Why / how would God providing compelling evidence of his existence remove our free will?

[Candide_West]

I’ve heard it said many times that God cannot provide compelling evidence for people to believe he exists as it would remove our free will. But as yet I’ve not found any solid reasoning the statement. It seems to simply be stated as a brute fact.

I currently see no reason why this would be the case. Even stranger (to me) given that this seems to be considered to be a brute fact is that it seems to also be accepted that God in fact CAN sometimes provide compelling evidence of his existence and yet NOT remove the free will of the person or group of people.

If anyone has a solid explanation for the reasoning behind this I’d be very grateful.

Thanks

 

[danserr]

Michael Murray has pointed out that God values the free will of his creatures as a very great good (necessary to come into a loving relationship with Him). Yet for this free will to exist, there must be a lack of pervasive coercion. For instance, if there were a policeman on every street corner, no one would ever speed or run red lights. A world of pervasive coercion would be a world where morally significant freedom would be impossible. If God became the moral police, always telling us exactly what to do and think, then morally significant human freedom would be impossible.

To put it another way, a woman does not freely marry a man if she does so because he threatens to kill her. Similarly, one could not freely choose to believe in God were that choice preceded by a full guided tour of hell.

By decreasing the immediacy of his existence, God prevents this pervasive coercion and safeguards human freedom.

As to why God can appear to some people (St. Paul), all this shows is that God can appear to some people without diminishing free will. It does not follow he could appear to everyone in this way without hindering free will.

There is an old thread on this I discussed in more detail, try searching for that.

Actually, Here is the thread.

 

[ASimon]

I’ve heard it said many times that God cannot provide compelling evidence for people to believe he exists as it would remove our free will. But as yet I’ve not found any solid reasoning the statement. It seems to simply be stated as a brute fact.

I currently see no reason why this would be the case. Even stranger (to me) given that this seems to be considered to be a brute fact is that it seems to also be accepted that God in fact CAN sometimes provide compelling evidence of his existence and yet NOT remove the free will of the person or group of people.

If anyone has a solid explanation for the reasoning behind this I’d be very grateful.

Thanks

I don’t think we have free will in the first place, but if we did - the argument would be that the human mind is simply not wired to disbelieve things it knows to be true. People can assert that they don’t believe something that’s obviously true, but they can’t believe that they don’t believe it.

So if God made his existence known beyond any doubt, we would not have option of disbelieving in him - not at the neurological level.

 

[Katholish]

God manifesting His existence in supernatural ways would not affect our Free Will at all. I think that is a false argument.

Historically, in fact, it seems that quite often, God’s people turned away from Him even when supernatural manifestations were abundant. Adam turned away from God even though there was no doubt of His existence. Immediately after crossing the Red Sea, the Chosen People created false idols, David turned away from God, as did Solomon, neither of whom doubted God’s existence.

For goodness sake, Judas himself witnessed Christ perform countless miracles.

The obscurity of the intellect to easily acknowledge God’s existence from the evidence in the material world is a result of the Fall.

 

[fhansen]

I’ve heard it said many times that God cannot provide compelling evidence for people to believe he exists as it would remove our free will. But as yet I’ve not found any solid reasoning the statement. It seems to simply be stated as a brute fact.

I currently see no reason why this would be the case. Even stranger (to me) given that this seems to be considered to be a brute fact is that it seems to also be accepted that God in fact CAN sometimes provide compelling evidence of his existence and yet NOT remove the free will of the person or group of people.

If anyone has a solid explanation for the reasoning behind this I’d be very grateful.

Thanks

It’s been said that integrity is to do the right thing even while no one’s looking. This life is essentially the experience of existence sans God, for all practical purposes, as we have no certainty of whether or not He exists outside of faith, which means we can still, within the sovereignty of our own minds, think as we will, will as we will, and act as we will, i.e. we’re effectively our own gods here, which is the way man apparently prefers things according to the doctrine of original sin/the fall of man. Here we’re free to do as we will and the question becomes, what *will *we do with that freedom?

