|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 30, 2008 14:25:58 GMT -8
Hi everybody. In the cours of our discussions here free will repeatedly was used as the most precious devine gift and the result of unconditional love. So of course I've been chewing a bit on free will. As you know, I'm very skeptical that free will exists. Mainly because of scientific reasons but also because of determinism which sounds quite logical to me. However, I’m not gonna repeat the scientific approach, I’ve already done that. And I'm still gathering scientific material to make a sophisticated point about science and free will some day soon.
What I want to discuss here are two other approaches:
1. How free is the will of a person with limited capacities? With limited capacities I don’t mean handicapped people but normal humans. Our senses are limited, our knowledge is limited. So how free are we philosophically? A man who is locked in jail can lay on his bed if he wants to or walk within his cell or chew his fingernails if he wants. Yet, that’s not what we call freedom. So tell me, how free do you think we can be with our limited capacities? Certainly not absolutely free. And when we think of humans with even less capacities, how free are they? A psychopath has less possibilities when it comes to taking a decision than a normal person. Are there free-will scales? Are some people more free than others? Wouldn't that mean that God loves some people more than others?
2. Another question: How free can we be if God is omniscient? He knows the outcome of every decision before we even take it. Doesn’t that imply that we can’t decide against his knowledge?
All of this isn't thought through. It's not meant to be a great strike against free will or anything. Just something buzzing through my head. Any thoughts on this?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 30, 2008 18:19:56 GMT -8
Mo, I'd agree that different people have different levels of freedom.
1. None of us have absolute free will simply due to the laws of nature (such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics).*
2. Some are born with or into situation that limits their free will. I suppose the Christian view would be that even for those whose free will is almost totally incapacitated, there is at least some iota of choice.
3. Jesus addressed the apparent inequity in a parable about what people do with the time and resources they've been given and suggests a satisfactory answer from God's point of view:
Luke 12:48b
For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.
So, apparently, God expects more from those who have been given more (such as the privilege of a high degree of free will), and less of those who have been given less.
There's a similar idea in Paul that different people have "different measures of faith" as well- Romans 1:23.
*Some see this as a blessing from God in that the law of decay limits the capacity of human evil, while at the same time forcing humans to spend time on wholesome activities. Of course, evil people can take advantage of the law of decay, but it would be much worse to have evil people with no physical restrictions.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 8, 2008 1:16:27 GMT -8
Mo, I'd agree that different people have different levels of freedom. 1. None of us have absolute free will simply due to the laws of nature (such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics).* 2. Some are born with or into situation that limits their free will. I suppose the Christian view would be that even for those whose free will is almost totally incapacitated, there is at least some iota of choice. 3. Jesus addressed the apparent inequity in a parable about what people do with the time and resources they've been given and suggests a satisfactory answer from God's point of view: Luke 12:48b For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.So, apparently, God expects more from those who have been given more (such as the privilege of a high degree of free will), and less of those who have been given less. There's a similar idea in Paul that different people have "different measures of faith" as well- Romans 1:23. *Some see this as a blessing from God in that the law of decay limits the capacity of human evil, while at the same time forcing humans to spend time on wholesome activities. Of course, evil people can take advantage of the law of decay, but it would be much worse to have evil people with no physical restrictions. Isn't this really arbitrary? Why does God give more to some and less to others? Doesn't the fact that you think nobody has an entirely free will and some people even have only a iota of free will conflict with the assumption that all the drama of the fall, of the cross and of life on this planet was for the sake of truely free will? |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 10, 2008 20:28:00 GMT -8
We don't know, but the answer could involve the sins of others (or the individual in question), the good deeds/choices of others (or the individual in question), natural cause-and-effect,chance (if one has room for that in their theology), predestination, an opportunity to glorify Himself, and other factors.
No way- it heightens it all the more in my mind- the point being that it's not mostly about what one has or doesn't have... it's about what one does with what one does have!
