Molinism, Predestination, Free Will, Grace?!

[Richca]

Doesn’t the rather spectacular development of the hominid brain answer many of these issues. When precisely what we call consciousness entered the picture is still being investigated. However, it happened many thousands of years ago, based on archaeological evidence of early humans.
When millions upon millions of years are factored in, these characteristics become non-miraculous to me. More an issue of the slow development of various lifeforms. Remember, not only humans can be identified as conscious, autonomous, purposeful beings.Our present inability to communicate effectively with other higher lifeforms does not deny their intelligence and apparent self-awareness.

John

Well, no. What you are presenting here is a theory and not an infallible truth or self-evident fact. We as catholics hold as an infallible truth of the faith and Holy Scripture which is the word of God, that the first human and human couple, namely, Adam and Eve, were immediately created by God at least as to their souls. Indeed, we believe that the soul of every human being is immediately created by God. It is not possible for science to contradict the truth of divine revelation. So the theory that human beings evolved from lower life forms is simply wrong. We should not be oblivious to the fact that the theory that humans evolved from lower life forms is nothing more than imaginative theory. Though there are some scientists who would like us to believe that it is a fact, any person with a reasonable, objective mind and common sense, in my view, can tell the difference between opinion and certain factual truth. According to our belief which we hold from the word of God then, for it is certain that God knows, it is not going to be possible for modern empirical science to claim as an undeniable truth that human beings are nothing more than an evolution or product of lower life forms.

 

[oldcelt]

Well, no. What you are presenting here is a theory and not an infallible truth or self-evident fact. We as catholics hold as an infallible truth of the faith and Holy Scripture which is the word of God, that the first human and human couple, namely, Adam and Eve, were immediately created by God at least as to their souls. Indeed, we believe that the soul of every human being is immediately created by God. It is not possible for science to contradict the truth of divine revelation. So the theory that human beings evolved from lower life forms is simply wrong. We should not be oblivious to the fact that the theory that humans evolved from lower life forms is nothing more than imaginative theory. Though there are some scientists who would like us to believe that it is a fact, any person with a reasonable, objective mind and common sense, in my view, can tell the difference between opinion and certain factual truth. According to our belief which we hold from the word of God then, for it is certain that God knows, it is not going to be possible for modern empirical science to claim as an undeniable truth that human beings are nothing more than an evolution or product of lower life forms.

I respect you beliefs, especially since I once held them. However, scientific evidence does not point to a miraculous creation event, but a slow development of the mind over eons. Revelation can offer no physical evidence.

 

[Richca]

I respect you beliefs, especially since I once held them. However, scientific evidence does not point to a miraculous creation event, but a slow development of the mind over eons. Revelation can offer no physical evidence.

It seems to me that the so called scientific evidence you are pointing too is unable to distinguish a brute animal from a human being. What kind of science is that? At any rate, any so called scientific evidence is irrelevant. We have God’s word and this word is certain.

 

[I_am_learning]

Yes, I was confused when I was learning about this as well, but it got cleared up after some more learning. Predestination is from Galvanism, believing God chooses if you go to heaven or hell after yor death BEFORE you were born. God gives us free will, and he knows what our choices will be before we are born, right? Well, you see, its not the same thing. For predestination, its like God going “so you are going to heaven when you die, and uh, and the other guy will go to hell.” This means your choices on earth would not matter at all. For us Catholics, yes God sees all space and time, and He knows if we will turn left or right. But we get free will, we decide if we want to go to heaven or to hell. Sure, God knows what our final decision will be, but He does not choose for us or force us, and our choices do matter (free will), unlike in predestination. He is always trying to put us on the right track. God does not force us to love him, otherwise that would not be love.

 

[thinkandmull]

If you had foreknowledge of my every future thought and action, and you created both me, and the room I’m in right now, down to the last atom, in what sense do I have free will?

Your freedom comes in between He wishing to create and the foreknowledge. See?

 

[AyJSimon]

Your freedom comes in between He wishing to create and the foreknowledge. See?

No - that makes no sense at all. In between having the foreknowledge of everything you’ll ever do and creating you to start doing it, he gives you the “freedom” to do everything he created you to do?

 

[oldcelt]

It seems to me that the so called scientific evidence you are pointing too is unable to distinguish a brute animal from a human being. What kind of science is that? At any rate, any so called scientific evidence is irrelevant. We have God’s word and this word is certain.

The evidence is physical and observable, On a philosophy forum, your God’d revelation is unobserved. We must. on this forum, deal in the observable. Else, this becomes a discussion of Catholic doctrine…
I thought that we were here for an exchange of ideas.

 

[oldcelt]

Your freedom comes in between He wishing to create and the foreknowledge. See?

