One final time: freedom of will does NOT logically lead to evil actions

[Spock]

Why doesn’t God just cure these people? Is He not the ultimate LOC with regard to physical events? If the behavior of sociopaths is the largely the result of some natural event, then the question backs up to “Why doesn’t God prevent natural disasters?” Should I go there?..

If you wish. I am game…

But the present conversation is about the possibility of having a world without evil, and whether it is possible or not - while maintaining our free will (which is now defined).

Let me give a very brief summary as I see it:

1. God wishes (not wants!) to have universal goodwill, love among all people.
2. God does not want to force us, talking away our freedom to make meaningful choices.

There are two possibilities:

1. Such a world is possible (I am arguing for it), and then God has the moral obligation to create it.
2. Such a world is impossible (the universal love and free will are logically incompatible) and then God can “wish” as much as he wants to, it is unattainable. In this case God is irrational. Only an irrational beings wishes to obtain a logically impossible result.

 

[Spock]

2 things here.

1. last time i checked, mathematical proofs are questioned all the time
2. this isnt a mathematical argument, its modal

Obviously you don’t know a lot about mathematics. **Attempts **to prove something are frequently challened, **actual **proofs are not. When was the lst time the Pythagoras theorem was “questioned”? The problem at hand can be approached in a mathematical (abstract) fashion. You either understand it or you don’t.

 

[Spock]

To say that God can choose to create a possible world where nobody does evil, is to say that God can cause human beings to make free-choices that are always moral and free.

Why is it impossible? If that is impossible, then it cannot be meaningfully asserted that God created anything.

Why do you think that having only moral decisions is somehow astonishing (and cannot happen on its own), while maintaining that having a mixture of moral-immoral decisions can happen on its own. This incredulity is usually called the odometer syndrome. If one sees 1000 coin tosses, with mixed results, it is considered “obvious”. If one sees 1000 coin tosses and all are heads, people think that it is “engineered”. All they prove that they do not understand the theory of probabilities.

 

[fhansen]

1. Such a world is impossible (the universal love and free will are logically incompatible) and then God can “wish” as much as he wants to, it is unattainable. In this case God is irrational. Only an irrational beings wishes to obtain a logically impossible result.

Not if He knows that in the end, by working through the dimension of* time* -a world where no immoral choices are made is ultimately obtainable.

 

[Spock]

Not if He knows that in the end, by working through the dimension of* time* -a world where no immoral choices are made is ultimately obtainable.

Well, that is certainly a new twist. You say that God cannot create the “perfect” world right off the bat, but he can “obtain” it through our evil contributions? That certainly suggests that nonsensical acts of violence (and we see many of those) somehow add up to “obtain” the desired result. Very peculiar line of thought. Can something good come out of evil? I thought the RCC says the opposite. But what do I know? Furthermore, the possible “perfect end” does not erase the way how it was obtained. The end does not justify the means, does it?

Be as it may, if God cannot do it, but somehow it will happen, that puts God’s omnipotence into a very dubious light.

 

[fhansen]

Well, that is certainly a new twist. You say that God cannot create the “perfect” world right off the bat, but he can “obtain” it through our evil contributions? That certainly suggests that nonsensical acts of violence (and we see many of those) somehow add up to “obtain” the desired result. Very peculiar line of thought. Can something good come out of evil? I thought the RCC says the opposite. But what do I know? Furthermore, the possible “perfect end” does not erase the way how it was obtained. The end does not justify the means, does it?

Be as it may, if God cannot do it, but somehow it will happen, that puts God’s omnipotence into a very dubious light.

The idea is that inherently imperfect creation -as opposed to an inherently perfect creator-can change- a prospect which implies time- acquiring the wisdom to understand that the creator exists and that His wisdom is perfect and worthy of obedience. Order is restored and evil is done away with-one moral agent at a time. The basic tutorial needs provided are time plus the experience of good and evil-evil ultimately being the absence of, or separation from, God and His will-an evil one can learn to distance themselves from by turning to God.

One has the freedom to commit nonsensical acts of violence and one way or the other one has the freedom to learn of the evil which lies at the heart of nonsensical- or unreasonable -behavior. IOW the good that can come out of evil is the rejection of evil. All sin is simply considered to be moral evil, BTW.

