The constructor and free will

[Hitetlen]

Suppose you are an engineer, who designs cars, which do not require a driver. Among all the necessary tasks is that the car will protect its passengers from harm, as well as it can. Another specification is that the car would carry them to their destination as fast as possible.

These two requirements are at odds with each other. The faster the car tavels, the greater the chance of an accident. Therefore the constructor will have to give a limited amount of “free will” to his creation, allow it to choose between acceptable actions, but will try everything to disallow unacceptable ones (like straying off the road).

This limitation on “free will” is a desirable action. To give too much “freedom” is dangerous, it would allow the creation to perform outside its specification limits.

Theoretically there is another approach. The constructor may decide not to limit (physically) the speed the car may take, rather “tells” the car that it should not go “too fast”. The constructor thus gives a higher degree of “freedom” to his creation. This approach can be beneficial for those passengers who wish to reach their destination quickly, and can be harmful for those whose speed leads to an accident.

One thing is certain: if the constructor chooses the second method, he loses the right to complain if his creation behaves outside its specification limits. He could have limited his creation, but chose not to. Fine, it was his prerogative. But he certainly has no valid right to complain.

The designer/constructor is God. The creation is “us”. God chose not to limit us by imposing on our “free will”. Therefore he has no right to complain if we chose to behave as he did not intend us to behave. He certainly has no right to punish us (especially not with eternal punishment). Since God is just, he takes responsibility for our actions outside the specification limits, therefore there can be no hell. Simple, eh?

 

[thistle]

Hitetlen:

Suppose you are an engineer, who designs cars, which do not require a driver. Among all the necessary tasks is that the car will protect its passengers from harm, as well as it can. Another specification is that the car would carry them to their destination as fast as possible.

These two requirements are at odds with each other. The faster the car tavels, the greater the chance of an accident. Therefore the constructor will have to give a limited amount of “free will” to his creation, allow it to choose between acceptable actions, but will try everything to disallow unacceptable ones (like straying off the road).

This limitation on “free will” is a desirable action. To give too much “freedom” is dangerous, it would allow the creation to perform outside its specification limits.

Theoretically there is another approach. The constructor may decide not to limit (physically) the speed the car may take, rather “tells” the car that it should not go “too fast”. The constructor thus gives a higher degree of “freedom” to his creation. This approach can be beneficial for those passengers who wish to reach their destination quickly, and can be harmful for those whose speed leads to an accident.

One thing is certain: if the constructor chooses the second method, he loses the right to complain if his creation behaves outside its specification limits. He could have limited his creation, but chose not to. Fine, it was his prerogative. But he certainly has no valid right to complain.

The designer/constructor is God. The creation is “us”. God chose not to limit us by imposing on our “free will”. Therefore he has no right to complain if we chose to behave as he did not intend us to behave. He certainly has no right to punish us (especially not with eternal punishment). Since God is just, he takes responsibility for our actions outside the specification limits, therefore there can be no hell. Simple, eh?

God does not punish us. He created us to join him in Heaven but he gave us free will to choose to love him and join him there or not. If we go to Hell it is because we have chosen to reject God’s love and so we punish ourselves.

 

[Hitetlen]

thistle:

God does not punish us. He created us to join him in Heaven but he gave us free will to choose to love him and join him there or not. If we go to Hell it is because we have chosen to reject God’s love and so we punish ourselves.

A father gives his 10 years old son a loaded gun. He tells the kid not to shoot his little sister. The kid pulls the trigger, the sister dies. The father is arrested and at the trial his defense is simple: “I did not want to limit my son’s free will. I told him not to pull the trigger.” What is the verdict? Will any jury accept such a defense?

 

[thistle]

Hitetlen:

A father gives his 10 years old son a loaded gun. He tells the kid not to shoot his little sister. The kid pulls the trigger, the sister dies. The father is arrested and at the trial his defense is simple: “I did not want to limit my son’s free will. I told him not to pull the trigger.” What is the verdict? Will any jury accept such a defense?

Typical atheist being ridiculous. Nothing at all to do with God’s love or our choice to accept or reject it!!

 

[frogman80]

Hello Hitetlen,

You must have forgotten… our basic definition of free will is to choose or not choose God.

