Molinism, Predestination, Free Will, Grace?!

[tonyrey]

If we are merely biological computers there is no reason to believe any of our conclusions are correct! I wasn’t aware that machines are capable of insight…

The difference in this case is that hardly any of our beliefs would be correct! We could even doubt we exist and whether there is any purpose in life; certainly the distinction between good and evil vanishes altogether or any other abstractions. Fortunately this argument is self-contradictory because it presupposes that its own conclusion is not only correct but based on the power of reason and far more likely to correspond to reality. In effect it amounts to a choice between all or nothing - and Lear’s words are indisputably true: “Nothing shall come of nothing…”

It isn’t so much that God requires us to choose any particular thing, but that he creates us, everything else, and the conditions in which we make choices. Our own narratives can’t just go anywhere. The plot of our lives has been constructed by the author with a very specific end in mind.

Has anyone ever read one of those books where you can choose to flip to different parts of the book to “control” the narrative? Like: “if you tell Molly “no way!” then turn to page 87, but if you tell Molly “of course!” then turn to page 19…etc?”

Now imagine if the author of the book has always and will always know exactly which pages you will choose? Are you truly a co-author of this book? Or, are you merely a sort of passive participant? I’m not denying that we really do flip the pages and make decisions based on reasoning, but it does seem like we can’t be held “solely responsible” for the outcome of the story! It also makes no sense to say the author of the book can’t be blamed or praised for the final outcome of the plot.

Again the difference is between ultimate and direct responsibility. Even though there are only two possible outcomes there is a vast difference between them and it is justified by the different lifestyles of the participants. Even if we discount the distinction between good and evil it is unreasonable to think they all end up at the same destination. I believe it is possible to reduce moral laws to truths about personal development. The egoist isolates himself because he is only interested in himself whereas the unselfish person is interested in others and prefers to exist with them instead of without them. That is the essence of heaven and hell (in reverse order of course!)

Although the Creator knows the outcome of every page it has no effect on the final conclusion. The alternative is to believe nothing makes sense and all our posts on this forum are a complete waste of time and energy! And I know you don’t believe that…

 

[AyJSimon]

So he’s driven, like a machine. “What the mind is determined to do” cannot be overidden by a nobler, higher ideal, one that the self might weigh in consideration of its superior worth? He simply must behead, like some sort of automated guillotine? So It would be impossible for him to have a change of heart, to ask himself, perhaps, whether or not this is actually right?

Sure he could have a “change of heart,” but that would also be determined by internal or external factors that he could not choose to experience.

 

[AyJSimon]

One of the circumstances is our free decision. Sometimes we make irrational decisions that don’t make sense based on the circumstances. Why do we do this?

Sometimes we don’t know why we act the way we act. If you had a brain tumor or a psychological disorder, you may very well behave irrationally. Can someone choose to have a brain tumor or a psychological disease?

 

[Richca]

Sure he could have a “change of heart,” but that would also be determined by internal or external factors that he could not choose to experience.

We believe that the human soul which is the form and act of the body has spiritual, immaterial powers of intellect and will in which we are fashioned after the image and likeness of God. These spiritual, immaterial powers have an operation apart from any corporeal or bodily organ or any physical force of nature. Consequently, though internal factors such as the sensory powers of our souls which involve our senses and external outside factors can influence the will, they cannot command it or move it as an efficient cause. Rather, the will is the mover of our lower sensory powers. Our vegetative or nutritive power such as the involuntary operations of our body such as metabolism and our heart beat, the will has no control over. Although we could will to starve ourselves to death if we wanted too or not drink anything. People with mental disorders or under drugs are a special case. Their actions are in some degree or entirely involuntary.

External factors such as evil men cannot force our wills. We have examples of this, well not only from our own experience, but in christian martyrs. A recent example are the 30 or so christians whom ISIS beheaded around January or February of this year.

