The argument of free will and suffering

[friardchips]

The need for justice is the consequence of that suffering.

Nice assertion…

Although, the “need for justice”, is the causality/the reason for “suffering”.

The suffering is the “consequence” of the “need for justice”.

 

[goout]

The underlying false assumption is of the fundamentalist God who should behave just like a 20th century atheist can understand God.
He should intervene in human affairs, “just like it says in the Old Testament”. He would violate free will.

That’s not the Christian God.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Truncated for length… sorry.

Not to belittle what you lost, but I’m glad you did. This is a very succinct summation on your thoughts, and it’s something that I can respond to. Much more than this and it would have become a bit much to try to discuss without falling down the rabbit hole.

So, this is what you’re looking for an answer to:

This is presuming that a ‘choice’ to do evil is an essential factor in the definition of freewill.

Your theoretical position, that we could understand evil exists and yet never choose it, is true. That is very much like the theoretical I presented, wherein we have the choice but always choose the good. I have no issue with this.

However, the next part, about the person choosing wrong being lacking in freedom, I take issue with. No matter how full of God’s grace a person is, they can always choose themselves, whether through pride or through external temptation. Satan chose himself over God, and he lead humanity into sin. We see in this in the Genesis account, where it took the devil’s temptation to drive Eve to sin. Even with a perfect grace, not already impeded by sin, Eve chose to sin, she chose to reject God. That choice was completely free, and it destroyed God’s grace within her. With God’s grace gone, we lack the perfection of nature that is intended for us, and suffer from concupiscence.

So… I guess what I’m saying is that, no matter how abstract and undesirable sin is, no matter how grace-filled we may be in this life, there is always the potential that we may sin. We see the two different options in the Bible. Eve and Mary, both created without any stain of sin, both full of God’s grace, and yet one chose to indulge in temptation, while the other did not. One chose to put herself before God, and the other chose God over herself. This contrast is made even more astounding when we consider that Eve only suffered from a single temptation, while Mary suffered all the temptations of her age.

…

In re-reading this, I see that it is probably not providing the sort of answer you are looking for to your question. So, I will try to address it more directly.

The choice to do evil is an essential factor for free will to exist. That is not because evil itself is necessary for free will, but because of the nature of choice. Any scenario where choice is possible has two outcomes, either for, or against. Even in this theoretical world you present where evil is innately undesirable, we still have to have the ability to choose it, otherwise there can be no choice, and therefore no freedom of will.

I agree with your definition that true freedom is that ability to choose the good. I disagree that it is simply the matter of knowing good; knowing and choosing are not the same thing. All the fallen angels knew good, far more completely and intimately than we will ever know it in this lifetime, and yet that knowledge was not sufficient, they had to have the choice. Without that choice, the knowledge is meaningless. God desires that we choose Him, not simply that we know Him. The result of that aspect of our nature is that we can choose for Him, or against Him. If he were to create a world in which is was impossible to choose against Him, then there is no choice, and therefore there is no meaning in our existence, we would be little better than robots.

So, I would answer that, yes, in order for our wills to truly be free, we must be capable of choosing evil. We do not have to choose evil, that is not necessary for freedom, but we do have to have the ability to. Anything else is less than freedom. .

To answer the next part of your post, What constitutes evil is the rejection of good, or, more specifically, the rejection of God, who is the source of all Good. Temptation entered into the picture with Satan, who, in his pride, choose to worship himself rather than God. Then, he spread that error to our first parents, causing them to choose themselves over God. As a result, we lost the sanctifying grace of God and the perfection of our natures, and so suffer from concupiscence, or the inclination towards sin. The majority of our temptations come from this concupiscence, combined with the stimuli we experience in the world around us.

I do not have the ability to engage in anther long debate today, so I’ll have to bow out of the discussion for now. I hope that this helps you some.

 

[goout]

Nice assertion…

Although, the “need for justice”, is the causality/the reason for “suffering”.