 

[Spock]

The idea is that inherently imperfect creation -as opposed to an inherently perfect creator-can change- a prospect which implies time- acquiring the wisdom to understand that the creator exists and that His wisdom is perfect and worthy of obedience. Order is restored and evil is done away with-one moral agent at a time. The basic tutorial needs provided are time plus the experience of good and evil-evil ultimately being the absence of, or separation from, God and His will-an evil one can learn to distance themselves from by turning to God.

One has the freedom to commit nonsensical acts of violence and one way or the other one has the freedom to learn of the evil which lies at the heart of nonsensical- or unreasonable -behavior. IOW the good that can come out of evil is the rejection of evil. All sin is simply considered to be moral evil, BTW.

Of course “perfection” is undefined. The basic concept here is that God wishes to have everyone loving (each other and God) - while retaining their free will. Therefore “perfection” does not even come into the picture.

The learning process you speak of is at best a substitute for the “real thing”. Also the process is very much fraught with bad results. How many people “learn” that torture is evil? Maybe some do, but the price that has to be paid for it is the screams and blood of their victims, who do not choose that fate. It is not a decent solution to use, even if it were effective - and it is not.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Why is it impossible? If that is impossible, then it cannot be meaningfully asserted that God created anything.

I don’t know why you have come to this conclusion. To say that God cannot create a world where people only choose the good, does not render creation in itself impossible. God can still create a world where people have freewill. He just cannot be said to be in control of the outcome of anybodies individual actions if we continue to say that human beings have a significant degree of freewill.

 

[fhansen]

Of course “perfection” is undefined. The basic concept here is that God wishes to have everyone loving (each other and God) - while retaining their free will. Therefore “perfection” does not even come into the picture.

The learning process you speak of is at best a substitute for the “real thing”. Also the process is very much fraught with bad results. How many people “learn” that torture is evil? Maybe some do, but the price that has to be paid for it is the screams and blood of their victims, who do not choose that fate. It is not a decent solution to use, even if it were effective - and it is not.

If there exists an objective standard-ostensibly based on love/what a person would have done to them-that would say, for example, that torture is evil- and I believe such a standard exists and is anything but man-made (i.e. we’re cognizant of it but not the creators of it)-then torture could only exist due to someone having the freedom to act outside of that standard. Otherwise anything such as moral outrage or righteous indignation that we might experience by witnessing torture is uncalled for-in fact such a response would be impossible because we could have no right to ever take the moral high ground and accuse anyone of doing wrong. And there would not exist qualities such as goodness, integrity, nobility, courage, love-we simply act practically, on selfish reasons for self-preservation or whatever.

But objective morality and the qualities associated with it are real and torture is evil and one can become less inclined to it-whether by a more or less instant insight or gradually by degree as we see the error of our way.

Such change should be impossible but is exactly the “reprieve” that we believe God grants in order for creation-in the form of us-to right itself from the situation of universal immorality. Perfection is definable. It is to love God with ones whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and ones neighbor as oneself-and we all fall short. One reason we fall short is due to our neighbors own failings in the area of morality-something only possible because of their abuse of freedom.

The reason that time is important in this scenario is because we’re being allowed the opportunity to change-to become aware of own imperfections so that we may lose them and therefore to alter our wills-the heart of the matter and the focus of this thread-and this process resulting in change* is* the “real thing”. We generally prefer to not need to change-to think of ourselves as impeccable-but that preference is essentially our self-righteousness, and, innocuous as it can seem, is the very reason why immorality or evil exists at all because it involves man becoming his own standard of morality-i.e. free will, good as it is, leads to lack of moral perfection to one degree or another but not necessarily permanently, depending on the use of that freedom.

 

[Chiral]

Sorry, but the train is unavoidable. The nature of God is what this discussion has been about from the beginning, and your rejection of my #1 did not take that into account… …What is your justification for the nature of God being good and whose existence necessitates morality? This discussion has not also been about a Christian perspective. It’s been about Christian beliefs and justifications for it. If you say, “From my Christian perspective I believe God created morality because his nature demands it,” then frankly, there’s no discussion.

