Molinism, Predestination, Free Will, Grace?!

[Richca]

Logically…it stands…if you really think about that… I think you know that. In my belief system, Divine Revelation does not exist. To whom was this revelation given? What is your evidence?
I know the answers…that is why I am where I am. All the rest is merely explanations for the impossible…logically.

Honestly, I think a reasonable person would find that the factual and historical evidence for divine revelation is much more convincing than your logic.

 

[oldcelt]

Honestly, I think a reasonable person would find that the factual and historical evidence for divine revelation is much more convincing than your logic.

And what, precisely…might they be?

 

[tonyrey]

13 billion years of combination, starting with amino acids, can accomplish a great deal.

John

Even acerbic wit? :jrbirdman:

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I posted a very thorough article several pages ago about the problems involved in attempting to hold both libertarian free will and divine omniscience. This problem is well defined and quite contentious among the greatest minds in history both religious and philosophical. The several attempts of contributors to this discussion to suggest the those who disagree with the RC position are “irrational” ignore the long and distinguished history of those who deny libertarian free will and/or divine omniscience. Here is yet another brief article discussing this problem, feel free to read it to get another perspective. This author alleges that the argument against either divine omniscience or free will is based on a “modal fallacy.” I disagree with the author’s opinion that what he calls the “modal fallacy” is in fact false. I do believe there are no contingent propositions for an omniscient being, and that free will is a property of our ignorance. But anyway, worth a read:

iep.utm.edu/foreknow/

I understand why one may believe that divine omniscience has nothing to do with free will. I used to believe this also. I thought: “knowledge isn’t causation.” That is a true sentence, but it isn’t fully adequate! It isn’t that either omniscience or absolute creation makes free will impossible, but the existence of both negate libertarian free will. We could still have some kind of limited free will for which we are liable to a great extent, but it doesn’t seem like we should say that anything is totally our responsibility if God exists.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Tony,
If your deity has impeccable knowledge of all future events, and still creates an individual life-form, that deity cannot possibly grant that individual creation freedom. Their destiny was pre-known, prior to their creation…there can be no freedom under those conditions…even if that deity claims that the freedom exists.
In that case, one must reconsider the deity.

John

Wrong.

God can create free creatures and let them choose their way. God can simultaneously know what these creatures will choose. God can know whether or not the good outweighs the bad.

I think you need to reconsider your presuppositions.

 

[tonyrey]

:egyptian:

I posted a very thorough article several pages ago about the problems involved in attempting to hold both libertarian free will and divine omniscience. This problem is well defined and quite contentious among the greatest minds in history both religious and philosophical. The several attempts of contributors to this discussion to suggest the those who disagree with the RC position are “irrational” ignore the long and distinguished history of those who deny libertarian free will and/or divine omniscience. Here is yet another brief article discussing this problem, feel free to read it to get another perspective. This author alleges that the argument against either divine omniscience or free will is based on a “modal fallacy.” I disagree with the author’s opinion that what he calls the “modal fallacy” is in fact false. I do believe there are no contingent propositions for an omniscient being, and that free will is a property of our ignorance. But anyway, worth a read:

iep.utm.edu/foreknow/

I understand why one may believe that divine omniscience has nothing to do with free will. I used to believe this also. I thought: “knowledge isn’t causation.” That is a true sentence, but it isn’t fully adequate! It isn’t that either omniscience or absolute creation makes free will impossible, but the existence of both negate libertarian free will. We could still have some kind of limited free will for which we are liable to a great extent, but it doesn’t seem like we should say that anything is totally our responsibility if God exists.

Limited free will is quite sufficient! As we are limited in every other way it would be unreasonable to claim we are fully responsible for all our thoughts, choices, actions, decisions and omissions. There must be many mitigating circumstances of which we are unaware, not the least being our genetic inheritance and the society in which we are brought up without any choice in the matter. Nevertheless even ignorance doesn’t make us totally innocent - which would be the case if free will is merely a fantasy (as has been suggested on this thread). Farewell evil, guilt and injustice! We no longer have to be concerned about how we behave…:egyptian:

 

[oldcelt]

Wrong.

