Problems with free will, possibility, and causality

[davidv]

Quite simply, you can’t.

Please demonstrate that this is a true statement. What follows below in not logical.

My knowledge and experience tells me that it is false.

You can be motivated to ignore information at a certain point. However, you cannot control whether it enters into your subconscious or not. It is not your choice to be aware or not aware of something, even if you later attempt to ignore it.

 

[John_Martin]

I noticed on someone’s signature, or somewhere, that they enjoyed Fankl’s “Man’s Search for Meaning”, which I had read a number of decades ago. I picked it up and began reading it this last week. I agree with him that

I may give the impression that the human being is completely and unavoidably influenced by his surroundings… But what about human liberty? Is there no spiritual freedom in regard to behaviour and reaction to any given surroundings? Is that theory true which would have us believe that man is no more than a product of many conditional and environmental factors—be they of a biological, psychological or sociological nature? Is man but an accidental product of these? Most important, do the prisoners’ reactions to the singular world of the concentration camp prove that man cannot escape the influences of his surroundings? Does man have no choice of action in the face of such circumstances?

We can answer these questions from experience as well as on principle. The experiences of camp life show that man does have a choice of action. There were enough examples, often of a heroic nature, which proved that apathy could be overcome, irritability suppressed. Man can preserve a vestige of spiritual freedom, of independence of mind, even in such terrible conditions of psychic and physical stress.

We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.

I believe it is the hard work, seemingly unending and unprofitable, or the love of self-satisfaction, that leads one to abandon confidence in free will, and everyone to some degree or other approaches that question. Choosing to act and think in faith, hope, and charity are work and often are without temporal reward. The alternative is to somehow prove there is no free will, whereupon there would be “permission” for no need to concern oneself with the work, but let my body and brain react and/or enjoy in detachment from care, then die. It is “to give up”. This would then be technically termed by the sin of “sloth”.

 

[NeuralMonk]

I noticed on someone’s signature, or somewhere, that they enjoyed Fankl’s “Man’s Search for Meaning”

I was wondering who would bring up Frankl. My kids are tired of hearing me quote him, so I have been a bit shy about introducing him.

 

[NeuralMonk]

blase6,
I know you don’t have a choice in these answers, because they were already determined. Sometimes the universe just paints you into a corner where there is no freedom. I am glad that I still make meaningful choices in the universe which change the impact of my life, but for others, the universe is just a rut.

I have only two last questions so I can understand the hard determinist better.

How do you reconcile determinism and evil in the world if you understand God to have no choice when He created it?
Is God really evil or just another being stuck in the jail of His own design?

No argument on these from me because I am asking your opinion and I know you don’t have a choice in your answer.

 

[blase6]

Please demonstrate that this is a true statement. What follows below in not logical.

My knowledge and experience tells me that it is false.

Here is another example. We believe that God has created the angels with infused knowledge, thus, they did not choose to learn. There is one instance of knowledge being imposed upon a person regardless of their will.

 

[blase6]

Please demonstrate that this is a true statement. What follows below in not logical.

My knowledge and experience tells me that it is false.

Don’t tell me that you’ve never had a bad thought pop into your head without you wanting it.

 

[blase6]

I noticed on someone’s signature, or somewhere, that they enjoyed Fankl’s “Man’s Search for Meaning”, which I had read a number of decades ago. I picked it up and began reading it this last week. I agree with him that
I believe it is the hard work, seemingly unending and unprofitable, or the love of self-satisfaction, that leads one to abandon confidence in free will, and everyone to some degree or other approaches that question. Choosing to act and think in faith, hope, and charity are work and often are without temporal reward. The alternative is to somehow prove there is no free will, whereupon there would be “permission” for no need to concern oneself with the work, but let my body and brain react and/or enjoy in detachment from care, then die. It is “to give up”. This would then be technically termed by the sin of “sloth”.

The example that he gives only shows that a person could be strongly motivated enough to be altruistic in a miserable environment. There really is not an objective support for freedom there.

 

[blase6]

blase6,
I know you don’t have a choice in these answers, because they were already determined. Sometimes the universe just paints you into a corner where there is no freedom. I am glad that I still make meaningful choices in the universe which change the impact of my life, but for others, the universe is just a rut.

I have only two last questions so I can understand the hard determinist better.

How do you reconcile determinism and evil in the world if you understand God to have no choice when He created it?
Is God really evil or just another being stuck in the jail of His own design?

No argument on these from me because I am asking your opinion and I know you don’t have a choice in your answer.

First of all, I am still trying to reconcile my reasoning with Church teaching. I do not want to just cower before a terrifying God that I can never hope to understand. Assuming that God gave me reasoning so that I could find the truth, it’s really not working out. I am only confusing myself further.

If freedom does not exist, then that includes God. In my mind, the most reasonable God would act out of necessity without choosing, because that is more basic than a choice. And maybe our understanding of evil and God not willing evil is entirely false.