This is, of course, the lesson that all people learn who overcome adversity. This is also the very thing most of us admire in people who do.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 15, 2008 1:28:35 GMT -8
No way- it heightens it all the more in my mind- the point being that it's not mostly about what one has or doesn't have... it's about what one has with what one does have! This is, of course, the lesson that all people learn who overcome adversity. This is also the very thing most of us admire in people who do. I don't feel like you answered my question. If I got you right (maybe I'm confused by all the different concepts I've read on this board) you think that free will is the highest good. The reason why suffering and evil must exist and why it all makes sense. Yet you acknoledge that there are people who have virtually no free will. I don't see how this makes sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 16, 2008 21:45:35 GMT -8
First off, I made a typo. My statement above should have been:
the point being that it's not mostly about what one has or doesn't have... it's about what one does with what one does have!
I had written "has" instead of "does", butchering my point (I fixed it above).
Anyway, hopefully that helps a bit.
Let's put it this way: the difference between absolutely no free will (true determinism) and a small amount of free will is still the incredible difference between 0 and 1. If God gives someone a tremendous amount of free will opporunity, let's say a 10, then He requires something of that person in line with what he's been given, if someone is given a very little amount, very little is required, to take Jesus' quote above to it's logical conclusion.
It makes sense to require something of someone who has been given a little. It would make no sense to require anything of anyone who had been given absolutely nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 17, 2008 3:06:27 GMT -8
First off, I made a typo. My statement above should have been: the point being that it's not mostly about what one has or doesn't have... it's about what one does with what one does have! I had written "has" instead of "does", butchering my point (I fixed it above). Anyway, hopefully that helps a bit. Let's put it this way: the difference between absolutely no free will (true determinism) and a small amount of free will is still the incredible difference between 0 and 1. If God gives someone a tremendous amount of free will opporunity, let's say a 10, then He requires something of that person in line with what he's been given, if someone is given a very little amount, very little is required, to take Jesus' quote above to it's logical conclusion. It makes sense to require something of someone who has been given a little. It would make no sense to require anything of anyone who had been given absolutely nothing. 1. please don't edit posts that have been replied to already. This is just confusing and in the worst case misleading. You can always clear misunderstandings afterwards too. Or, if you have to edit something because you fear your typo or whatever would cause even more misunderstandings in the future, then I would suggest that you write EDIT in capital letters in front of the edited part and the date and in brackets the original statement. This is just a suggestion. 2. I'll ask again, cause I don't get the essential part answered: If free will is the highest good, and all the drama of the world is due to it, how come God isn't granting completely free will? Why does he even go so far to grant just a "iota of choice" (as you put it) to some people? And what about those, you are physically so disabled, that they don't even have consciousness and hence not even a iota of free will. Sure, according to your logic, God won't judge any of these unfortunate creatures. But why did he create them to begin with? Why didn't he give them free will, if free will is the essence of his love? Please answer all of these questions. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 17, 2008 18:55:00 GMT -8
Because to grant completely free will would mean to confer omnipotence. But even if you're not meaning completely free will, too much free will would create too much potential for evil. In other words, I'm saying that it seems to me that on the spectrum of free will there is a certain "sweet spot" that allows for the most possible good and simultaneously limits as much potential for evil as possible while mantaining the possible good. This sweet spot is the range which God permits humans to operate in.
This is just my conjecture, but I think one could back it up to some degree with Scripture. There are probably some principles here that can be found in Proverbs and Ecclesiates, I'd bet.
I don't understand the grammar or the point here, Mo.
Well, as far as we know they don't have free will. But it may be that they do somehow. I certainly think that many even severely disabled folks have free will deep down in the mystery of their souls. But you'll say if we can't see any reason to believe they have free will, why believe it? Fair enough, but they still might.
But, you're right, ultimately one could answer that God only confers free will on those whom he will judge, and He doesn't judge those who have no free will.
I'll venture an answer here, but I have to take a nod to something Chris just said: you get a lot of mileage out of asking us questions on every speculative aspect of theology, and it does seem to imply that you see the lack of definitive answers on some of these issues as solid evidence against the truth of the Christian worldview.
I don't see it that way, though I think these questions are interesting and reasonable to ask. In fact, I don't see how we couldn't ask these questions being thinking and feeling human beings. But, again, I think that there are things that God has chosen not to reveal to us at this time. And not only am I okay with that, I feel like it makes sense for him to do that in many cases.