The suffering is the “consequence” of the “need for justice”.

We need justice. We try to implement it and seek it for others.

God is just. If we want to know what justice looks like, we look at God.

Anticipating our atheist friends who believe God literally kills innocent children as part of his justice: Christ is God’s fullest revelation. If we want to know what God’s justice looks like in the whole and full sense, we look to Christ. We read the whole of revelation through the eyes of Christ.

Christ suffered yet did not despair and lose sight of the good. Christ died, and yet lives. Christ proclaimed God’s justice, yet is the non-violent offering of mercy that gives true meaning and fullness to justice.

 

[Vonsalza]

That’s not true. Suffering MAY be the consequence of will. And you don’t need to wait for the suffering before you impose justice.

Your wedge here is contrived. In the provided example, the attack and the suffering are inseparably linked.

Let’s say that someone is planning a terrorist act and we discover his plan. Do we stand back and say that we can’t do anything until he actually carries it out?

The justice that the terrorist experienced as absolutely based on the suffering that he would have caused.

Of course, this gets into the murky waters of pre-crime; a concept any classic liberal (of which most of us are) should treat with much caution.

I’d assume that everyone would be in agreement that if someone’s free will resulted in a concrete plan (not necessarily an act in itself) to commit evil, then preventing him from committing that act would be a good thing.

It still bears a relationship to the degree of suffering planned. Tell the cop that you’re going to burn spiders in your back-yard and he may give you an odd look. Tell him you’re going to burn people, out come the cuffs.

Imagine if a theatre was blown up and someone told you: ‘Yeah, I knew that was going to happen. I know the guy who did it and he’s been planning it for months. But what could I do? Free will is paramount.

Perhaps you’ve confused the necessity of a means with the justification of all its ends. This is not consequentialism.

Once again, the atheist must put away his well-worn straw-man; that poor, tired old chap…

 

[Wesrock]

That’s not true. Suffering MAY be the consequence of will. And you don’t need to wait for the suffering before you impose justice.

Let’s say that someone is planning a terrorist act and we discover his plan. Do we stand back and say that we can’t do anything until he actually carries it out? This guy in the UK found out the answer to that and got a life sentence: cbsnews.com/news/haroon-syed-london-bomb-attack-sentenced-life-in-prison/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=39378785.

I’d assume that everyone would be in agreement that if someone’s free will resulted in a concrete plan (not necessarily an act in itself) to commit evil, then preventing him from committing that act would be a good thing.

Imagine if a theatre was blown up and someone told you: ‘Yeah, I knew that was going to happen. I know the guy who did it and he’s been planning it for months. But what could I do? Free will is paramount. God gave it to us and to prevent its use would be against God’s will’.

I reckon that guy would be charged and incarcerated for his own good. If I’d lost someone in the theatre, then I’d be making plans on the guy myself. But you might say: ‘How do we actually know he was going to carry it out? We’re not omniscient’.

True. But maybe you know someone that is.

Yes, but God has no obligation or responsibility or duty to step in and prevent such things, if that’s your point.

 

[goout]

True and full freedom is not the ability to choose good, it is the good chosen, and the full relationship that is realized by choosing it. True Christian freedom is not merely about capability, or potency, or license, it’s about dwelling in love (which is willing the good of another for the sake of the other… hence these hypotheticals about terrorists etc…need to take into account the true and full good, not just the support of one person’s free will to choose anything)
In relationship to God we have the full flowering of freedom.

A person always has the free will to choose, and the choices made may enslave a person.

 

[friardchips]

We need justice. We try to implement it and seek it for others.

This is correct. I was using my assertion in regard to another poster’s assertion that I believe was apt but possibly the wrong way around in order to drive home a theory as to why suffering exists. I don’t know if you were using our posts to address the same point despite the fact that you have written points that are true in connection.

God is just. If we want to know what justice looks like, we look at God.

Nothing to add.