I am sorry, but as I understood it, this discussion has not been about the nature of God but about the nature of “free will” from a Christian perspective…
I agree with you that the Christian understanding of God destroys the argument - if there is absolute or “objective” morality, then free beings can never be guaranteed to never sin. (Not everyone realizes this)
If we instantiate a different deity or just remove absolute or “objective” morality, that would be a new discussion, beginning with establishing a subjective definition of “morality” to play with. I was working with Spock to find common ground between Christian and non-Christian views of morality (although I’ve been left behind a bit in discussion )

If you really want a justification of the Christian understanding of God’s nature, perhaps we should start a new thread or search for an old one on the topic? ( I warn you, there may be a lot of reference to the Bible as an ultimate authority, which I know you will reject…)

Otherwise, let’s see where this new discussion of “what constitutes ‘evil’” takes us…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Obviously you don’t know a lot about mathematics. **Attempts **to prove something are frequently challened, **actual **proofs are not.

and you obviously dont understand systems of logic that arent expressed as mathematically, you are attempting to prove something using possible world semantics, which makes it a modal argument. you have yet to prove it, as i pointed out it requires an assumption that this is not said world actualized, among other problems.

When was the lst time the Pythagoras theorem was “questioned”? The problem at hand can be approached in a mathematical (abstract) fashion. You either understand it or you don’t.

i understand your argument, i simply believe it to be wrong. please adress the issues i raised. i have several more after those.

 

[Chiral]

…if something is physically bad, then it cannot be morally good…

I disagree. If someone is going to successfully extract information from you (perhaps telepathically?), and you judge that keeping the information secret is of more value than your life, you may kill yourself - physically bad, but morally good from a utilitarian standpoint?

Spock:

I am sure you know that we disagree… “just whose life is it anyway?” Even if I would accept that life is a “gift” from God, once a gift is given, the control over it is relinquished… it is the sole prerogative of the “new” owner to do whatever he/she pleases to do with it…

Yes, we disagree, but not for the reason you think. God’s “gift” is free will, and He does indeed relinquish control over it (hence “free”) so it is each’s prerogative to do whatever he/she pleases… but that does not automatically make each’s choice “good”. God DID NOT give us the “gift” of subjective morality to define what is “good” or “evil” for ourselves. THAT is how Christians are able to suppose certain human behaviors “evil” - they are not congruent with the true, objective “good” of those affected by the decision. We disagree on the existence of objective morality

Spock:

To say that everything that might adversely effect others is “evil”…would make us the slaves of everyone else. We would have to consider all the possible ramifications of all of our actions.

Sounds like JS Mill or Kant, and both they and I don’t think that makes us “slaves”, just as a parent who considers the good of his children is not their “slave”.

Spock:

…“spiritual suffering” is meaningless for me. Physical and mental suffering is all that matters.

What about “integrity”? Are martyrs and heroes irrational? Christians believe in a “good” more valuable than their own bodies, something worth fighting, suffering, living and dying for… Hence the suffering saints.

Spock:

…Upper case “truth” as you use it is also meaningless for me. Besides, to say that evil is just the lack of good is much too vague… Suppose that I encounter a homeless person and give him a dollar for food. I could give him 10 dollars, but I choose to give only one. Was this an evil act? Obviously giving 10 bucks is better, but giving something is not “evil” in and by itself. And if I choose not to give anything, that is not evil either.

The action is not “evil”, it is the motivation, it is your choice that can be good or evil insofar as it demonstrates Love. Why would it be “better” to give him more money? Does that really demonstrate greater Love? Not always…
Out of Love, I don’t give money to junkies. But it would be “better” if i showed more love by taking them to rehab and helping them get well. I may give money to those in need, but I do not empty my wallet. Why not? I am no saint, but I acknowledge it - everyday that I am not a servant of the poor, I am failing to act out of Love. Catholic’s ask forgiveness for “What I have done, and what I have failed to do.”
When we are free to act out Love but fail to do so, we have done “less good” - it may not be a great evil, but it is a small evil. Heavy, no?
The level of “evil” also depends on our level of freedom - if some other need constrains us, then perhaps we are not free to love as we might otherwise. We can only love as much as we are truly able, but we must not short-change our abilities

Spock:

…I don’t even know millions and billions of people. I can wish good to them, but I have no ability to carry it out. Besides, we are talking about other adults, and they are responsible for their lives, just like I am responsible for mine. The concept we are all responsible for others leads nowhere. I cannot possibly know what is good for them as well as they do - and vice-versa.
Furthermore, there are people whom I actively despise… Does that make me evil?

