What is the point of free will?

[Pallas_Athene]

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.

Sure, I understand this. What you describe is that “good” and “evil” are arbitrary categories. In my “godless” universe something is “good”, when it is kind, helpful, benevolent… in your universe there is no objective “good” or “evil”, these are according to God’s arbitrary whim.

Also, from the Christian perspective, a “blindfolded God” is no God at all. That limits Divinity.

You misunderstood me. The “blindfolded” goddess simply describes that the ACT is what matters, not the PERPETRATOR of the act.

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.

Irrelevant. If I will good on you, it does not matter, if I don’t ACT on it. Conversely, if I will evil on you, it does not matter if I do not ACT on it. My good will does not help you; my ill will does not hinder you.

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.

There is no “charity” or “lack of it”, when one describes FACTS. As for the assertion that robots ONLY act out what they are programmed to do, both I and others have explained MANY times that there are self-modifying algorithms, learning algorithms… just like with humans. Yes, my exasperation comes from the many attempts to explain that the simplistic “robots merely act out their programming” is totally incorrect and false. Humans undergo a very long “learning curve” and the final result has no resemblance to the beginning phase.

Just look at IBM’s wonderful creation of WATSON, which (or WHO!!??) can evaluate intentionally misleading cues to obscure questions and can decipher the correct answers to them, beating the smartest and brightest HUMAN players on Jeopardy.

To declare that “robots” merely play out their programming is not just incorrect, but very stupid. And I don’t think that pointing at a human and say that he is “dumb and stupid” is “uncharitable”.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

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.

Only if you define “morality” to be “in accordance with God’s actions”, which is a subjective assessment.

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.

I suggest that we (humans) and also “robots” undergo a learning curve, and the final result is unpredictable. There is no “unchanging” programming for the robots, just like there is none for humans.

 

[fhansen]

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.

Well, you failed to answer my QUESTION. What, in the non-universal but nonetheless PROTESTANT position (according to YOU) is the reason God does not DO evil acts?

 

[Rohzek]

There is no “charity” or “lack of it”, when one describes FACTS. As for the assertion that robots ONLY act out what they are programmed to do, both I and others have explained MANY times that there are self-modifying algorithms, learning algorithms… just like with humans. Yes, my exasperation comes from the many attempts to explain that the simplistic “robots merely act out their programming” is totally incorrect and false. Humans undergo a very long “learning curve” and the final result has no resemblance to the beginning phase.

Just look at IBM’s wonderful creation of WATSON, which (or WHO!!??) can evaluate intentionally misleading cues to obscure questions and can decipher the correct answers to them, beating the smartest and brightest HUMAN players on Jeopardy.

To declare that “robots” merely play out their programming is not just incorrect, but very stupid. And I don’t think that pointing at a human and say that he is “dumb and stupid” is “uncharitable”.

Robots actually only act out according to their programming. Acquiring data and organizing it has nothing to do with creativity. A robot doesn’t properly understand anything. It runs an algorithm and then presents conclusions based on probabilities. It’s just math and nothing more. This is why Google Translate fails so hard so often. It’s translation is based off of solely big data.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Sure, I understand this. What you describe is that “good” and “evil” are arbitrary categories. In my “godless” universe something is “good”, when it is kind, helpful, benevolent… in your universe there is no objective “good” or “evil”, these are according to God’s arbitrary whim.

Only you PA could possibly get yourself into the rather peculiar position of accusing God of being unable to do some things because they are evil and then turn around and accuse him of being capricious by acting arbitrarily on whims.

You don’t suppose it could possibly be you who are mistaken? God doesn’t act according to arbitrary whim but according to his omniscient and omnibenevolent omnipotence (aka his nature as Being Itself, Ipsum Esse Subsistens.)

No, of course YOU could NOT be wrong. Unlike the omniscient and omnibenevolent God, you are simply incapable of being wrong. Which is, of course, why you feel compelled to teach us, fools we be, the correct view of reality.

Just as an aside, do you suppose that if God is unable to do evil and you ascribe THAT to weakness and inconsistent with his omnipotence, then his inability to do, say, stupid, foolish or (heaven forbid) arbitrary things because he is omniscient must also be strikes against his omnipotence.

You misunderstood me. The “blindfolded” goddess simply describes that the ACT is what matters, not the PERPETRATOR of the act.

