If we truly have free will, our choices are uncaused causes

[Peter_Plato]

Since we are required to choose only what appears to us as good, and we cannot choose what appears to us as bad, then I don;t see how we can have free will.

To say we choose what appears to be good does not deny that it is a good, but that it is the inappropriate or inopportune good relative to the choice currently being faced. It is more like a focal problem than a chimera. It may be a good that is chosen but not the good that ought to have been. The freedom is in freedom from constraint in choosing to set the priority of goods correctly.

Freedom comes into it because freedom entails freedom from compulsion or constraint to choose one good over another. We can only be free to choose a higher good over a lower if we are free from any compulsion to choose the lesser good and free to choose the greater based purely on its objective standing as a higher good rather than by its desirability.

That does not, by the way, mean we cannot desire the good in addition to choosing it but it does mean that the reason we choose it is because it is the appropriate good rather than solely determined by an impulse or desire for it.

 

[Bahman]

This would seem to refute the arguments that an uncaused cause must have the properties of God.

Or, alternatively, it could mean our wills have some of the same properties as God, for example, our wills could be immutable, and eternally devoted to either good or evil.

Yet it does raise some questions, particularly for those who cite arguments like the kalaam, whose first premise is that things that begin to exist have a cause. Our choices may be uncaused, but the will, which is the basis for our choice, began to exist, and, as brute fact, is oriented either toward good or toward evil. You could imagine our wills as existing in a state of either 0 (pursuing evil) or 1 (pursuing goodness) but nothing at all caused them to be in that state! Yet the state began to exist!

What say ye?

That is very you, consciousness, who create thoughts and acts. You are uncaused cause. You cannot be created.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

My Nature might have come from God, but my will is entirely my own. If my will were derived from my nature, and my nature created by God, then God is indirectly responsible for all the decisions I make. In order for my will to truly be free, there must be no causal link between God and the orientation of my will.

You are totally free even though God is the agent cause ( First Cause ) of your intellect. He gave you the power to be free. Your intellect/will cannot be uncaused. The mistake you are making is confusing your freedom with a lack of cause. Even on the natural level your intellect/will are moved by desire, which in turn is moved by your passions and/or the impact of your environment on your senses. But the actual choices you make are free.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[N0X3x]

Perhaps God underwrites free will in the sense of enabling human free will. In other words, the grace of God empowers freedom of will provided we exercise that option enabled by grace. The less we choose for the good, the less free we become, but the grace available from God may be dynamic in the sense that the “amount” or strength required to overcome our degeneracy is increased to meet the deficit we create by choosing evil. This would mean that our choices between good and evil are always held in balance so that we could, given grace, always have the power (underwritten by God) to enable the choice for good even if we have become entrenched in evil.

At some point, a final option or “last call” in an ontological sense of reprobation would seal things as a matter of course. At the same time, where grace from God finally releases the will from the possibility of resisting grace - the ultimate freedom of God would make union with God’s will the immutable ground for our freedom.

I wouldn’t confuse independence with freedom of will. The only ultimately FREE will is God’s. Our will vacillates between freedom underwritten by God and slavery to sin. The kind of tentative or pseudo freedom of being in a position to choose between good and evil is not real freedom but, rather, the capacity to refuse to be free by delimiting real freedom, i.e., acting contrary to the will of God.

interesting ideas, but I think I was confusing the two. We mean two different things when we speak about freedom of will. I was informed in this thread by Imelahn that what I am actually referring to is the liberum arbitrium property of man, in other words, his ability to choose between good and evil.

What I am trying to get across in this thread is that our choice between evil and good is uncaused. nothing causes our selves to be oriented one way or the other, and therefore our choices for either good and evil are uncaused causes.

 

[N0X3x]

There are different kind of causes. God is an existential cause, but God being so also allows for secondary causation in the sense that while God does cause the existence of all acts God nevertheless creates “natures” that act according to their natures. God causes things to be according to their nature.

see post #19

 

[N0X3x]

most of the other posts on this thread would be better suited for this thread.

 

[Peter_Plato]

interesting ideas, but I think I was confusing the two. We mean two different things when we speak about freedom of will. I was informed in this thread by Imelahn that what I am actually referring to is the liberum arbitrium property of man, in other words, his ability to choose between good and evil.

What I am trying to get across in this thread is that our choice between evil and good is uncaused. nothing causes our selves to be oriented one way or the other, and therefore our choices for either good and evil are uncaused causes.

