What about that "free will"?

[Vera_Ljuba]

There are many people who assert that the “gift” of free will is the reason of suffering. They invariably ask, if I would prefer to be converted into a “happy little robot”, or prefer the world as it is today, with all the suffering.

This is a false dichotomy. Free will is not a “binary variable”, which either exists or does not. Our free will (and the ability to act on it) only allows some limited actions - even today. Besides, why limit the free will of the saints-to-be? Why not take away only the freedom of the rapists-to-be? God is obviously able to draw a line, and say: “person A” can have all the freedom, because he will not abuse it, while “person B” will have only a very limited freedom (choose between chocolate and vanilla ice-cream), because he would abuse if he were given too much freedom.

And it leads to the following problems:

Will there be “free will” in heaven? Does “free will” include the ability to sin? Shall we be “free” to sin (in heaven)?

 

[fhansen]

There are many people who assert that the “gift” of free will is the reason of suffering. They invariably ask, if I would prefer to be converted into a “happy little robot”, or prefer the world as it is today, with all the suffering.

This is a false dichotomy. Free will is not a “binary variable”, which either exists or does not. Our free will (and the ability to act on it) only allows some limited actions - even today. Besides, why limit the free will of the saints-to-be? Why not take away only the freedom of the rapists-to-be? God is obviously able to draw a line, and say: “person A” can have all the freedom, because he will not abuse it, while “person B” will have only a very limited freedom (choose between chocolate and vanilla ice-cream), because he would abuse if he were given too much freedom.

And it leads to the following problems:

Will there be “free will” in heaven? Does “free will” include the ability to sin? Shall we be “free” to sin (in heaven)?

We will be free to sin in heaven-we just won’t *want *to because our wills will be totally, freely, aligned with God’s by then-due to an uncompromising recognition of His wisdom and goodness as a result of directly experiencing it. By then we’ll have given up thinking we can find greater happiness apart from subjugation to and communion with God. In fact we’ll know such extreme happiness that all desire will be fulfilled.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

We will be free to sin in heaven-we just won’t *want *to because our wills will be totally, freely, aligned with God’s by then-due to an uncompromising recognition of His wisdom and goodness as a result of directly experiencing it. By then we’ll have given up thinking we can find greater happiness apart from subjugation to and communion with God. In fact we’ll know such extreme happiness that all desire will be fulfilled.

Interesting. But I don’t see how this idea can be reconciled with God being in contact with the first couple. How could they not recognize God’s wisdom and goodness, when they had actual contact with God?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

There are many people who assert that the “gift” of free will is the reason of suffering. They invariably ask, if I would prefer to be converted into a “happy little robot”, or prefer the world as it is today, with all the suffering.

This is a false dichotomy. Free will is not a “binary variable”, which either exists or does not. Our free will (and the ability to act on it) only allows some limited actions - even today. Besides, why limit the free will of the saints-to-be? Why not take away only the freedom of the rapists-to-be? God is obviously able to draw a line, and say: “person A” can have all the freedom, because he will not abuse it, while “person B” will have only a very limited freedom (choose between chocolate and vanilla ice-cream), because he would abuse if he were given too much freedom.

And it leads to the following problems:

Will there be “free will” in heaven? Does “free will” include the ability to sin? Shall we be “free” to sin (in heaven)?

I suppose God could do it the way that you mentioned, but then I question what is the point of morality without free-will. Morality only makes sense if we are responsible for our actions. Either way, I see no wrong on God’s part unless you consider it bad for God to allow these acts to happen.

 

[fhansen]

Interesting. But I don’t see how this idea can be reconciled with God being in contact with the first couple. How could they not recognize God’s wisdom and goodness, when they had actual contact with God?

