Objections to the Reality of Free Will

  • Thread starter Thread starter Veritas6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Veritas6

Guest
Here are some objections to free will I have been struggling with (someone else’s words):
  • The self is an illusion (empirically), it is an “intermingling of mental images, mental auditory labels, and body sensations = solid illusion of you.”
  • We cannot stop the flow of our thoughts, which appear from “nothing” (or unconsciousness). We do not will our thoughts, we cannot control them. Most of my thoughts are being triggered from external stimuli: TV, books, people I talk to, etc. The rest arise by “auto-pilot”, often random and scattered (“monkey mind”).
  • Example: to choose between a cheeseburger and a salad, all my previous experiences (in my entire lifetime) are influencing this decision: other food, different cultures I’ve been exposed to, my DNA inherited, taste preferences, all diseases I’ve ever had, etc… (including all of nature and all physical forces on all particles in the universe).
  • I do not control my actions- such as walking, speaking, moving my fingers- because a thought is appearing at the same time my fingers move, and the thought claims control over my body.
  • I am not causing thoughts, I am a thought that is arising. I am not a physical thing, I am a thought (self image of my mind, body, and personality which I believe is real).
  • Motivation comes from outside me, I do not create it.
My questions are:
  1. What is the true definition of free will? Is it simply the mind choosing? To be able to choose what you want?
  2. Does Jonathan Edwards’ Law of Free Will make any sense?:
    “free moral agents always act according to the strongest inclination they have at the moment of choice” [ex: at the moment of sin, your desire to commit the sin is greater (in that moment) than your desire to obey Christ].
    (I am aware of Edwards’ Calvinistic theology, but I am not a Calvinist)
  3. Why does it not follow that I cannot control my thoughts if they never stop flowing in my head?
  • (I am aware the assertion of the self being an illusion presupposes naturalism)
  1. Doesn’t free will mean that a cause, thought, or desire that arises in ourselves be analyzed, then either accepted or rejected? This goes against the objection that we do not control our actions because we can consciously weigh options (such as moral dilemmas). The objection to this would be the thought of the morally good option arises from the unconscious due to our entire life experiences influencing this decision, such as learning the tenants of the Catholic faith.
  2. Would free will be more of a conditioning, to either accept or reject desires/thoughts that arise involuntarily in the mind? Such as with lust- a free “won’t”- I choose not to act on such sinful thoughts even if I can’t control where they come from. This decision would be considered free, would it not?
  3. If I choose the salad (from above), which goes against my entire life experiences of preferring the cheeseburger, would it be a truly free decision, because I would have a reason for my decision?
I would greatly appreciate your help… I apologize if this is jumbled or confusing, I am more than willing to clarify anything or change my wording. I need help. Thank you and God bless you.
 
Last edited:
It seems you would prefer answers that are in keeping with your religious beliefs, and so I will leave that to others. My own feeling is that a comprehensive discussion of the topic of free will would no doubt include a multitude of domains such as theological (that is, diverse theological viewpoints), philosophical perspectives, psychological and neuroscientific arguments, biological and evolutionary determinants, cultural variations, and so on. There are tomes written about this issue. My own thought is that perhaps we should not fall into our customary all-or-none mode of thinking with regard to free will. In other words, there might be degrees of free will depending on the behavior, circumstance, kind of experience, whether routine or novel, simple or complex, and the like. Another thought is that the opposite of free will–determinism–is surely just as challenging to argue in favor of in all or most situations.
 
Last edited:
Veritas6 said:
Would free will be more of a conditioning , to either accept or reject desires/thoughts that arise involuntarily in the mind? Such as with lust- a free “won’t”- I choose not to act on such sinful thoughts even if I can’t control where they come from. This decision would be considered free, would it not?
Click to expand...
I’m wrestling with similar thoughts as well. It is my understanding that the premise “can’t control where they come from” is not entirely true.

Lust is an issue for me. As soon as I see an attractive woman I’m already objectifying her & seeing her as an object to please my passions. It seems involuntary. It happens before I have a chance to think.

But the truth is those thoughts come from a lifetime of decisions I made… I defined woman a long time ago & supported that definition over the years by giving into those thoughts. I’ve given myself over as a slave to my passions a long time ago.

I’m hoping through prayer the lie will be stripped clean from the core of my heart that I may see the dignity of the woman through true charity, the love of God.