 

[AyJSimon]

We believe that the human soul which is the form and act of the body has spiritual, immaterial powers of intellect and will in which we are fashioned after the image and likeness of God. These spiritual, immaterial powers have an operation apart from any corporeal or bodily organ or any physical force of nature. Consequently, though internal factors such as the sensory powers of our souls which involve our senses and external outside factors can influence the will, they cannot command it or move it as an efficient cause. Rather, the will is the mover of our lower sensory powers. Our vegetative or nutritive power such as the involuntary operations of our body such as metabolism and our heart beat, the will has no control over. Although we could will to starve ourselves to death if we wanted too or not drink anything. People with mental disorders or under drugs are a special case. Their actions are in some degree or entirely involuntary.

External factors such as evil men cannot force our wills. We have examples of this, well not only from our own experience, but in christian martyrs. A recent example are the 30 or so christians whom ISIS beheaded around January or February of this year.

Even if the Christian martyrs from earlier this year were actually given the choice to convert and be spared execution, the belief that they would be rewarded with an eternity in Heaven could’ve easily determined their refusal to do so. And you can’t author your choice to believe in something. You can only be convinced (or fail to be convinced) by the evidence for it.

 

[Richca]

Even if the Christian martyrs from earlier this year were actually given the choice to convert and be spared execution, the belief that they would be rewarded with an eternity in Heaven could’ve easily determined their refusal to do so. And you can’t author your choice to believe in something. You can only be convinced (or fail to be convinced) by the evidence for it.

I do not agree that we can’t author our choice to believe in something. It appears to me that I can choose to believe in Jesus Christ or not to believe in him or keep God’s commandments or not to keep them. According to my own experience then, I totally disagree with your assertion. I even fail to keep God’s commandments at times and fall into sin. So God’s commandments do not of necessity move my will. Otherwise, just by knowing them I would never sin. If knowledge of Jesus Christ necessarily moved us to believe in him, why are there people who have knowledge of Jesus but do not believe or follow him?

What you are saying is that belief or evidence is the cause of our choice. In a certain sense, I think this is true but not absolutely from what I said above but also from this: can not a person determine for himself/herself whether or not he/she even wants to think about some belief or evidence?

 

[AyJSimon]

I do not agree that we can’t author our choice to believe in something. It appears to me that I can choose to believe in Jesus Christ or not to believe in him or keep God’s commandments or not to keep them. I even fail to keep God’s commandments at times and fall into sin. So God’s commandments do not of necessity move my will. Otherwise, just by knowing them I would never sin. If knowledge of Jesus Christ necessarily moved us to believe in him, why are there people who have knowledge of Jesus but do not believe or follow him?

That you occasionally fail to uphold God’s commandments does not mean you stop believing in them. Just like if you run a stop sign at a familiar intersection, you don’t stop believing in the existence of the stop sign, or that doing so is against the law.

Moreover, I invite you to test your theory about your power to force your own beliefs. Can you stop believing that the Moon revolves around the Earth? Can you make yourself believe that washing your hands in sewage will kill germs and bacteria better than using soap and hot water? Can you make yourself believe that if you jump off a building, you’ll float rather than fall?

What you are saying is that belief or evidence is the cause of our choice. In a certain sense, I think this is true but not absolutely from what I said above but also from this: can not a person determine for himself/herself whether or not he/she even wants to think about some belief or evidence?

No.

 

[Richca]

That you occasionally fail to uphold God’s commandments does not mean you stop believing in them. Just like if you run a stop sign at a familiar intersection, you don’t stop believing in the existence of the stop sign, or that doing so is against the law

As I said in the previous post, just having knowledge of God’s commandments does not mean I’m going to keep them. I can choose to keep them or not. I can choose whether or not right now I want to look at some porn on the internet or contact some married woman from the internet and go have sex with her. This is my experience of life. Again, I know the law is that we shouldn’t run through a stop sign, but if I want too, I can. I can go jump into my car and go through one right now.

Moreover, I invite you to test your theory about your power to force your own beliefs. Can you stop believing that the Moon revolves around the Earth? Can you make yourself believe that washing your hands in sewage will kill germs and bacteria better than using soap and hot water? Can you make yourself believe that if you jump off a building, you’ll float rather than fall?