God can create free creatures and let them choose their way. God can simultaneously know what these creatures will choose. God can know whether or not the good outweighs the bad.

I think you need to reconsider your presuppositions.

You say all these things but do not address the obvious inconsistency of pre-known creation and free will. It is not I who is functioning under suppositions.

 

[oldcelt]

Even acerbic wit? :jrbirdman:

Even that.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . It is not I who is functioning under suppositions.

I must testify to the truth:
I am free to choose good or evil.
God, Love eternal, is Father to all creation.

 

[tonyrey]

Even that.

In other words your deist God has a partner: the Blind Goddess - Chance!

Do you really believe our power of insight is produced by a series of accidents - and the Creator is inferior to us in that respect as well as lacking the capacity for love?

 

[oldcelt]

In other words your deist God has a partner: the Blind Goddess - Chance!

Do you really believe our power of insight is produced by a series of accidents - and the Creator is inferior to us in that respect as well as lacking the capacity for love?

The creator is obviously superior to us in that it possesses the power to create a universe. So far as emotional capacity, I see no evidence one way or the other…and yes, I believe our power of insight, along with all our other qualities, has developed without any outside intervention.

 

[Richca]

I posted a very thorough article several pages ago about the problems involved in attempting to hold both libertarian free will and divine omniscience. This problem is well defined and quite contentious among the greatest minds in history both religious and philosophical. The several attempts of contributors to this discussion to suggest the those who disagree with the RC position are “irrational” ignore the long and distinguished history of those who deny libertarian free will and/or divine omniscience. Here is yet another brief article discussing this problem, feel free to read it to get another perspective. This author alleges that the argument against either divine omniscience or free will is based on a “modal fallacy.” I disagree with the author’s opinion that what he calls the “modal fallacy” is in fact false. I do believe there are no contingent propositions for an omniscient being, and that free will is a property of our ignorance. But anyway, worth a read:

iep.utm.edu/foreknow/

I understand why one may believe that divine omniscience has nothing to do with free will. I used to believe this also. I thought: “knowledge isn’t causation.” That is a true sentence, but it isn’t fully adequate! It isn’t that either omniscience or absolute creation makes free will impossible, but the existence of both negate libertarian free will. We could still have some kind of limited free will for which we are liable to a great extent, but it doesn’t seem like we should say that anything is totally our responsibility if God exists.

The Catholic Church has always held that human beings have free will and that God is omniscient. This is not an issue in the Catholic Church nor is it debated or ever has been that I’m aware of among our great theologians and doctors. Holy Scripture attests to both truths and this is what the Catholic Church has always taught. A catholic christian cannot make sense of the real world or divine revelation if human beings do not have freedom of choice. Firstly, the reality of sin and moral evil does not make sense without free will. Secondly, praise and blame, reward and punishment, merit and demerit, and justice itself are all thrown out if one denies free will. Thirdly, the commandments, exhortations, and counsels of God are meaningless without free will. Fourthly, the entire history of the Israelite people and their dealings with God which we read in Holy Scripture would make no sense. Fifthly, a denial of free will is a flat denial of our own experience of life whereby we are making choices daily.

Concerning God’s omniscience and speaking according to catholic christian philosophy and excluding divine revelation, God’s omniscience can be demonstrated from a number of different vantage points, the denial of which would lead to some major philosophical errors concerning God. To name just one, in Thomistic philosophy God is pure act without any composition of potentiality. God is not in potentiality to any kind of new knowledge. By one act of his intellect from all eternity, He knows all things.

