 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/28/2003 6:12 AM (GMT -6) |   | What is free will anyway in the context of our discussions?
Our minds are the product of physical processes. Modern neuroscience has proven this. We operate according to the laws of physics. We don't "will" our heart to beat, we don't "will" our body to heal itself when we get cut, etc. Every thought that our brain entertains is caused by something.
As far as quantum mechanics, has anyone shows that a quantum fluctuation affects our thought processes?
And randomness is not the same thing as "free will"- in the sense of what we mean by free will, is it? I mean, if we grant that quantum mechanics may throw a loophole in determinism (and many physicists believe that it does not)- how does this prove free will?
However, compatibilism- believed by probably the majority of philosophers, is workable with this. It simply means that we are given the illusion of choice- in other words, that we are not being forced to do something. Example- I have a choice between a Diet Coke or a regular coke. No one is holding a gun to my head. I choose the regular coke. That is compatibilism. But, no one would say that that choice is not caused by factors- utterly caused by physical processes- taste buds, conditioning, what have you.
Someone here has said that God possesses libertarian free will. I may be willing to grant that, since he doesn't have to operate by the laws of physics and is a self-caused agent. (Of course that brings up the point of - is God able to be anything other than a moral being? Is he actually amoral?...) But it doesn't follow from that that the created beings possess libertarian free will. Which of us has chosen to be born? Who had control over that? Who is self-actualized? Who has chosen his or her own gender? We are all products of different forces (controlled by God, I assert) that act on our brains to do different actions. Even reproduction- far from being a miracle - what a common scientific occurrence. We know exactly how it occurs. Nothing random about it.
This doesn't mean that we cannot be held responsible for immoral or illegal actions. We have to, in order for our society to operate, follow the social contract. If someone doesn't follow that, who can take the blame other than the person who did the action (regardless of whether he/she had free will)? We don't say to someone convicted of murder that - you are now not held responsible because of all the various factors that made you act the way you did. We operate under a compatibilist theory- in that, no one held a gun to your head, so you had a choice, you committed murder, you pay. However, if you are mentally insane, you are NOT responsible, b/c , under compatibilism again, you did not have any choice in the matter.
And theories of punishment exist that are not related to morality or blame. How about just keeping those people who offend away from the rest of us, to keep us safe? Doesn't matter if they are morally responsible or not, they're still dangerous, so we need to keep them locked up.
I guess the concept of compatibilism doesn't bother me the way it does others here. So I'm wondering, what does libertarian free will mean anyway to you?
"All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher."
- Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/28/2003 7:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Sometimes, to discuss the will (or in this case libertarian free will) with quantum mechanics is to kind of suggest that the will, like the soul, can be placed on a table, as if, "Here's a soul and a will. How much do they weigh, and how affected are they by our bombardments?" As if the body looses some weight when it dies because the soul and will depart.
It's like evil. Can someone pick up a piece of evil? Can they set it in front of you and say, "Gads, here's some evil; kill it before it kills us"? And for the lawyer, what is it that drives the case of murder in many, if not most, instances? Motive. But can any lawyer pick up a motive and place it on a table for all to see? Even contracts are not "things" if by things we mean paper with writing. They can be in multiple places at once, on a computer, in your head. The idea (another intagible) is what constitutes the essence of a contract; the contents of consideration for its purpose.
Libertarian free will, if it is anything, is that it is not a "thing." It is not susceptible to science's lab experiements anymore than thinking is not--not the activity of the brain when the thought process is going on, but the behind-the-scenes intangible driving the activity; the mind. (The mind is not the product of physical process, it is the drive behind much of them.)
Our own limitations (succeptible to science experiment) is proof that we do not have unlimited freedom. But to concede this is neither to deny what freedom I do have or that my freedom is necessarily compatibilistic. It simply means that I am limited under certain circumstances, a great deal, as a matter of fact.