That would imply that we are the uncaused cause of the “self” that we become. In other words, we are entirely responsible for what we turn or “self” into. That entails our moral agency is entirely our own doing or undoing.

 

[N0X3x]

That would imply that we are the uncaused cause of the “self” that we become. In other words, we are entirely responsible for what we turn or “self” into. That entails our moral agency is entirely our own doing or undoing.

precisely. It is the only way we could truly be free to choose between good and evil.

 

[ynotzap]

Since we are required to choose only what appears to us as good, and we cannot choose what appears to us as bad, then I don;t see how we can have free will.

True freedom comes from doing what we were designed to do. What we were designed to do is obvious by understanding our nature. Body and soul, with all our physical and spiritual powers. Since we are endowed with rational intelligence, then to do what is dictated by our rational intelligence(that is enlightened) is the proper way to act and make choices. Two things are involved in human acts, the p ower of choice, and the power of understanding. But there is another influence that conditions our choices, even though we know the truth by our reason. One may know the truth, and still do the lesser good, eg. to steal, rather than work. The good that is acquired by stealing, is the lesser good (but morally wrong), than the good acquired by working (morally right) The influence of the condition called sloth ( a feeling of not wanting to put out the effort of work) influences our choice towards the lesser good. Summed up nicely by St. Paul " The good that I desire I do not, and that which I do I desire not, who will help me, Jesus Christ."

 

[Peter_Plato]

precisely. It is the only way we could truly be free to choose between good and evil.

Actually, that wasn’t my point.

My point was that THAT is precisely what being free is not - that would be the “freedom” to abdicate true freedom, the “power” to choose to make oneself powerless, so to speak. That would make us ultimately responsible for doing so, but that isn’t what freedom actually is.

 

[Richca]

My Nature might have come from God, but my will is entirely my own. If my will were derived from my nature, and my nature created by God, then God is indirectly responsible for all the decisions I make. In order for my will to truly be free, there must be no causal link between God and the orientation of my will.

God created human beings in His own image and likeness so that they might know, love, and serve Him in this life and be with Him forever in heaven. God is the measure of freedom, happiness, goodness, and blessedness. God created us in such a way that we might enjoy His blessedness for all eternity. How did you want God to make us? So that we might be miserable for all eternity or live a few short years and then have no existence after that?

Virtue and goodness are natural for human beings for this makes us like God. Vice and evil are unnatural for human beings for this makes us tend to non-being and non-being as such is not a good.

 

[ynotzap]

Feelings contrary to right reasoning have a powerful and negative influence on our rational nature. Thats why we have crimes of passion. The sexual drives in man cause him to do things contrary to right reasoning, or the moral law. Also ignorance is another factor that causes one to make the wrong choice that limits man’s freedom. The reason is that our wills are weak and fail to resist these influences of passion. Our minds are also uninlightened with the truth, this is the cause of our lack of freedom. We are inhibited to do what we were designed to do, there is a cure and it’s found in our Christian Faith where we get in touch with the Designer of our nature, then we have access to complete freedom. Man is not his own redeemer, and neither is Superman or the American League of Heroes or the Xmen his redeemer.

 

[N0X3x]

Actually, that wasn’t my point.

My point was that THAT is precisely what being free is not - that would be the “freedom” to abdicate true freedom, the “power” to choose to make oneself powerless, so to speak. That would make us ultimately responsible for doing so, but that isn’t what freedom actually is.

I disagree, but before I get to my main point I’d like to ask you if you think the property of man to be able to choose between good and evil has any value.

My main point is that it is freedom to be able to choose between good and evil. the freedom to abdicate freedom is still freedom.

I think we also need to be clear on what freedom actually is. How would you define freedom?

 

[N0X3x]

God created human beings in His own image and likeness so that they might know, love, and serve Him in this life and be with Him forever in heaven. God is the measure of freedom, happiness, goodness, and blessedness. God created us in such a way that we might enjoy His blessedness for all eternity.

I agree with all this.

How did you want God to make us? So that we might be miserable for all eternity or live a few short years and then have no existence after that?

I’m not really sure where these questions come from. You seem to have the impression that I take issue with the way God made us, which is not the case.

Virtue and goodness are natural for human beings for this makes us like God. Vice and evil are unnatural for human beings for this makes us tend to non-being and non-being as such is not a good.

Also agree with this. Where do you think we disagree?