Your car example… it is up to the car to get to the destination or not get to the destination. The car cannot sort of get there… it can only do one or the other.

The requirement that you added… “Doing it as fast as possible” or no limit on speed does not fit into our idea of free will. (At least I can see how it translates.)

 

[Hitetlen]

frogman80:

Hello Hitetlen,

You must have forgotten… our basic definition of free will is to choose or not choose God.

Your car example… it is up to the car to get to the destination or not get to the destination. The car cannot sort of get there… it can only do one or the other.

The requirement that you added… “Doing it as fast as possible” or no limit on speed does not fit into our idea of free will. (At least I can see how it translates.)

No I have not forgotten it, though I cannot accept it. Life is full of choices, though of course not all being equally important. But to choose whether to kill someone or help someone is far from trivial. The choice to make such acts separates a good person from an evil one.

A computer program which is “allowed” to act as it wishes is called hopelessly unfunctional, or bugged. The programmers try to avoid buggy programs, because they are useless, and can even be very harmful if allowed to run.

Be as it may, that does not invalidate my point: the constructor is responsible for the choices of his creation, if he could have withheld the freedom to act on its own volition and the act does not meet the constructor’s desire. He cannot push the responsibility away just by declaring that the act was beyond his specifications - especially if he knew in advance that such a malfunction WILL happen.

 

[fix]

Hitetlen:

The designer/constructor is God. The creation is “us”. God chose not to limit us by imposing on our “free will”. Therefore he has no right to complain if we chose to behave as he did not intend us to behave. He certainly has no right to punish us (especially not with eternal punishment). Since God is just, he takes responsibility for our actions outside the specification limits, therefore there can be no hell. Simple, eh?

It would seem free will means we are free to do what is good, not free to do what is bad. If we act badly, we are not excerising true freedom, but a type of license.

Free will does not mean capability of willing in the absence of all motive, or of arbitrarily choosing anything whatever. The rational being is always attracted by what is apprehended as good. Pure evil, misery as such, man could not desire. However, the good presents itself in many forms and under many aspects–the pleasant, the prudent, the right, the noble, the beautiful–and in reflective or deliberate action we can choose among these. The clear vision of God would necessarily preclude all volition at variance with this object, but in this world we never apprehend Infinite Good.newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm

 

[JPMaximilian]

fix:

It would seem free will means we are free to do what is good, not free to do what is bad. If we act badly, we are not excerising true freedom, but a type of license.

I think we are free to do bad (evil), even if we aren’t free to do purely evil. If we weren’t free to do evil then it wouldn’t be free will. It’s just that Humans are created to desire good, so when we do evil we do it as a shortcut to good. For example you might steal to get a lolly pop because you think that the lolly pop will make you happy.

After rereading your post, I think I understand what you’re saying. I think what is happening is you’re using “free” in two senses. One, in that we have free will, and two, freedom in the sense that we aren’t (name removed by moderator)risoned. These don’t have the same meanings. So, I think I agree with you, even though I think that to say “we aren’t free to do what is bad” is not the best way to say it. I’ll try to think of a way to articulate it, but I’m having trouble coming up with anything better.

 

[marty1818]

Hitetlen:

Therefore he has no right to complain if we chose to behave as he did not intend us to behave.

He doesn’t complain. He loves us and this being the case, He allows us to choose what we want to do. If we choose to serve Him then we will be with Him in Heaven. If we choose not to serve Him then we go to hell. In His love he wants what is best for us. That’s what love is: wanting the best for another person. When we don’t serve Him, God does not complain, but out of His love allows us to do what we will. He may be disappointed with our choices but God does not complain.

Hitetlen:

He certainly has no right to punish us (especially not with eternal punishment). Since God is just, he takes responsibility for our actions outside the specification limits, therefore there can be no hell. Simple, eh?

**As you already stated God is just. If God is just, then his punishments must also be just. It is not God who is responsible for any of our actions because they are choices we make through exercising our free will. Lastly, for those who do not serve God, they go to hell. If they willfully reject God, to be in heaven would go against their free will. That is why hell must exist. **

---

God Bless,
Matt

 

[Hitetlen]

fix:

It would seem free will means we are free to do what is good, not free to do what is bad. If we act badly, we are not excerising true freedom, but a type of license.

