Is Free Will Possible in the Catholic Faith or Any Other Religion in General

[IrenePHD]

Free Will is something I must admit I have questioned significantly my whole life. Going up the various sisters I had in school preached about Free Will given from God. However how is this possible in religion when one does not follow doctrine, the act is deemed sinful, yet how can one judge something a sin when we are given free will?

 

[TEPO]

Free Will is something I must admit I have questioned significantly my whole life. Going up the various sisters I had in school preached about Free Will given from God. However how is this possible in religion when one does not follow doctrine, the act is deemed sinful, yet how can one judge something a sin when we are given free will?

Free Will means -free choice. We, unlike animals are not bound by instinct -rather, we can choose what we think and have the ability to control our impulses. When we choose to follow the Church, we are acting on our Free Will… When we choose to deny the Church, likewise we are acting on our free will.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Free Will is something I must admit I have questioned significantly my whole life. Going up the various sisters I had in school preached about Free Will given from God. However how is this possible in religion when one does not follow doctrine, the act is deemed sinful, yet how can one judge something a sin when we are given free will?

I think it is possible that you misunderstand the nature of sin, judgment, and free will.

I think we can all agree, for example, that sexual abuse of a child is a sinful action.

Do you think that in agreeing with that judgment (freely), we are being coerced into a belief that we otherwise wouldn’t have? Do you think that most people would freely choose to abuse a child sexually if they were told that they could ‘judge for themselves’ whether the act was sinful or not?

Do you think that there are situations where the sexual abuse of a child is NOT sinful?

Now, if you think there are situations where sexual abuse of a child is not sinful, there really wouldn’t be much more to be said because such a view just would not make sense to the majority of people.

But I think that you will probably say that no, absolutely not, there is NO situation where sexual abuse of a child is not sinful.

Ah. Then you would also agree that at least some sinful actions are absolute moral evils.

You would still be free to reject the judgment, or even to believe the judgment and still abuse a child --that’s your ‘free will’.

You have free well to accept or reject truth. You do not, however, have the power to change truth by simply stating that it’s your ‘free will’ to think of truth as being a lie.

 

[Samuel63]

God did give us a free will. He wants us to choose Him on our own, without being forced or coerced. After all, only love given freely is real love.

We fell into a trap called original sin due to Adam and Eve. He (God) came back to our domain and died for us so we could attain eternal life. He really loves us that much!

His best wish for us is to “know Him, love Him, and serve Him in this life to be with Him forever.” This is a paraphrase from the Baltimore Catechism.

The real mystery here in my opinion is that God knows our outcome and whether we succeed or fail in this “trial.” He is outside of time actually. We have to persevere with courage, God’s grace, faith, hope and charity.

This is the greatest faith ever!

 

[petras52]

The reservation I have about free will in regards to our relationship with God is that it seems a little like a “shotgun wedding”…yes we don’t have to accept God or marry someone we don’t want, but the consequences of not doing so are unpleasant…I wonder how much the fear of God and fear of hell influence people…

 

[TEPO]

.I wonder how much the fear of God and fear of hell influence people…

So much it seems, that it almost appears to be Pre-programmed into our individual conciounces. Sort of like being “branded” onto our souls.

To be branded means to belong to someone.

 

[petras52]

God did give us a free will. He wants us to choose Him on our own, without being forced or coerced. After all, only love given freely is real love.

We fell into a trap called original sin due to Adam and Eve. He (God) came back to our domain and died for us so we could attain eternal life. He really loves us that much!

His best wish for us is to “know Him, love Him, and serve Him in this life to be with Him forever.” This is a paraphrase from the Baltimore Catechism.

The real mystery here in my opinion is that God knows our outcome and whether we succeed or fail in this “trial.” He is outside of time actually. We have to persevere with courage, God’s grace, faith, hope and charity.

This is the greatest faith ever!

You mention God wants us to choose Him on our own, without being forced or through coercion. However like in the “shotgun wedding” scenario, isn’t God holding a really big shotgun? Like the groom who is being forced to marry, how is it different when we are told that if we don’t love and accept God, we go to hell. It seems to me that our free will is greatly influenced by negative consequences and therefore not truly free…

 

[kesa82]

.I wonder how much the fear of God and fear of hell influence people…

off-topic

Believe it or not, in my case, I doubt fear has much to do with it at all.

I go outside , and look up at the sun and sky that God made, at the trees, and the grass, and even with earthquakes and hurricanes and viruses and big spiders, I feel very little in the nature of any threat there. The rain falls and the sun shines on the grateful and the ungrateful alike.

Then I look at man and the things of man . Are not murderers exalted , and angels crushed?
Do we not have concentration camps ? ( have we not built , or tried to build, Hell ? ) Do we not exterminate infants, has the apogee of our science not been to build a genocidal and suicidal weapon?