The Catholic concept is that they didn’t know God immediately, the way they were destined to had they obeyed, and the way humanity’s destined to as we turn “back” to Him so to speak, even as they knew Him better in Eden than we do at birth. Anyway, they forfeited whatever knowledge they had as they rejected Him as their God, for all practical purposes. We’re here to learn how and why to reverse that choice. We must orient ourselves towards justice and goodness, hungering and thirsting for it; we must begin to align our wills with God’s. Again, that’s what we’re here to do, to come to see the wisdom and goodness and love lying at the foundations of this universe, and ultimately choose that over anything less. Adam & Eve presumably didn’t yet appreciate what they had so as to orient themselves that way, to begin on that journey. In the end its a *matter *of the will, informed by truth, which they apparently lacked the wisdom to heed at the time.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I suppose God could do it the way that you mentioned, but then I question what is the point of morality without free-will. Morality only makes sense if we are responsible for our actions.

What is the point of this “morality”? Isn’t being in heaven not the best thing since sliced bread?

Either way, I see no wrong on God’s part unless you consider it bad for God to allow these acts to happen.

I consider it bad. If you love someone, you do not trick them into making a lethal error. And you definitely do not curse the innocent bystanders for the error of someone else.

The Catholic concept is that they didn’t know God immediately, the way they were destined to had they obeyed, and the way humanity’s destined to as we turn “back” to Him so to speak, even as they knew Him better in Eden than we do at birth.

The way I parse this is that God withheld the “beatific vision” on purpose, so that A&E could and would commit that unspecified disobedience, so that God could evoke his righteous anger and curse them along with the whole creation… Hmmm. How “loving”. The way I imagine “love” would be immediately immerse A&E in the beatific vision, so they would not want to commit “sin”.

But anyhow. The idea that the pain and suffering in this world can be blamed on free will is now demolished. The pain and suffering is the direct result of God’s curse. Another sign of “love” I suppose.

 

[fhansen]

The way I parse this is that God withheld the “beatific vision” on purpose, so that A&E could and would commit that unspecified disobedience, so that God could evoke his righteous anger and curse them along with the whole creation… Hmmm. How “loving”. The way I imagine “love” would be immediately immerse A&E in the beatific vision, so they would not want to commit “sin”.

But anyhow. The idea that the pain and suffering in this world can be blamed on free will is now demolished. The pain and suffering is the direct result of God’s curse. Another sign of “love” I suppose.

We have to understand that to disobey God is to disobey Reality/Truth. It’s no different from disobeying the law of gravity. If we step off a cliff there are natural negative consequences. For a human being to act anomalously, to sin, is to be out of sync with the rest of the universe, to be awkwardly unnatural, even as we may prefer the right to live and act however we please. Anger as used for God is an anthropomorphism, like saying the sky is angry when it storms.

As it is God’s intention is to draw man into justice, so that we desire and own it rather than simply benefit by it. Adam & Eve may well be “there” by now, but having taken a dip in the pigsty (this world, relative to Eden) only serves to educate our wills about the futility and foolishness of man going it alone. The ugliest evils in this world by far are due to man’s will, which reigns here, due to conscious deliberate choices that could’ve been otherwise. If everyone chose to love, would we fight, would we compete for goods, for status, for wealth, for glory, for all the things that pride covets and then harms one’s neighbor to obtain? This is a godless, selfish world-unnecessarily and unreasonably so-that’s the point. Me first, over truth, over love. Jesus,God, showed a way that was totally counter to those values. But He still wants it to be* our *choice, so He doesn’t force goodness upon us, He doesn’t force Himself upon us. As it is we prove our mettle by how we act when the Master’s gone away. His handiwork may be all around us, if we care to look, but we may still prefer our freedom enough not to bother.

 

[po18guy]

Will there be “free will” in heaven? Does “free will” include the ability to sin? Shall we be “free” to sin (in heaven)?

No! Is this your second thread on this? As there was an identical thread on this with the same answer.

 

[GEddie]

Free will is mostly a mirage, although most don’t want to admit it.

ICXC NIKA

 

[AgnosticBoy]

What is the point of this “morality”? Isn’t being in heaven not the best thing since sliced bread?

God makes His judgement on that based on our moral behavior. In order for us to be responsible for our moral behavior, we need free-will and the ability to act on it, whether it be for the good or bad.

I consider it bad. If you love someone, you do not trick them into making a lethal error. And you definitely do not curse the innocent bystanders for the error of someone else.