Well, I must say this would be a bone of contention that I would have against your “blind goddess.” If the agent (aka “the perpetrator”) does not matter at all, then you leave out of your accounting why things would be considered good or evil in the first place. Such acts are good or evil precisely BECAUSE they affect persons and potential persons. Unlike your “blind goddess,” God cares about all perpetrators precisely because they are moral agents and their acts reflect who they are. This matters precisely because redemption of those perpetrators is the reason God became man. Unlike your blind goddess who not only gives a fig about the perpetrators, she also gives a fig about human moral agents and the reasons they do act as they do. She is the spitting image of a blind computer programmer whose programmed characters do precisely the acts expected of them when the controllers are turned on and quickly dissipate when they are turned off. Yes, their “acts” are all that matter to the programmer and gamer. Et tu, Brute?

 

[rinnie]

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.

Well although you cannot earn you way into heaven, we know Jesus did that by his death and resurrection.

But with that said he made a road, and if you want God, you must follow this road. The road is his word that we must obey.

SO while we cannot earn our way into heaven, we can follow his commands and avoid sin and by doing that you have a good chance of entering heaven.

Don’t obey his commands and you have a good chance of not getting in.

So truly it is your own free will that sends you to hell, or helps you get into heaven.

 

[Rohzek]

I actually think God can act arbitrarily. If you look at the Old Testament, Moses had to ask him to chill out on more than one occasion. Also, what is the basis for nature as existence itself? This is hopelessly vague and actually leans towards not even being concrete.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

But with that said he made a road, and if you want God, you must follow this road. The road is his word that we must obey.

Unfortunately that “road” is not revealed to us. The “do’s” and “don’t’s” are NOT spelled out for our edification. I suspect that you believe otherwise, but that is not sufficient. What you believe is a “revelation” just a 2000 years old story, without support.

And that story does not even reveal the “fate” of the miscarriages. If God would really care about us, he would have made this “revelation” constantly available to everyone. Every generation, every human being would get the list of requirements, so that there can be no misunderstanding.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Robots actually only act out according to their programming. Acquiring data and organizing it has nothing to do with creativity. A robot doesn’t properly understand anything. It runs an algorithm and then presents conclusions based on probabilities. It’s just math and nothing more. This is why Google Translate fails so hard so often. It’s translation is based off of solely big data.

Your error is that you think that the algorithm is static and unchanging. We do the same, by the way. Our algorithms are also constantly changing. Every time we learn something, the algorithm is modified.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If God would really care about us, he would have made this “revelation” constantly available to everyone. Every generation, every human being would get the list of requirements, so that there can be no misunderstanding.

Here you go pontificating again, as if YOU would know what omniscient and omnibenevolent omnipotence SHOULD do vis a vis “everyone.”

This is all very interesting, additionally, since you claim all moral judgements (all SHOULDS) are subjective in any case. Whatever happened to: “De gustibus non est disputandum?” So your speculation about “If God would really care…” means what exactly? It is your subjective opinion based upon your “tastes” that God himself shouldn’t dispute what YOU insist he should do? Perhaps his tastes for what HE should do are different from yours? Recall: NON EST DISPUTANDUM!

Why SHOULD “every generation, every human being” get what your taste preferences dictate?

Clearly you seem to want to abandon the De Gustibus Principle when God’s judgements hang in the balance, but cling to it adamantly when your moral “preferences” are.

 

[Frankenfurter]

I suggest you guys think it over.
To have free will one is supposed to be able to perform evil acts.

is that all that you see Free Will as enabling?

Is it possible to have Love without Free Will?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

is that all that you see Free Will as enabling?

No, my friend, that is what YOUR apologist brethren keep saying. I am satisfied with the ability to choose a red tie over a blue one… or not wear a tie at all. Or choosing a steak or a sushi. That is sufficient free will. Or, if you want to contemplate something more “serious”: as long as we have the freedom of “worshipping God”, or “not worshipping God” we have sufficient freedom. There is no reason to extend the freedom to be able to rape, or torture of kill other humans.

Is it possible to have Love without Free Will?

Of course. Look at your pet dog… he would give his life for you. When I fell in LOVE with the woman who later became my wife, I did not make a decision… “from now on I will love her”… it simply happened without invoking any kind of “will”.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Of course. Look at your pet dog… he would give his life for you. When I fell in LOVE with the woman who later became my wife, I did not make a decision… “from now on I will love her”… it simply happened without invoking any kind of “will”.

Ah, so you are claiming that your love for your wife is qualitatively no better than your pet dog’s loyalty to you – worse actually, since “he would give up his life for you” but you remain rather non-committal vis a vis your wife. It might “simply happen” or it might not.