 

[Robertanthony]

I’ve heard it said many times that God cannot provide compelling evidence for people to believe he exists as it would remove our free will. But as yet I’ve not found any solid reasoning the statement. It seems to simply be stated as a brute fact.

I currently see no reason why this would be the case. Even stranger (to me) given that this seems to be considered to be a brute fact is that it seems to also be accepted that God in fact CAN sometimes provide compelling evidence of his existence and yet NOT remove the free will of the person or group of people.

If anyone has a solid explanation for the reasoning behind this I’d be very grateful.

Thanks

Hi Candide West, I think it’s one of those things that people hear and repeat without really questioning it. There is one “slight” problem with that idea: I think no-one in his right mind would argue that Adam doubted for one second that God existed, after all God did instruct him not to eat of the metaphorical fruit, yet he retained his free-will because he went against what God had said. I rest my case.

Katholish made an excellent point. Hats off.

 

[fhansen]

God manifesting His existence in supernatural ways would not affect our Free Will at all. I think that is a false argument.

Historically, in fact, it seems that quite often, God’s people turned away from Him even when supernatural manifestations were abundant. Adam turned away from God even though there was no doubt of His existence. Immediately after crossing the Red Sea, the Chosen People created false idols, David turned away from God, as did Solomon, neither of whom doubted God’s existence.

For goodness sake, Judas himself witnessed Christ perform countless miracles.

The obscurity of the intellect to easily acknowledge God’s existence from the evidence in the material world is a result of the Fall.

But even prior to the Fall it could be said that Adam basically exercised the first act of unbelief. The Catechism implies that man prefers things this way, prefers being his own god, OS being the first act of denying Reality, so to speak

 

[Heuchler]

God making his presence known does not prevent free will. God continually floating in the sky and appearing everytime someone has a doubt about Him is not His style and would take away any chance of disbelief. Besides, God has done more than enough. Seek and you shall find. There are miracles all around us.

 

[TryingToLearn]

I had it explained to me once in this way:

Look at how many people meet a wealthy or attractive person and are overcome by their lust for money or physical chemistry and then marry in the midst of that emotional high of having “fallen in love”. Only to later discover there was no true connection, no true love. It was just a lust.

Now imagine God in His infinite glory were to prove His existence to you.

What are the chances we would actually be able to say we truly love Him and not be just caught up in an emotional high?

Love is a choice, not an emotional high. He wants us to choose to love Him.

 

[Katholish]

But even prior to the Fall it could be said that Adam basically exercised the first act of unbelief. The Catechism implies that man prefers things this way, prefers being his own god, OS being the first act of denying Reality, so to speak

Choosing one’s own desires over God is distinct from denying His existence. Satan never denied God’s existence, nor did Adam. Just because you sin doesn’t mean that you don’t belief God exists, rather it implies that you think something else is more desirable than God. It is true that if you knew God perfectly in His essence, this is not a mistake that you could make (which is why there is no sin in Heaven), but simply knowing God exists is different from beholding the Beatific Vision. Now THAT would indeed deprive us of an exercise of Free Will, which is why no rational creature, neither man nor angel, has ever been created already enjoying the Beatific Vision.

 

[fhansen]

Choosing one’s own desires over God is distinct from denying His existence. Satan never denied God’s existence, nor did Adam. Just because you sin doesn’t mean that you don’t belief God exists, rather it implies that you think something else is more desirable than God. It is true that if you knew God perfectly in His essence, this is not a mistake that you could make (which is why there is no sin in Heaven), but simply knowing God exists is different from beholding the Beatific Vision. Now THAT would indeed deprive us of an exercise of Free Will, which is why no rational creature, neither man nor angel, has ever been created already enjoying the Beatific Vision.