Anyway, here's a venture in answer to your question:
I see the potential for birth defects, disabilities, etc.. as contingencies/ possibilities that God has built into the universe. Somehow I think these kinds of possibilities serve God's "free will agenda". I know you can use a statement like this against me big time, but let me say this: I know of people and have read of people who have loved someone with severe disabilities- people who we would probably guess don't really have much or any free will. And what I have often observed in these kinds of loving relationships is that the disabled person themself offer invaluable opportunities to the caregiver to learn about love. And I don't mean just that the caregiver has to learn about "tough love"- no, I mean the caregiver often learns certain qualities of love by the example or observance of the "disabled person"-- or even through the grief of loving someone through incredible trial.
You can shoot this all to hell, Mo, but I'm telling you that there are people who have been through things like this that could testify to how even the most severe disabilities and tragedies can be redeemed.
I don't expect this to satisfy all your curiousity. Mine isn't, so yours definitely won't be.
At some point we must trust God to this stuff... or not.
As a side point, I'm not sure these questions are any easier to answer from an atheist perspective. Why did a naturalistic universe have to include suffering? And if there had to be suffering, why extreme suffering? It seems like a lot more trouble/ complexity than a naturalistic universe without suffering.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 17, 2008 19:16:29 GMT -8
Mo, My friend who goes by the name Hume (who doesn't frequent the boards too much lately, but I always have hopes he will again ;D, because he's a great logician and solid writer) posted some thoughts along similar lines, I'd really like for you to read and respond to: The Problem of Evil or the Problem of Adventure? |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 16, 2008 13:51:11 GMT -8
Because to grant completely free will would mean to confer omnipotence. But even if you're not meaning completely free will, too much free will would create too much potential for evil. In other words, I'm saying that it seems to me that on the spectrum of free will there is a certain "sweet spot" that allows for the most possible good and simultaneously limits as much potential for evil as possible while mantaining the possible good. This sweet spot is the range which God permits humans to operate in. Alright. Don’t you find it pretty random how the sweetspot varies from individual to individual? It doesn’t ring plausible to me. Well, as far as we know they don't have free will. But it may be that they do somehow. I certainly think that many even severely disabled folks have free will deep down in the mystery of their souls. But you'll say if we can't see any reason to believe they have free will, why believe it? Fair enough, but they still might. Much more interesting would be the question, if they don’t have a conscience, no perception, how can they have a free will? If they are unable to turn their will into action, how could they possibly be considered free? I'll venture an answer here, but I have to take a nod to something Chris just said: you get a lot of mileage out of asking us questions on every speculative aspect of theology, and it does seem to imply that you see the lack of definitive answers on some of these issues as solid evidence against the truth of the Christian worldview. It’s been a long while since I posted here the last time and a lot has been written in the meantime. I hope I won’t have to repeat why I find my “why” questions not only legitimate but even necessary. The Christian claims in my opinion make very little sense. There’s a lot of illogical arguments and my questions expose them. If free will is the essence of God’s love there should be a coherent answer to the question of why, according to you people have different levels of free will and why there are people who apparently have no free will at all. You answered the latter question with the admitted shot from the hip that the existence of such disabled persons is beneficial for the people who care for them, because they learn a lesson in terms of love. But this benefit doesn’t explain why God is withholding the essence of his love from the disabled person. Why he didn’t give them the most precious gift. Why he put them into a world where they will spend their time on earth in extreme disability, often suffering from physical pain. In the context that God is loving, this makes no sense. Neither in the context of his power. He should be able to teach humans a lesson about love with other measures. As a side point, I'm not sure these questions are any easier to answer from an atheist perspective. Why did a naturalistic universe have to include suffering? And if there had to be suffering, why extreme suffering? It seems like a lot more trouble/ complexity than a naturalistic universe without suffering. I’ve been really wanting to answer this question for a while because I think there’s an easy and persuasive answer. The limited resources of this planet have led to different kinds of living forms that share the fact that they are living in competition and “Fressfeindschaft”*. The ability to feel physical (or psychological) pain (through the nervous system) has proved itself to be pragmatic because if it wouldn’t hurt to be ripped by a predator, animals as well as humans might not take the necessary measures to avoid that situation. Freedom of pain has become an immense driving force for humans. Freedom of pain is even one part of existing definitions of happiness. At the same time we are predators ourselves. Our ability to be merciless, violent and coldblooded, to hunt down a creature, stab it to death, rip it open and eat it is (or was) an evolutionary necessity. In modern societies we could use a little less predator traits no doubt. But we can’t change or inner programs (yet). The question of whether a naturalistic universe could do with less trouble is futile. There is no intelligence behind it. The things develop the way they do according to the laws of natural selection. *There seems to be no English equivalent. Fressfeindschaft consists of the words “fressen” (to eat) and “Feindaschaft” (enmity). We could translate it as eat-enmity. Herbivores and plants are eat-enemies, herbivores and predators are eat-enemies, predators and predators are eat-enemies, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 18, 2008 19:37:32 GMT -8
These questions have a lot of force. Honestly, I can't answer them with satisfaction. However, I would say that God can love things without free will and they can experience his love. It's just that free will provides for the highest experience of love. If there are humans without free will (infants, those with severe disabilities) at the very least he grants them free will in their resurrection.