I am not sure that I understand you exactly. Free will simply means the choice among several alternatives (at least two), which are all physically possible to choose and there is no coercion involved.

Therefore in a world, where there are no “bad” alternatives, or no one desires the “bad” ones, there is free will. It seems to me that this is what you said. Maybe I am mistaken. Please enlighten me.

 

[Sugar_Ray]

Let’s remember also that though we have free will we are not on our own regarding decisions about our behavior.

We have the Church and scriptures to guide us between right and wrong.

And we have been blessed with a moral compass called our conscience which is informed by the Holy Spirit. The more we ask for God’s grace and guidance the stronger our conscinece is and the less likely we are to sin.

So if one rejects the truth of the Church and gospels and the guidance of the Holy Spirit that they feel in their conscience tugging at them to do the right things (including going to Church and reading those same gospels)…surely they are responsible for the result.

The result being a rejection of God and a decision to live apart from him. Which is exactly what they will do for eternity.

 

[frogman80]

Hitetlen:

No I have not forgotten it, though I cannot accept it.

Ok… but here is the problem. That “idea” that you cannot accept is what we Catholics believe.

You argument uses a definition of a “god” that we do not believe in. I can understand why you wouldn’t believe in that god… we don’t either.

 

[frogman80]

Hitetlen:

I am not sure that I understand you exactly. Free will simply means the choice among several alternatives (at least two), which are all physically possible to choose and there is no coercion involved.

Therefore in a world, where there are no “bad” alternatives, or no one desires the “bad” ones, there is free will. It seems to me that this is what you said. Maybe I am mistaken. Please enlighten me.

What rule do you (Hitetlen) define that which is good, and that which is bad? For us Catholics this boils down to “Choosing God”, “Not choosing God.” Again, I realize you don’t accept this, but you do have some basis for what you consider good and bad… what is this basis?

 

[RobNY]

Hitetlen:

Suppose you are an engineer, who designs cars, which do not require a driver. Among all the necessary tasks is that the car will protect its passengers from harm, as well as it can. Another specification is that the car would carry them to their destination as fast as possible.

These two requirements are at odds with each other. The faster the car tavels, the greater the chance of an accident. Therefore the constructor will have to give a limited amount of “free will” to his creation, allow it to choose between acceptable actions, but will try everything to disallow unacceptable ones (like straying off the road).

This limitation on “free will” is a desirable action. To give too much “freedom” is dangerous, it would allow the creation to perform outside its specification limits.

Theoretically there is another approach. The constructor may decide not to limit (physically) the speed the car may take, rather “tells” the car that it should not go “too fast”. The constructor thus gives a higher degree of “freedom” to his creation. This approach can be beneficial for those passengers who wish to reach their destination quickly, and can be harmful for those whose speed leads to an accident.

One thing is certain: if the constructor chooses the second method, he loses the right to complain if his creation behaves outside its specification limits. He could have limited his creation, but chose not to. Fine, it was his prerogative. But he certainly has no valid right to complain.

The designer/constructor is God. The creation is “us”. God chose not to limit us by imposing on our “free will”. Therefore he has no right to complain if we chose to behave as he did not intend us to behave. He certainly has no right to punish us (especially not with eternal punishment). Since God is just, he takes responsibility for our actions outside the specification limits, therefore there can be no hell. Simple, eh?

Freedom is not being allowed to do whatever the hell you wish. Freedom has to be understood as the freedom to do what is right. When you abuse freedom to do wrong it is no longer freedom but license.

God gives us all freedom. We should respond to that freedom with love, love in the radical example of the love of the Trinity, of the love of Christ on the cross. On the other hand, we can abuse that freedom, that radical freedom of ours and reject love. One cannot have the ability to freely choose to love if he cannot also freely choose to utterly reject that love.

What you are saying is that God can’t ‘complain’ if he doesn’t shackle us and prevent us from choosing as we will. This is manifestly nonsense.

