What is the point of free will?

[Peter_Plato]

Of course. But the electro-chemical processes are not deterministic. Two people can look at the same picture and see something totally different. I keep wondering: what is your point?

How does your example show they are not deterministic? The two electro-chemical processes are not identical and there is nothing in the nature of electro-chemical processes, themselves, that would make them – in and of themselves – not deterministic.

 

[Peter_Plato]

:bigyikes:

:bigyikes:

:bigyikes:

A shocking admission on this forum!! I can’t believe it!! In fact, if I were hearing this second-hand, I wouldn’t believe it.

Oldcelt, Bradski, Pallas Athene, that dude who started the thread about Molinism, many others, and I have been hammering away at this very point for months on this forum.

The choices proceeding from our freedom are underwritten by God. Yes, yes, yes, that is required if he is omnipotent and omniscient. **If he underwrites them, he is at least a little bit morally responsible for them, since he is more free than any human.
**

Your conclusion simply doesn’t follow. Freedom doesn’t “cause” us to do evil and neither does it make God “morally responsible” for our choices, not even “at least a little bit.” You don’t understand freedom which is why you look to “blame” God for free acts.

Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” They answered him, “We are descendants of Abraham and have never been slaves to anyone. What do you mean by saying, ‘You will be made free’?”

Jesus answered them, “Very truly, I tell you, **everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. ** The slave does not have a permanent place in the household; the son has a place there forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed. I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you look for an opportunity to kill me, because there is no place in you for my word. I declare what I have seen in the Father’s presence; as for you, you should do what you have heard from the Father.” (John 8:31-38)

Everyone who commits sin – i.e., commits evil and thereby separate their very self from God and from freedom – makes themself into a slave of sin and “at least a little bit” unfree.

Whatever point “Oldcelt, Bradski, Pallas Athene, that dude who started the thread about Molinism, many others,” including yourself, have “been hammering away” at for “many months” doesn’t lead to where you all suppose it does.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Of course. But the electro-chemical processes are not deterministic. Two people can look at the same picture and see something totally different.

To say what you say, which logical path should I follow?:

1. 
   *]I need to correct myself: there is nothing besides deterministic and stochastic processes. Free processes are just stochastic processes.
   *]Therefore, if a process is not deterministic, it must be stochastic.
   *]Thoughts are physical-chemical processes.
   *]Two people can look at the same picture and see something totally different.
   *]Therefore, physical-chemical processes are not deterministic.
   *]Therefore, physical-chemical processes are stochastic.
   
   Too many logical gaps, Greek guy! You have good legs to jump here and there.
   
   Do you associate “order” to stochastic processes, or you think that stochastic processes are incompatible with “order”?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Your conclusion simply doesn’t follow. Freedom doesn’t “cause” us to do evil and neither does it make God “morally responsible” for our choices, not even “at least a little bit.” You don’t understand freedom which is why you look to “blame” God for free acts.

Everyone who commits sin – i.e., commits evil and thereby separate their very self from God and from freedom – makes themself into a slave of sin and “at least a little bit” unfree.

Whatever point “Oldcelt, Bradski, Pallas Athene, that dude who started the thread about Molinism, many others,” including yourself, have “been hammering away” at for “many months” doesn’t lead to where you all suppose it does.

sigh I thought for a moment we had made some progress! I am actually disappointed. This isn’t sarcasm; I am seriously disappointed. Because I enjoy explaining this, I’m going to try one more time, though this is off topic. Let’s try talking about mortgages so we can understand the word “underwritten” a little bit better.

What does it mean when a mortgage is “underwritten?” It means that a person with lots of money has decided to actually “fund” the loan. The flow of money looks like this:

Underwriter------Lending Institution------Consumer (or Business)

The consumer needs to money to buy a house. So, they ask for money from the lending institution. Often, the lending institution will want to secure an “underwriter” who will purchase the loan long-term from the lending institution, so the lending institution can turn around and use the money to originate more loans. So, the lending institution gets the money from the “underwriter.” Those “underwriters” hold the loans with the hope that the interest earned over time will be worth and while assuming the risk they will default.

