Is it really free will?

[Briebee72]

I originally posted this question as a talking point and really was not gonna reply . First I would like to thank everyone who did for their civil responses. And second I would like to point out a few things as to why I question the whole free will.

I believe that God knows all and everything - so he already knows which way one is going to believe.

This sounds a bit more like predestination than free will. If everything is already known and already planned then you have no say or "free will" in the matter. Just like when things go dark or unplanned and people say "it is all part of god's plan" . Someone else is at the wheel, you are following a divine predestination which again is anything but free will.

Just like with our children when we want them to clean a room or do something they are otherwize disinclined to do ,we give an ultimatum. Clean your room or you'll not get that new toy/watch tv/get the dinner you want...it is not free will that they clean their room it is basically blackmail and forcing someone to do something in order to get a reward. The key is they would not have done it on their own. They were coerced.

Same with Heaven or the afterlife. You must do this or that, you must ask for forgiveness, you must... (insert appropriate list per religion here) do any number of things or else! There are many descriptive terms that can be applied to that list but free will is not one of them.

How many times has someone come to you to talk about religion and god and you have used the words "it is all part of god's plan" I mean if it is a plan and it is preordained then how is it free will?

To me free will would be live your life as you see fit and if you lead a good life you get in if not you go south. Not live your life but you have to do this and that and say this and act like this and follow these rules... or else, that is more an ultimatum then anything.

Sponsored

 

[Caballus]

I originally posted this question as a talking point and really was not gonna reply . First I would like to thank everyone who did for their civil responses. And second I would like to point out a few things as to why I question the whole free will.


This sounds a bit more like predestination than free will. If everything is already known and already planned then you have no say or "free will" in the matter. Just like when things go dark or unplanned and people say "it is all part of god's plan" . Someone else is at the wheel, you are following a divine predestination which again is anything but free will.

Just like with our children when we want them to clean a room or do something they are otherwize disinclined to do ,we give an ultimatum. Clean your room or you'll not get that new toy/watch tv/get the dinner you want...it is not free will that they clean their room it is basically blackmail and forcing someone to do something in order to get a reward. The key is they would not have done it on their own. They were coerced.

Same with Heaven or the afterlife. You must do this or that, you must ask for forgiveness, you must... (insert appropriate list per religion here) do any number of things or else! There are many descriptive terms that can be applied to that list but free will is not one of them.

How many times has someone come to you to talk about religion and god and you have used the words "it is all part of god's plan" I mean if it is a plan and it is preordained then how is it free will?

To me free will would be live your life as you see fit and if you lead a good life you get in if not you go south. Not live your life but you have to do this and that and say this and act like this and follow these rules... or else, that is more an ultimatum then anything.

Could be misreading, but this seems to conflate predestination with free choice.

Predestination (to me) means I have no choice, because either A) my actions are controlled by a higher being and everything I do has been decided for me. I am just (unwittingly) executing the choice of another or B) no matter what I do, the ultimate outcome will be the same--heaven, hell, or whatever. I am predestined.

Free will means I have a choice and it's up to me to weigh the potential consequences. Clean my room and eat my veggies and life is good. Steal, go to jail. Sin, go to hell. Be good, go to heaven. The choices are mine even if I don't like them. Therefore, I have free will.

 

[Hack]

I originally posted this question as a talking point and really was not gonna reply . First I would like to thank everyone who did for their civil responses. And second I would like to point out a few things as to why I question the whole free will.


This sounds a bit more like predestination than free will. If everything is already known and already planned then you have no say or "free will" in the matter. Just like when things go dark or unplanned and people say "it is all part of god's plan" . Someone else is at the wheel, you are following a divine predestination which again is anything but free will.

Just like with our children when we want them to clean a room or do something they are otherwize disinclined to do ,we give an ultimatum. Clean your room or you'll not get that new toy/watch tv/get the dinner you want...it is not free will that they clean their room it is basically blackmail and forcing someone to do something in order to get a reward. The key is they would not have done it on their own. They were coerced.

Same with Heaven or the afterlife. You must do this or that, you must ask for forgiveness, you must... (insert appropriate list per religion here) do any number of things or else! There are many descriptive terms that can be applied to that list but free will is not one of them.

How many times has someone come to you to talk about religion and god and you have used the words "it is all part of god's plan" I mean if it is a plan and it is preordained then how is it free will?

To me free will would be live your life as you see fit and if you lead a good life you get in if not you go south. Not live your life but you have to do this and that and say this and act like this and follow these rules... or else, that is more an ultimatum then anything.