The engineer still created the car with a purpose and with certain specifications. The car still needs to be used for that purpose and for those specifications, even if he doesn’t force us to conform, we still have the obligation to do so. You don’t use a wrench to cut down a tree.

Perhaps you would be right that God had no right to punish us… if He never made our purpose and specifications clear. To the contrary, Catholics hold that man can discover natural law, and must follow it. And furthermore, that God revealed himself by special Revelation to man, and that man’s purpose and specifications are detailed in there too. If God created us for a purpose and gave us neither the reason nor the knowledge to apply ourselves to the purpose, then yes, I would agree. But since God gave us the knowledge of our purpose, the reason to discern whether what we are doing is in accord with it, I can’t agree.

You seem to forget that mortal sin presupposes *knowledge *and deliberate consent.

In any case, I’d prefer if you didn’t characterize God as ‘complaining.’ Never does God, ‘complain.’ If you can find any justifications for that within our Scripture or Tradition, then I’ll gladly cede you the point.

A father gives his 10 years old son a loaded gun. He tells the kid not to shoot his little sister. The kid pulls the trigger, the sister dies. The father is arrested and at the trial his defense is simple: “I did not want to limit my son’s free will. I told him not to pull the trigger.” What is the verdict? Will any jury accept such a defense?

When did God give us the gun? To the contrary, all God does is to give us our body. Your example should be more like this: A Father gives his 10 year old son life. The ten year old son kills his little sister. The son chose wrongly to kill his sister, but God didn’t provide the ‘loaded gun,’ unless you think that the human body as it is naturally is a ‘loaded gun.’ But by that point your construction has gone beyond absurd.

 

[Flopfoot]

Not you again Hitetlen! I should stop reading your threads, they make me think too much. But, I’ve read it now, so maybe I’ll try forming a response, see if that helps. Ohterwise, you might recieve the dubious ‘honor’ of being the first person to go on my ignore list.

Ok, so basically to translate your analogy - this following paragraph is according to you. God makes people and He has 2 ‘requirements’ for them - that they love (ie, getting to destination as fast as possible) and that they don’t sin (ie, not harming passengers). God could have given people a limited amount of choices so that they will never sin much, but will still be able to love in various degrees. Or, God can do what He did do, which is to give people unlimited free will, meaning that they might be able to love in huge amounts (get to dest really fast), but also have unlimited freedom to sin - and the only thing that is stopping them is that He told them not to sin. If they do sin, then God can’t really complain because He could have made them in the first way if He didn’t want them to sin.

Ok, first thing, to translate what some people here have been saying into your analogy. That free will at highest level is choosing or rejecting God. Basically, this engineer has a 3rd design feature that is important to him - not only does he want the car to be safe and fast, but he wants the car to choose to obey him (this is different to just wanting the car to obey him). In the first way of designing the car, the car has limited choices and can’t really choose to be unsafe. Therefore the car is not really choosing to obey the engineer if it does drive safely - it is just doing the only thing it can do.

Basically (IMHO) God is not just concerned with what his creatures do, but in a way He is concerned with their will - why they do it, sort of. Animals all act out of instinct and can’t actually ‘sin’, hence they can’t offend God, But it doesn’t give any glory to God for an animal to act out of instinct, because that’s just the way it was made. If humans acted out of instinct or even limited free will, it wouldn’t give any glory to God that they choose not to sin, since there are no choices to sin. God wants humans to do good because they love, which is an act of the will - not just do good because that’s how they were programmed.

Another thing is that all humans are unique and different - this is the way God wanted to make us. So lets say this engineer is making all his cars unique. Then some of them are small enough to fit through little alleyways which might help to save time. So a move that is safe for them is not safe for other cars sucdh as wider ones. This means, if the engineer was making the cars in the first way, then he would need to program them all differently - limit them all in different ways. I suppose God could do this - at the moment of conception of each human, it is given it’s individual programming so that however it looks and whatever situation it is in, it can’t sin… but there are various problems with this. It doesn’t fit God’s plan of what a human should be. Then what counts as love for one human is not love for another since it can’t make that choice. So what is love? Also, what happens to human dignity, if my will is much more limited than yours, doesn’t that make you more of a human?