 

[tonyrey]

You can test this out on yourself. See if you can will to think or not think.

We can choose to be reasonable or unreasonable! That requires an explanation that doesn’t fit neatly into a deterministic view of personal activity. What gives us the power to transcend the alternatives?

 

[AyJSimon]

As I said in the previous post, just having knowledge of God’s commandments does not mean I’m going to keep them. I can choose to keep them or not. I can choose whether or not right now I want to look at some porn on the internet or contact some married woman from the internet and go have sex with her. This is my experience of life. Again, I know the law is that we shouldn’t run through a stop sign, but if I want too, I can. I can go jump into my car and go through one right now.

 

[davidv]

Even if the Christian martyrs from earlier this year were actually given the choice to convert and be spared execution, the belief that they would be rewarded with an eternity in Heaven could’ve easily determined their refusal to do so. And you can’t author your choice to believe in something.

Irrelevant. You can author the choice to do something, independent of what you believe. All believers in God have chosen, at some point in their life to disobey Him, despite their belief.

You can only be convinced (or fail to be convinced) by the evidence for it.

Then why are so many convinced by lies?

 

[oldcelt]

Irrelevant. You can author the choice to do something, independent of what you believe. All believers in God have chosen, at some point in their life to disobey Him, despite their belief.

Then why are so many convinced by lies?

What about a god you cannot disobey? The first cause and a continual creator…possible…I think so.

 

[AyJSimon]

Irrelevant. You can author the choice to do something, independent of what you believe. All believers in God have chosen, at some point in their life to disobey Him, despite their belief.

But even if your belief in something is not the proximate cause a specific action, you can’t author whatever is the proximate cause either

Then why are so many convinced by lies?

Because lies are often quite compellingly evidenced, and/or because one’s standard for evidence isn’t all that high to begin with. But the standard one has for evidence isn’t something that can be freely chosen either.

 

[tonyrey]

You cannot will yourself to think or to not think. Your brain is going to do all thinking it needs to until it stops. You’re just along for the ride.

It’s the other way round.** You** transcend your brain which doesn’t even know it exists any more than a computer does. Being biological doesn’t magically confer consciousness. You can will yourself to be hypnotised so that your brain is in a trance, totally passive and dominated by suggestions made by another person or by you beforehand.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

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.

 

[AyJSimon]

It’s the other way round.** You** transcend your brain which doesn’t even know it exists any more than a computer does. Being biological doesn’t magically confer consciousness. You can will yourself to be hypnotised so that your brain is in a trance, totally passive and dominated by suggestions made by another person or by you beforehand.

Even if I thought this were actually possible, it wouldn’t be enough to prove the existence of the Self, or of free will.

 

[tonyrey]

Even if I thought this were actually possible, it wouldn’t be enough to prove the existence of the Self, or of free will.

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…

 

[Richca]

What it boils down to here is that you have a false presumption on what it means to really believe a given proposition. To satisfy the test for belief, you need to do more than simply think the sentence, “I believe in X” or “I no longer believe in Y.” That you think you can force yourself to stop thinking about something says it all, in my view (Don’t think about the pink elephant - too late.).

You cannot will yourself to think or to not think. Your brain is going to do all thinking it needs to until it stops. You’re just along for the ride.

I think your denying reality here and what is self-evident. That we can will ourselves to think about some particular thing or not to think about it or even not to think about any particular thing at all is self-evident. Something similar occurs in the power of sight. If we want to see, we need to open our eyes but we can will to close them and not see anything at all.

As I said in a previous post, there is some truth in part of your theory when you mention belief, evidence, truth, and correct knowledge. For the object of our intellects is truth and our intellects are involved in the choices we make with our wills and it is in accord with our nature to choose that which is in accord with right reason and truth. The missing element in your theory is the power of the will which is a distinct power from the intellect. If we examine ourselves introspectively as well as our actions, we can find evidence of these distinct powers of the soul as I mentioned in the first paragraph. It is self-evident that we can think intellectually or about philosophy when we will to do so. We can also will not to think about philosophy. Now, to think intellectually or about philosophy involves the intellect as thinking or understanding is an operation of the intellect but to will to do so is an act of the will. The will moves the intellect to its operation.

