The Free Will Problem

[OTavern]

What can I use as evidence? The Bible? Useless old script of uneducated, superstitious people. Filled with scientific nonsense and glaring errors.

That quote in itself belies something of the modern scientific ego.

Other people’s testimony? Why should I accept someone else’s testimony if it makes no sense? There is not one iota of objective evidence for any kind of deity. Much as I would like to have one, I must dismiss this hypothesis as nothing more than wishful thinking. It is too bad… but I must go by the evidence - or the lack of it. Just because I very much would love to be proven incorrect, I cannot assume it. That would be a violation of the “intelligence” allegedly God gave me. Would God be “pleased” if I squandered his gift to me?

I apologize for the long post in advance.

Keep in mind there are millions of species of animals on Earth that we have no idea exist because they remain “hidden” to our clumsy “methods” to get to know them.

I recently watched a “Nature” program on the jungle frontier where scientists sought after “elusive” species of animals, most of which were not believed to exist because there was no “evidence” for their existence, just conjecture.

Charles Darwin, for example, speculated that a giant moth with a 30 cm long proboscis must exist because a flower called the Comet orchid grows in Madagascar with a 30 cm long nectar cone. They ridiculed Darwin for positing such a creature. No one believed such a moth existed until a scientist “believed” in the possibility. Using infra-red cameras at night, the guy was able to capture on film this moth that there was no substantial evidence for, let alone proof that it even existed.

It seems to me that “first cause” arguments for God’s existence or the question of what preceded the Big Bang are at least as valid “speculations” as the existence of a comet orchid to warrant scientific pursuit of a bizarre moth. Most important “scientific” discoveries begin with speculation.

Therefore, to engage in a proper scientific study of God, one should at least develop appropriate procedures - I suspect finding God is not going to happen by aiming some crude detection instrument in the general direction of His last known sighting. Nor by standing out in a field at night calling His name, “Here, God!”

Learning about Him is not like the study of “rocks” or some other inorganic substance. Neither would it be like tracking a higher order species of animal like the elusive Sumatran tiger that had not until recently been “proven” to exist.

We are speaking of a “creature” (metaphorically that is) that would know every one of your motives and moves before you made them. Think of an Infinitely Intelligent Animal with incredible camouflage techniques – you don’t have a hope of spotting Him unless He wants you to. He could blend in to walls and walk in your shadow and even live inside you without you having the least suspicion of His presence, unless He wanted you to. Knowing that much should make a big difference regarding the preparations you make for “finding” Him.

There are certain guidelines for studying rocks that are very different than for studying lower or higher order species of plants or animals. At least, be aware of the characteristics of the “object” of your study and develop appropriate procedures as to how to go about trying to “study” Him.

I suggest as a second step getting rid of all ulterior motives and pretence because God is not an “object” but a subject. If you want to know Him, at least understand that much.

If you are just humouring yourself with a feigned interest in knowing Him, He’s way ahead of you and that will likely prove to be the reason for your disbelief. He hasn’t given you the slightest hint of where to find Him precisely because He knows you’re not “really” interested in knowing Him. He knows you, your thoughts and your motives better than you know them yourself. How can you hope to outsmart or out-track him? I think the recommendation is to “purify your heart” and be “guileless as a dove.” Only then will he mystically “appear” in the precise place you would swear had been carefully “checked out.”

The “useless old scripts” you speak of are filled with techniques of how to find God, thousands of years of human knowledge on how to go about “capturing” Him. Seek Him with a pure heart and don’t give up in time of trial are two of the most “critical” tips.

Incidentally, these jungle scientists in the program spent years tracking their quarry through all kinds of terrain and trial before even getting the slightest whiff of these animals. Their perseverance eventually paid off, but it wasn’t accomplished by slash and burn, insult and ridicule. The higher order animals had to “trust” their presence.

A point on how little “science” knows about what goes on even in the sensory obvious world we occupy, one scientist claimed there are more species of animals in a single tree in the central American rainforests than exist in all of Great Britain and something in the order of 10 times the number of animal species there than we thought lived on the entire Earth.