Your kids have free will. They are choosing to obey you. My wife would get ultimatums from her parents and she didn't care. She would still do what she wanted. And in the end her parents lost those battles.

I think you are defining free will in an odd way. Just because there are laws and I could go to jail if I break them - that doesn't change the fact that I am actually making a choice. Yes there is coercion, but that doesn't remove free will. Some other people make a different choice and they might end up in prison.

And just because God knows what all of us will do doesn't remove free will either. God knows, but we are still making our own choices.

 

[Caballus]

So why do you think that a significant part of any Christian faith is the fact that God forgives our sins? And yes, it says in the bible that God forgives our sins. So yes, it is laid out in scripture.

The 10 commandments are in the bible. Guidelines on what to do and what not to do. And there's a ton of additional common sense advice in the bible. IMO the lions share of the bible is advice. Some is straight up advice, but much of it is told metaphorically through stories.

IF we don't have free will, why would we need advice or our sins forgiven?

I see zero conflict between an all powerful God and free will. I'm open to being taught something new though.

Would never try to educate you (or anyone else) on religious beliefs. Not only am I woefully under-qualified, religious beliefs are just that--beliefs--subjective--faith-based. However, our responses highlight the contradictions and/or exceptions we make.

Exception: Thou shalt not kill...except when defending the Constitution (the document that gets interpreted in as many ways as the Bible )...

Contradictions: Ephesians 1:4 says we have no free will, while other parts of the Bible tell us what we must do to get to heaven, clearly implying that our will is part of the calculus.

Again, individual interpretation, belief, faith...

 

[Hack]

Would never try to educate you (or anyone else) on religious beliefs. Not only am I woefully under-qualified, religious beliefs are just that--beliefs--subjective--faith-based. However, our responses highlight the contradictions and/or exceptions we make.

Exception: Thou shalt not kill...except when defending the Constitution (the document that gets interpreted in as many ways as the Bible )...

Contradictions: Ephesians 1:4 says we have no free will, while other parts of the Bible tell us what we must do to get to heaven, clearly implying that our will is part of the calculus.

Again, individual interpretation, belief, faith...

I'm probably less of an expert than you are. I don't remember Ephesians 1:4 from the past. I read it today and I don't see where it says we don't have free will.

I typically don't take anything in the bible very literally. I think of the bible as a book of philosophy written by a collection of people and then copied over and over by others who each had their own understanding and agenda. Nothing about the bible is perfect or exact as far as I'm concerned.

For instance, no one who is serious thinks the Earth was created in 7 days. It's just a story written by some unwashed savage many hundreds of years ago.

 

[Caballus]

I'm probably less of an expert than you are. I don't remember Ephesians 1:4 from the past. I read it today and I don't see where it says we don't have free will.

I typically don't take anything in the bible very literally. I think of the bible as a book of philosophy written by a collection of people and then copied over and over by others who each had their own understanding and agenda. Nothing about the bible is perfect or exact as far as I'm concerned.

For instance, no one who is serious thinks the Earth was created in 7 days. It's just a story written by some unwashed savage many hundreds of years ago.

Perhaps more 1:5 than 1:4, together they are often interpreted to mean that we are executing God's preordained will, which leads to a predetermined destiny. Again, purely interpretation.

I agree with your characterization of the Bible, though it may challenge strongly held beliefs that it is the word of God.

I also believe that, unfortunately, the multiple interpretations and manipulation will continue to lead to as much base behavior as good. Nothing fuels war and hatred more intensely than (defense of) religious beliefs.

 

[Briebee72]

Could be misreading, but this seems to conflate predestination with free choice.

Predestination (to me) means I have no choice, because either A) my actions are controlled by a higher being and everything I do has been decided for me. I am just (unwittingly) executing the choice of another or B) no matter what I do, the ultimate outcome will be the same--heaven, hell, or whatever. I am predestined.

Free will means I have a choice and it's up to me to weigh the potential consequences. Clean my room and eat my veggies and life is good. Steal, go to jail. Sin, go to hell. Be good, go to heaven. The choices are mine even if I don't like them. Therefore, I have free will.

But see this is my problem with it. Yes sure you can make whatever choice you want and define that as free will. But putting stipulations on it (may or may not go to heaven based on your choice) is bit not so free will. If you only present someone with a unwinnable choice is it really a choice? Sure I can take you out to the middle of the ocean and put a gun to your head and tell you well if you stay in the boat im gonna shoot you in the head or if you jump in the water you only have a 1/2 mile swim back and you can live. Which are you gonna chose? Sure the choice it self is free will I guess, to stay or jump, but really what choice is there? IM forcing your hand , being coerced, force to make a choice. So you jump in the water and drown. I go well it was his choice. It was his free will. That is sorta BS to call that free will.