That, is totally illogical, IMHO.

 

[Richca]

The evidence is physical and observable, On a philosophy forum, your God’d revelation is unobserved. We must. on this forum, deal in the observable. Else, this becomes a discussion of Catholic doctrine…
I thought that we were here for an exchange of ideas.

The Bible is evidence itself, it is physical and observable and readable. Holy Scripture contains divine revelation and its historical fact. The Israelites were and are a real people, Jesus was a real historical person, the apostles and St Paul where historical people. There is much physical, observable, and historical evidence for divine revelation. Indeed, the evidence for divine revelation is much more convincing than the scanty piece-meal evidence your speaking of. If your interested in the physical, observable, historical, you might want to look into the content of divine revelation. The Old Testament has much history on the Israelite people.

Philosophy is a handmaid and subordinate to theology and divine revelation. Philosophy separated from divine revelation and faith is going to fall into errors as a reading of the history of philosophy shows especially of modern philosophy as well as the error you are presenting here which is not in the realm of opinion for catholics. Our highest guide in the search for truth is what the Catholic Church proposes for our belief from the deposit of divine revelation which is Holy Scripture and Tradition. All other fields of study or sciences are secondary and subordinate.

 

[tonyrey]

It’s a far more convincing explanation than the fortuitous, molecular transformation hypothesis which fails to account in any way whatsoever for the existence of conscious, rational, autonomous, purposeful beings…

Time alone does not explain progressive development. No one has explained the increase in complexity of living organisms, let alone their origin. The most formidable obstacle is the fact that inanimate objects are not purposeful. How on earth did they succeed in controlling themselves and directing their activity towards a non-existent goal? Do you reject the reality of truth, goodness, freedom, justice and love? Can you reduce them to molecular activity? Evolution has become a religion based on faith in the power of science to explain everything including itself - and is usually associated with atheism rather than deism.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, I was confused when I was learning about this as well, but it got cleared up after some more learning. Predestination is from Galvanism, believing God chooses if you go to heaven or hell after yor death BEFORE you were born. God gives us free will, and he knows what our choices will be before we are born, right? Well, you see, its not the same thing. For predestination, its like God going “so you are going to heaven when you die, and uh, and the other guy will go to hell.” This means your choices on earth would not matter at all. For us Catholics, yes God sees all space and time, and He knows if we will turn left or right. But we get free will, we decide if we want to go to heaven or to hell. Sure, God knows what our final decision will be, but He does not choose for us or force us, and our choices do matter (free will), unlike in predestination. He is always trying to put us on the right track. God does not force us to love him, otherwise that would not be love.

We are predestined to have free will.

 

[I_am_learning]

We are predestined to have free will.

Nice way to summarize it.

 

[oldcelt]

Time alone does not explain progressive development. No one has explained the increase in complexity of living organisms, let alone their origin. The most formidable obstacle is the fact that inanimate objects are not purposeful. How on earth did they succeed in controlling themselves and directing their activity towards a non-existent goal? Do you reject the reality of truth, goodness, freedom, justice and love? Can you reduce them to molecular activity? Evolution has become a religion based on faith in the power of science to explain everything including itself - and is usually associated with atheism rather than deism.

A good page on the origins of simple life on early earth: users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/AbioticSynthesis.html

As for direction, all organisms from simple to complex function at the most fundamental level based on survival…a very real goal. I do not reject any of the attributes you mention. I simply think that they are human concepts to explain certain states or emotions.

 

[oldcelt]

The Bible is evidence itself, it is physical and observable and readable. Holy Scripture contains divine revelation and its historical fact. The Israelites were and are a real people, Jesus was a real historical person, the apostles and St Paul where historical people. There is much physical, observable, and historical evidence for divine revelation. Indeed, the evidence for divine revelation is much more convincing than the scanty piece-meal evidence your speaking of. If your interested in the physical, observable, historical, you might want to look into the content of divine revelation. The Old Testament has much history on the Israelite people.

Philosophy is a handmaid and subordinate to theology and divine revelation. Philosophy separated from divine revelation and faith is going to fall into errors as a reading of the history of philosophy shows especially of modern philosophy as well as the error you are presenting here which is not in the realm of opinion for catholics. Our highest guide in the search for truth is what the Catholic Church proposes for our belief from the deposit of divine revelation which is Holy Scripture and Tradition. All other fields of study or sciences are secondary and subordinate.

The Bible is a collection of writings assembled with the very open purpose of supporting a belief system. The writings are inconsistent and the historicity of many portions in both testaments very much open for debate. I understand completely that faithful Catholics hold these ideas to be truth…that is what faith is about.
To others, revelation is the subordinate.

