What is the point of free will?

[Pallas_Athene]

After all, no matter how good you might be, you cannot “earn” your way to heaven. Good works, proper decisions, virtuous life are all insufficient. It would be much better to be a “mindless” robot, to be predestined to heaven. To have free will, which allows one to make incorrect decisions is a burden or a curse.

 

[Catholic4Christ]

To be in Heaven is to participate in the life of God. If God is Love (as expressed by the mystery of the Holy Trinity), His creatures can never fully participate in His life unless we also love Him in return. Love is not, as we sometimes think, just an emotion, but an act of will. To love a spouse isn’t just the feeling of affection, but the act of being a good spouse whether or not we feel like it. So with us and God - God loves us because God is Love, and the only rational way to enter Heaven (i.e. participate fully in the life of God as expressed in the Trinity) is to love Him back. True Christian love is impossible without free will because true Christian love is an act of will. It’s not that works earn salvation; it’s that salvation is offered out of love, and the willingness to love in return (whether or not we “feel” that love 100% of the time) is how we reach out and grasp salvation.

 

[fhansen]

After all, no matter how good you might be, you cannot “earn” your way to heaven. Good works, proper decisions, virtuous life are all insufficient. It would be much better to be a “mindless” robot, to be predestined to heaven. To have free will, which allows one to make incorrect decisions is a burden or a curse.

It’s also a blessing. The more freely we choose goodness/love/God, the greater our justice-the higher level of perfection/divinity we attain. We do nothing to earn grace but what we do with it does determine merit for us, in Gods economy, by His wisdom. He wants to draw us, to stretch us, to greater heights, without force. It’s our very participation in this endeavor that increases our justice/holiness. A matter of the will, as it was in the beginning with Adam & Eve. From the CCC:
**
1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26

Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.27

I. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach. **

 

[GEddie]

There’s no point to free will, really, any more than there is to having ten toes. It’s just how we were supposedly made, although IMNAAHO it is to an extent, a mirage.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Frankenfurter]

After all, no matter how good you might be, you cannot “earn” your way to heaven. Good works, proper decisions, virtuous life are all insufficient. It would be much better to be a “mindless” robot, to be predestined to heaven. To have free will, which allows one to make incorrect decisions is a burden or a curse.

You have reduced existence to a game, with the goal being to be getting to heaven for your own personal gain.

I doubt anyone with that point of view makes it to heaven. Neither do mindless robots.

You might want to re-think this.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I suggest you guys think it over.

1. To have free will one is supposed to be able to perform evil acts. When someone proposes limited freedom restricted to be able to perform “good” or “neutral” acts, this suggestion is rejected, that to have “real” freedom, one must be able to perform really evil acts, like genocide, murder, torture, etc…
   *] God is supposedly UNABLE to perform “evil” acts.
   *] Therefore God has no “free will”.
   
   So why should we? The only possible reason is that we can “mess up” and lose our “salvation”.

 

[Back2Church]

I suggest you guys think it over.

1. To have free will one is supposed to be able to perform evil acts. When someone proposes limited freedom restricted to be able to perform “good” or “neutral” acts, this suggestion is rejected, that to have “real” freedom, one must be able to perform really evil acts, like genocide, murder, torture, etc…
   *] God is supposedly UNABLE to perform “evil” acts.
   *] Therefore God has no “free will”.
   
   So why should we? The only possible reason is that we can “mess up” and lose our “salvation”.

1. 
   Free will gives us the capacity to do good. We cannot do anything good without it. Why would God make us in such a way that we would not have the capacity to do good?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I suggest you guys think it over.
[1]To have free will one is supposed to be able to perform evil acts. When someone proposes limited freedom restricted to be able to perform “good” or “neutral” acts, this suggestion is rejected, that to have “real” freedom, one must be able to perform really evil acts, like genocide, murder, torture, etc…

Well, not quite. The point of free will is NOT to “be able to perform evil acts.” The point of free will is having the capacity to freely choose how a power will be implemented.