Fear…God ?

No, time and time again, when I was AFRAID, it was God I ran TOO.

No, in my case the source of fear lies quite in another place.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Is Free Will possible in a democracy? When I go out of a drive I have a choice of obeying the speed limit or of getting a ticket, and possibly a disastrous crash. Do I obey the limit out of free will or out of fear of the consequences of disobeying?

 

[TEPO]

Is Free Will possible in a democracy? When I go out of a drive I have a choice of obeying the speed limit or of getting a ticket, and possibly a disastrous crash. Do I obey the limit out of free will or out of fear of the consequences of disobeying?

The fact that you were able to see that there was a choice is a free-will situation. As to the resulting action -it depends.

 

[fhansen]

We’re free to decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong-despite the fact that right and wrong have already been determined by God! IOW we’re free to deny or oppose the very will of God-or align ourselves with it.

 

[WillP]

Free Will means -free choice. We, unlike animals are not bound by instinct -rather, we can choose what we think and have the ability to control our impulses. When we choose to follow the Church, we are acting on our Free Will… When we choose to deny the Church, likewise we are acting on our free will.

Kant said “Mann kann was er will, aber he kann nicht wollen was er will” (One can choose what he intends but has no choice in what he intends). Now neurologists, centuries later, are discovering how insightful this was.

I suspect that before the 21st century is out, we will have learned how deterministic our existences are. Amazingly, however, we will be compelled to go on with our daily existences just as if that were not so. Many changes are coming, I am sure, but, the effects of learning the true nature of “free will” likely will be the least felt.

 

[tonyrey]

Kant said “Mann kann was er will, aber he kann nicht wollen was er will” (One can choose what he intends but has no choice in what he intends). Now neurologists, centuries later, are discovering how insightful this was.

Kant also said “Ought implies can”! How do you explain that?

I suspect that before the 21st century is out, we will have learned how deterministic our existences are. Amazingly, however, we will be compelled to go on with our daily existences just as if that were not so. Many changes are coming, I am sure, but, the effects of learning the true nature of “free will” likely will be the least felt.

Fatalism is already entrenched in some parts of the world and it has devastating effects on people’s attitude to corruption and other evils. It would be impossible to live normally if we discovered we’re merely impotent spectators - but that fantasy will never become fact because it would make us incapable of rational thought, thereby refuting itself:

The truth makes us free but we have to be free to arrive at the truth!

 

[TEPO]

Kant said “Mann kann was er will, aber he kann nicht wollen was er will” (One can choose what he intends but has no choice in what he intends). Now neurologists, centuries later, are discovering how insightful this was.

So in other words, we can only choose to either do something or not to… As if we cannot comprehend alternatives…? Nonsense.

 

[WillP]

Kant also said “Ought implies can”! How do you explain that?

What is there to explain? Determined though we may be, we nonetheless are “in this game” and cannot but act (or perhaps, “feel”) as tho we have free will. Read my entire post. I think I said it already.

Fatalism is already entrenched in some parts of the world and it has devastating effects on people’s attitude to corruption and other evils. I am afraid I don’t see any evidence of this at all. Almost everyone on this planet lives their lives as tho they have free will, particularly in my experience in the States. We are a nation of pleasure seekers who believe we are doing as we please.

So much so that It would be impossible to live normally if we discovered we’re merely impotent spectators -

On the contrary it will always seem as tho we have free will. What “we” do is that “we” experience what “our” oganisms do and think. As this activity is experienced subjectively, “we” have the sense of there being a “self” within a body which is directing things. In reality there is simply an organism which produces a subjective experience.

Freightening thought, isn’t it?

The truth makes us free but we have to be free to arrive at the truth!

 

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by** willp**

Kant also said “Ought implies can”! How do you explain that?

What is there to explain? Determined though we may be, we nonetheless are “in this game” and cannot but act (or perhaps, “feel”) as tho we have free will. Read my entire post. I think I said it already.

Feelings don’t bestow the power to choose.

Fatalism is already entrenched in some parts of the world and it has devastating effects on people’s attitude to corruption and other evils.

I am afraid I don’t see any evidence of this at all. Almost everyone on this planet lives their lives as tho they have free will, particularly in my experience in the States. We are a nation of pleasure seekers who believe we are doing as we please.

“as tho” implies that the overwhelming majority and the legal systems of the world are all deluded.

So much so that It would be impossible to live normally if we discovered we’re merely impotent spectators -

On the contrary it will always seem as tho we have free will. What “we” do is that “we” experience what “our” oganisms do and think. As this activity is experienced subjectively, “we” have the sense of there being a “self” within a body which is directing things. In reality there is simply an organism which produces a subjective experience.