Anticipating our atheist friends who believe God literally kills innocent children as part of his justice: Christ is God’s fullest revelation. If we want to know what God’s justice looks like in the whole and full sense, we look to Christ. We read the whole of revelation through the eyes of Christ.

Christ suffered yet did not despair and lose sight of the good. Christ died, and yet lives. Christ proclaimed God’s justice, yet is the non-violent offering of mercy that gives true meaning and fullness to justice.

This is well said. I have nothing to add here. Other than to say that everything finds its completion in Him.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Yes, but God has no obligation or responsibility or duty to step in and prevent such things, if that’s your point.

We, humans have no obligation either - UNLESS we wish to be regarded as decent, loving, and caring beings. The obligation would come from the inside, either as a compulsion to help, or as a desire to gain stature from the society. For the one, who is being helped, this distinction does not matter. For a beggar, who receives a piece of bread to save form starvation it is irrelevant WHY you help, the only important thing is THAT you help.

 

[Wesrock]

We, humans have no obligation either - UNLESS we wish to be regarded as decent, loving, and caring beings. The obligation would come from the inside, either as a compulsion to help, or as a desire to gain stature from the society. For the one, who is being helped, this distinction does not matter. For a beggar, who receives a piece of bread to save form starvation it is irrelevant WHY you help, the only important thing is THAT you help.

We humans do have moral obligations in most circumstances. And I don’t just mean the feeling or compulsion to help or social pressure.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

We humans do have obligations in most circumstances. And I don’t just mean the feeling or compulsion to help or social pressure.

Of course, we are social beings, so we are predisposed to help others - in the spirit of reciprocal altruism. All herd animals have this attitude. That is what I meant by internal compulsion. But, if you differ, where does that obligation come from? Just, please, spare me of the nonsense that it is “inscribed” on our “heart”.

 

[friardchips]

Part 1.

Your theoretical position, that we could understand evil exists and yet never choose it, is true. That is very much like the theoretical I presented, wherein we have the choice but always choose the good. I have no issue with this.

I was irritated for about one minute about losing writing that had been worked on for over an hour, but still, we got there.

However, the next part, about the person choosing wrong being lacking in freedom, I take issue with. No matter how full of God’s grace a person is, they can always choose themselves, whether through pride or through external temptation.

Satan chose himself over God, and he lead humanity into sin. We see in this in the Genesis account, where it took the devil’s temptation to drive Eve to sin. Even with a perfect grace, not already impeded by sin, Eve chose to sin, she chose to reject God. That choice was completely free, and it destroyed God’s grace within her. With God’s grace gone, we lack the perfection of nature that is intended for us, and suffer from concupiscence.

So… I guess what I’m saying is that, no matter how abstract and undesirable sin is, no matter how grace-filled we may be in this life, there is always the potential that we may sin. We see the two different options in the Bible. Eve and Mary, both created without any stain of sin, both full of God’s grace, and yet one chose to indulge in temptation, while the other did not. One chose to put herself before God, and the other chose God over herself. This contrast is made even more astounding when we consider that Eve only suffered from a single temptation, while Mary suffered all the temptations of her age.

In re-reading this, I see that it is probably not providing the sort of answer you are looking for to your question. So, I will try to address it more directly.

The choice to do evil is an essential factor for free will to exist. That is not because evil itself is necessary for free will, but because of the nature of choice. Any scenario where choice is possible has two outcomes, either for, or against. Even in this theoretical world you present where evil is innately undesirable, we still have to have the ability to choose it, otherwise here can be no choice, and therefore no freedom of will.

I agree with your definition that true freedom is that ability to choose the good. I disagree that it is simply the matter of knowing good; knowing and choosing are not the same thing.

All the fallen angels knew good, far more completely and intimately than we will ever know it in this lifetime, and yet that knowledge was not sufficient, they had to have the choice.