Keep in mind, this is an understanding I’ve just recently accepted & still working out how to Express it.

I think “conditioning” sounds close to what I’m thinking, but only close. The truth is God gave me a soul to tend & cultivate. And I’ve let the weeds take over.

I believe in a life after death. All that I can take with me is this soul. If there’s nothing but weeds growing in it… nothing that bears fruit, it won’t make it past the fire.

So back to free will. I choose to repent, turn my whole heart back to God, & not say, “I can’t control these thoughts.”
 
Veritas6 said:
… .
Click to expand...
Catechism
1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26
Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.27
Click to expand...
1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."28
Click to expand...
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a3.htm
 
I have more thoughts on this, but I just wanted to briefly comment on the idea of controlling our thoughts, which seems to just be recursive. My thoughts are part of me and my self and my identity. It feels like we’re trying to conceive the self as something other than the self and then saying the self can’t control the self. As if the I is different than the self.
 
To put it simply, free will refers to our choice & the ability to act given by God. Our actions are influenced either internally, by our rational, irascible, or appetitive faculties, or they are influenced externally. With regards to the latter, we are not accountable simply for our ability to act (as this is given by God), because we may be coerced to act, and so we are accountable for our choices.
 
Wesrock said:
I have more thoughts on this, but I just wanted to briefly comment on the idea of controlling our thoughts, which seems to just be recursive. My thoughts are part of me and my self and my identity. It feels like we’re trying to conceive the self as something other than the self and then saying the self can’t control the self. As if the I is different than the self.
Click to expand...
The objector claims the self doesn’t exist, as we are only 20 trillion cells made up of “mental images, mental auditory labels, and body sensations.” We don’t truly control our thoughts, as they come from “nothing” and we don’t know what our next thoughts will be…

This seems to be begging the question, presupposing naturalism. The objector cites how the body and mind works on auto-pilot trying to prove determinism. Even if we can’t control thoughts arising in our head, it wouldn’t follow that it was inevitable (non-sequitur).
Do you think we have the ability to control what happens to these thoughts when they arise?
Does Spinoza’s idea of freedom make any sense (that a thing is free by the necessity of its own nature and is determined in its actions by itself alone)? It would seem to be related to Edwards’ Law above.
 
The more I have thought about free will over the years, the more I have become convinced that the question is not: What actually is free will?

The correct question is: Who is actually making the decision? That is, from where are the decisions coming from?

The majority of choices ‘I’ make don’t seem to involve any conscious decision whatsoever. My decision to have vanilla over chocolate appears to be mine, but I am rarely ruminating on the matter in any meaningfull manner. It seems to me that I am just confirming that which has been decided ‘somewhere else’ (and curse this subject for the demand it puts on you to always use quotes).

Decisions seem to bubble up uninvited so often. And it does very often feel like ‘I’ am making the call. But I am becoming less and less convinced of that.

The psychologist Jonathon Haidt has suggested that the self is the rider of the subconscious elephant. And that if we think hard enough about something and really work at it long time (a career, a family) then we can direct the elephant to take a particular course. But generally, the elephant goes where it wants to go (reacting to the environment) and we go along for the ride. Only assuming that we’re in charge ('Ah yes - let’s go that way. Great idea. Glad I thought of it).

Minor case in point. I was just rereading what I had written and discovered that I was sipping the g and t I had made earlier whilst doing it. There was no conscious thought that ‘Mmm, want another sip right now’ whatsoever. It almost came as a surprise (in tbe context of the discussion) that I was doing it. As you are doing something right now as you have been reading this. Scratching your head, tapping your finger on the table, chewing your lip.

Who is making the decision to do all these things? Obviously your subconscious. But when does it stop making the calls?
 
Last edited:
I think it would be interesting for you to approach the question from another direction:

How would your life be different if you concluded that you had no free will?
 
snarflemike said:
I think it would be interesting for you to approach the question from another direction:

How would your life be different if you concluded that you had no free will?
Click to expand...
As if my subconscious made all the calls? I’m not sure if anything would change. It would feel like I had free will and had exercised it. But just because it feels like I’m making the call doesn’t mean it is.
 
Regarding the ‘self is an illusion’. That is just plain nonsense. If there is one conclusion I can make in the world, it is that I exist. I am not my thoughts, I am not my experiences, and I am not my feelings. There is something behind it all that does the thinking, that feels and that experiences.