 

[Caballus]

But see this is my problem with it. Yes sure you can make whatever choice you want and define that as free will. But putting stipulations on it (may or may not go to heaven based on your choice) is bit not so free will. If you only present someone with a unwinnable choice is it really a choice? Sure I can take you out to the middle of the ocean and put a gun to your head and tell you well if you stay in the boat im gonna shoot you in the head or if you jump in the water you only have a 1/2 mile swim back and you can live. Which are you gonna chose? Sure the choice it self is free will I guess, to stay or jump, but really what choice is there? IM forcing your hand , being coerced, force to make a choice. So you jump in the water and drown. I go well it was his choice. It was his free will. That is sorta BS to call that free will.

Then where do you draw the line? Does free will mean the ability to indulge in whatever "pleasures" you choose with no result? Use drugs and your body will not react adversely? Over eat and still be healthy? Don't meet tax obligations...

Additionally, the premise you offer supposes that the choices one makes in order to get to heaven are equivalent to jumping into the middle of the ocean (not that a swim of less than 1000m is that taxing, but I get your point).

Free will does not mean choice without consequence. Choices have consequences. Sometimes they are win-win, but not very often.

 

[Briebee72]

Then where do you draw the line? Does free will mean the ability to indulge in whatever "pleasures" you choose with no result? Use drugs and your body will not react adversely? Over eat and still be healthy? Don't meet tax obligations...

Additionally, the premise you offer supposes that the choices one makes in order to get to heaven are equivalent to jumping into the middle of the ocean (not that a swim of less than 1000m is that taxing, but I get your point).

Free will does not mean choice without consequence. Choices have consequences. Sometimes they are win-win, but not very often.

LOL are taxes an obligation? I think in the old days it was called strong arming. They are not even a choice. It something forced upon you regardless of how you feel about them. But to your other examples. The difference is drugs or over eating is a choice made by you with possible consequences (not everyone will be unhealthy or have reactions) with no predefined set of rules to do this or else or do that or else. No one or any deity or religion is telling you to do this or that or else. Drugs and food are actually a free will choice. Religion and faith and belief (based on the premise of the reward of an afterlife) are not. You are straight up told do this or else. It is not a choice. The act of if you do or not may be a free will choice but if you want an afterlife there is no choice you do this or else. And I'm sorry to me that is not free will.. . that is control.

In the realm of man it is called a Hobson's choice. And is defined as - an apparently free choice when there is no real alternative.

 

[Caballus]

LOL are taxes an obligation? I think in the old days it was called strong arming. They are not even a choice. It something forced upon you regardless of how you feel about them. But to your other examples. The difference is drugs or over eating is a choice made by you with possible consequences (not everyone will be unhealthy or have reactions) with no predefined set of rules to do this or else or do that or else. No one or any deity or religion is telling you to do this or that or else. Drugs and food are actually a free will choice. Religion and faith and belief (based on the premise of the reward of an afterlife) are not. You are straight up told do this or else. It is not a choice. The act of if you do or not may be a free will choice but if you want an afterlife there is no choice you do this or else. And I'm sorry to me that is not free will.. . that is control.

In the realm of man it is called a Hobson's choice. And is defined as - an apparently free choice when there is no real alternative.

Ok, I guess that's where the difference in perspectives lies. Whether the consequences are laid out by "natural law," religion, science, or civil code, there is choice.

You cannot abuse drugs or food without an unhealthy reaction. The threshold may vary by person, but the result will be the same once that threshold is passed. Likewise, you may get away with not paying taxes owed, but there is a risk in not paying, whether one agrees with the tax code or not.

No different with the "afterlife" equation, withstanding the fact that it is not supported by science or civil code. The non-religious examples are clear cut--abuse drugs, don't pay taxes, over eat and there is a clear consequence. Violate a religious edict and there is no proof of what will result. However, many decide that it is better to sacrifice in hopes of a desirable outcome than to risk burning in hell for indulging during the here and now. Many choose to indulge (consider that we have the world's fattest population, greatest prescription drug use, rampant drug abuse, high crime rates, etc).

It's a simple choice..

 

[Caballus]

Thought: the operative question---is one free to chose whether or not to believe?