The mere capacity to bring about possible ends implies having the power to do so. Having the power to lift a hundred pound weight as continuing capacity over time means I am free to do so at will, otherwise it isn’t much of a power. By having that power as a freely selected option means I can use that power to drop a hundred pound weight as well as I can lift it – including dropping it on someone’s toe out of ill-will. Having the capacity to accomplish an end at will (required by the words “power to…”) means the capacity to accomplish evil ends as well as good.

A human moral agent can have no virtues and cannot be an “agent” in any sense without the capacity to undertake good acts. Having that capacity, unfortunately, means having the capacity – in the interim – to undertake not so good acts (i.e., evil.)

[2] God is supposedly UNABLE to perform “evil” acts.

God is not “UNABLE” to in the sense you assume. It means that, given the absolute simplicity of Being, his omniscience is identical to his omnipotence is identical to his omnibenevolence. It is NOT an incapacity on God’s part not to perform evil acts. It would be inherently contradictory (a self-defeating trait) for God to act against his very nature – that would be Satan’s problem (being divided against himself,) not God’s.

[3] Therefore God has no “free will”.
So why should we? The only possible reason is that we can “mess up” and lose our “salvation”.

God is free will. It is an aspect of his very nature as Love Itself – acting for the good of other for its own sake. When we choose the good of other, not because we are compelled or caused to in any way, but purely as a freely chosen act, that is when we act out of love from the image of God (Imago dei) which is the ground of our very nature and being.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Free will gives us the capacity to do good. We cannot do anything good without it. Why would God make us in such a way that we would not have the capacity to do good?

Of course we can do good, even if we would be unable to commit evil. To help out someone in need is good and valuable, even if we would be unable to kick him into the gutter. Why would “good” be contingent upon “evil”?

Does God have “free will”? Or is he “forced” to do “good”? Forced by his “nature”?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Of course we can do good, even if we would be unable to commit evil. To help out someone in need is good and valuable, even if we would be unable to kick him into the gutter. Why would “good” be contingent upon “evil”?

Does God have “free will”? Or is he “forced” to do “good”? Forced by his “nature”?

Yes. No. No.

His “nature” is absolute freedom to act without any compulsion or constraint.

 

[LPS]

To me, the point of free will is … “LOVE.”

Think about it - love cannot be forced. You cannot make someone love you.

All you can do, is love them.

So God does - He loves us, invites us to love Him, to enter relationship with Him. We do so freely, but not everyone does. Some HATE the light, hate Him.

God is LOVE, but without free will we could not in Truth experience Love.

 

[fhansen]

Of course we can do good, even if we would be unable to commit evil. To help out someone in need is good and valuable, even if we would be unable to kick him into the gutter. Why would “good” be contingent upon “evil”?

Does God have “free will”? Or is he “forced” to do “good”? Forced by his “nature”?

Yes, God is absolutely free to do whatever He wills to do.

 

[Back2Church]

Of course we can do good, even if we would be unable to commit evil. To help out someone in need is good and valuable, even if we would be unable to kick him into the gutter. Why would “good” be contingent upon “evil”?

Does God have “free will”? Or is he “forced” to do “good”? Forced by his “nature”?

Nope, we can’t do good without free will.

Good and evil are rooted in intent.

Consider adultery. Jesus says that one can be guilty of adultery even if the physical act was never carried out. That’s because what is in our hearts (ie who we are on the inside) is just as important as what we do. This concept can also be seen in the church’s doctrine of baptism by desire.

If we have no free will, then we have no actual intentions. With no intentions, we could not do anything good or evil.

 

[Rohzek]

I suggest you guys think it over.

1. To have free will one is supposed to be able to perform evil acts. When someone proposes limited freedom restricted to be able to perform “good” or “neutral” acts, this suggestion is rejected, that to have “real” freedom, one must be able to perform really evil acts, like genocide, murder, torture, etc…
   *] God is supposedly UNABLE to perform “evil” acts.
   *] Therefore God has no “free will”.
   