 

[NeuralMonk]

First of all, I am still trying to reconcile my reasoning with Church teaching. I do not want to just cower before a terrifying God that I can never hope to understand. Assuming that God gave me reasoning so that I could find the truth, it’s really not working out. I am only confusing myself further.

If freedom does not exist, then that includes God. In my mind, the most reasonable God would act out of necessity without choosing, because that is more basic than a choice. And maybe our understanding of evil and God not willing evil is entirely false.

Thank you. I will truly pray for you.

 

[davidv]

Here is another example. We believe that God has created the angels with infused knowledge, thus, they did not choose to learn. There is one instance of knowledge being imposed upon a person regardless of their will.

Example of what?

Since their knowledge was an aspect of their nature, their knowledge was imposed on them the same way as their lack of material bodies was imposed. Neither of which hindered their free will.

Their choice in the matter is not relevant to this knowledge any more than your choice is to your coming into being at conception.

 

[davidv]

Don’t tell me that you’ve never had a bad thought pop into your head without you wanting it.

Do those bad thoughts force me to do something? No. I have many choices as to what to do with them.

 

[blase6]

Do those bad thoughts force me to do something? No. I have many choices as to what to do with them.

The thoughts may become a motive for a choice.

 

[blase6]

blase6,
I know you don’t have a choice in these answers, because they were already determined. Sometimes the universe just paints you into a corner where there is no freedom. I am glad that I still make meaningful choices in the universe which change the impact of my life, but for others, the universe is just a rut.

I have only two last questions so I can understand the hard determinist better.

How do you reconcile determinism and evil in the world if you understand God to have no choice when He created it?
Is God really evil or just another being stuck in the jail of His own design?

No argument on these from me because I am asking your opinion and I know you don’t have a choice in your answer.

By the way, I don’t think it’s fair to call me a “hard determinist”. While I would think that the universe would operate solely from deterministic causality, I am open to the possibility of random events. However, I do not believe that a random choice would really be freedom. But maybe that is the Church’s definition of freedom, as a random choice. I hope not.

 

[NeuralMonk]

By the way, I don’t think it’s fair to call me a “hard determinist”. While I would think that the universe would operate solely from deterministic causality, I am open to the possibility of random events. However, I do not believe that a random choice would really be freedom. But maybe that is the Church’s definition of freedom, as a random choice. I hope not.

Sorry, no offense intended. If random chance is less palatable than determinism, I would assume you leaned that direction. “When all other options have been eliminated…”

No, as explained, the Churches view of freedom (aka free will) is that our choices really do matter and are efficacious to our development toward or away from sainthood. Not that it is stated directly, but the unseen choices seem to be so much unused potential cosmic states. My metaphysical version of this would be something like unused potential energy. How it is dissipated is unclear but I have my theories.

 

[blase6]

Sorry, no offense intended. If random chance is less palatable than determinism, I would assume you leaned that direction. “When all other options have been eliminated…”

No, as explained, the Churches view of freedom (aka free will) is that our choices really do matter and are efficacious to our development toward or away from sainthood. Not that it is stated directly, but the unseen choices seem to be so much unused potential cosmic states. My metaphysical version of this would be something like unused potential energy. How it is dissipated is unclear but I have my theories.

So basically, the Church expects you to believe in personal freedom without explaining what it is or how it works. It is entirely contrary to how causality works.

 

[NeuralMonk]

So basically, the Church expects you to believe in personal freedom without explaining what it is or how it works. It is entirely contrary to how causality works.

Yep, because it doesn’t actually really matter. See if determinism is at work… well what is one to do? So go along with the story line because the universe has already determined that it doesn’t have to explain it. You can buck it, maybe that was there from the beginning, but really, sit back and enjoy the ride (if that has been determined for you, but I make that best interest choice to go that route).

But if free will does exist, then it is the choice that matters to choose it, not the fact it may be contrary to causality. It is more important than to make the “best” of the choice.

 

[tonyrey]

First of all, I am still trying to reconcile my reasoning with Church teaching. I do not want to just cower before a terrifying God that I can never hope to understand. Assuming that God gave me reasoning so that I could find the truth, it’s really not working out. I am only confusing myself further.

If freedom does not exist, then that includes God. In my mind, the most reasonable God would act out of necessity without choosing, because that is more basic than a choice. And maybe our understanding of evil and God not willing evil is entirely false.

Jesus told us that the truth shall make us free. In other words we are no longer enslaved by self-love and by our own opinions but liberated by love.** Love does not act out of necessity.** Love is creative, original and flexible. It inspires us with new ideas and ways of solving apparently impossible problems. One example is how to reconcile divine justice and mercy which seem incompatible. In one simple but sublime prayer Jesus demonstrated how it is possible:

“Forgive us** as** we forgive those who trespass against us…”

It depends on us whether we are forgiven and it also depends on us not only whether we forgive but how we forgive. We are not compelled to forgive in any particular way because we are not machines, nor is nature an immense machine. We have the glorious freedom of the sons and daughters of God - which is the direct antithesis of a mechanistic view of reality. We need to escape from the prevailing materialism of society in which persons are animals - and animals are no more than complex machines. Even at the biological level there is an element of **creativity **in every individual organism. We are certainly not the products of “Chance and Necessity” but of infinite Love that transcends all laws, whether physical or psychological. Our Creator is not a divine Robot but the eternal Source of infinite richness, beauty and joy.