If yes, then the decision to believe or not is the ultimate execution of free choice. One simply chooses not to believe and accepts the risk, which for a non-believer there is no perception of risk.

If no, then you can argue that Hobson's choice applies--if you believe that the sacrifices entailed in practicing religion really amount to more than simply being a "good person."

Also, if we cannot chose whether or not to believe, then how is that choice made for us, particularly considering the plethora of religions that are (or are not) observed around the world?

 

[CrashOverride]

Good post. I think some people want to bring down religion and they think that logic is a tool that can be used to do it. The argument looks like it's attacking free will, but really it's going after the existence of God.

By my way of thinking - I can't prove whether or not God exists, but either way I think it is smart to behave as though there is a God. The "rules" in the bible mostly just help people to get by and live a good life. Going against the bible's advice tends to be self-destructive.

I get that people want to go with what seems like the easy or logical route. At first glance, it makes sense, but history shows that the "smartest" people were dead wrong. So going by what a textbook says, or a teacher, or (gulp) the media says, put one in danger of believing false information. Some of the smartest people out there fully admit that they (in their field) don't fully understand how things work. Take for example doctors. They don't know why or how certain disorders happen. They only know how to treat based on what seems to work. Patient information sheets for pharmaceutical products are full of language such as "It is not fully understood the mechanism of action...". In my opinion, good Pastors also will draw the line where they know and don't know. My favorite program has Pastors that are quick to point out when they don't know, simply because the Bible doesn't specifically address it. We get into trouble when Pastors push their personal beliefs too far. I grew up in a church where drinking alcohol was verboten. Lest we forget Jesus' first miracle was turning water into wine. I'm not saying it's fine (I personally don't drink because I have dead alcoholic family members), but I'm also not saying it is a sin.

I do think you are correct in that some individuals (I'm not saying the OP fits here) prefer to bring up red herrings and ignore the core issue. Calvanist? Yes or no. Pre/Post-Tribulation? Baptism required? Yes or No. Saturday or Sunday for sabbath day? Which foods are not to be eaten and/or when? There are more I'm sure, but those are some I can think of right now.

 

[CrashOverride]

I originally posted this question as a talking point and really was not gonna reply . First I would like to thank everyone who did for their civil responses. And second I would like to point out a few things as to why I question the whole free will.


This sounds a bit more like predestination than free will. If everything is already known and already planned then you have no say or "free will" in the matter. Just like when things go dark or unplanned and people say "it is all part of god's plan" . Someone else is at the wheel, you are following a divine predestination which again is anything but free will.

Just like with our children when we want them to clean a room or do something they are otherwize disinclined to do ,we give an ultimatum. Clean your room or you'll not get that new toy/watch tv/get the dinner you want...it is not free will that they clean their room it is basically blackmail and forcing someone to do something in order to get a reward. The key is they would not have done it on their own. They were coerced.

Same with Heaven or the afterlife. You must do this or that, you must ask for forgiveness, you must... (insert appropriate list per religion here) do any number of things or else! There are many descriptive terms that can be applied to that list but free will is not one of them.

How many times has someone come to you to talk about religion and god and you have used the words "it is all part of god's plan" I mean if it is a plan and it is preordained then how is it free will?

To me free will would be live your life as you see fit and if you lead a good life you get in if not you go south. Not live your life but you have to do this and that and say this and act like this and follow these rules... or else, that is more an ultimatum then anything.

I believe that most Christians will hold the belief that God is all powerful and all-knowing. So it would be logical in my mind, that yes we are pre-destined, yet we have free will at the same time. To inject a bit of humor, it reminds me of this scene from The Matrix.



So to make things easier, I will use this as an example. Neo had free will to knock the vase over. Absolutely nothing was constraining him to do so; however, the Oracle knew ahead of time that he was going to do it. This logic can be argued ad infinitum, but I believe both things still work out. What one does with those seemingly conflicting beliefs is more important. After all, it would be fair to take the depressive stance that, there is no point trying to learn anything, or do anything fun, because it's going to work out in a way that you have no control over. Sure, and God would know that this person would not hold down what anyone would consider a normal life (Education, job, sense of well-being, friendship, etc.). On the other hand, another person could also take the stance that they are going to give it the best they can. If they are pre-destined to fail at everything, then they are going to fail a lot, because they are going to keep getting back up after getting knocked down. Are they arrogant or foolish for doing so? Well, what would be better try nothing and achieve nothing or try for all and achieve some?