We have very little scientific knowledge about animals in our own backyard, many that we have no idea “exist” at all and you think the Omniscient, Omnipotent Infinite Being will simply appear to you whenever you demand because you taunt and ridicule Him? Or when you so harshly criticize His literary works? This is not a fast-food universe, as much as you want it to be.

 

[ateista]

That quote in itself belies something of the modern scientific ego.

Yes, it does. Mind you, this kind of scientific approach is responsible for all the achievements we reached in the last hundred years. Because of this approach we have now time to spend on such discussions. This is why the “good old times are today”. So do not dismiss it out of hand. It has its uses.

I apologize for the long post in advance.

No need. It is a well thought-out post, and it was a logically presented. I wish you would have included the answer to my first question. You said before that I might have received answers, they were just something I did not like, so I disregarded them.

So that is why I was asking: “what kind of criteria could one use to recognize an answer”. I try to be intellectually honest and accept a negative answer, if I am able to recognize that I just received one. But that is precisely the missing part.

Now, I will not quote all parts of your post, but I will answer the points you brought up.

Step number 1: start with a hypothesis or speculation. You are right, that is the first step. I did not dismiss the concept of a god (or the Christian God) out of hand. I have been asking for the hypothesis itself, and received a lot of mutually inconsistent answers. So I am not even sure exactly what should I consider a valid hypothesis.

True, it is a good scientific method to set up a hyothesis and search for evidence, for verification. What do we do, when we don’t find it? Disregard the opposing evidence? Not a good method, is it? Manufacture the evidence? Even worse. Explain away the lack of evidence? Dishonest.

So, let’s consider the only attribute which is meaningful, and on which all the advocates agree: “God is love”. Love is a wonderful thing, if and only if it manifests itself in actions. So let me ask you: “Where is the beef?” Where is the sign of this love? Show me the evidence of God’s love - here and now. I am listening.

If you are just humouring yourself with a feigned interest in knowing Him, He’s way ahead of you and that will likely prove to be the reason for your disbelief. He hasn’t given you the slightest hint of where to find Him precisely because He knows you’re not “really” interested in knowing Him.

That sounds pretty ominous. What else can I go by than what I know about myself? It is true that my interest is purely intellectual, but that is at least honest…

It is pretty funny that the first “excuse” is that God already gave me an answer, but I did not “like” it. The second “excuse” is that my interest is “feigned”. The third is that I did not ask “long enough”. Do you realize that these arguments sound hollow?

We have very little scientific knowledge about animals in our own backyard, many that we have no idea “exist” at all and you think the Omniscient, Omnipotent Infinite Being will simply appear to you whenever you demand because you taunt and ridicule Him? Or when you so harshly criticize His literary works? This is not a fast-food universe, as much as you want it to be.

Why not? Didn’t Jesus promise that whatever we ask in his name, will be fulfilled? Didn’t he appear to Thomas so he can touch his wounds and be convinced? Why can’t I ask for a chance of verification? It is not without precedent - if you believe the Bible… do you believe that Jesus did it?

Do you believe that Jesus loves us equally, and helps us to overcome our doubts? Why not give us an equal chance to touch his wounds? Do you really think that I am unreasonable to ask for what Jesus promised?

 

[davidv]

So, let’s consider the only attribute which is meaningful, and on which all the advocates agree: “God is love”. Love is a wonderful thing, if and only if it manifests itself in actions. So let me ask you: “Where is the beef?” Where is the sign of this love? Show me the evidence of God’s love - here and now. I am listening.

I believe this evidence has been offfered before, but here it is.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

How is this evidence of God’s love lacking?

 

[ateista]

I believe this evidence has been offfered before, but here it is.

How is this evidence of God’s love lacking?

My dear friend, I asked for evidence here and now. Mere promises cannot be verified.

Note: tomorrow I will leave for a week long vacation, without access to a computer. Please excuse my lack of responses during that time.

If you wish to address my last paragraph, I will be interested in you opinion.

 

[rc8]

Ateista,

I’ve been reading most of your posts. You bring up good questions—questions that most of us have asked ourselves before. I think you’re trying to get an answer to something that is way beyond our understanding. Most of us in the Church believe that there is free will because of our daily experience of it and we believe in an omnipotent God based on the faith and teaching of our Church. It is one of many seeming contradictions in our faith (Ex: you must die to live, you must give to receive, the first shall be last, etc).