Not knowing a person constrains your freedom regarding them… unless you can get to know them.
And while each is responsible for his own choice, we are also (to varying degrees) responsible for how our choices affect the choices of others. If what you freely say or do leads others into sin, guess who gets to share in the responsibility?
And yes, despising people is “evil” for it demonstrates a lack of love. Christians are not the only ones who teach that.

Spock:

Why do you leave out God? If we have the moral obligation to mitigate suffering (with our very limited resources), then the same applies to God, too - with his unlimited resources…Mitigating suffering is infinitely inferior to preventing suffering.

I left out God because I feel He is constrained by Love - this is a hard notion, but it is the reason for this discussion. Preventing suffering is not superior to mitigating suffering if the ultimate “good” relates not to lack of suffering but to freedom of choice. Again, Christians don’t consider physical and mental suffering as the worst evils, for they do not have direct affect upon the health of the soul. Causation of suffering is judged with regard to congruence with true love. Accidents cause suffering, but we judge those responsible less harshly than those who acted deliberately. Judgment falls upon an informed will to the extent of its freedom and knowledge…
We disagree about the existence of the “soul” and what constitutes “evil” (objective theist vs subjective atheist-materialist?), so this may be the end-point of the matter. The “Problem of Evil” is only for those who reject the premises regarding suffering…

Spock:

1. Such a world is possible (I am arguing for it), and then God has the moral obligation to create it.
2. Such a world is impossible (the universal love and free will are logically incompatible) and then God can “wish” as much as he wants to, it is unattainable. In this case God is irrational. Only an irrational beings wishes to obtain a logically impossible result.

I think someone already answered this, but #2 is fallacious. The logical impossibility of creating free beings guaranteed to never sin DOES NOT make free will and universal love logically incompatible. There is no contradiction inherent in free beings always choosing to do “good”, as you yourself have previously demonstrated.
The contradiction is in creating “free” beings guaranteed to always do “good”. True “freedom” negates “guaranteed”. God’s “wish” is not irrational at all, for the goal is logically possible; but He cannot logically assure it. If He could, it would be irrational to “wish” for it. That would be like the woman who sends herself flowers on Valentine’s Day, and then “wishes” for flowers as if she didn’t already know they would come

(Is this going to get us back into omniscience/omnipresence?)

 

[Spock]

Yes, we disagree, but not for the reason you think. God’s “gift” is free will, and He does indeed relinquish control over it (hence “free”) so it is each’s prerogative to do whatever he/she pleases… but that does not automatically make each’s choice “good”. … We disagree on the existence of objective morality

I accept the concept of objective morality - just not the absolute one. We only differ on its nature and origin. But don’t forget, this line of thought came from my opinion that we are the sole proprietors of our body, and whatever we do to it is no one else’s business. Hence, masturbation cannot be considered evil. Also love between consenting adults (even of the same sex) cannot be considered evil. In other words: “the right of my fist ends where your nose begins”, but within that territory I am the “boss”, and whatever I choose to do is my business. I accept that you may not agree with my behavior in some instance, but you cannot call it “evil”, just because you don’t like it. In my eyes the Catholics’ adherence to their devotion is “bad” (at the bare minimum it is a waste of time), but I would never call it “evil”. It is their prerogative, it is good for them (at least in their eyes, not mine), and they hurt no one else. It is enough “to live and let live”.

The foundation of my stance is based upon the inverted golden rule: “do not do unto others what you don’t want to do them onto you”. Mind you, I have no problem with the “direct” golden rule, either. It seems that we cannot agree on the nature of evil. Not surprising, of course.

Sounds like JS Mill or Kant, and both they and I don’t think that makes us “slaves”, just as a parent who considers the good of his children is not their “slave”.

One can have such relationship with a small group of people (family, for example), but it cannot be extended to “everyone else”.

What about “integrity”? Are martyrs and heroes irrational? Christians believe in a “good” more valuable than their own bodies, something worth fighting, suffering, living and dying for… Hence the suffering saints.

It all depends on the circumstances. Are those suicide bombers “heroes and martyrs”? In their own eyes they are. One man’s hero and martyr is someone else’s villain.