Without that choice, the knowledge is meaningless. God desires that we choose Him, not simply that we know Him. The result of that aspect of our nature is that we can choose for Him, or against Him. If he were to create a world in which is was impossible to choose against Him, then there is no choice, and therefore there is no meaning in our existence, we would be little better than robots.

All of humanity is enslaved and suffers from the effects of concupiscence, even if they have been in receipt of Baptism, and had OS wiped away. So, yes, people can choose, but they are not really free, in what the spiritual person understands of the word, ‘freedom’. It depends what we see as ‘free’; hence, my attempts at trying to forge an answer on the definition of ‘freedom’.

Now you are clearly arguing the point, logically, that we are free to choose, no matter what our psychological state. If you are saying that freedom simply exists because of the ability to make a choice, with no clarifier that suggests evil has to be a likely option, then why not. It makes sense, on one level. From that point of view.

I’m going to bring a couple more ideas to the table to do with choice that I don’t believe argues with your definition, necessarily. Take pro-choice vs pro-life. The pro-choice activist will say: choice is what makes us human. The pro-life advocate will say: we are not free to have that choice because freedom comes with responsibility.

<< I understand that we are taking a subject that consists of many arguments but am simplifying in context with this debate >>

Immediately, what we have is a split, dividing two opposing opinions, of what constitutes ‘freedom’ (even though one side might not fully appreciate some of the deeper values of difference in perspective): ‘Freedom coming with personal choice to choose any option as an absolute’, or, ‘Freedom comes from making good choices’.

We then pull the argument from subjective analysis into the arena of objectivity as we are brought face-to-face with the word ‘good’. We have a correlation between the words ‘good’ and ‘freedom’.

 

[friardchips]

Part 2.

Addressing the part to do with Satan is to do with the subject of temptation at the same time. Satan and temptation are bound. Eve was tempted. And she was free to make that choice. Insofar as she could choose one way or the other. But she was still tempted. The choice to sin was in the abstract as we discussed and agreed upon, before. The knowledge of good and evil was not presently a reality in that evil consequences had really taken root. Adam and Eve knew that knowledge of evil was a possibility - ‘The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil’ - but it was not necessarily a natural temptation. It was enough to know that evil is a possibility for there to be freewill. It took the devil to tempt for an abstract evil to become a reality. Furthermore, it is interesting that the devil was the sole causality, of the knowledge of evil being realised. Other than Eve acting upon the temptation. Was she free, one hundred percent? The devil had fallen and was prowling about. If she was completely free in the absolute sense then she would have been in Heaven. Where the devil has not access. Then and only then are we truly free, in the absolute sense. So, we arrive at the conclusion, that if we say freedom is simply an ability to choose, then why not. But if we look at the deeper significance of what freedom truly entails, then we see that freedom is realised only by perfection.

Our Lady, while she is understood to be the New Eve, is still the Mother of the New Creation. Her situation and surroundings are a different scenario to that of Eve. Our Lady is the Immaculate Conception. Therefore, she was preserved from all stain of sin, resulting from Eve’s fall from grace.

And furthermore, is the Mother of God. So, while the rest of humanity is fallen, and could choose sin, Our Lady could not. Temptation begins from within. If one is pure from ‘within’ then even temptation from ‘without’ is not tempting. Our Lady was sinless and so was not tempted from within therefore nothing could tempt her from without. She was not tempted to sin. Satan had access to Eve…

But, Our Lady was immune to Satan, because Satan had no way in. If there is no way in then there is no temptation happening. And natural inclinations, and survival inclinations, are not the same as temptations (in case this comes up). This does raise a question as to why it is that Eve could be tempted by Satan but Our Lady, not. The only reason I can think, consists of four: the four Marian Dogmas, in the merits of Christ’s Resurrection, that make Eve and Mary distinctly different.

One can know that evil exists without it being desirable, for us to be free. Adam and Eve knew the Tree existed and while they might have naturally wished to eat from it would not have done because they knew initially that it was wrong. To consider eating it out of disobedience, would have been where the sin begins.