What I wonder is how someone who is an atheist or agnostic gets out of bed in the morning. What purpose is there in studying science if there is no God? What purpose is there in trying to progress our understanding of the physical or spiritual world if there is no God? In the end, if this is all there is, it doesn’t really matter, does it? The real mystery isn’t how an omnipotent God can allow free will. Rather, it is what makes an atheist or agnostic want to accomplish anything in this life.

 

[davidv]

Why not? Didn’t Jesus promise that whatever we ask in his name, will be fulfilled? Didn’t he appear to Thomas so he can touch his wounds and be convinced?

Because He already did that. He came into the world, was ridiculed, humilited and crucified for crimes He was completely innocent of.

Your apparent lack of answers is addressed in James

What causes wars, and what causes fightings among you? Is it not your passions that are at war in your members?
[2] You desire and do not have; so you kill. And you covet and cannot obtain; so you fight and wage war. You do not have, because you do not ask.
[3] You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions.
[4] Unfaithful creatures! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

Thomas demanded a sign, yet Jesus says:

“Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”

Suggesting the blessing are also available to those who accept the testimony of others.

Why can’t I ask for a chance of verification? It is not without precedent - if you believe the Bible… do you believe that Jesus did it?

You can, and do, have that chance. However, since we are not yet permitted to have time machines, you must do it with the eyes of your heart.

I’m not sure what the “it” is in the last sentence.

 

[Sarpedon]

Just because I very much would love to be proven incorrect, I cannot assume it. That would be a violation of the “intelligence” allegedly God gave me. Would God be “pleased” if I squandered his gift to me?

This is not true. Faith is an act of the will, and you can choose to follow God even if you do not yet understand everything. People can be mistaken and misled by faulty reason. God knows this, and allows acts of pure will to be sufficient for faith. Atheism for many people is basicly pride, for they decide to trust in themselves and their own reasoning capabilities rather than God.

This doesn’t mean that reason is worthless. God gave us this gift, and expects us to use it. However, we need to always remember that we are fallible.

 

[OTavern]

I wish you would have included the answer to my first question. You said before that I might have received answers, they were just something I did not like, so I disregarded them.

So that is why I was asking: “what kind of criteria could one use to recognize an answer”. I try to be intellectually honest and accept a negative answer, if I am able to recognize that I just received one. But that is precisely the missing part.

Why not? Didn’t Jesus promise that whatever we ask in his name, will be fulfilled? Didn’t he appear to Thomas so he can touch his wounds and be convinced? Why can’t I ask for a chance of verification? It is not without precedent - if you believe the Bible… do you believe that Jesus did it?

Do you believe that Jesus loves us equally, and helps us to overcome our doubts? Why not give us an equal chance to touch his wounds? Do you really think that I am unreasonable to ask for what Jesus promised?

Perhaps the “missing part” and Thomas touching Jesus’ wounds are related to each other. His wound was the “missing” part of His body that Thomas touched. Perhaps the missing part you are looking for is the “negative” or “hole” in your understanding. “Touching” this wound in your own understanding is exactly what you need to do.

Perhaps recognition of blindness is the starting point. You can only see what you need when you recognize what is missing. For me this simply means complete honesty, complete self-revelation, overcoming self-deception and a deep awareness of my own incapacity, not playing at humility but honestly assessing what and who I am. I have struggled for a number of years trying to “prove” myself to myself but now I am slowly just accepting that I don’t know, I don’t have answers and am perfectly content not having to “know” I just need to live in trust that what I need will be there when I need it. These just seem to come “in their own time.” Not the entire answer or need fulfilled, just the parts required at that moment to move on to the next step in the journey.

Beyond that, I do not think there is one answer for everybody because each person is on their own path. Most of my own growing has been facing life changing issues on my own. There is nothing more revealing of “self” than finding your limits in the face of a challenge. The closer I come to God, the better I understand myself, but if I am busy “defending” myself, I am too self-absorbed and protective to “get outside” of myself.