Let’s draw a parallel with our “freedom.” The flow of freedom looks like this:

God-----------Our ancestors---------------Us

We need existence to be able to exercise freedom. So, we get existence from our parents. Always, our parents get their existence from their parents, and so on all the way back. However, the existence itself has to come from somewhere or something, so we say it comes from God. God holds our existence with the absolute certainty of how it will turn out. He takes no risks and isn’t surprised at the outcome.

So, if a loan defaults…the underwriters are rightfully blamed by the board, CEO, shareholders, etc of the underwriting institution (and this is without perfect knowledge of everything). Sure, underwriters don’t often get fired for funding one bad loan, but a record of consistent poor judgment will cost one a job.

So, if a person becomes heinously evil, God is rightfully blamed (at least to some degree) by everyone affected by the evil person. Is it all God’s fault? Of course not! There is plenty of blame to go around, but it doesn’t make sense to think God has no share in it whatsoever.

Is the bad loan totally the fault of the underwriter? Of course not! We can lay blame at the feet of many people: a bum economy, lazy homeowners, sudden death, unforeseen healthcare costs, etc.

So, when you said our freedom is “underwritten” by God, can you see how I was excited at the idea of potential “common ground” here?

Now, by your quote I assume you are referring to a concept of freedom that makes no sense. You’ll say that when we sin, we are slaves but when we do what is right, we are free. OK, so if we’re slaves when we sin, then we can’t be blamed! But that doesn’t make sense, that undoes the moral universe just as much as total determinism. Moses says:

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, 20 by loving the LORD your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.

The exhortation to choose life implies we are free to choose death. Both sin and virtue are exercises of free will, in my opinion. However, I would argue that neither existence nor freedom are “goods in themselves” for human beings. We can use either for good or ill.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Now, by your quote I assume you are referring to a concept of freedom that makes no sense. You’ll say that when we sin, we are slaves but when we do what is right, we are free. OK, so if we’re slaves when we sin, then we can’t be blamed! But that doesn’t make sense, that undoes the moral universe just as much as total determinism.

It makes perfect sense because by sinning we abdicate freedom and that abdication is, itself, culpable. We are responsible for the abdication just as a drunk is culpable for choosing to get drunk. Whatever wrongful behaviours result from being drunk are attibutable back to the choices made to permit oneself to become increasingly out of rational control under the effects of alcohol. Control, capacity and freedom have been “taken over” by the abdication of responsibility at the point when the person was free and capable of not permitting the loss of control in the first place.

God makes us competent, responsible and free by making us who and what we are. That his grace (power to be and be good) is always present and available to us in whatever “dose” we require to make proper choices means we are culpable for not doing so. We are choosing to drink the cheap alcohol and become inebriated instead of imbibing in the good wine of freedom.

The exhortation to choose life implies we are free to choose death. Both sin and virtue are exercises of free will, in my opinion. However, I would argue that neither existence nor freedom are “goods in themselves” for human beings. We can use either for good or ill.

Freedom is a “good in itself” in the sense that it grounds our autonomy – makes us who we are as the loci of our own existence. It is a necessary condition for being human, rational and good. It is not, however, a sufficient condition for any of those. Freedom does come at a price – it isn’t “free” in that sense. That price is the weight of glory, in Lewis’ terms.

 

[SilverLight]

I contemplate this question often.

If God wanted us to follow always why would he give us free will?

Logic seems to say if you want someone to follow you give them little choice in doing so or a very good reason. Hell is included in this instance and is like a threat along the lines of “If you don’t do this I will kill you.”

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I am walking along your borderlines. Had someone else done this favor to you?

Of course. The problem is that we do not have a conversation, you ask some questions, I answer, and then you ask some more questions… feels like to be in an exam.

To say what you say, which logical path should I follow?:

1. 
   *]I need to correct myself: there is nothing besides deterministic and stochastic processes. Free processes are just stochastic processes.
   *]Therefore, if a process is not deterministic, it must be stochastic.
   *]Thoughts are physical-chemical processes.
   *]Two people can look at the same picture and see something totally different.
   *]Therefore, physical-chemical processes are not deterministic.
   *]Therefore, physical-chemical processes are stochastic.
   
   Too many logical gaps, Greek guy! You have good legs to jump here and there.
   
   Do you associate “order” to stochastic processes, or you think that stochastic processes are incompatible with “order”?

1. 
   The exact mechanism of “free will” is not known, especially since most of the decision making process happens in the subconscious. The details are investigated by the biologists and neuro-physicists. Since I am neither, I am not competent to answer your questions.
   