   So why should we? The only possible reason is that we can “mess up” and lose our “salvation”.

1. 
   See this is why I think Divine Command Theory solves this issue. Free will is more than the ability to have choice. It is also the ability to give things meaning, and to be creative. God posses all of these attributes as well as humans. However, because God is the creator of everything, whatever he wills is therefore automatically good. That doesn’t circumvent his free will at all under this framework. Human’s only do evil because they contradict God’s will. And if they continue to act in accordance with God’s will and never do evil, this is not to say that they do not posses free will. This is so because they are the ones who autonomously make the decision and still give their decision meaning.
   
   Even if robots and humans were to carry out the same exact actions that God wished, the robot is not autonomous because it does not have consciousness. It does not give meaning or create anything. It merely does what it is programmed to do. A human, however, does things on their own accord.

 

[Catholic4Christ]

However, because God is the creator of everything, whatever he wills is therefore automatically good.

This. “Good” isn’t an ideal that exists apart from God. Doing good is the act of following God’s will.

Doing evil is the act of going against God’s will, or even to some degree being passive to God’s will. Insofar as God communicates His will to us, we have the free will to do good or evil (or nothing). To do good (i.e. to purposefully act in accord with God’s revealed will) is to love Him. “If you love me, keep my commandments.” The more we will to act in accord with God’s will, the more we carry out the act of loving Him, the closer we get to heaven.

The best part, though, is that God supplies the grace to love Him and do good and to act in accord with His will, so in the end it’s just the choice to accept or reject that grace. I think that’s the root of free will.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Yes, God is absolutely free to do whatever He wills to do.

Not according to Catholicism. Protestants assert that God is ABLE to perform evil acts, but he does not DO them. Catholicism says that God is UNABLE to perform evil acts. Big difference.

Nope, we can’t do good without free will.

Good and evil are rooted in intent.

When someone does something “good” to you, then it does not matter WHY he does it. Just look at dolphins, when they push a drowning person to the surface of the water. They act out of sheer instinct, but the ACTION of helping is there - and it is GOOD for the drowning person. The intent only matters, when someone performs a SEEMINGLY “evil” act.

Consider adultery. Jesus says that one can be guilty of adultery even if the physical act was never carried out. That’s because what is in our hearts (ie who we are on the inside) is just as important as what we do.

Nope, I will not “consider” it. The concept of “thought-crime” is abhorrent to me, whoever says it. There is no difference between Jesus and Big Brother in this respect.

However, because God is the creator of everything, whatever he wills is therefore automatically good.

Not for me. When God commits and / or orders genocide it is exactly as abhorrent when Hitler ordered the extermination of the Jews, or gypsies, or other assorted “lowlife” beings. The goddess of justice (Justitia) is depicted with a blindfold. Do you know why?

Even if robots and humans were to carry out the same exact actions that God wished, the robot is not autonomous because it does not have consciousness. It does not give meaning or create anything. It merely does what it is programmed to do.

If only you guys would learn how incorrect you are! I am getting tired of explaining it.

The best part, though, is that God supplies the grace to love Him and do good and to act in accord with His will, so in the end it’s just the choice to accept or reject that grace.

I asked it before, but never got an answer. Just WHAT is this “grace”? How do you know if you have this “grace”?

 

[fhansen]

Not according to Catholicism. Protestants assert that God is ABLE to perform evil acts, but he does not DO them. Catholicism says that God is UNABLE to perform evil acts. Big difference.

Ok, so why then does He not DO them? And there’s no universal Protestant position on this BTW.

 

[Catholic4Christ]

Not according to Catholicism. Protestants assert that God is ABLE to perform evil acts, but he does not DO them. Catholicism says that God is UNABLE to perform evil acts. Big difference.

When someone does something “good” to you, then it does not matter WHY he does it. Just look at dolphins, when they push a drowning person to the surface of the water. They act out of sheer instinct, but the ACTION of helping is there - and it is GOOD for the drowning person. The intent only matters, when someone performs a SEEMINGLY “evil” act.