The action is not “evil”, it is the motivation, it is your choice that can be good or evil insofar as it demonstrates Love. Why would it be “better” to give him more money? Does that really demonstrate greater Love? Not always…

I am talking about the principle of having different levels of “love”. One can give “something” (not necessarily money) with a helpful disposition, but the amount may differ. It is possible to be more helpful, or less helpful. You said that anything that is short of “love” is evil. So what is love now?

When we are free to act out Love but fail to do so, we have done “less good” - it may not be a great evil, but it is a small evil. Heavy, no?

No, not “heavy”. Less good is not evil. My problem is that Christians generally see everything in terms of black and white, and do not acknowledge the millions of shades of grey.

And yes, despising people is “evil” for it demonstrates a lack of love. Christians are not the only ones who teach that.

We already went through the idea that universal love is nonsense.

I left out God because I feel He is constrained by Love - this is a hard notion, but it is the reason for this discussion. Preventing suffering is not superior to mitigating suffering if the ultimate “good” relates not to lack of suffering but to freedom of choice.

Do you know the parable of the 12 officers? This is the stance of the first one. (infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/five.html) When I am speaking of suffering, I am speaking of **unnecessary **suffering. No one blames a doctor for inflicting some pain so that the patient will be cured - as long as the pain is necessary and minimal. But everyone would blame a doctor for performing an unnecessary amputation, if a simple shot for be equally effective to fix the problem.

We disagree about the existence of the “soul” and what constitutes “evil” (objective theist vs subjective atheist-materialist?), so this may be the end-point of the matter. The “Problem of Evil” is only for those who reject the premises regarding suffering…

I reject the concept that all “suffering” is necessary. Some may be necessary, but even that is contingent upon the available ways and means.

I think someone already answered this, but #2 is fallacious. The logical impossibility of creating free beings guaranteed to never sin DOES NOT make free will and universal love logically incompatible. There is no contradiction inherent in free beings always choosing to do “good”, as you yourself have previously demonstrated.

The contradiction is in creating “free” beings guaranteed to always do “good”. True “freedom” negates “guaranteed”. God’s “wish” is not irrational at all, for the goal is logically possible; but He cannot logically assure it. If He could, it would be irrational to “wish” for it. That would be like the woman who sends herself flowers on Valentine’s Day, and then “wishes” for flowers as if she didn’t already know they would come

So you say that God started “something”, knowing how it will turn out (omniscience) but would not be able to “direct” the process to the desired outcome - because that would limit the freedom of the actual decision makers - us. God is simply a bystander, observing our struggles. He could intervene, but refrains from doing so. And he does this out of “love”… come on…

Also, I don’t agree that actualizing one specific world (with or without immoral actions) curtails our freedom - takes away the LOC. It is still we, who make the decisions, they just happen to turn out as they do.

Let’s go back to the simplest possible scenario. One agent, one morally significant decision. The possible worlds are:

W1 - God creates **the **world where the agent will freely choose morally.
W2 - God creates **the **world where the agent will freely choose immorally.
W3 - God creates “a” world, where the agent will freely choose either morally or immorally, which God knows ahead of time, but does not determine.

You argue that W1 and W2 are logically impossible because the deliberate creation of either one actually negates the freedom of the agent.

 

[tdgesq]

I agree with your analysis completely. Both LCC and PAP says the the blackmailed person acted “free” (though for different reasons). But in an actual situation like this, no one would blame the blackmailed person if he gave in to the demand.

It always depends upon the circumstances. Being blackmailed over the indulgence in internet porn versus the imminent death of a loved one is a stark difference. We might blame the blackmailed person under one scenario, but not the other. The act that the blackmailed person is asked to commit is also important. Paying $50 is a whole lot different from assassinating a life long enemy. All you are showing here is that depending upon the circumstances, freedom and moral responsibility can be ambiguous. But we already know that.

Everyone would say that his decision was not free.

No, not everyone would say that. It depends upon the circumstances.

That means that both definitions are incorrect, and thus neither one is a proper way to decide just what free will is. Wouldn’t you agree with this?

Obviously I do not agree, but it doesn’t matter.

And since the concept of free will became the focus of this discussion, we need to find a correct definition.

The concept of free will only became the focus of this discussion because you made it so. And as I’ve stated before, we don’t need to find the “correct definition.” I have presented a definition that is widely recognized by the philosophical community, even if not always accepted. You don’t have to accept it. But you do have to accept that under my definition (and that of many other philosophers) God may not in fact be able to create a world where all actors do what is right.