God wanted to make man in His own image. How can a creature be in communion with God if it is not in some way like God? If man had limited free will then he would be like an animal. Animals can’t talk to God. They don’t go to heaven or hell, because they can’t make any decisions. You know? Man is not a car. If I was an engineer making driverless cars then I wouldn’t give them the free will to crash. But God making humans is a different matter.

 

[marty1818]

Hitetlen:

A father gives his 10 years old son a loaded gun. He tells the kid not to shoot his little sister. The kid pulls the trigger, the sister dies. The father is arrested and at the trial his defense is simple: “I did not want to limit my son’s free will. I told him not to pull the trigger.” What is the verdict? Will any jury accept such a defense?

One can argue that the 10 year old son had not yet developed reason. If one cannot reason, one cannot excercise free will. If this is the case, the responsibility for the action would be the father, since he does have reason.

God Bless,
Matt

 

[frogman80]

marty1818:

One can argue that the 10 year old son had not yet developed reason. If one cannot reason, one cannot excercise free will. If this is the case, the responsibility for the action would be the father, since he does have reason.

God Bless,
Matt

You have misunderstanding of “age of reason.”

For starters, please read here: newadvent.org/cathen/01209a.htm

 

[marty1818]

frogman80:

You have misunderstanding of “age of reason.”

For starters, please read here: newadvent.org/cathen/01209a.htm

Can you explain what I am misunderstanding? Thanks.

Matt

 

[Hitetlen]

***He doesn’t complain. He loves us and this being the case, He allows us to choose what we want to do. If we choose to serve Him then we will be with Him in Heaven. If we choose not to serve Him then we go to hell. In His love he wants what is best for us. That’s what love is: wanting the best for another person. When we don’t serve Him, God does not complain, but out of His love allows us to do what we will. He may be disappointed with our choices but God does not complain.***I wish you would not have taken the word “complain” in literal sense. He is not supposed to be “disappointed” either, disappointment comes from unfulfilled expectations, and if God already knows the outcome, he is unable to have “expectations”. The word “complain” means that God is dissatisfied with the result. He has no right to be dissatisfied, because whatever happened, happened according to his will. If he still does not like it, he has only himself to blame.

marty1818:
***As you already stated God is just. If God is just, then his punishments must also be just.***How do you define “just”? If your definition is “whatever God wills”, that is an incorrect definition. “Just” means that the punishment is commensurate to the deed. A finite “crime” can never be punished by an infinite punishment and still be called “just”.

marty1818:
***It is not God who is responsible for any of our actions because they are choices we make through exercising our free will. ***No, he could have denied free will, or could have restricted it, so we would be able to make selections, choices (meaningful ones) but not choices he does not want us to make. In a very good sense, true “free will” is more of a burden than a gift - but only if undesirable decisions are punished.

marty1818:
Lastly, for those who do not serve God, they go to hell. If they willfully reject God, to be in heaven would go against their free will. That is why hell must exist.

God Bless,
MattNo ones wishes to be tortured forever. If “hell” would mean whatever the person enjoys most - outside God’s presence, it would be an acceptable doctrine. But hell is for punishment, plain and simple, for deeds that God could foresee, could have prevented and still allowed to happen.

I have seen someone stating that hell is the manifestation of God’s love and mercy: he “allows” us to be free of him, if we so desire. Never in my life have I seen such a perverted rationalization. Why not say it with the Bible: God is jealous, vengeful, angry? At least it would be intellectually honest.

 

[fix]

JPMaximilian:

I think we are free to do bad (evil), even if we aren’t free to do purely evil. If we weren’t free to do evil then it wouldn’t be free will. It’s just that Humans are created to desire good, so when we do evil we do it as a shortcut to good. For example you might steal to get a lolly pop because you think that the lolly pop will make you happy.

After rereading your post, I think I understand what you’re saying. I think what is happening is you’re using “free” in two senses. One, in that we have free will, and two, freedom in the sense that we aren’t (name removed by moderator)risoned. These don’t have the same meanings. So, I think I agree with you, even though I think that to say “we aren’t free to do what is bad” is not the best way to say it. I’ll try to think of a way to articulate it, but I’m having trouble coming up with anything better.

Please see post #14 as that expresses it much better than I did.