When Satan rebelled against God in heaven, as we understand this, and with what little we have to understand this, he was obviously not first encumbered with compatibilistic free will; he would never have sinned had he been. This should show us clearly that freedom--complete or limited--is ultimately not in our best interest. It is to run and win the race, but it is not to to sit on the victor's throne throughout eternity. Some sort of loving safe guard must be put in place to protect our eternal position. Compatibility--as best as we can arrive--is the means by which a loving God insures our eternal safe dwelling. More so, by becoming a Christian, I am agreeing to this, and, by choice, I am thus abdicating back to God any utility (vis. freedom) given me for this present life as a means to accomplish compatibility as an end. I do not therefore see God unreasonable or unjust in operating within this process. Where as Satan was first given free will and had no insurance of eternal safety, the Christian is cleared from this danger. (Why God didn't give Satan this same opportunity is not for me to say.)
Well, I hope this adds to the conversation,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 1/28/2003 7:26 AM (GMT -6) | | RD said:
quote:
we are given the illusion of choice
To me, free will means that my experience of life is not, in fact, an illusion.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 1/28/2003 7:32 AM (GMT -6) | | You might want to read Satan and the Problem of Evil. It treats these questions you ask.
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/28/2003 7:39 AM (GMT -6) | | I'll get around to reading it. I'm currently reading about 4 books on this type of subject. I 've read a ton on the problem of evil. I doubt that anything in that book is going to change my mind- but I will of course have an open mind and see.
I like your quote, Atheist - "The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either."
It cracks me up. I totally understand. Ignorance is bliss. The more I read and actually think about these subjects, the more dissatisfied I become. I'm not sure that's a good place to be. | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 1/28/2003 7:56 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
the more dissatisfied I become. I'm not sure that's a good place to be.
I guess it is a matter of adopting a position and defending it til death.
maybe that is too extreme?
har har har
Blessings,
Paul
I have no claim to fame on that comment--just clarifying--, Daniel C. Dennett is the (brilliant) man behind that quote. 
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
Edited by - A_Theist on 01/28/2003 12:57:38 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/28/2003 10:19 AM (GMT -6) | | JET: "To me, free will means that my experience of life is not, in fact, an illusion."
I don't follow. Who said that your life experience is an illusion? Even if we were but automatons that God controls through pushbuttons, you'd still have a life experience if you had consciousness.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 1/28/2003 10:49 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
RD: we are given the illusion of choice
RD: So I'm wondering, what does libertarian free will mean anyway to you?
JET: To me, free will means that my experience of life is not, in fact, an illusion.
RD: I don't follow. Who said that your life experience is an illusion? Even if we were but automatons that God controls through pushbuttons, you'd still have a life experience if you had consciousness.
I experience myself deliberating between options and making choices. Given your views, you believe that, whatever my experience may be, it is not an experience of genuine choice. As you stated, choice is an "illusion". I see no reason to believe this.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/28/2003 11:26 AM (GMT -6) | | | Hey - what you believe is cool. The "problem" of free will and determinism has been debated for centuries by people far more intelligent than I, and there still is no definitive answer. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 1/28/2003 11:55 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
The "problem" of free will and determinism has been debated for centuries by people far more intelligent than I, and there still is no definitive answer.
Well said. Good discussion, though.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 1/28/2003 1:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi RD:
You said-
"Someone here has said that God possesses libertarian free will. I may be willing to grant that, since he doesn't have to operate by the laws of physics and is a self-caused agent. (Of course that brings up the point of - is God able to be anything other than a moral being? Is he actually amoral?...)"
I think that the more you adopt compatibalism as an explanation of reality, you will find that to be consistent in your system you will have to conclude God is amoral. There is no way out of it.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 1/28/2003 5:28 PM (GMT -6) | |
Free will is the power of contrary moral choice. That is, in each moral choice one faces, one is able to choose good or evil. This is fundamental to Judeo-Christian values, as far as I can tell. All sane individuals presuppose their own free will.