   Of course none of this is even remotely associated with the topic of the thread.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . The exact mechanism of “free will” is not known . . .

Not known by whom? By you for sure, but by “us”, you really do mean those in whom you have faith, correct?
In that “us” you are not including those who know that there is no “mechanism” to free-will.
Free will is a manifestation of our spirit which has a relational nature which thereby allows us to particiapate in our own creation as loving beings.
Yes, we are a unity of spirit and flesh, and there are some of us studying the neural substrates that correlate with thought, motivation and decision making.
The “mechanism” part has to do with our existence as participants in the physical universe.
For a comprehensive understanding we have to go to where the truth about ourselves actually lies.

 

[tonyrey]

The exact mechanism of “free will” is not known, especially since most of the decision making process happens in the subconscious.

The first part of your statement contradicts the last part!

 

[tonyrey]

I contemplate this question often.

If God wanted us to follow always why would he give us free will?

Logic seems to say if you want someone to follow you give them little choice in doing so or a very good reason. Hell is included in this instance and is like a threat along the lines of “If you don’t do this I will kill you.”

Hell isn’t a threat but a warning: if you choose to harm others you harm yourself far more than you harm them.

 

[tonyrey]

“It is certain that the mortality or immortality of the soul must make an entire difference to morality.” Blaise Pascal

We may therefore take it as axiomatic that the immortality of the soul is true, or else we must believe that those who are evil may ultimately prevail with impunity over those who are good.

Assuming there is a genuine distinction between good and evil (which doesn’t exist in a purposeless universe

 

[tonyrey]

The exhortation to choose life implies we are free to choose death. Both sin and virtue are exercises of free will, in my opinion. However, I would argue that neither existence nor freedom are “goods in themselves” for human beings. We can use either for good or ill.

Non sequitur. If freedom is not good nothing is good - as far as a person is
concerned.

 

[tonyrey]

Do you associate “order” to stochastic processes, or you think that stochastic processes are incompatible with “order”?

To put chaos before order is a sign of insanity! It presupposes that rationality has an irrational origin…

 

[Peter_Plato]

I contemplate this question often.

If God wanted us to follow always why would he give us free will?

Logic seems to say if you want someone to follow you give them little choice in doing so or a very good reason. Hell is included in this instance and is like a threat along the lines of “If you don’t do this I will kill you.”

Because human beings are not puppies to be trained and because the important thing is not what we do but what we become. This is why the Law is insufficient for the task. Doing the right kinds of things is not sufficient to turn us into the right kind of being, which is why cooperation with grace is required. Grace has the power to bring about the necessary change in being, but only with our cooperation because it is our very self that must become true to self.

Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. He came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God.” Jesus answered him, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be astonished that I said to you, ‘You must be born from above.’ The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered him, “Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things?

“Very truly, I tell you, we speak of what we know and testify to what we have seen; yet you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

“Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.” (John 3:3-21)

Hell is included in this instance and is like a threat along the lines of “If you don’t do this I will kill you.”

You think this because of your focus on doing rather than conversion of being (metanoia.)

The reality is more along the lines of…

… because we are the kind of beings we are, not living from that reality will cause us to suffer spiritual death – a separation of self from our true self, the Imago Dei, the Logos, in Whom we have been made (Abide in me as I abide in you. John 15:4) and through Whom all things were made (Nicene Creed.) We ought not dismiss that eventuality lightly or frivolously.

 

[tonyrey]

Your conclusion simply doesn’t follow. Freedom doesn’t “cause” us to do evil and neither does it make God “morally responsible” for our choices, not even “at least a little bit.” You don’t understand freedom which is why you look to “blame” God for free acts.

Everyone who commits sin – i.e., commits evil and thereby separate their very self from God and from freedom – makes themself into a slave of sin and “at least a little bit” unfree.

Whatever point “Oldcelt, Bradski, Pallas Athene, that dude who started the thread about Molinism, many others,” including yourself, have “been hammering away” at for “many months” doesn’t lead to where you all suppose it does.

To think freedom has a physical cause is a self-contradiction! It implies we can’t choose what to think, how to live or who to love…

 

[Ignatius]

After all, no matter how good you might be, you cannot “earn” your way to heaven.