Are your referring to Adam&Eve? If the story can be taken literal, I believe that Eve had the ability to make an informed choice because she would’ve had the faculty of ‘reason’. She knew the rules and the consequences and could’ve asked God for confirmation. So she had enough ability and knowledge to choose to follow the rules but chose not to.

 

[puzzledtoo]

fhansen: Your first post in this thread doesn’t make any sense to me. Wasn’t satan in heaven with god? Did he have free will to sin or not and made a choice to do so? If this is the case and I think that is what Christian scripture states, then why would humans be any different and not want to sin?

 

[puzzledtoo]

GEddie: If free will is mostly a mirage then I suppose we really are very much like robots or sheep follow the flock?

 

[Vonsalza]

Free will is mostly a mirage, although most don’t want to admit it.

ICXC NIKA

Interesting idea. I’m not sure I fully support it, but I currently lack the ability to fully articulate against it.

I will concede that “free will” is likely not perfectly absolute. We’re still bound by natural laws. We still invariably abuse that will to disobey God. So on, so on.

 

[fhansen]

fhansen: Your first post in this thread doesn’t make any sense to me. Wasn’t satan in heaven with god? Did he have free will to sin or not and made a choice to do so? If this is the case and I think that is what Christian scripture states, then why would humans be any different and not want to sin?

Even if the angels knew God better or more intimately than man I doubt they were in heaven in the sense of experiencing the Beatific Vision. If so I don’t think they would’ve been capable of turning away from Him.

In any case the idea is that God desires *us *to begin to covet and orient ourselves towards goodness first, not without His help, but *before *we’re rewarded with the ultimate prize, the supreme goodness that fulfills all desire. In that we own our justice or righteousness so to speak, even as it flows from Him alone to begin with.

 

[fhansen]

Interesting idea. I’m not sure I fully support it, but I currently lack the ability to fully articulate against it.

I will concede that “free will” is likely not perfectly absolute. We’re still bound by natural laws. We still invariably abuse that will to disobey God. So on, so on.

But isn’t the abuse of our wills proof of our freedom to do so, the abuse of freedom itself IOW?

 

[GEddie]

GEddie: If free will is mostly a mirage then I suppose we really are very much like robots or sheep follow the flock?

Well, not robots, which are mechanical and not alive.

But very much like sheep, even our LORD compared us to them.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Vonsalza]

There are many people who assert that the “gift” of free will is the reason of suffering. They invariably ask, if I would prefer to be converted into a “happy little robot”, or prefer the world as it is today, with all the suffering.

This is a false dichotomy…

First, you didn’t present the dichotomy honestly.
"…prefer to be converted into a “happy little robot”, or prefer the world as it is today, with all the suffering" does not convey the disputed relationship between “suffering” and “free will”.
Maybe “…prefer to be converted into a “happy little robot”, or prefer a suffering world as result of free will” might be more honest.

Next, you express the question as though you have the choice to be “converted into a ‘happy little robot’”. You don’t. Yours is to decide how you use this “will” of yours.

I also can’t help but notice that you didn’t prove the falsehood of the dichotomy. Just sayin’

Will there be “free will” in heaven? Does “free will” include the ability to sin? Shall we be “free” to sin (in heaven)?

No one anywhere knows exactly how a restored humanity will experience eternity with God. Not even Papa Francesco. As that inquiry is likely not the source of your Christian doubt (I could be wrong), it’s probably not even pertinent.

It’s likely just tangential to your frustrations from being unable to walk away from Christianity with unblemished conviction. Which is also probably why you’re still here.

 

[GEddie]

But isn’t the abuse of our wills proof of our freedom to do so, the abuse of freedom itself IOW?

Well yeah.

While free will is mostly a mirage – “freedom” as seen from inside our heads, masking the strict conditioning from our physical somas and the internalized psychological constraints – it is not altogether a mirage. There remains a nucleus of freedom, though far smaller than we have been told.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Vonsalza]

oops - posted in error. Darn scripting…

 

[Vonsalza]

But isn’t the abuse of our wills proof of our freedom to do so, the abuse of freedom itself IOW?

Oh yes, to be sure. There is a degree of freedom. Very little doubt on that!

How absolute it is would be what I was referring to. After all, ain’t my universe…