That is striking, actually, since you are pretty convinced that a pet dog WOULD “give up his life for you,” but you make no equivalent claims about your love for your wife. Well, other than the admission that you “did not make a decision,” it “simply happened,” and it didn’t involve “any kind of ‘will.’”

Ergo, it would seem that the quality of love expected from “your pet dog,” deliberate and intentional as it is – “he WOULD give up his life for you” – exceeds by far the quality of love you expect from yourself, since that does not involve “any kind of ‘will’” and you didn’t “make a decision.”

I hope your wife is not reading over your shoulder.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No, my friend, that is what YOUR apologist brethren keep saying. I am satisfied with the ability to choose a red tie over a blue one… or not wear a tie at all. Or choosing a steak or a sushi. That is sufficient free will. Or, if you want to contemplate something more “serious”: as long as we have the freedom of “worshipping God”, or “not worshipping God” we have sufficient freedom. There is no reason to extend the freedom to be able to rape, or torture of kill other humans.

Ah, so you are quite satisfied with the ability to act on a whim or be capricious, but want nothing to do with the ability to actually and deliberately choose good over evil – the freedom (i.e., power) to choose good ends over evil ends, to add meaning, gravitas and significance to your life. Keeping it shallow, superficial and frilly keeps the Athene “satisfied.”

The “reason” to extend the freedom, perhaps, is that the same freedom that empowers one to choose good ends coincidentally but obliquely enables the potential for abuse of that power, IFF one so chooses. IFF I have the power to lift 200 kg over my head, does that power open up the possibility of choosing to do a plethora of things with that weight once it is over my head.

Your claim is that you would rather disable all powers – all virtues (Greek for power) – since virtue enables vice by its very nature. That is only true if free will is denied by design.

Odd that you would also hold God’s lack of will to do evil as a strike against his omnipotence as if the omnipotent God is somehow “weaker” or not free because he would never choose to do evil as a consequence of his omnibenevolence.

Tis an odd set of propositions you wish to maintain simultaneously, but to each his own, I guess.

 

[Back2Church]

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.

There are multiple concepts of “good.” The concept you are espousing is consequentialism, whereas I’m speaking of deontology.

Sure, an animal could do something useful or helpful that we would call “good”, but that isn’t the same thing as saying that the animal performed an act of good. It’s the same as if the animal did something harmful (like a bear attack). We would not say the animal performed an act of evil.

The intent only matters, when someone performs a SEEMINGLY “evil” act.

That’s simply because we seek to uncover evil intent out of fear and/or anger. In cases of “good” acts, there is no such fear or anger, and therefore little to no desire to confirm the intent behind the action. But since you are asking this question on a Catholic forum, I can only assume you wish to understand the Catholic perspective on the subject, not just the human perspective.

Yes, good intent does matter. As mentioned before, the Catholic doctrine of baptism by desire is a good example. Catholicism states that baptism is a necessity, but the question about those who are unable to do so arises. Baptism by desire essentially states that those who desired to be baptized, but were unable to do so before death, still receive the full benefits of a water baptism.

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.

Comparing Jesus with Big Brother shows that you are simply misinterpreting the point. I’ll try to clarify. It’s not a case of “thought-crime.” It’s more nuanced than that.

Sticking with the example of adultery, committing it “in your heart” is more than just thinking about it. It is the willful decision to actually go through with it. Just because you may never have the opportunity to follow through with the physical act does not diminish the intent.

With Big Brother, the idea is that a governing body monitors every aspect of your life and punishes you for showing signs of even thinking about something that is against their laws. What Jesus is trying to teach is that we are more than just the sum of our actions. Even our private intentions can shape who we are and have an impact on our souls.

But we’re branching away from the original topic, so I want to bring this back around to your original question: “What is the point of free will?”

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.

I will restate my original response in a more pertinent manner. Free will gives us the capacity to do good for the sake of doing good. God didn’t just want to build a fish tank or an ant farm. He wanted to put goodness in the world, as well. Not the goodness of consequentialism, but the intended goodness that cannot come about from “mindless robots” or simple instinct. That’s the point. Good for goodness’ sake.

 

[Alex_H]

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.

Good works are an important part of a Christian’s life. Faith isn’t just knowing that Jesus died for us on the cross, it’s also living as he lived and obeying his commandments. The bible says that we were created to do good works. (Ephesians 2:10)

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.

God wants us to genuinely love him just as he loves us. Love cannot be forced.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

There are multiple concepts of “good.” The concept you are espousing is consequentialism, whereas I’m speaking of deontology.