God wishes us to love Him. Love cannot be by compunction but mist be given as a matter of ones own free will. That is why God gave us free will, because without it, we cannot truly love Him.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

God wishes us to love Him. Love cannot be by compunction but mist be given as a matter of ones own free will. That is why God gave us free will, because without it, we cannot truly love Him.

I certainly don’t “love” God, but that does not mean that I go out and slaughter people, rape kids, or commit any of those horrific acts. NOT to love God does not logically include tortures either.

So if the goal of free will is to allow us to “love” God, or “not love” God, all these atrocities are unnecessary. One can easily exhibit “not loving God” by NOT going to places of worship and NOT worshipping him. After all it is stipulated that “willful and obstinate refusal of belief” is a mortal sin against the holy spirit. There is no “need” for more freedom against other humans.

Freedom is never absolute. There are activities which we are unable to do, simply because the laws of nature prevent us from doing them. So who cares if there are some other pieces of “freedom” we are unable exercise? It is not the presence of absence of freedom which is questioned, it is the EXTENT of freedom we have. This freedom is too much when it comes to cause harm, and too little when it comes to help others.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Of course. The problem is that we do not have a conversation, you ask some questions, I answer, and then you ask some more questions… feels like to be in an exam.

Relax, Pallas; this is a party. An exam would be severe and rigorous. Actually you haven’t answered every question, and I have had to assist you because sometimes words don’t come easy to you.

The exact mechanism of “free will” is not known, especially since most of the decision making process happens in the subconscious. The details are investigated by the biologists and neuro-physicists. Since I am neither, I am not competent to answer your questions.

However, you have been affirming certain statements. Is it the case that you have been repeating something that you read or listened, but did not understand? Have you, Pallas Athene, subjected yourself to the authority of others?

Still, look how you feel yourself able to state that decision making happens mostly in the subconscious, as if it were commonplace. If decision making is a set of physical-chemical processes that happen in the brain, do you think that most of these processes are subconscious and some of them, a minority if you like, are conscious? Let’s then talk about those conscious physical-chemical processes that happen in your brain. Please, tell me about them. Or is it that in reality every physical-chemical process that happens in your brain is entirely unknown to you?

On the other hand, it is true that in a chemical reaction we don’t know exactly what happens to each individual reacting particle. From that point of view, we could say that it is a stochastic process. But in many cases we can establish a model for the mechanism of the reaction. We can say which reagents will react and which products shall we obtain; what amount of energy will be absorbed or released, what will be the concentration of each reagent at equilibrium… Certainly, these results can be interpreted as a statistical consequence of the participation of a great number of particles; but anyhow, there is a regular behavior which can be observed. So, whenever you put the same reagents in a reaction vessel under the same initial conditions, we can predict the results after a given time, no matter how stochastic you conceive the individual path of each particle. If we observe different results from one experiment to the other, we never, ever, attribute it to the “stochastic nature” of the process for each particle. We look for macroscopic variations on the reaction conditions, or for the influence of other physical agents.

Then, if you observe (by the way, how do you do it!?) that “two people can look at the same picture and see something totally different?” You are not allowed to conclude from it that it is because physical-chemical reactions are not deterministic. What you have said makes absolutely no sense, dear Pallas.

Do you want to go back to the OP? You have to be patient. How could I convince you that we don’t have enough freedom or you to convince me that we have too much, if you don’t want to meditate about the meaning that freedom must acquire within your accepted theoretical background?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

To put chaos before order is a sign of insanity! It presupposes that rationality has an irrational origin…

No, no, no, Tony, please… You have to take your time and read the previous posts. Who is putting chaos before order?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Relax, Pallas; this is a party.

If so, it is getting rather boring.

However, you have been affirming certain statements. Is it the case that you have been repeating something that you read or listened, but did not understand? Have you, Pallas Athene, subjected yourself to the authority of others?

Of course.

Still, look how you feel yourself able to state that decision making happens mostly in the subconscious, as if it were commonplace.

It is.

If decision making is a set of physical-chemical processes that happen in the brain, do you think that most of these processes are subconscious and some of them, a minority if you like, are conscious? Let’s then talk about those conscious physical-chemical processes that happen in your brain.

Let’s don’t and say we did.

Do you want to go back to the OP? You have to be patient.

Why?