Before you get mad at me for saying that, ask yourself this question: Could those child-molester Roman Catholic priests have chosen other than to commit such unspeakable crimes as they did? Could Hitler have refrained from slaughtering millions of Jews? Could Osama bin Laden have chosen not to become a terrorist?
If your answer is "no" to the above questions, then how can you say any criminal deserves punishment of any kind? To be sure, how can you say any person deserves hell?
Without belief in responsible freedom of the human will, only moral lawlessness and dictatorial exercise of power can be the ultimate theological and political approach to "ethics."
(Of course I should add that a person who has habitually chosen evil will, by force of habit, continue in such a course unless and until revelation of the truth and consequent repentance takes place. Or, as Jesus said, "If you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed...and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.")
http://revivaltheology.net/
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
Edited by - John Earp on 01/28/2003 10:31:34 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 1/28/2003 8:14 PM (GMT -6) | | a) Reasonable Doubt assumes that for x to be "caused" it must be "necessitated." But there's no reason to assume this. A cause can govern more than one possible effect. Hence, we don't need to assume that everything is either necessitated by antecedent causes or are capricious.
b) If all actions are caused by antecedent causes, our sense of freedom is an illusion, and so is our sense of moral responsibility.
c) If libertarian free will is truly unintelligible, then it is meaningless to apply it to GOD. Yet, even most Calvinist want to say that GOD has free will in a libertarian sense. This presupposes that we have some analogical experience of libertarian free will.
d) Every world view presupposes fundamental concepts -- concepts that cannot be reduced to or analyzed into something else. "Existence," for example. I would argue that freedom is such a reality. The very idea of reducing it to something more fundamental destroys it.
e) Neuroscience does not prove that all thoughts are chemically caused, though most neuroscientists to date assume this. Neuroscience simply shows that all thoughts involve chemical reactions. This is no different than saying consciousness always involves chemical reactions but is not reducible to chemical reactions. For a VERY interesting book arguing on a nuerological basis that thoughts can't[.i] be reduced to chemical reactions, see J. Schwartz, Mind and Brain. He shows that sheer attention, directed by will, can bring about neurological rewirings in the brain and that this attention and will cannot itself be reduced to such neurological wirings. He argues, in other words, that there must be an aspect of the self that transcends neurons -- and is FREE.
Blessings
Greg
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 1/29/2003 12:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/29/2003 3:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks, Greg, I will check out that book. I also am contemplating your answers- I appreciate it.
John Earp, I don't know who you are, but saying: "All sane individuals presuppose their own free will." That's simply ad hominem- I don't believe you even thought 2 seconds about what I wrote, bc your answers are not at all convincing. If you've read any philosophy at all, you have seen that many compatibilists believe that individuals can be held morally responsible. You're entitled to your beliefs and opinions, I haven't called people who disagree with me insane. I don't see how that furthers the conversation. | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/29/2003 4:53 AM (GMT -6) | | How about this?
We're concerned with "choice." Do we deny that there is a causal chain to our choice? I, the individual, am part of the causal chain.
The individual may be the only conscious element of the causal chain. Thus, we feel that we have more "choice" when no other thinkers are involved, but when solely the individual is involved. I don't argue with that. "Choice" is the awareness of our role in the causal chain. We know that by doing A, event B can be expected to follow, etc. So if we do C, we know that B will not follow. We choose between A and C (to simplify) - that is part of the causal chain leading to the result. But performing A was guided and influenced by all the events that went into forming us before the awareness of A's leading to B. God is part of that influence, as is, our heredity, our environment, etc. Our awareness, and our feeling of choice, comes at the end of the causal chain, and thus, we confuse it for a cause in itself. It is not.
Does anyone deny this? If you can see what I'm getting at, and you are a theist, you state that God is a cause in and of Himself. Humans, are not.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 1/29/2003 6:45 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
John Earp, I don't know who you are, but saying: "All sane individuals presuppose their own free will." That's simply ad hominem- I don't believe you even thought 2 seconds about what I wrote, bc your answers are not at all convincing. If you've read any philosophy at all, you have seen that many compatibilists believe that individuals can be held morally responsible. You're entitled to your beliefs and opinions, I haven't called people who disagree with me insane. I don't see how that furthers the conversation.