Hence, the need for Satan to nudge. Do we have to find every sin in the world desirable in order to be free? Many saints hated sin. And some sins would never cross our minds to act in accordance with, despite knowing such an evil exists. So the knowledge of the possibility that sin exists, is enough to build trust, and to ensure we grow as people. There has to be the allowance of purity.

I can desire something and it not be a sin. But my choice out of obedience to not act upon that desire is making a choice. So the choice comes with knowing. Which is why God gave the knowledge of the Tree to Adam and Eve. He didn’t hide the fact that it existed. And when they knew, at first, presumably they didn’t eat from it (until they were tempted). Temptation on the other hand is linked only with the devil. So choice and the choice to sin are not the same thing.

Here then, we could do with discussing what ‘evil’ means. What is ‘evil’?

The fall from Heaven was unique in its power. For an angel to have rebelled was uniquely shocking considering the place satan had in Heaven. It has to be said that the devil was not tempted because he is The Tempter. So evil was formed in him. This is why I think it is important to define to some degree what exactly ‘evil’ is.

---

If we know God then we are choosing to know Him. I agree that all beings are given the ability to choose between choices. Such choices can lead away from God. But when we know Him, we can continue to choose to know Him. God does not lead us into a tempting situation and then say “survive or die”.

The actions of satan were astoundingly selfish. He hated the idea of us. Simply put. And because of him we can suffer huge temptations. So I agree that freedom comes with choices but true freedom comes with full knowledge of God that perfects all our choices. There is only one real choice: God.

 

[friardchips]

Part 3.

So, I would answer that, yes, in order for our wills to truly be free, we must be capable of choosing evil. We do not have to choose evil, that is not necessary for freedom, but we do have to have the ability to. Anything else is less than freedom.

Then we don’t concur. This is saying that evil defines freedom.

Freedom comes with full knowledge of God. With evil as only the abstract principle.

Temptation brought evil into reality.

The only way we can agree now is if we continue to try and describe what ‘evil’ is.

To answer the next part of your post, What constitutes evil is the rejection of good, or, more specifically, the rejection of God, who is the source of all Good. Temptation entered into the picture with Satan, who, in his pride, choose to worship himself rather than God. Then, he spread that error to our first parents, causing them to choose themselves over God. As a result, we lost the sanctifying grace of God and the perfection of our natures, and so suffer from concupiscence, or the inclination towards sin. The majority of our temptations come from this concupiscence, combined with the stimuli we experience in the world around us.

I do not have the ability to engage in anther long debate today, so I’ll have to bow out of the discussion for now. I hope that this helps you some.

I would counter and say that evil is just lesser degrees of good.

It is far harder to sin than what some claim. One can desire things or be naturally inclined to things and even put oneself first without sinning as this can be natural.

Temptation is indeed intrinsically connected to satan.

Temptation from ‘without’ is only the case, as mentioned, with the existence of temptation from ‘within’. ‘Without’ is dependent on ‘within’.

 

[Wesrock]

Of course, we are social beings, so we are predisposed to help others - in the spirit of reciprocal altruism. All herd animals have this attitude. That is what I meant by internal compulsion. But, if you differ, where does that obligation come from? Just, please, spare me of the nonsense that it is “inscribed” on our “heart”.

Teleology. Final causes. Our ends as rational creatures. It’s intrinsic to the nature of humanity. The obligation comes from being human.

It’s not imposed from the outside. It’s not given meaning by something external to us, the way a chair only has meaning to the creature that uses it.

It’s understanding the difference between teleology and design, intrinsic ends to extrinsicaly imposed ends.

Not necessarily related to the PoE, but this article on an Aristotlean response to the Euthypro Dilemma might help clarify what I mean: link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11153-017-9632-3

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Teleology. Final causes. Our ends as rational creatures. It’s intrinsic to the nature of humanity. The obligation comes from being human.