As to your thoughts on why a naturalistic universe would include suffering, of course your reasoning makes sense in the universe we have. But go back a bit further. Why did the universe have to include competition in the first place? You'll say it just does. That's fair. But it seems to me to be a strange outcome.
On the other side of the coin (arguing from the complete opposite angle), do you think competition is a bad thing? If it is, then by what standard are you judging it. If it isn't, then why couldn't a God be responsible for it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 19, 2008 11:26:07 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 13, 2009 16:56:16 GMT -8
Frankly, can't remember where we left off on this it's been so while. Maybe when I have time, I'll read back through it and see where it still needs to go.
But, as I'm reading through Antony Flew's There is A God, I was surprised to learn that he has increasingly become convinced of free will (having started from a compatibilist standpoint). In fact, he once criticized the theists "free will defense" (a phrase which he apparently coined) regarding the problem of pain, but now apparently finds it valid.
(There is A God, Antony Flew, Chapter 2: Where the Evidence Leads)
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jun 14, 2009 5:05:45 GMT -8
who said that Yah was omniscient? i have not read a scripture that says that (though there might be)... from what i have read that presumption is based off of tradition.
but i think that we are in a jail celll and the jailer tells us that we hav e the choije to leave or stay. now, whaen we recieve salvation we will be saved from the death penalty that you would have gotten had you not chosen to be free from the jail cell. now, after we leave the jail cell, we let Yeshua work through us in works and faith. but if we do evil again, we are eventually going to be arrested and put back in this jail cell.
so you are walking on a road and you can choose route A B C or D... now, you choose B, so you now can choose E F or G. you choose G. now, you can choose H I J K or L. do you see what i am saying? you have chooses, but Yah already nows the outcome of any of your chices.
plus, the bible makes it clear that Yah learns from humans, so either he is limiting his knoweledge, or he does not know decisions of humans because he gave them free will.
shalom- john
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 14, 2009 15:16:49 GMT -8
If I'm understanding your position, yeshuafreak, it sounds like you're placing the bulk of the work of salvation on the choice of the individual, almost as if we save ourselves and then God works through us. Could you clarify. In your view, how much "evil" would cause us to be put back in the cell? This touches on the question of whether one can lose their salvation or not. Here's a thread we have started on that: Falling Away? Losing Your Salvation?I'll be back later on the subject of omniscience. |
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jun 15, 2009 14:28:01 GMT -8
iu think that one can loose his salvation. if a man drowns once and then gets saved can he not be in danger if he drwons again? hopefully he would have learned to be more careful, but it can still happen. i personally dont know how much evil would cause one to loose ones salvation... Yah is the judge. perhaps it is any sin. perhaps it is only blasphemy or a "sin unto death"
as for my view on salvation, i think we have faith and then YAH, not us, saves us. for our works cannot save. but when we have faith, we open the door for Yah to save us. then, ah works through us yes. but i am not going to get into the mechanics of salvation here. my point was that we have free will, but off course it is limited by our world that our conciousness creates.
shalom- john
|
|