But it was “any” card, in the sense that the chooser just picked one, without any desire to pick any specific one.

The focus on individual “desire” is your construct, not mine. God could determine every person to “desire” this, that, or the other thing. Clearly that is not free will. I am looking at efficient cause and nothing more.

The chooser’s brain was not interfered with. He had the control over the movement of his hand. He could reach out, and select any of the cards presented to him.

No he couldn’t have, even by your own admission he must have picked that card. Causes come in many forms: outside physical constraint, genetic predisposition, inculcation by caregivers, psychological conditioning, etc. In this case, the magician is using a little bit of physical constraint and psychology to cause the result, although it depends upon the way the trick is performed.

So under both the LCC and PAP analysis, his decision was free. But you say it was not. And I agree. Therefore both the PAP and the LCC are wrong - just like in the case of the hypothetical blackmail case.

If you’ve already concluded that LCC and PAP are invalid measures of free will, then what is this thread about? You claimed that there is a necessarily possible world that God can actualize where all persons freely do what is right. Now you reject the two most commonly accepted definitions for free will (by a long shot) held by libertarians? You should have just started a thread claiming that there is no such thing as free will. I suspect that you didn’t because you believed you could use a conventional definition of free will and still make a successful argument. Things didn’t turn out that way though.

A responsible parent attempts to limit his children’s future choices by instilling proper values in them. Ideally, the child will never even think about an “immoral” choice, never even ponder the possibility of (say) stealing from a blind man’s plate where he accumulated some money. And even if he thinks about it for a second, he will not do it, because he knows that such action is wrong. The child’s action is strongly influenced by the parent’s “brainwashing”, but it is no determined by it. The same applies to the “inverted” Mary scenario. As long as she decides that she will leave Wite alone, her actions are not curtailed. If she wants to kill White, however, the device steps in and prevents her from doing it. As long as the child does not want to steal from the blind man, his actions are left alone. If he decides to steal, then - hopefully! - the parent’s brainwashing will kick in, and prevents him from carrying out the act. There is no other difference - aside from the fact that the parent’s actions were imperfect, while the device is “foolproof”.

This would be an important paragraph (if it weren’t off topic), mostly because it is correct. You recognize that moral choices are extraordinarily complicated in practice. It is very difficult to tell when someone has been “brainwashed,” as you put it, or whether they have simply been influenced. Nevertheless, we realize there is a difference, and this difference doesn’t have anything to do with what the person “desires.”

God can do better, he can instill the proper behavioral pattern at the time of creation, so the child will never commit an immoral act, though he can contemplate it.

You’ve just proven my point. Yes, God can brainwash the child so that he never will choose to commit an immoral act. That’s W3 in spades. And as you aptly pointed out, this would be just like when Mary Jones decides to commit an act, yet is prevented by the device in her brain. Of course nobody calls this freedom, least of all the determinist. No libertarian would call it freedom either. It appears that you are the one on the fringe when it comes to defining freedom.

To have free will (whatever that is, still undecided) it is enough if the people have the control to make selection of approximately equal choices, all of which are morally neutral or positive.

You are certainly entitled to believe in whatever form of freedom you choose, even if it does only allow for morally neutral or positive acts. The problem you have is that you must accept my definition of freedom for purposes of this debate. Not just mine though – the definition of freedom that most libertarians adhere to in one form or another. Presumably you understood what the word “freely” meant in the propositions provided. Surely you didn’t believe it was your definition, which for all the world looks like hard determinism. Concede the debate under my definition, and then we can look at whether your definition of free will makes sense.

 

[Spock]

First of all: welcome back!

If you’ve already concluded that LCC and PAP are invalid measures of free will, then what is this thread about? You claimed that there is a necessarily possible world that God can actualize where all persons freely do what is right. Now you reject the two most commonly accepted definitions for free will (by a long shot) held by libertarians?

I see the source of some misunderstanding. With Chiral we came to the agreement that **both **PAP and LCC are necessary to talk about meaningful freedom to choose.

This would be an important paragraph (if it weren’t off topic), mostly because it is correct. You recognize that moral choices are extraordinarily complicated in practice. It is very difficult to tell when someone has been “brainwashed,” as you put it, or whether they have simply been influenced. Nevertheless, we realize there is a difference, and this difference doesn’t have anything to do with what the person “desires.”