Maybe you can deny free will, but you would have to assume that every little detail was determined from the moment of the Big Bang, including every word I type and every word you typed. All is determined, even your doubt and my certainty. The nazi was determined to be the nazi, and the anti nazi was determined to be an anti nazi. We are all just along for the ride. Indulge yourself because you can’t help it.

But the reality is that the assumption of the way we live, and every discussion we have is that free will exists. The fact that you asked the question implies that free will exists, otherwise there would be no point asking the question because all of the responses would have been predetermined from the time of the Big Bang. Either your question has value or you are just a physical reaction that is going to create more physical reactions that have no value or purpose.
 
Last edited:
Wozza said:
As if my subconscious made all the calls? I’m not sure if anything would change. It would feel like I had free will and had exercised it. But just because it feels like I’m making the call doesn’t mean it is.
Click to expand...
Then do I take it that you don’t think the question is an important or interesting one?
 
Babaganoush said:
Regarding the ‘self is an illusion’. That is just plain nonsense. If there is one conclusion I can make in the world, it is that I exist. I am not my thoughts, I am not my experiences, and I am not my feelings. There is something behind it all that does the thinking, that feels and that experiences.

Maybe you can deny free will, but you would have to assume that every little detail was determined from the moment of the Big Bang, including every word I type and every word you typed. All is determined, even your doubt and my certainty. The nazi was determined to be the nazi, and the anti nazi was determined to be an anti nazi. We are all just along for the ride. Indulge yourself because you can’t help it.
Click to expand...
If that’s in response to my earlier post then I tend to agree. The self is not an illusion. But I’m not sure who the self is that controls most of what we do. Is it the rider or the elephant?
 
I edited that post to add to it. My response was to the original poster. I hadn’t gotten past that point yet.

Now I have read your post. I think that there is a tendency to overthink things, and as a result you tie yourself in knots trying to answer questions you can’t know the answer to. Yes, we do many things automatically, and our thoughts come without willing them, but that doesn’t imply that I don’t make choices. Eventually I have to get past thoughts and just do.

Your Jonathan Haidt reference seems to imply that we can gain free will with effort, but the vast majority of people just ride the elephant of their subconscious. I would say that you would have to assume that there was always free will at least in a small way that may develop over time through conscious effort.
 
Wozza said:
And that if we think hard enough about something and really work at it long time (a career, a family) then we can direct the elephant to take a particular course
Click to expand...
Do you think this would be free will? This would also be related to moral decisions; working hard over time to resist temptation and sin.
 
I think there is a certain amount of psychosis involved. I don’t say that as an accusation, but as someone who has the same thoughts. These thoughts have a tendency toward paralysis and self destruction. You get wrapped up in thoughts that have no definitive answer. Logical skepticism has no conclusion other than determinism and self destruction.
 
Veritas6 said:
What is the true definition of free will? Is it simply the mind choosing ? To be able to choose what you want ?
Click to expand...
Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.
Veritas6 said:
  1. Does Jonathan Edwards’ Law of Free Will make any sense?:
    “free moral agents always act according to the strongest inclination they have at the moment of choice” [ex: at the moment of sin, your desire to commit the sin is greater (in that moment) than your desire to obey Christ].
    (I am aware of Edwards’ Calvinistic theology, but I am not a Calvinist)
Click to expand...
We most of the time have a reason for our decision. We however can choose something without any reason. The first decision is not free since it is based on a reason and the second decision is.
Veritas6 said:
  1. Why does it not follow that I cannot control my thoughts if they never stop flowing in my head?
Click to expand...
You are collection minds. Sometimes we perceive, a desire, thought, feeling from somewhere which people call it unconscious mind and I call other minds. We however have ability to give direction to our thoughts or stop them.
Veritas6 said:
  1. Doesn’t free will mean that a cause, thought, or desire that arises in ourselves be analyzed, then either accepted or rejected?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Veritas6 said:
  1. Would free will be more of a conditioning , to either accept or reject desires/thoughts that arise involuntarily in the mind? Such as with lust- a free “won’t”- I choose not to act on such sinful thoughts even if I can’t control where they come from. This decision would be considered free, would it not?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Veritas6 said:
  1. If I choose the salad (from above), which goes against my entire life experiences of preferring the cheeseburger, would it be a truly free decision, because I would have a reason for my decision?
Click to expand...
Your decision is not free if you make it for a reason.
 