In a previous post, you appear to say that it is not possible to believe that which is contrary to what appears to be the truth as in believing that the earth revolves around the moon and not the other way around. It appears to me that I can choose or will to believe that the earth revolves around the moon, indeed, I can literally say, “I believe the earth revolves around the moon.” What is going on here? What appears to be going on here is that the intellect is a distinct power from the will. Although it would be against right reason, truth, and our nature to act or believe that which is contrary to the truth, it appears that it is possible as we see evidenced in the real world of human beings and as Tonyrey said in a previous post, we can choose to be reasonable or unreasonable. A most striking example of this I think are whether we choose or will to keep the commandments of God. Catholics believe the commandments of God are the natural law that God has written in the hearts of every human being. This means that it is in accord with our nature, right reason, and truth to keep them. But human beings break the natural law all the time which simply means that truth and right reason which is in the intellect is not the whole of man. There is a power in us which we call the will by which we must will and choose to keep God’s commandments. We know what the commandments of God are but we must will to keep them on a daily basis as anybody who is trying to keep God’s commandments can tell you.

As far as the brain thinking, the brain doesn’t do any thinking at all. It is our intellect which is not the brain that thinks and understands. There is probably sensory knowledge in the brain such as the imagination and what we call the estimative power. Brute animals have this kind of sensory knowledge but not intellectual knowledge nor do they have free will as humans do. Brute animals solely act according to sense impressions and instinct. The brain, as it is a material organ of the body, has no functions or operations beyond that which is material and corporeal. We can add that a living thing is not a living thing without a soul. The soul is the act of the body of a living thing and it is what makes a living thing to be a living thing. So the brain, indeed the whole body, which is made out of matter, is simply the act of the soul and its powers, and more specifically, the sensory and nutritive powers of the soul for these powers operate through a bodily organ. The human soul’s spiritual and immaterial powers of intellect and will, however, though it depends on the senses for its knowledge, have an operation which is entirely immaterial and independent of any bodily organ.

 

[oldcelt]

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…

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

 

[Richca]

Richca;12991997:

What it boils down to here is that you have a false presumption on what it means to really believe a given proposition. To satisfy the test for belief, you need to do more than simply think the sentence, “I believe in X” or “I no longer believe in Y.” That you think you can force yourself to stop thinking about something says it all, in my view (Don’t think about the pink elephant - too late.).

You cannot will yourself to think or to not think. Your brain is going to do all thinking it needs to until it stops. You’re just along for the ride.

(continued)
From your mention of brain here, it appears to me that you think that human beings are some kind of automated machine. The marvelous complexity, harmony, and order in the human body does seem to work like a well ordered machine. We believe that God is the author of this truly marvelous substance we call the human body. Many reasons and observable facts can be leveled against the idea that human beings are simply an automated material machine though. The reasons and facts are so numerous its hard to know where to begin.

Just off the top of my head, here is one example. If human beings are nothing more than an automated material machine, it should follow that when we get hungry or thirsty, we should automatically eat or drink. However, we find that this is not necessarily the case. A human being can will himself/herself to not eat or drink anything for days even to the point of death even though their body is crying out for food and drink.

Another example. We find among human beings that some are vegetarians by choice while others eat meat. How does one explain this difference among human beings who are all of the same nature if they are no more than an automated machine? Do we find vegetarians among lions?

Third, if human beings are an automated machine, then it should follow that if they all possess the same nature, there shouldn’t be a great diversity of actions among them. Now this is hardly the case. We have doctors, lawyers, carpenters, electricians, teachers, and a great many other occupations we find among humans. We also find moral and immoral people among humans, those who are keeping the commandments of God and those who do not, those who believe in God and those who do not. How do you explain all this diversity if humans are nothing more than an automated machine like a computer?