Objections to the Reality of Free Will

  • Thread starter Thread starter Veritas6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Radioactive decay isn’t random in the sense that there is no rhyme or reason to it, otherwise we would have some serious problems.

I don’t see how stating the obvious qualifies as a cop out. We can’t detect or observe angels in any way possible using any method of science. It is the exact same thing with the Eucharist or with the human soul or with God or with the mystical body of saints or with the power of prayer or any number of other supernatural realities. Free Will is associated with the human soul so it isn’t something that can ever be discovered in a laboratory. Any human behavior you observe can be attributed to environmental or physiological conditions that cause them to act and respond in a certain way.

People didn’t always know about yeast and they assumed fermentation was some sort of purely chemical reaction and not through micro-organisms. Instruments improved and eventually we knew better. But supernatural realities aren’t a part of the physical world and so they aren’t something that can ever be discovered.

That doesnt mean the faith of the Church is something we believe purely because we feel like it. There is sacred tradition and God’s glory made manifest and rooted back to the ancient world before Christ, and philosophical reasons, and internal consistency, and the preservation of the Church against all odds, and the occasional miraculous intervention, and the fulfillment of God’s promises both in public revelation and in private revelation to the present day, and several other things that can lead a person beyond a materialist mindset, but we still can’t “prove” free will in the way we can prove that a triangle is always 180 degrees, or something of that sort.
 
Last edited:
TK421 said:
Radioactive decay isn’t random in the sense that there is no rhyme or reason to it
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that. What i am saying is that since we know things in nature defy prediction, it is possible free will exists. It does not have to be supernatural.
TK421 said:
Free Will is associated with the human soul
Click to expand...
Says who? Are you saying only human beings have free will? What physiological change during evolution enabled free will?

I’m sure your response will be “none, free will is supernatural”.
But here’s the thing. Saying “free will is supernatural”, or “angels are supernatural”, or any such statement is a cop-out. By “cop-out” I mean, philosophically, your statements are not USEFUL. This is a philosophical concept. By saying free will is supernatural, you are not saying anything.

For example, I can say that colors have sound. Green is loud, red is louder, purple is the loudest. But these sounds are supernatural. They can never be detected, you must have ‘faith’. I can never prove this, but neither can you ever disprove it. Such a statement has no USE. There is no point in even arguing it. It’s a cop-out. By saying free will exists but is supernatural, can never be detected, measured, or observed, you have said nothing useful.
 
There is no physiological change that occurred or could ever occur that enable a creature to have ‘free will’, because everything in nature operates according to some kind of pattern / physical law.

A cerebral cortex makes humans extremely more complicated and harder to predict than other animal brains, but it is still just an organ and nothing more than that. A yet undiscovered mechanism in what makes up the admittedly still poorly understood human consciousness that somehow enables ‘free will’ would be magic. Besides, probabilities aren’t the same thing as free will. A 75% chance to do X and a 25% chance to do Y isnt free will. I dont see probabilities as a solution to the existence of free will.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think that free will is supernatural, because free will is natural to human beings. But I do think that if free will is material or physical it is not free, but determined. It would be subject to the laws of physics. In order to be free it has to be a spiritual faculty of the soul, which itself is non-material.
 
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott;

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

CONCLUSION:
Without CAUSED by God’s Internal Supernatural Graces we neither have the ability nor we have the will to do even a smallest act of good.

With other words: To freely will good, our wills are the causations/ products of God’s Internal Supernatural Graces.

.
b. There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will, (De fide).

CONCLUSION: Without God’s Supernatural Intervention in the faculties of our souls, we neither have the ability nor we have the will to do even a smallest act of good.

With other words: To will good, our free wills are the causations/ products of God’s Internal Supernatural Graces and God’s Supernatural Intervention in the faculties of our souls.

.
c. Fallen man cannot redeem himself. (De fide.)

CONCLUSION: Without God’s Internal Supernatural Graces and without God’s Supernatural Intervention in the faculties of our souls neither we have the ability nor we have the will to save ourselves.

.
d. Without the special help of God the justified cannot persevere to the end in justification. (De fide.)

CONCLUSION: Without God’s gift of Supernatural Grace of Final Perseverance and without God’s Supernatural Intervention in the faculties of our souls we all would end up in hell.

.
According to the above DE FIDE DOGMAS, our ability to freely cooperate with God’s graces, our salvations, to be able to stay saved and to go home to heaven is the causations/ creations of God’s Internal Supernatural Graces and God’s Supernatural Intervention in the faculties of our souls.

.
WE HAVE FREE WILLS, our Free Wills are the creations/ products of God’s Internal Supernatural Graces and God’s Supernatural Intervention in the faculties of our souls and we all INFALLIBLY and FREELY accomplish the acts WILLED AND CAUSED BY GOD.
.
St. Thomas teaches that God effects everything, the willing and the achievement. S. Th.II/II 4, 4 ad 3.