I think you yourself said the same thing, RD, in your comments about legal responsibility, etc. In any case, I certainly wasn't meaning to attack you personally. Because I DON'T assume you are insane, I am responding to you. Because you DO assume your actions are free, you are likewise engaging others.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/29/2003 8:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Perhaps this is a problem of semantics. I do believe that I am sitting here right now replying to you because I have decided to. But why have I decided to? Is my action caused or uncaused (random)?
Yes, you have different options, you can only pick one of them, and if you were to go back in time and do it all over again(without the knowledge that you had done it the first time), you would do it exactly the same way, because you would have the same internal and external stimuli acting on you in the same manner.
What is the external mechanism inside or outside of us that would cause us to decide differently the second time? If you say that is the soul: if the soul is not affected by causes or random elements, then how does it "magically" come to a decision about something? Decisions must either be uncaused or caused, there are not many other options. | | Back to Top | | |
|
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 1/29/2003 9:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi RD:
quote:
Perhaps this is a problem of semantics. I do believe that I am sitting here right now replying to you because I have decided to. But why have I decided to? Is my action caused or uncaused (random)?
Yes, you have different options, you can only pick one of them, and if you were to go back in time and do it all over again(without the knowledge that you had done it the first time), you would do it exactly the same way, because you would have the same internal and external stimuli acting on you in the same manner.
What is the external mechanism inside or outside of us that would cause us to decide differently the second time? If you say that is the soul: if the soul is not affected by causes or random elements, then how does it "magically" come to a decision about something? Decisions must either be uncaused or caused, there are not many other options.
I must disagree with you here. I don't believe that if events were rerun in exactly the same way that the same outcome would occur. Modern physics shows us this. It is demonstratable through experiment. There is a statistical nature to reality. I also must part ways with you on your reductionist view of the human mind/soul.
I think most Christian thinkers would categorize humanity as greater than the sums of their parts. Gerald Schroeder categorizes mind as an emergent property. Like the surface tension of water. If you had only a few, or even a few billion water molecules, surface tension is not a property of water you could predict. Likewise, mind emerges through the complexity of the brain.
JP Moreland distinguishes between event-event causation and agent causation. This is acceptable to most even compatibalists like Norman Geisler (barring hard determinists).
Your causual-chain description of reality has been shown to be obsolete and is held by few, save Calvinists such as RC Sproul.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/29/2003 9:42 AM (GMT -6) | | You make some good points but I do not believe that the view is obsolete. If you go back in time to the exact same point, the exact same factors are at work. If they are not, then it is not going back in time to that point. Chaos theory, etc., has been shown to not have any bearing on this philosophical topic. An event is either caused or random.
I believe that God is the first cause. I can't believe that I myself am the ultimate cause of my decisions or my existence. From the very fact that I did not create myself. My existence was caused. My physical body was caused. My brain was caused. God caused it. Not me. Like I said, we can choose between different options, but those choices are influenced, or caused, by something.
Just tell me for the sake of argument, what is a description of an event that is neither caused nor random?
Describe how a soul makes a decision outside of the context of physical properties.
BTW, I love R.C. Sproul. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 1/29/2003 9:57 AM (GMT -6) | | RD,
At one point you seem to concede that God may have Libertarian free will. This is an important point. Do you agree that this is true? Another way to phrase this is: Did God create freely or out of necessity? What does it mean to you to say that God was the "first cause"? Could God have refrained from creating? Could God have created differently?
Christian orthodoxy has maintained that God did indeed create freely and out of nothing. This is a claim to God's "aseity". Do you agree?