What has been debated among theologians and different schools of theological thought in the Catholic Church is how to philosophically explain if possible God’s foreknowledge of future free actions by human beings. This is a whole different question and it has no bearing on the truths of God’s omniscience or the free will of humans. Philosophically, it is a more difficult task to inquire into and there is a limit to human knowledge while God’s knowledge as is His being is infinite. The fact of the matter is that whatever our theologians offer as a plausible or philosophical explanation of God’s foreknowledge of future free actions of human beings (which of course are not future to Him as their is no past or future in Him), God simply knows as He knows all things and He possesses an infinite and transcendent intellect.

 

[tonyrey]

In other words your deist God has a partner: the Blind Goddess - Chance!

That would be a far greater miracle than any proclaimed by the Catholic Church! Mindless molecules actually succeeded in becoming aware of themselves and acquiring the power of understanding not only themselves but the entire universe? Is there any evidence for that hypothesis - given that the most formidable problem in science is the nature of consciousness?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Mindless molecules actually succeeded in becoming aware of themselves and acquiring the power of understanding not only themselves but the entire universe? . . .

This pretty much is the outcome of the subject-object dichotomy which turns science into a cosmic joke.

The creator is obviously superior to us in that it possesses the power to create a universe. . .

“it”? Really? He creates us, is obviously superior, and He deserves an “it”?
In my teens I referred to God as It, because at the time, as a budding physicist (a path forsaken) I had no words for that Mystery from which we spring.

Dreams of forces and processes
entrap the soul,
in a cognitive golden cage
casting a veil over,
distracting us from
the reality of Being, transcendent,
of Love, over-arching and central;
Three persons as One,
the Source of this universe,
this eternal ocean of compassion.

 

[oldcelt]

That would be a far greater miracle than any proclaimed by the Catholic Church! Mindless molecules actually succeeded in becoming aware of themselves and acquiring the power of understanding not only themselves but the entire universe? Is there any evidence for that hypothesis - given that the most formidable problem in science is the nature of consciousness?

When those “mindless molecules” are part of something as complex as the human brain, it is not at all miraculous to me. As we observe other higher animals, we can observe varying degrees of self awareness. The larger and more complex the brain, it seems, the greater the level of consciousness

John

 

[oldcelt]

This pretty much is the outcome of the subject-object dichotomy which turns science into a cosmic joke.

“it”? Really? He creates us, is obviously superior, and He deserves an “it”?
In my teens I referred to God as It, because at the time, as a budding physicist (a path forsaken) I had no words for that Mystery from which we spring.

Dreams of forces and processes
entrap the soul,
in a cognitive golden cage
casting a veil over,
distracting us from
the reality of Being, transcendent,
of Love, over-arching and central;
Three persons as One,
the Source of this universe,
this eternal ocean of compassion.

“It” is not an insult when one is considering something as unobservable as the creator. I have no way of knowing what gender, if any, this most powerful of all forces maintains. You believe that you have arrived at the proper conclusion, and that is wonderful for you.
I, on the other hand, do not hold to the same belief system.

John

 

[tonyrey]

That would be a far greater miracle than any proclaimed by the Catholic Church! Mindless molecules actually succeeded in becoming aware of themselves and acquiring the power of understanding not only themselves but the entire universe? Is there any evidence for that hypothesis - given that the most formidable problem in science is the nature of consciousness?

When those “mindless molecules” are part of something as complex as the human brain, it is not at all miraculous to me. As we observe other higher animals, we can observe varying degrees of self awareness. The larger and more complex the brain, it seems, the greater the level of consciousness.You are overlooking the fundamental question. How and why did the increase in complexity ever commence? As the result of another cosmic fluke? The steady multiplication of unexplained events increases the implausibility of the appeal to the power of the blind Goddess. Simplicity not complexity is the null hypothesis. There is no obvious reason why anything** had to** exist, nor when something existed it** had to **become more complex, nor why it **had to become alive, nor why it had to survive, **nor why it **had to become conscious, nor why it had to **become rational, nor why it had to become autonomous and capable of love. By any standards the development of just one person from billions of irrational particles is an incredible feat unparallelled in the history of the universe. Yet Jacques Monod made the fantastic assumption that “The ancient covenant is in pieces; man knows at last that he is alone in the universe’s unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged only by chance. His destiny is nowhere spelled out, nor is his duty. The kingdom above or the darkness below; it is for him to choose.” - Chance and Necessity, p.180. This is the most ludicrously unscientific statement I have ever come across! Obviously becoming a Nobel Laureate went to his head and made him believe he had discovered the ultimate truth about existence. To say “When those “mindless molecules” are part of something as complex as the human brain, it is not at all miraculous to me” reveals a similar outlook based on nothing more than presumption. It is salutary to ask oneself whether science can explain not only itself but the scientist into the bargain…
:juggle:

 

[oldcelt]

oldcelt;13033062:

You are overlooking the fundamental question. How and why did the increase in complexity ever

commence? As the result of another cosmic fluke? The steady multiplication of unexplained events increases the implausibility of the appeal to the power of the blind Goddess. Simplicity not complexity is the null hypothesis. There is no obvious reason why anything** had to** exist, nor when something existed it** had to **become more complex, nor why it **had to become alive, nor why it had to survive, **nor why it **had to become conscious, nor why it had to **become rational, nor why it had to become autonomous and capable of love. By any standards the development of just one person from billions of irrational particles is an incredible feat unparallelled in the history of the universe. Yet Jacques Monod made the fantastic assumption that “The ancient covenant is in pieces; man knows at last that he is alone in the universe’s unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged only by chance. His destiny is nowhere spelled out, nor is his duty. The kingdom above or the darkness below; it is for him to choose.” - Chance and Necessity, p.180. This is the most ludicrously unscientific statement I have ever come across! Obviously becoming a Nobel Laureate went to his head and made him believe he had discovered the ultimate truth about existence. To say “When those “mindless molecules” are part of something as complex as the human brain, it is not at all miraculous to me” reveals a similar outlook based on nothing more than presumption. It is salutary to ask oneself whether science can explain not only itself but the scientist into the bargain…
:juggle:

The increase in complexity commenced because it was possible. The combining of various elements, along with an abundance of carbon, permitted the formation of early life. As these early forms exploited that around them, they became more complex and specialized. Some took the wrong course and died off…others, such as our line continued.
I, personally, am not so egotistical as Monod to believe that in all the vastness of the universe, we are the only life. To me, the possibilities approach the infinite.

John`

 

[Richca]

When those “mindless molecules” are part of something as complex as the human brain, it is not at all miraculous to me. As we observe other higher animals, we can observe varying degrees of self awareness. The larger and more complex the brain, it seems, the greater the level of consciousness

John

A difficulty I see in your analysis is that the greater has come from the lesser. For example, can a living thing which evidently has a higher form of existence than a non-living thing be strictly the product of lifeless matter? An effect cannot be greater than its cause. A cause cannot produce an effect which it itself does not possess. Every effect is like the cause in some degree or other but not greater than the cause.

 

[oldcelt]

A difficulty I see in your analysis is that the greater has come from the lesser. For example, can a living thing which evidently has a higher form of existence than a non-living thing be strictly the product of lifeless matter? An effect cannot be greater than its cause. A cause cannot produce an effect which it itself does not possess. Every effect is like the cause in some degree or other but not greater than the cause.

I know of no hard and fast law that “unliving” compounds cannot combine into simple life forms.

Abiotic Synthesis of Organic Molecules

As for the first problem, four scenarios have been proposed.

Organic molecules
were synthesized from inorganic compounds in the atmosphere;
rained down on earth from outer space;
were synthesized at hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor;
were synthesized when comets or asteroids struck the early earth.

users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/AbioticSynthesis.html

Once that barrier was overcome, the combination of simple cells led to colonies, then cellular division led to more complex colonies and so on. It took a very long time, but life does not seem to be in any hurry.

John