It’s not imposed from the outside. It’s not given meaning by something external to us, the way a chair only has meaning to the creature that uses it.

It’s understanding the difference between teleology and design, intrinsic ends to extrinsicaly imposed ends.

Not necessarily related to the PoE, but this article on an Aristotlean response to the Euthypro Dilemma might help clarify what I mean: link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11153-017-9632-3

I will read the linked essay and see if it makes any sense.

 

[Wesrock]

I will read the linked essay and see if it makes any sense.

I appreciate you reading it. The Euthyphro dilemma itself, if you’re not familiar with it, is whether God loves things because they are holy or whether things are holy because God loves them (and in modern ethical discussions it substitutes “good” for “holy”). So it’s not about the PoE, but I think it may help clarify a little an Aristotletean take on moral law versus other conceptions.

 

[goout]

This is correct. I was using my assertion in regard to another poster’s assertion that I believe was apt but possibly the wrong way around in order to drive home a theory as to why suffering exists. I don’t know if you were using our posts to address the same point despite the fact that you have written points that are true in connection.

Nothing to add.

This is well said. I have nothing to add here. Other than to say that everything finds its completion in Him.

Yes, not disputing just adding to the discussion.

 

[Vonsalza]

We, humans have no obligation either

Oh yes we do. Religiously, we do. And in many places and cases, legally as well.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Part 3.

Then we don’t concur. This is saying that evil defines freedom.

I would like to respond to your whole post, but am unable to do so currently. I just wanted to address this point.

That may be how you chose to read it, but that is not what I’m saying. Evil does not define freedom, true freedom is found only in choosing the good. However, freedom and free will are two separate subjects, which you seem to be conflating. The potential for evil DOES define free will, at least it is an aspect of the definition, because, as I have repeatedly said, if there is only one option, then there is no choice, and therefore no free will.

I only have freedom when I choose God, otherwise I am enslaved to my sin. You and I agree on this point. I also agree that previous sin, and the enslavement that accompanies it, may impede our ability to exercise our free will. (like how an addict has difficulty choosing against their addiction due to the manner in which that addiction damaged the brain.) HOWEVER, I have free will whether I chose God or not, and any choice against God as the result of my previous enslavement is still the effect of my initial free choice. My free will may lead to a deprivation of my freedom, but it is still my will, and it is necessary that I have the capacity to choose either for or against God, otherwise my will is not truly free. You cannot have free will if there is only one option.

As a note, I’d argue against your assertion that Mary was immune to Satan because he had no way in. Even and Mary started on equal ground. They were both sinless and completely perfected in grace. Mary had just as much knowledge of evil as Eve did, far more in fact, considering that she lived during the time of Pagan Rome. However, it was their free choice which defined the course they took. They both suffered temptations. Eve succumbed, Mary didn’t. To argue that Mary didn’t suffer temptation is, frankly, asinine. Even Jesus, God incarnate, suffered temptation. If that’s not what you’re doing, I’ve misread, and I apologize.

I honestly think you and I are discussing two different things when it comes to freedom. I have been placing my focus on free will, while you have been placing your focus on freedom born of the proper exercise of that free will… I also think we actually agree on quite a bit, but are expressing it in very different ways. Let me ask if this sounds agreeable to you:

#1: Freedom and Free Will are separate subjects.

#2: Freedom is found only in the exercise of Free Will which is directed towards the Good (God).

#3: A perfected nature is capable of choosing either for or against God. (Evidenced by Satan and the other fallen angels), but is more likely to choose evil when there is an external source of temptation.

#4: Evil is the deprivation of good to greater or lesser extents. However, no matter minor minor the degree of the sin, it is always a rejection of some aspect of God.

#5: An intellect, once darkened, is significantly more likely to engage in further sin, to their further deprivation. Only an external infusion of God’s grace can restore a person to a state of grace.

I apologize for not answering your entire argument, hopefully I’ll be able to later.