Nope, I will not “consider” it. The concept of “thought-crime” is abhorrent to me, whoever says it. There is no difference between Jesus and Big Brother in this respect.

Not for me. When God commits and / or orders genocide it is exactly as abhorrent when Hitler ordered the extermination of the Jews, or gypsies, or other assorted “lowlife” beings. The goddess of justice (Justitia) is depicted with a blindfold. Do you know why?

If only you guys would learn how incorrect you are! I am getting tired of explaining it.

I asked it before, but never got an answer. Just WHAT is this “grace”? How do you know if you have this “grace”?

I think the contention here is a difference between your conception of what God is and the Catholic conception of what God is. What you perceive as the Catholic belief that God cannot perform evil is, I think, a non sequitur. It’s not that there is an act that God cannot perform because it is evil. Evil, from a Catholic POV, is not evil by some objective fact outside of God. God is the creator of the universe and it’s laws - that makes Him the arbiter of good and evil. Good is what is in accord with God, evil is what is not in accord with God. Therefore, if God does something, it cannot be evil because He is the judge of good and evil, and as the literal creator and owner of the universe He can do whatever He wills. If we compare Him to a human being we see things we don’t understand, but if we define Him as God then He is goodness itself. Also, from the Christian perspective, a “blindfolded God” is no God at all. That limits Divinity.

Jesus does not equal “Big Brother” because He said that some willful thoughts are sinful. Governments and human institutions do not see and discern the heart of man. God, as conceived by Catholics, does - because he made us. Body, soul, and mind. And for that fact we literally belong to Him. He’s not a human who owns us like a brutal slave owner, He just objectively has authority over everything by His very nature.

“What is grace” is kind of a huge topic. For the Catholic understanding of it a Google search will bring a lot of answers. The topics of “Actual Grace” and “Sanctifying Grace” seem like they’d be appropriate, I definitely recommend looking into them and the Catholic conception of Grace - Catholic Encyclopedia is a good source, though the articles are pretty bulky.

I do not doubt your sincere desire to understand the Catholic view on this, but when you say “If only you guys would learn how incorrect you are!” I am not sure you are communicating in charity. You’re on a Catholic forum, after all. Even if every orthodox Catholic on here is wrong in 100% of their beliefs, it seems like these sorts of statements aren’t conducive towards a healthy discussion of beliefs. I thought Rohzek’s human/robot comparison was a fair one, even if you don’t agree with it, but instead of addressing the points therein you simply said that it was incorrect and that you were exasperated from explaining why.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Ok, so why then does He not DO them? And there’s no universal Protestant position on this BTW.

Generally speaking there is no UNIVERSAL position on ANYTHING. Not even among catholics. When there is a discussion on “omnipotence”, the catholic stance is that God is UNABLE to do anything which is contradictory to his “nature” (whatever THAT is), but this is not a limitation.

I am not the correct person to ask about God’s evil actions. All I need to do is to open the OT at a random page and I will see how evil, capricious, malevolent God is. All we need to do is look around this actual existence, and see how God does NOT intervene on behalf of the sick, the hungry, the tortured… and we can draw our own conclusion that God is at best totally indifferent. Your mileage might vary, of course.

 

[Rohzek]

Not for me. When God commits and / or orders genocide it is exactly as abhorrent when Hitler ordered the extermination of the Jews, or gypsies, or other assorted “lowlife” beings. The goddess of justice (Justitia) is depicted with a blindfold. Do you know why?

Well, I’m operating off of the omnipotent principle of God. If you want to reject that notion in order to place a morality above God, then that’s fine. I will have to disagree though. Yes, I would agree that it is equally abhorrent. However, whether or not one finds God’s actions disgusting really has no bearing on the morality of his actions.

If only you guys would learn how incorrect you are! I am getting tired of explaining it.

What exactly are you suggesting? That consciousness and the subconsciousness do not exist? Or are you suggesting that the two arise out of deterministic processes? In either case, you would have explain what creativity or even what meaning itself is.