Pardon my ramblings but I do believe the “interior” world is just as interesting and explorable as the outside, sensory one, only that the contents are less visual and more “intuitive,” but truth and simplicity (purity of heart) are critical guides.

I did not mean to say you disregarded the answers, only that that may have been why it seemed you didn’t get the answer you sought. You alone can assess your own thoughts.

 

[Sarpedon]

Potential existence is the same as nonexistence. An empty notebook is just that, an empty notebook. It could be a potential diary, or a potential ledger, or a potential short story, a potential fuel for fire or even a potential toilet paper.

God has given you the ability to bring those essences you mentioned from potentiality to actuality. If you use it as a diary, you bring that essence into existence. If you use it as a notebook or ledger, you bring those essences into existence. If you use it for fuel or TP, you are using the same essence for different ends.

“Essence” is the set of defining attributes. Without attributes there are no defining attributes - therefore no essense. Without existence there are no attributes.

Beings of the corporeal world recieve their essence primarily from their “substantial forms” (see CE). I think in a general sense we can describe part of this as the normative physical form of something. I think you may actually be right in your statement, although I’m not really qualified to express the Church’s position.

Imagine a dodo bird. It no longer exists. However, we can still say that it was a bird. This could be considered its essence. We cannot say that it was a large fish, for this is not true. Even though it does not exist anymore, we can still know its essence. God exists outside of time, and can be thought of as being in an eternal present. Therfore, “the dodo was a bird” becomes “the dodo is a bird”. God can know these essences regardless of whether we know them in our time system (we can often know the past, but rarely the future with any degree of confidence). Even though we cannot normally know what the future will be, God knows what the future is due to the same principal.

 

[justinthemartyr]

This is not true. Faith is an act of the will, and you can choose to follow God even if you do not yet understand everything. People can be mistaken and misled by faulty reason. God knows this, and allows acts of pure will to be sufficient for faith. Atheism for many people is basicly pride, for they decide to trust in themselves and their own reasoning capabilities rather than God.

This doesn’t mean that reason is worthless. God gave us this gift, and expects us to use it. However, we need to always remember that we are fallible.

True, just as you can have faith in a car even though you do not know how it works or what is behind every aspect of how it works, it just does, in spite of your inability to know how it does.

There is no love in control. God gives us free will, with no control over us. Free consent to let Him guide us may be a better way of saying no control.

 

[Sarpedon]

.

I also agree with the first line from the Catholic Encyclopedia: “Essence, however, is properly described as that whereby a thing is what it is.” Perfectly good theoretical definition, though again useless in practice.

Let’s look at it in a short and purely formal manner: “Essence is what it is”. You can see that it contains, presupposes the concept that “it is”. The definition does not say that “Essence is what it would be, if it existed”.

Therefore even the Encyclopedia implicitely “admits” that essence presupposes existence, though it then denies it in the second sentence.

First off, the first line in the article says that “Since they are transcendentals, it is not possible to put forward a strict definition of either of the subjects of the present article.”

The full phrase is “that whereby a thing is what it is”. You are correct in saying that “what it is” presupposed existence. However, the statement contains two verbs. This means that the first “is” refers to how that something is the second “is”. Since the second requires existence, I would view it as being how something is actualized into existence. Existence at some point may well be necessary for essence to exist, although I’m not sure on this point. An essence can only be actualized in a specific way (the dodo can only be a bird, for anything else would not be a dodo). Thus, essence is “whereby” something is made into actuality. This one thing can only go through this process one way, so we call the thing essence regardless of whether it has gone through the process or not.

I see another major problem with “essence”. It is a subjective assessment. For me the “essence” of being a human is to have a working brain. I would surmise that for you the essence of a human is to have an immortal soul. We work off of two axiomatic systems, therefore we cannot agree just what the “essence” of a human is.

Essence is objective. Either I am right in my definition, or you are. We may have difficulty determining the objective essence, but this does not mean that the essence is not objective.

It works the same way with existence. A mentally disabled person could argue with you that humans do not exist. You disagree, and due to the objective nature of existence one of you is right. Its the same here, although essence is not as easily found as existence.

I am basing most of my arguments in this debate on my limited understanding of Church teaching and my own logic, so do not take anything I say as official church teaching without verifiying it.