It is easy to underestimate the significance of being made in God’s image and likeness but there is one factor that demonstrates the immense power we have been given: the appalling amount of injustice and suffering on this planet. Is all that evil inevitable? Surely not. Only a pessimist like Schopenhauer believes this is the worst of all possible worlds - which is what it would be if Necessity were the Ultimate Reality…

 

[John_Martin]

So basically, the Church expects you to believe in personal freedom without explaining what it is or how it works. It is entirely contrary to how causality works.

Yes and no - Christ expects you to believe him, via those he has sent. And no, there are explanations to those who listen as disciples to the Church. It can be explained to the one believing him to any level of understanding needed by the individual person in his desire to know.
The declaration by God that there is free will is “good news” that is part of the big picture of Christ.

Now, to you, wanting to understand it, as Thomas wanting to put his hand in the side of Christ before going “whole hog for Jesus” and only then saying “My Lord and my God”, for you there is someone like Thomas Aquinas - you have spent 3 weeks on this thread, now, and in that time could have read far enough in the Summa Theologica to have come across several of the minor explanations of free will, with much of the sub-strata for taking the explanations seriously. (Summa is here: ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.toc.html )

Here, at this site, you are listening to sound bites of people who know it is true, but you are somehow expecting them to give you dissertations from your replies. Well, we really don’t have time for it because it would disrupt our family and work responsibilities to answer you. But there are already full explanations. Read Thomas - you appear to have the background to handle his treatment of all of Catholic teaching. It is a cumulative treatise, so read it sequentially, even if you jump ahead to various points as you read, go back to read it in full.

 

[blase6]

Jesus told us that the truth shall make us free. In other words we are no longer enslaved by self-love and by our own opinions but liberated by love.** Love does not act out of necessity.** Love is creative, original and flexible. It inspires us with new ideas and ways of solving apparently impossible problems. One example is how to reconcile divine justice and mercy which seem incompatible. In one simple but sublime prayer Jesus demonstrated how it is possible:

“Forgive us** as** we forgive those who trespass against us…”

It depends on us whether we are forgiven and it also depends on us not only whether we forgive but how we forgive. We are not compelled to forgive in any particular way because we are not machines, nor is nature an immense machine. We have the glorious freedom of the sons and daughters of God - which is the direct antithesis of a mechanistic view of reality. We need to escape from the prevailing materialism of society in which persons are animals - and animals are no more than complex machines. Even at the biological level there is an element of **creativity **in every individual organism. We are certainly not the products of “Chance and Necessity” but of infinite Love that transcends all laws, whether physical or psychological. Our Creator is not a divine Robot but the eternal Source of infinite richness, beauty and joy.

**I don’t really see how animals are not just biological machines. Sure, they don’t really serve a purpose other than to simply exist and do things as God wants them to, but they are just machines. They operate deterministically from instinct.

And once again, you have no objective support for free will, only an appeal to accept it without understanding.**

It is easy to underestimate the significance of being made in God’s image and likeness but there is one factor that demonstrates the immense power we have been given: the appalling amount of injustice and suffering on this planet. Is all that evil inevitable? Surely not. Only a pessimist like Schopenhauer believes this is the worst of all possible worlds - which is what it would be if Necessity were the Ultimate Reality…

Well, Catholics believe in a sense that sin is the only real evil. Maybe God doesn’t mind suffering existing. Maybe because it adds variety to existence, and that is why he allows it.

 

[blase6]

Yes and no - Christ expects you to believe him, via those he has sent. And no, there are explanations to those who listen as disciples to the Church. It can be explained to the one believing him to any level of understanding needed by the individual person in his desire to know.
The declaration by God that there is free will is “good news” that is part of the big picture of Christ.

**Well, free will is not clearly outlined as Church doctrine because it is assumed that people would believe in it already. **

Now, to you, wanting to understand it, as Thomas wanting to put his hand in the side of Christ before going “whole hog for Jesus” and only then saying “My Lord and my God”, for you there is someone like Thomas Aquinas - you have spent 3 weeks on this thread, now, and in that time could have read far enough in the Summa Theologica to have come across several of the minor explanations of free will, with much of the sub-strata for taking the explanations seriously. (Summa is here: ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.toc.html )

Here, at this site, you are listening to sound bites of people who know it is true, but you are somehow expecting them to give you dissertations from your replies. Well, we really don’t have time for it because it would disrupt our family and work responsibilities to answer you. But there are already full explanations. Read Thomas - you appear to have the background to handle his treatment of all of Catholic teaching. It is a cumulative treatise, so read it sequentially, even if you jump ahead to various points as you read, go back to read it in full.

OK, but Aquinas begins by assuming that freedom exists. Does Aquinas attempt to show that the world as we know it cannot exist without free will?