How and why did this universal delusion originate?

Freightening thought, isn’t it?

For those (some on trains!) who are deluded that free will is a delusion!

The truth makes us free but we have to be free to arrive at the truth!

No response!

BTW Use the quote facility for the other person’s statements.

 

[WillP]

Originally Posted by** willp**Feelings don’t bestow the power to choose.

No but they make us feel astho we have the power to choose. Thus, iIt seems like we have the power to choose.

“as tho” implies that the overwhelming majority and the legal systems of the world are all deluded.
Legal systems are not so much deluded as they are protective of a society and the values of a society. Legal systems exist to assign responsibility. These systems punish misbehavor and attempt to fix society’s problems (with varying degrees of success, of course). Regardless, it seems and will always seem as tho we are free agents ,but, the believable evidence is that we are not. Sam Harris wrote a book on free will which probably explains the research better than I could. I haven’t read it yet, but, I am familiar with his work and I have read other authors on the subject. My contact with this area has been eposodic and not nearly as intently studied as I would like, however, with that disclaimer, I find the proposition of no free will and the evidence in support to be compelling.

It is difficult to explain in a post, but, in essence, I think it works like this: I can choose to stop this posting and get back to work or I can continue trying to convince you of my position on free will. That seems certainly like a free choice that I have. However, in the process of making my selection, I will form an intention to do one or the other. It is that intention over which I have no control.

How and why did this universal delusion originate?

Who knows? As humans experienced their environment, it always seemed like it was perfectly natural to either throw a spear at the mammoth or call it a day and go back to the cave. We are not aware of the intentionality of our choices anymore than we are aware of why our origins function, the blood flows in our veins or dozens of other physical functions and operations.

BTW Use the quote facility for the other person’s statements.

OK. Thanks for the tip.

 

[tonyrey]

OK. Thanks for the tip.

Any response to my points?

 

[WillP]

Q. “as tho” implies that the overwhelming majority and the legal systems of the world are all deluded.

A. Legal systems are not so much deluded as they are protective of a society and the values of a society. Legal systems exist to assign responsibility. These systems punish misbehavor and attempt to fix society’s problems (with varying degrees of success, of course). Regardless, it seems and will always seem as tho we are free agents ,but, the believable evidence is that we are not. Sam Harris wrote a book on free will which probably explains the research better than I could. I haven’t read it yet, but, I am familiar with his work and I have read other authors on the subject. My contact with this area has been eposodic and not nearly as intently studied as I would like, however, with that disclaimer, I find the proposition of no free will and the evidence in support to be compelling.

It is difficult to explain in a post, but, in essence, I think it works like this: I can choose to stop this posting and get back to work or I can continue trying to convince you of my position on free will. That seems certainly like a free choice that I have. However, in the process of making my selection, I will form an intention to do one or the other. It is that intention over which I have no control.

Q. How and why did this universal delusion originate?

A. Who knows? As humans experienced their environment, it always seemed like it was perfectly natural to either throw a spear at the mammoth or call it a day and go back to the cave. We are not aware of the intentionality of our choices anymore than we are aware of why our origins function, the blood flows in our veins or dozens of other physical functions and operations.

 

[tonyrey]

Q. “as tho” implies that the overwhelming majority and the legal systems of the world are all deluded.

A. Legal systems are not so much deluded as they are protective of a society and the values of a society. Legal systems exist to assign responsibility. These systems punish misbehavor and attempt to fix society’s problems (with varying degrees of success, of course). Regardless, it seems and will always seem as tho we are free agents ,but, the believable evidence is that we are not. Sam Harris wrote a book on free will which probably explains the research better than I could. I haven’t read it yet, but, I am familiar with his work and I have read other authors on the subject. My contact with this area has been eposodic and not nearly as intently studied as I would like, however, with that disclaimer, I find the proposition of no free will and the evidence in support to be compelling.

It is difficult to explain in a post, but, in essence, I think it works like this: I can choose to stop this posting and get back to work or I can continue trying to convince you of my position on free will. That seems certainly like a free choice that I have. However, in the process of making my selection, I will form an intention to do one or the other. It is that intention over which I have no control.

In that case you have no control over your conclusions and they may well stem from what you had for breakfast or on your state of health!

Q. How and why did this universal delusion originate?

A. Who knows? As humans experienced their environment, it always seemed like it was perfectly natural to either throw a spear at the mammoth or call it a day and go back to the cave. We are not aware of the intentionality of our choices anymore than we are aware of why our origins function, the blood flows in our veins or dozens of other physical functions and operations.

Awareness of intentionality is not necessary for intentions to occur any more than it is for physical functions. Many people have never thought about it.