I hope you have a nice vacation.

 

[Harmony1988]

The point of problem is the word “to know” something. It means to have information about something. It is nonsensical to say that one can have information about something that does not exist.

The “present” exists - therefore it is knowable. That “past” existed - so it was knowable, and if one has perfect memory, we can sensibly say that the past is still knowable. The “future”, however, does not exist - in any sense of the word.

So to say that the future is “knowable” is only sensible if the future is fully deterministic. To say that God knows what we shall do in the future implictly assumes that our actions are predetermined - or that the future already “exists” - and that is nonsensical.

You ignore an important definition. The defintion of God at least in the Christian sense is a being with infinite power and knowledge. The definition of God doesn’t include the aspect of humans being able to fathom infinite workings or not.

You are also working in a plane of logic that is affected by the concept of time, whether you like it or not, you are currently bound by the laws of physics. God isn’t. You are also considering God’s mind (if it can be said that) as that of a human’s. You argument holds in the case of another human being knowing a human’s actions beforehand which would imply it was predetermined.

Hence your argument is wrong because you implicitly assume that God and man are the same, whereas Catholicism has never defined it that way.

 

[Swan]

This is not true. Faith is an act of the will, and you can choose to follow God even if you do not yet understand everything. People can be mistaken and misled by faulty reason. God knows this, and allows acts of pure will to be sufficient for faith. Atheism for many people is basicly pride, for they decide to trust in themselves and their own reasoning capabilities rather than God.

This doesn’t mean that reason is worthless. God gave us this gift, and expects us to use it. However, we need to always remember that we are fallible.

Playing devil’s advocate, I might suggest that relgion (any of them) is what is truly based on pride for the simple reason that the adherants gerneally claim to have a corner on the truth market. They have ALL the right answers, even to the questions that seem to have no answers. In other words, the claim to know the unknowable and to possess the only truth. How is this not pride? Again, I’m not saying I believe this (though some adherants to various religions do indeed have this attitude).

 

[Swan]

Sorry, sorry,sorry about the typos. I don’t use my laptop that often and the touch and reach are so different from my desktop that I seem to inevitably maker errors.

 

[Swan]

True, just as you can have faith in a car even though you do not know how it works or what is behind every aspect of how it works, it just does, in spite of your inability to know how it does.

There is no love in control. God gives us free will, with no control over us. Free consent to let Him guide us may be a better way of saying no control.

Two quick obervations: 1) auto mechanics are based on tested scientific theories. You might not know how a car works, but the folks who built it do. It is precise and definable. Cars do not operate on faith (though I’ve had a few that might have).

1. Though I am a Christian I’m a follower of the loving God, not the fire and brimstone one for the simple reason that I don’t find “do as I say or burn in hell” to be much of a choice. It’s kind of like a guy putting a gun to your head and ordering you to drive. You have a choice, sort of.

Also, I’ve always heard that faith is a gift. What if you don’t have that gift? Just asking, no offense meant.

 

[Sarpedon]

Playing devil’s advocate, I might suggest that relgion (any of them) is what is truly based on pride for the simple reason that the adherants gerneally claim to have a corner on the truth market. They have ALL the right answers, even to the questions that seem to have no answers. In other words, the claim to know the unknowable and to possess the only truth. How is this not pride? Again, I’m not saying I believe this (though some adherants to various religions do indeed have this attitude).

The problem with this view is that it treats religion as something created by humans. Catholics believe that the Church is created and guided by God, and posesses the fullness of truth. Objectively speaking, this is not pride because it is simply the way God has chosen to provide assurance of truth to us. We have no say in the matter. Granted, individual people can take a prideful attitude toward this reality, which is sinful.

Catholics believe that other religions have varying degrees of truth mixed with falsehood, but only the Catholic Church has the infallible fullness of truth. The reason God has created the church this way is that He wants to give us an assurance of truth. If each church mixed truth with falsehood in different ways, we would have no way of arriving at truth. All we could do is guess and hope. Fortunately, God did not make us do this.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

As usual, the analogy has good and bad points. The observer can see more, but cannot see everything.