The desire has importance - though maybe it is trivial. If one does not want to achieve “something”, then there is no “will” to talk about.

The question is the differentiation between strong influence and total brainwashing. What is the difference? My values were instilled in me by my parents and my upbringing. They are not “foolproof” but they are strong enough to keep me from committing certain acts. This seems to be enough.

You’ve just proven my point. Yes, God can brainwash the child so that he never will choose to commit an immoral act. That’s W3 in spades. And as you aptly pointed out, this would be just like when Mary Jones decides to commit an act, yet is prevented by the device in her brain. Of course nobody calls this freedom, least of all the determinist. No libertarian would call it freedom either. It appears that you are the one on the fringe when it comes to defining freedom.

Is total brainwashing really necessary? It does not seem to be.

And I would like to add: in the OP I did not try to assert that God can create a world without evil which is comprized of an arbitrarily chosen set of individuals, say a bunch of incurable psychopaths. But the creation of free agents who do not wish to commit evil acts is within the power of God. These agents all know which decision would be deemed moral and which one would be deemed immoral. They all have the LCC to make a decision. They all have the PAP to act either way. Therefore they are truly free to choose. They just happen to make the correct decison, because they want to.

If you deny that these actions are free, then how can we go ahead?

 

[fhansen]

And I would like to add: in the OP I did not try to assert that God can create a world without evil which is comprized of an arbitrarily chosen set of individuals, say a bunch of incurable psychopaths. But the creation of free agents who do not wish to commit evil acts is within the power of God. These agents all know which decision would be deemed moral and which one would be deemed immoral. They all have the LCC to make a decision. They all have the PAP to act either way. Therefore they are truly free to choose. They just happen to make the correct decison, because they want to.

If you deny that these actions are free, then how can we go ahead?

There’s also probably a difference of opinion on what constitutes immorality. In Christianity, a persons’ individual actions don’t make them immoral, rather their disposition of being turned away from God-of not valuing love as they should-is what makes them immoral, by degree, but immoral nevertheless. Actions-or sins large or small-are simply symptoms of this state or condition. This isn’t to trivialize those actions, but perhaps to clarify why avoiding immoral behavior is not enough in itself to make one moral from the perspective of our faiths understanding. And this is why it’s said that man judges by appearances while God judges by the heart. While we may adamantly demand our right to do whatever we desire as long as we perceive it to not be hurting others, in our view God’s after something deeper-and better-for us than we might settle for ourselves.

 

[Spock]

There’s also probably a difference of opinion on what constitutes immorality. In Christianity, a persons’ individual actions don’t make them immoral, rather their disposition of being turned away from God-of not valuing love as they should-is what makes them immoral, by degree, but immoral nevertheless. Actions-or sins large or small-are simply symptoms of this state or condition. This isn’t to trivialize those actions, but perhaps to clarify why avoiding immoral behavior is not enough in itself to make one moral from the perspective of our faiths understanding. And this is why it’s said that man judges by appearances while God judges by the heart. While we may adamantly demand our right to do whatever we desire as long as we perceive it to not be hurting others, in our view God’s after something deeper-and better-for us than we might settle for ourselves.

I underdstand your point, but I do not accept it. A world without actual evil (like rapes, tortures, etc… ) is good “enough” for me.

 

[fhansen]

I underdstand your point, but I do not accept it. A world without actual evil (like rapes, tortures, etc… ) is good “enough” for me.

Yes, and when our wills are finally, freely, aligned with His, there’ll be no more rapes, tortures, etc.

 

[Spock]

Yes, and when our wills are finally, freely, aligned with His, there’ll be no more rapes, tortures, etc.

Sounds good… but that does not give consolation to the past, current and future victims of these actions.

 

[fhansen]

Sounds good… but that does not give consolation to the past, current and future victims of these actions.

One consolation, for those “naive” enough to genuinely believe, comes from the conviction that justice will ultimately be served even while evil is given free reign to play out its hand during our temporary stay here on earth. And justice means: whatever is required to make things right. In this view, all victims, past present, and future will be consoled, made whole, satisfied with Gods judgments. And plenty of victims over the years have persevered with just this kind of faith.