We’ve had this discussion before-on the possibility of A&E having immediate knowledge of God- and I’m not considering revisiting it now-although it was enjoyable as I recall. Anyway, I tend to think that as mistrust entered mans heart at the Fall (according to the Catechism) the OS was an act of disbelief, i.e. God was no longer the God of man after that for all practical purposes-they *had *no god anymore- and that’s essentially why we’re born separated from Him now and is the reason why we remain separated from Him in this life. This is also why faith is considered to be so vital as a first step-so that mans’ very spiritual life-blood can be restored as he’s reconciled with God and communing with Him again, beginning with trust restored, a major purpose of the Atonement.

 

[WesleyF]

God manifesting His existence in supernatural ways would not affect our Free Will at all. I think that is a false argument.

Historically, in fact, it seems that quite often, God’s people turned away from Him even when supernatural manifestations were abundant. Adam turned away from God even though there was no doubt of His existence. Immediately after crossing the Red Sea, the Chosen People created false idols, David turned away from God, as did Solomon, neither of whom doubted God’s existence.

For goodness sake, Judas himself witnessed Christ perform countless miracles.

The obscurity of the intellect to easily acknowledge God’s existence from the evidence in the material world is a result of the Fall.

Now first of all, God has provided compelling evidence, just look around and see his creation! However, I’ll use the phrase as the OP probably understands it.

God providing “compelling evidence”: doesn’t remove our free will at all. We can still freely reject him. However, I think that God does want people to choose him out of volition rather than coercion. If God were to provide such “compelling evidence”, many people would serve him only so as to somehow avoid the punishment of hell. The thought of hell makes many people uncomforable, especially those who don’t believe in God. If such people were provided “compelling evidence” of God’s existence, then it would he hard (although far from impossible) for them to will their own destruction by disobeying God. God doesn’t want people to serve him out of such fear but rather he wants them to love him.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I don’t think we have free will in the first place

 

[Robertanthony]

Choosing one’s own desires over God is distinct from denying His existence. Satan never denied God’s existence, nor did Adam. Just because you sin doesn’t mean that you don’t belief God exists, rather it implies that you think something else is more desirable than God. It is true that if you knew God perfectly in His essence, this is not a mistake that you could make (which is why there is no sin in Heaven), but simply knowing God exists is different from beholding the Beatific Vision. Now THAT would indeed deprive us of an exercise of Free Will, which is why no rational creature, neither man nor angel, has ever been created already enjoying the Beatific Vision.

This.

 

[Candide_West]

Michael Murray has pointed out that God values the free will of his creatures as a very great good (necessary to come into a loving relationship with Him). Yet for this free will to exist, there must be a lack of pervasive coercion. For instance, if there were a policeman on every street corner, no one would ever speed or run red lights. A world of pervasive coercion would be a world where morally significant freedom would be impossible. If God became the moral police, always telling us exactly what to do and think, then morally significant human freedom would be impossible.

And yet all the evidence is that people can and do commit crimes even when they are certain that they will be caught. Indeed the bible contains a number of examples of exactly this as well.

To put it another way, a woman does not freely marry a man if she does so because he threatens to kill her. Similarly, one could not freely choose to believe in God were that choice preceded by a full guided tour of hell.

By decreasing the immediacy of his existence, God prevents this pervasive coercion and safeguards human freedom.

No, the person would have to believe in God if God provided compelling evidence of his existence. However, aside from this I don’t see how compelling evidence would impinge on the individuals free will at all.

As to why God can appear to some people (St. Paul), all this shows is that God can appear to some people without diminishing free will. It does not follow he could appear to everyone in this way without hindering free will.

Indeed not, but it does seem to require some explanation of why the difference. For example why did Adam and Eve maintain their free will (and in fact manage to abuse it) when God had provided them with compelling evidence of his existence. But for example me and every other atheist on earth couldn’t be given similar evidence without removing our free will.

If God does exist at least him proving that he exists would give us the evidence to start looking for the right religion etc. As it is, if God in fact does exist, he seems to have made it impossible for a large number of people to believe in him. It seems like an odd approach for a God who loves us.

There is an old thread on this I discussed in more detail, try searching for that.

Actually, Here is the thread.