FREE WILL OF THE WOLD
Free will is simply the unimpeded free choice/ election of the intellect/ mind.
.
FREE WILL OF CHRISTIANITY
Free will is simply the aided by God’s graces free choice/ election of the intellect/ mind willed/ caused by God.

.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Divine Providence explains;

“His wisdom He so orders all events within the universe that the end for which it was created may be realized.

He directs all, even evil and sin itself, to the final end for which the universe was created.”

Evil, therefore, ministers to God’s design (St. Gregory the Great, op. cit., VI,

.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Free Will explains;

“God is the author of all causes and effects, but is not the author of sin, because an action ceases to be sin if God wills it to happen. Still God is the cause of sin.

God’s omnipotent providence exercises a complete and perfect control over all events that happen, or will happen, in the universe.”
.
308 The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator.
God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes:
“For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”
Far from diminishing the creature’s dignity, this truth enhances it.

St. Thomas teaches that God effects everything, the willing and the achievement. S. Th.II/II 4, 4 ad 3:

.
The Mystery of Predestination by John Salza explains;

Page 77; “With efficacious grace, man is able to resist the grace but does not, because the grace causes him to freely choose the good.

This means that when God wills a person to perform a salutary act (e.g., prayer, good works), He grants him the means (an efficacious grace ) that infallibly produces the end ( the act willed by God ).”
.
Aquinas said, “God changes the will without forcing it.
But he can change the will from the fact that He himself operates in the will as He does in nature,” De Veritatis 22:9.

.
“The Divine will is cause of all things that happens, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 1 seqq.). Therefore all things are subject to fate.

The same is true for events in our lives. Relative to us they often appear to be by chance.
But relative to God, who directs everything according to his divine plan, nothing occurs by chance.

Hence if this divine influence stopped, every operation would stop.”
Every operation, therefore, of anything is traced back to Him as its cause. (Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III.)
.
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott;

For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary, (De fide).

There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will, (De fide).
.
2022; “The divine initiative in the work of grace precedes, prepares, and elicits the free response of man. Grace responds to the deepest yearnings of human freedom, calls freedom to cooperate with it, and perfects freedom.”
.
God bless
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
When we study Genesis 3 we must keep in mind: Genesis 3 uses figurative (Synonimes: metaphorical, non-literal, symbolic, allegorical) language. …

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.* 264
Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265

.
Catholic Encyclopedia : Evil
“But we cannot say without denying the Divine omnipotence, that another equally perfect universe could not be created in which evil would have no place.”

310 But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it?
With infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world in a state of journeying towards its ultimate perfection, 314 through the dramas of evil and sin .

.
The Mystery of Predestination by John Salza explains;

Page 77; “Sufficient grace remains an interior impulse, whereas an efficacious grace produces an exterior act.

With efficacious grace, man is able to resist the grace but does not, because the grace causes him to freely choose the good.

This means that when God wills a person to perform a salutary act (e.g. prayer, good works), He grants him the means (an efficacious grace ) that infallibly produces the end ( the act willed by God ).

If God wills to permit a person to resist His grace, He grants him a sufficient, and not an efficacious, grace.

FOR EXAMPLE
Page 113: However, the Church teaches that God infused Adam with sufficient grace to resist temptation and to perform his duties with charity.
God, however, willed to permit Adam to reject His grace and to sin.” – His wisdom He so ordered the events of his sin, which He decreed from all eternity.

As we see above, God does not only wills sin, but He decreed and created in this world the dramas of evil and sin and this is what HE CREATED at His CAUSE of the “fall,” for the benefit of the entire human race.
.
311 For almighty God, . . . because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself. 177
.
324 Faith gives us the certainty that God would not permit an evil if he did not cause a good to come from that very evil, by ways that we shall fully know only in eternal life.
.
301 God does not abandon his creatures to themselves.
He not only gives them being and existence, but also, and at every moment, upholds and sustains them in being, utter dependence enables them to act and brings them to their final end .
Recognizing this with respect to the Creator is a source of wisdom and freedom, of joy and confidence.
.
294 The ultimate purpose of creation is that God "who is the creator of all things may at last become “all in all”, thus simultaneously assuring his own glory and our beatitude." 140
.
God bless
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top