therefore not free. It is bounded, limited, etc. It is just our will.

 

[ilovekittens]

The proof of free will is surely complicated by the fact that there are many things that influence us and it’s not even clear how many things or how they influence us. So I’m afraid I can’t think of a situation in which a person clearly makes a choice independently of all circumstances.

It seems obvious though that a completely free will act would be impossible to predict from any things preceding it because it’s not a consequence of any thing. However, modern physics shows that such inherently unpredictable events, which are not caused by any thing, do happen - and they happen all the time everywhere in the universe. It is an unpredictability that lies at the core of reality and I suspect it is the source of free will or the free will itself, and actually the root source of all things.

So, if you can’t think of an example, then how can you say that free will exists?

 

[PJM]

There is no real free will. You either serve God or burn in hell for all eternity. Those are the only two choices.

Wrong:blush: “Where chairty and love abound, there God is ever found.”

We do have a “free will.” Not only that, our free will is able to overrule (our choice ) God’s own Will.

We share the attribute of a “free will” with God, and with God’s Angels, and no one else. Why is this

To be clear God in no way benefits from the actions of His created beings.

Having shared that, we still need to ask and answer, “why did God give us a free will?”

While God does not in anyway benefit from out love, does not mean that God does not desire our love, because such love conforms to both His will, as God, and His (desired but nor forced)will for us, which is the very reason he allows us to prove our love for Him.

Perhaps your old enough to recall the question: “Why were we created?” Answer: “To Know, LOVE, and serve God in this world in order to be happy with Him in the Next.”

God gave us a free will so that we can return a measure of His clearly demonistrated love for us.

If we were not gifted with this awesome “free will”, we would not be able to freely choose to love God, which is the core reason for this gift in the first place.

God loves us so very muchthat He allows us to decide If we love Him, and to what degree do we choose to love Him.Now that my friend is a unconditional (agape) love.

God dosen’t send us to either heaven or to hell, but loves us enough to permit us to decide for ourselves.

That does not means that God creates us and then just leaves us on our own, oh no God is the bestower of most wonderful gifts, so He gives us many graces and many opportunities for grace through His Seven Sacraments, ESPECIALLY the Holy Eucharist, the gift of “Christ Himself,” and the Sacrament of Reconcillation.

The power of God is unlimited, and so is our free will. Truly, we are made in the image and likeness of God Amen!

Hope this helps you… Pray, Pray. Pray!

God’s continued blessings,
Pat Miron
Marian Catechest

 

[glowingembers]

So, if you can’t think of an example, then how can you say that free will exists?

It’s a hypothesis that I feel could be correct.

 

[PJM]

This is what free will is supposed to be, but can you give any examples where one might make a choice that is wholly independent of circumstance? Every single situation that I can think of, in which we might have a “choice” in the matter, ends up being colored by lots of other things - societal norms, education, previous experience, biology, psychology, personality, etc.

Sure
Did you decide to ask the question, or did someone (some unknown force) MAKE you ask the question?

That my friend is an example you using your free will:thumbsup:

God bless,
Pat Miron
Marian catecheist

 

[Starwynd]

Hope this helps you…

It doesn’t.

Because if we don’t choose God we go to hell, period, no matter how good of a person we are. Only Christians get to go to heaven.

 

[crowonsnow]

Sure
Did you decide to ask the question, or did someone (some unknown force) MAKE you ask the question?

That my friend is an example you using your free will:thumbsup:

You have to demonstrate that the event is not an accident. How do you do that? How do you show that the cause of this event was any different than what causes a person to fall off a cliff?

 

[proof_man]

thanks for the different perspectives. i don’t have time at this moment to respond to everybody individually, but i will try to do that soon.