Sure, an animal could do something useful or helpful that we would call “good”, but that isn’t the same thing as saying that the animal performed an act of good. It’s the same as if the animal did something harmful (like a bear attack). We would not say the animal performed an act of evil.

You pointed out a minor linguistic discrepancy. We have TWO words: for biologically “bad” (simply “bad”) and one for morally “bad” (which is “evil”). They are not the same. However, there is no distinction between biologically “good” and morally “good” actions. Guess, why? Because if something is biologically “good”, then it is also morally “good”! And if something is not “biologically good” it cannot be “morally good” either.

But since you are asking this question on a Catholic forum, I can only assume you wish to understand the Catholic perspective on the subject, not just the human perspective.performed an act of evil.

If the Catholic perspective is fundamentally different from the “human perspective”, then it MUST be discarded as irrational.

Yes, good intent does matter. As mentioned before, the Catholic doctrine of baptism by desire is a good example. Catholicism states that baptism is a necessity, but the question about those who are unable to do so arises. Baptism by desire essentially states that those who desired to be baptized, but were unable to do so before death, still receive the full benefits of a water baptism.

Can you bring up a REAL example?

Comparing Jesus with Big Brother shows that you are simply misinterpreting the point. I’ll try to clarify. It’s not a case of “thought-crime.” It’s more nuanced than that.

Sticking with the example of adultery, committing it “in your heart” is more than just thinking about it. It is the willful decision to actually go through with it. Just because you may never have the opportunity to follow through with the physical act does not diminish the intent.

Actually, it is a desire to go along with it. But until the act is actually committed, it is merely a daydreaming or just a desire.

With Big Brother, the idea is that a governing body monitors every aspect of your life and punishes you for showing signs of even thinking about something that is against their laws. What Jesus is trying to teach is that we are more than just the sum of our actions. Even our private intentions can shape who we are and have an impact on our souls.

Since the “soul” is just another undefined concept, and there is no evidence for its existence, I cannot accept what you say here. We ARE the sum of our actions.

But we’re branching away from the original topic, so I want to bring this back around to your original question: “What is the point of free will?”

I will restate my original response in a more pertinent manner. Free will gives us the capacity to do good for the sake of doing good. God didn’t just want to build a fish tank or an ant farm. He wanted to put goodness in the world, as well. Not the goodness of consequentialism, but the intended goodness that cannot come about from “mindless robots” or simple instinct. That’s the point. Good for goodness’ sake.

Since “good” in your vocabulary is different from mine, we need to find a common platform on which we can build on.

 

[Bradski]

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

He did. He drowned an entire planet full of people. If killing millions of innocent children isn’t evil, then we must be using different definitions.

 

[Bradski]

Sticking with the example of adultery, committing it “in your heart” is more than just thinking about it. It is the willful decision to actually go through with it. Just because you may never have the opportunity to follow through with the physical act does not diminish the intent.

No it’s not. It’s the desire to do something, not the actual planning to do it.

If I saw a beautiful woman in the street and my wife said: ‘I’d bet you’d like to make love to her’, then for the sake of some marital harmony I would deny it. But she would know and I would know that she would know that I would.

But, and this is the important point, I wouldn’t make any effort whatsoever to get to know that woman with a view to getting her into the sack. That would be immoral. But just having a natural reaction, finding her physically attractive and perhaps imagining what it would be like to be in bed with her, thoughts which would be impossible to control, is not.

You can’t hold someone to account for what they think. You certainly can if that person starts to make plans to actualise them.

That’s what Pallas meant by thought crime.

 

[You]

He did. He drowned an entire planet full of people. If killing millions of innocent children isn’t evil, then we must be using different definitions.

I wonder if some things were written from peoples perspective, this is what we saw.
But I think all the story actually said is that he warned Noah, if thats who you’re talking about, to build a boat. Its like when the police warn a criminal that their intelligence is that someone is planning to kill them. So Noah acts and is saved.
Does the story actually say something along the lines of ’ and now, I God multiplied the water to kill’, or is there an outside possibility that this was an occurrence ‘natural’ and one just man and his family were warned because they maintained a link through their good will, or some such.
Its sometimes a wonder how people can live at all on a rock planet molten in the centre and falling continuously through empty space towards a massive thermonuclear ball of reacting gas and constantly missing. Perhaps the wonder is that we have survived at all. Perhaps it is a question of the lover of life constantly wanting to step in but being at the same time repelled.