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/29/2003 9:57 AM (GMT -6) | | To continue, let's say that a human agent uses his or her soul in order to make decisions. Is the soul caused or random? If neither, you then should say that the soul is on par with God- that is, it is its own first cause. So reincarnation makes some sense.
I'd say the soul is caused, by God.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/29/2003 10:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Modes of Thought-
First, I don't know what the word aseity means.
It's ironic that you'd use the argument of 'orthodoxy' against me on this board- when all along i've been trying to say that the OV is unorthodox.... But I understand your gist.
As far as the argument from cosmology- that is the notion of God as a "first cause" or "prime mover" of the universe. That was a big part of Aquinas' arguments for God's existence. Although atheists argue that the Big Bang has taken care of this argument, theists can still argue that the Big Bang WAS God's doing.
I'd say that God did not have to create anything. And being the first cause, he is self actualizing, he is "free" in the sense that you are saying. But I've considered the possibility of: Does God have a choice regarding the morality of his actions? Or are his actions by definition moral? Or is he ONLY able to act morally no matter what, b/c of his very definition? I am not sure. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 1/29/2003 10:23 AM (GMT -6) | | It seems to me that you are conceding that God does indeed possess libertarian free will. Is this correct? God could have refrained from created. If so, this is an important point of agreement from which we might continue a discussion.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/29/2003 11:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Hmm, I feel as if you are laying some type of trap... I'd have to say that I've contemplated what I wrote above- is God free to act contrary to his nature?
Is what God says automatically morally correct by fiat? For example, when God ordered Abraham to kill Isaac, was that purported action immoral or moral? If we lived in some type of bizarro world where the 10 Commandments were actually the exact opposite of what they are- would we agree that they were moral just b/c God commanded them- or are we judging "morality" from some other angle? The reason I say this, is, if we say that anything that God commands is by definition moral, if God suddenly appeared and told you to kill your son as he did with Abraham, that would go against what we think is objectively moral, wouldn't it? So I think we must say that God's actions and God's morality correspond but are not necessarily one and the same. In other words, God has the freedom to act in any manner, but always CHOOSES to act according to his nature.
I can't completely disregard the argument that God is amoral, that it is impossible for him to act in any other way than in accordance with his perfect, omnipotent, etc., nature. It is really confusing and I am not going to come down hard either way yet. I have to think about it more.
But, consistent with my argument about determinism - what is not necessary in itself, must have a cause. I've argued that God is the first cause, therefore, he is necessary in himself. I lik e what Jonathan Edwards has written on the subject (and I am NOT appealing to the argument from authority, I just want to be clear that this is not something I made up off the top of my head :) )
"If God create a world, that world must depend upon him, as a necessary consequence. To deny this, is to deny the nature and identity of things. For what is to create, but for an independent cause to impart ad extra a dependent existence? So that to deny dependence, is to deny creation. But though the consequence be necessary, if the antecedent be established; yet the antecedent itself is not necessary, except from decree; for there is not, in the nature of things, any antecedent necessity that a world be created. That is, to suppose its non-existence implies no contradiction, it being evidently the effect of sovereign pleasure. Hence to deny the consequence, on supposition of the antecedent, is to deny the nature of things, and to assert a contradiction, though the antecedent itself be not necessary. And hence also, in the instance now specified among others innumerable, the antecedent is an object of decree, but not the consequence. It is absurd to say , that God decreed the dependence of the world upon himself, as it is to say, he decreed that two and two shall be equal to four, rather than to five."
These remarks, duly considered in their just consequences, will abundantly show, that some things are necessary because decreed, as the creation, the preservation, and the government of the world; the redemption, the purification, and the salvation of the church: and that other things as all imperfections, dependence, relations, and especially moral evils, come to be necessary, and so capable of being foreknown, only by connection, or consequence. That is, if the antecedent, which is under the control of the Almighty Sovereign, be admitted, the consequence follows infallibly from the nature of things. But if another antecedent be established, another consequence will follow, with equal certainty, also from the nature of things. " | | Back to Top | | |
| 92 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:29 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|