Interesting read, but the argument seems to come down to one of excessive coertion. This doesn’t seem to be a problem, afterall I don’t think God would need to give a guided tour of Hell for each of us simply to provide us with compelling evidence that he exists. Nor would he need to explain exactly what the consequences of what behaviour would be.

Perhaps it could take the form of a conversation, God appearing in our living rooms as a shining ball of light, explaining to us that he does exist and ask us to do a few things in our lives. I don’t think there’d be a need for him to say “…and if you don’t i’ll do X to you”. From what Catholics say about God there shouldn’t be anything he would ask us to do that we’d find morally repugnant etc.

 

[Candide_West]

I don’t think we have free will in the first place, but if we did - the argument would be that the human mind is simply not wired to disbelieve things it knows to be true. People can assert that they don’t believe something that’s obviously true, but they can’t believe that they don’t believe it.

So if God made his existence known beyond any doubt, we would not have option of disbelieving in him - not at the neurological level.

Agreed, but I don’t see why that would remove our free will in other respects, particularly our free will in terms of the morality of our behaviour etc.

 

[Candide_West]

I had it explained to me once in this way:

Look at how many people meet a wealthy or attractive person and are overcome by their lust for money or physical chemistry and then marry in the midst of that emotional high of having “fallen in love”. Only to later discover there was no true connection, no true love. It was just a lust.

Now imagine God in His infinite glory were to prove His existence to you.

What are the chances we would actually be able to say we truly love Him and not be just caught up in an emotional high?

Love is a choice, not an emotional high. He wants us to choose to love Him.

Ah but here in lies part of the problem, I cannot love someone who I don’t believe to exist. I cannot believe God to exist without compelling evidence.

 

[ASimon]

Agreed, but I don’t see why that would remove our free will in other respects, particularly our free will in terms of the morality of our behaviour etc.

The case against free will in general is that we are all the sum of our DNA and our experiences for each moment since we were able to experience anything. That includes the type of parenting we were given. That includes the type of neighborhood we were brought up in. That includes the friends and associates we’ve been associating with all our lives. That includes the media we’ve been consuming. Basically everything. And the key is, none of these factors were/are of our choosing. So while the illusion of free will remains compelling - it simply doesn’t have a place in this framework. There is no extra factor that allows you the potential to author your own actions.

 

[Qoeleth]

I’ve heard it said many times that God cannot provide compelling evidence for people to believe he exists as it would remove our free will. But as yet I’ve not found any solid reasoning the statement. It seems to simply be stated as a brute fact.

I currently see no reason why this would be the case. Even stranger (to me) given that this seems to be considered to be a brute fact is that it seems to also be accepted that God in fact CAN sometimes provide compelling evidence of his existence and yet NOT remove the free will of the person or group of people.

If anyone has a solid explanation for the reasoning behind this I’d be very grateful.

Thanks

If something ‘proved’ its existence to us, it is not God. God is, by definition, entirely transcendent- beyond time, space and categories of perception. Belief in the ‘existence of God’ is not the same as faith in God. Faith in God implies an orientation towards the transcendent, not belief in the existence of some ‘Being’ or power.

 

[Candide_West]

The case against free will in general is that we are all the sum of our DNA and our experiences for each moment since we were able to experience anything. That includes the type of parenting we were given. That includes the type of neighborhood we were brought up in. That includes the friends and associates we’ve been associating with all our lives. That includes the media we’ve been consuming. Basically everything. And the key is, none of these factors were/are of our choosing. So while the illusion of free will remains compelling - it simply doesn’t have a place in this framework. There is no extra factor that allows you the potential to author your own actions.

Understood.

I wrote up an argument similar to this recently on another thread. Because the above still applies even if you add a soul into the mix, it is either an additional factor affecting your decisions (which means it is deterministic and hence not free) or it is a random affect generator (which means it is not rational and therefore not “willed”).

Personally though I think this comes down to how you define what you mean by the “you” who is doing the act of will. If you consider that “you” are the combination of all those factors which make up everything you are and have experienced (and for theists your God given soul). Then “you” is your free will - your awareness and continuous decision making / thought process.

That’s my way of looking at it anyway.