 

[tonyrey]

A good page on the origins of simple life on early earth: users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/AbioticSynthesis.html

As for direction, all organisms from simple to complex function at the most fundamental level based on survival…a very real goal. I do not reject any of the attributes you mention. I simply think that they are human concepts to explain certain states or emotions.

How did the survival instinct originate? How does a physical state or emotion explain whether a belief is true, good, free or just? Are we just biological machines?

 

[oldcelt]

How did the survival instinct originate? How does a physical state or emotion explain whether a belief is true, good, free or just? Are we just biological machines?

How did survival instinct originate? I do not have an answer for that. We can, however, analyze whether a belief is factual (truth is a whole different concept) through logic and reasoning.
In many ways we are biological machines…the difference being that we have developed the ability to recognize that. I suspect other higher animals have similar, if not exact abilities. The only barrier to proving that is communication…a barrier we have yet to conquer.

 

[tonyrey]

I think it is possible to hold a middle ground here. I reject doxastic voluntarism (the notion that we can choose our beliefs) but I also recognize our own thoughts as the center of whatever freedom we do have.

I think we can choose what to spend our time thinking about, but at the same time, I do not think we have the freedom to “believe” something that is 1) logically impossible 2) nonsense 3) known to be false 4) observably false, etc. I think we do not have the freedom to believe that the earth is flat, or that there are round squares, or anything else that can be demonstrated to be false. I also think we are compelled to believe something that meets or exceeds our standard of evidence. I’m not sure whether this standard of evidence is something we can will or something we are compelled to accept. Could it be an inevitable result of personality or education? I’m not sure. But, to confidently assert that it is certainly under the control of “will” seems unwarranted.

At one time in human history, some humans may have been free to believe that the earth was flat, but not so any more, due to the overwhelming evidence that it is spherical.

As I experience it, I am compelled to believe in God. I am also compelled to believe that the Hebrew scriptures tell us, to some degree or another, about this God. The evidence I’ve discovered compels this belief. I no longer believe in Jesus or the authority of the RCC because I am not able to do so, based on the evidence. I would love to be a RC believer, it would make my family life so much more simple, but I simply can’t believe it. This is how I experience it.

However, I do experience a high degree of freedom in my own thoughts. Sometimes I feel compelled to think about one thing or another, but I am usually able to direct my thoughts to whatever I want. (At least, this is what I think is happening). People do lose this freedom (OCD, Schizophrenia, anxiety disorders) but I think the disorder is evidence that there is an order which enables freedom, at least in our own imaginations and thoughts. I think it is a mistake to conclude, however, that we’re totally free to believe anything whatsoever simply because we seem to be able to direct our thoughts in our own imaginations.

I agree with everything you have written with one proviso: we can sometimes choose what to believe, especially when it is impossible to be certain about the truth. Where there is an element of doubt we are compelled to choose one view or another if it has any practical significance. There is at least one case where we have no option: we cannot live as if life is purposeless or as if we are never reasonable! That is the foundation of my belief in God.

 

[thinkandmull]

No - that makes no sense at all. In between having the foreknowledge of everything you’ll ever do and creating you to start doing it, he gives you the “freedom” to do everything he created you to do?

You are not grasping the relationship between us and eternal, Divine. God is encircled all around time. Again, its a deep thought and you have to be willing to reach for it. Some of it see it clearly.

 

[thinkandmull]

The Bible is evidence itself, it is physical and observable and readable. Holy Scripture contains divine revelation and its historical fact. The Israelites were and are a real people, Jesus was a real historical person, the apostles and St Paul where historical people. There is much physical, observable, and historical evidence for divine revelation. Indeed, the evidence for divine revelation is much more convincing than the scanty piece-meal evidence your speaking of. If your interested in the physical, observable, historical, you might want to look into the content of divine revelation. The Old Testament has much history on the Israelite people.

Philosophy is a handmaid and subordinate to theology and divine revelation. Philosophy separated from divine revelation and faith is going to fall into errors as a reading of the history of philosophy shows especially of modern philosophy as well as the error you are presenting here which is not in the realm of opinion for catholics. Our highest guide in the search for truth is what the Catholic Church proposes for our belief from the deposit of divine revelation which is Holy Scripture and Tradition. All other fields of study or sciences are secondary and subordinate.

I’m taking a middle ground here: “physical and observable” evidence for history is **extremely **limited. Any could write something say its history in the past

 

[thinkandmull]

The Bible is a collection of writings assembled with the very open purpose of supporting a belief system. The writings are inconsistent and the historicity of many portions in both testaments very much open for debate. I understand completely that faithful Catholics hold these ideas to be truth…that is what faith is about.
To others, revelation is the subordinate.

I’ve looked over all the alleged Biblical contradictions, and they are all explanable