He cannot know in advance that the soldiers will (possibly) take a sudden turn and march into the forest - unless (and this is an important unless) - he is the general who ordered the whole exercise and commanded (preordained) that they do take a turn at the specified mile-marker - thus overriding the soldiers “free will” - of which they have precious little, anyway. .

All analogies limp - they can’t avoid doing so, because nothing created can be compared to God.​

To supplement the weaknesses you mention, further comparisons are needed. This is where mythological ways of speaking say some of what needs to be said better than abstract ratiocination. The perfect analogy would be (perhaps) God Himself: & would be as fully human as we are, as we are not disembodied minds, but human beings. This is why Jesus Christ is a far better model for God than a book or a concept.

Which won’t - I’m afraid - be much use to you.

The problem is that we are thinking about God, which is useless; as God cannot be made known by anything we are able to do. The Infinite God cannot be known as God by any created means - including reason (which is all but worthless anyway; compared to faith, it is blackest darkness), whereas God is Uncreated Light, & more than Uncreated Light, Who does far more than know.

As for the freedom of creatures - there is a paradox: we become truly free only by being slaves of God. Paradox is part & parcel of faith in Christ. God is the God made known in Jesus Christ: not a Divine Blob in the middle distance God is of a decided character, a moral character - & is nothing as anonymous as Being.

Arguments for the existence of a Divine Being give one no more than a robot “Deity” stuck together from our concepts about God: so arguments are useless for showing us the Living God, Who is the Only God. That’s because God - the real God - is Holy: IOW, totally “Other” than creatures. Our arguments are not living: they’re static & lifeless; so no wonder they are useless. So we cannot argue up to Him - He must come down to us. So we* can* be related to God, but by His act. He can by known, but not by being known - only by being loved.

 

[Sarpedon]

Gottle of Geer,

Are you claiming that your thoughts represent the Catholic faith? My understanding of the doctrine is that we can come to know God (to some extent, at least) through reason, and that reason is not worthless.

 

[gdibella]

Hi (this is my first post)–
I’ve been following with some interest this discussion, & decided to post as a nearly exact discussion arose in one of my theology classes. Sorry in advance for the length.
First, near the OP, the following post is made:
“To say that God knows what we shall do in the future implictly assumes that our actions are predetermined - or that the future already “exists” - and that is nonsensical.”
To elaborate on what Harmony1988 has said: Essentially,
the dilemma set up is a false one. By “God” (the term), we intend a being who is outside time. The consequence of this is that the future already exists for God. Perhaps nonsensical in the sense that humans with no knowledge of the future cannot know the future before it exists, but this is an entirely different matter from God’s ability as a being outside time to already comprehend the future. So the future is contingent upon our actions, but God’s providence (literally “pro-videntia”, foresight) is that he knows which actions we will take. Maybe the objection is to a being who exists outside time, but certainly not that such a being would know the future.

I am not sure to which “last paragraph” ateista is referring, but for evidence that God loves us:
If there is a being with no defects, (immutable, perfect) he would have perfect love for his created rational beings, us. Aquinas has already proved God’s love (not to diminish faith in any way) in clearer terms than I could:
newadvent.org/summa/1020.htm
For anything unclear/confusing, post here (directed primarily at ateista, but also all interested parties).
–Greg

 

[ateista]

What I wonder is how someone who is an atheist or agnostic gets out of bed in the morning. What purpose is there in studying science if there is no God? What purpose is there in trying to progress our understanding of the physical or spiritual world if there is no God? In the end, if this is all there is, it doesn’t really matter, does it? The real mystery isn’t how an omnipotent God can allow free will. Rather, it is what makes an atheist or agnostic want to accomplish anything in this life.

Please tell me that you are just joking…

But if you are serious, here is a short answer: To me it matters if I am hungry, it matters if I am sick, it matters if I am sad. Precisely because this is the only life I have.

It would make much more sense if I asked the same question from you: since for the believers this life is should be merely an “inconveniece”, to get it over with, and get to heaven as quickly as possible why do you care if you are healthy or sick? Why do you go to a dentist to alleviate your aching tooth? Shouldn’t you welcome the pain to remind you of the suffering of Jesus?