.
298 Since God could create everything out of nothing, he can also, through the Holy Spirit, give spiritual life to sinners by creating a pure heart in them. 148
And since God was able to make light shine in darkness by his Word, he can also give the light of faith to those who do not yet know him.
.
“The Divine will is cause of all things that happens, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 1 seqq).
.
God bless
 
Last edited:
JimG said:
I don’t think that free will is supernatural, because free will is natural to human beings. But I do think that if free will is material or physical it is not free, but determined. It would be subject to the laws of physics.
Click to expand...
I’m going with that.
 
What I’ve found in trying to understand free will (and I totally don’t!) is the question; if you were to rewind time would you be able to make a different decision?

Scientists looking into the brain, consciousness and decision making are saying that if everything is exactly the same, we would only make the same decision again. We would be unable to choose differently.

If true…and they’re working on it…it kind of throws free will out the window. We may never know. Free will may be an evolutionary trait that our brains need or it may be an illusion that our brains need. I’ll wait for better answers and just assume I have it at the present time. 😁
 
If there is no free will, then of course there should be no criminal statutes, since no one is culpable for any wrongdoing, and there is no sin, either. No crime, no punishment.
 
Pattylt said:
A free will decision to choose differently!
Click to expand...
Doesn’t make sense. If you rewound time events would unfold as before, unless there were other (name removed by moderator)uts to change things which could cause you to make different choices.
 
JimG said:
If there is no free will, then of course there should be no criminal statutes, since no one is culpable for any wrongdoing, and there is no sin, either. No crime, no punishment.
Click to expand...
This is the $64,000 question. If there is no free will then how can we blame someone from wrongdoing? And it’s a doozy. Well worth asking.

I think that we all have the ability to commit evil. ‘There but for the grace of God’ is a phrase that should always be uppermost in our minds when hearing about any wrong doing. But we don’t always start life on an equal footing. The same kid born in in the favelas and living on the streets with a drug addict single mother will end up differently than if he was born to a NY couple who work in finance and send him to Trinity.

If both commit a crime, equal in severity, should we treat them equally then? Or can we, as we often do, allow for extenuating circumstances.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps my description was off there…
Putting a person in the same circumstances and all the same variables a second time would still lead to the same decision. Not that they were zapped back in time, just repeating the same factors as the first time.

Did I say it better? I realize we could never have every single variable the same as the time of day would be different as an example. I’d have to re read how they plan to test this! I’m pretty sure they haven’t proved anything yet. It’s just a working hypothesis.
 
Wozza said:
If both commit a crime, equal in severity, should we treat them equally then? Or can we, as we often do, allow for extenuating circumstances.
Click to expand...
If we don’t have free will this is predetermined. Now whether it’s worth being discussed is also predetermined.
 
VanitasVanitatum said:
40.png
Wozza:
If both commit a crime, equal in severity, should we treat them equally then? Or can we, as we often do, allow for extenuating circumstances.
Click to expand...
If we don’t have free will this is predetermined. Now whether it’s worth being discussed is also predetermined.
Click to expand...
There are so many variables that we don’t have personal control over the outcome. If a lightning bolt struck you down yesterday then I wouldn’t be having this conversation. And my life would be changed in some small way. In that sense life is determined by the physics of tbe universe.

But we make decisions (or our subconscious does) based on the situation at any given time. Which changes from what we might expect. So we can discuss any given matter on the assumption that what we know at that particular time doesn’t change.

If it doesn’t, then to some extent it is determined. If it does change in a way in which we have no part, then it’s worth having tbe discussion based on the new situation. But there is still no free will involved.
 
Cause and effect does not necessarily entail determinism nor fatalism.
 
Last edited:
Not if acts are freely chosen by a subject, who can interrupt the chain of cause and effect.
 
What do you make of the objection that we cannot control our actions because there is: “no ‘you’ to control actions… subsystems in the mind are simultaneously creating the action and arising of the thought… I am not causing [this] I am also a thought that is arising… I am not a physical thing, I am a thought [mental self image of body, head, personality, etc].

Another way to put it is in reference to you curling your finger: “a thought is arising the same time the finger is moving and the thought claims control of the finger.” Thus it is claimed we cannot control our actions because thoughts arise (from the unconscious) the same time an action is performed.

The self is an illusion because: “it is an intermingling of mental images, mental auditory labels, and body sensations which form this illusion… the [self] is an output, not an (name removed by moderator)ut of the system… [example:] Google employees, not Google creates Google… You are produced by your cells.”

What do you think? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Well, if there is no “me” there, then I am obviously not in control. If there is no “I” there is no person, and I certainly can not be responsible for anything I write on an internet forum, or in a doctoral thesis, for that matter.
 
Wozza said:
Your inclination is to have another beer. If you have one, it’s because you wanted one. If you don’t, it’s because there’s a reason which you have decided is more important.
Click to expand...
So do you think this is freedom to either follow your inclinations or not? My thoughts are I have a reason for a decision, but I am not predetermined to follow one path. My subconscious brought this comment to my conscious attention, and I was able to weigh the reasons to choose the proper answer and reply. I was not forced to follow my first thought automatically, I employed my rationality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top