I am certainly not fluent in all religions, but I would agree with you that most religions have a set of rules/goals/achievements in order to get something out of it. I would argue that most of them require a believer to keep "doing good" based on a set of rules in a book. Christianity is not like that. There are lots of rules in the Bible - Leviticus is chock full of them. Some believe they still "apply" while others disagree. Nevertheless though, the Bible doesn't say that you will go to Hell if you don't follow the rules. The Bible instead tells us we are all sinners and that the only way not to go to Hell is to believe in Jesus. While you surely wouldn't be a model Christian, one could break every rule in the Bible and still go to heaven. Huh, you ask? Good question. Generally speaking, if you truly believe in Jesus, then you will want to follow what he tells you to do. After all, if you love your spouse, wouldn't you want to give them gifts they like, cook them food they like, and similarly don't do the things they don't like (Cheating on them, buying a prius, public affection...Whatever). I am positive that there are people that genuinely love their spouses, but don't do these things -- but just about any one would question whether they are really loving the spouse.

Allow me to address this Biblically, specifically the thief on the cross. Here is a person who (As far as we are to believe) was a pretty crummy person. Didn't live his life doing good things at all. "Thou shalt not steal" is one of the commandments that he broke. Yet before he died, he truly believed in Jesus, and since Jesus is God and God is all-knowing, then God would know his profession of faith was in fact genuine. And therefore, Jesus said (Something to the effect of) 'Today you will be in paradise with me'.

Yeah, but is that fair? So Joe can live his life on the straight and narrow, and help little old ladies cross the street, give to the needy, and so on, but never really believe in Jesus and he goes to hell? I would say yes, and this is backed by the Bible. But Frank can party like there is no tomorrow, and then 2 seconds before he dies, "Change his mind" and go to heaven? Again, I would say yes, and that is also backed by the Bible. But, remember that saying the prayer and really meaning it are 2 different things. God would know if Frank is thinking "Uh oh, this isn't going good. And just in case there is a Hell, I better say the sinner's prayer". It doesn't work that way.

So again, is it fair? It wouldn't appear so based on what society teaches us, that good people get rewards and bad people get punished. The truth though is that Christianity is a relationship with God. It is faith in Jesus Christ. It is not keeping score on right versus wrong. That doesn't mean though that Christians don't do "good" things. Missionaries building shelters, schools, feeding the homeless (And so on). Although I am not aware of it, I wouldn't be surprised if agnostic groups of people banded together to do the same thing. And that's great- it helps people in need for sure. And on the same token, there is a 100% chance that a Christian has done something wrong. Pastor's sin, many of them are quite terrible, when they abuse their power and confuse the people that listen to them explain the Bible to believing the people believe in them.

What I'm getting at is that Christians are just as bad of sinners as non-Christians. Because we are humans, and it's human nature to put yourself first. Using good and bad to determine membership into heaven and hell is impossible, because morality and the definitions of "right" and "wrong" are not universal. Each group of people, located all over the world, have their own definitions of right and wrong.

I sincerely hope I clarified your examples, at least according to how I believe the Bible spells it out.

 

[CrashOverride]

I was reading the excellent dialog because I am catching up on this excellent post. Another way of looking at it is that either everyone everywhere has free will, or doesn't. The coercion point though doesn't work because unless you are living in a country with no laws, then there are forms of coercion. Sure, I can speed. I have the free will to do so, but I am coerced not to because I know that if I get caught, I will pay the ticket. Likewise, the legislators and enforcers also know ahead of time that if I speed, I will pay the ticket.

My logic here, in my opinion, fails only on the point that they know "if" I speed. So they don't specifically know "I" will, they do know that "anyone that does" will. If that makes sense.

Like others said as well, the problem with most things is that if there isn't a clear cut definition, then you run into problems. If you speed, you get a ticket. What is speeding? Anything over the speed limit, even if it is infinitesimally small. Ok, makes sense. But what defines coercion? Let's define coercion in two different ways here:

coercion = any sort of suggestion. In this case, then we are all coerced, whether it be psychologically (friends, what is considered good/bad to us, "what would the neighbors think", etc...) or even physiologically (Man, I shouldn't eat that burger, but my stomach is so hungry and a salad is nowhere to be found)

coercion = forceful suggestion. In this case, "light" suggestions such as the examples above are excluded, so that leaves ultimatums like you mentioned. But the problem is, where do you define that line? If I am a lawyer and bill for $500 an hour, and I can't find a parking spot, am running late to meet with an important and very lucrative client, then the $300 parking ticket and having my car towed for double parking is a light coercion and not a big deal. Same scenario, but this time I am a college student trying to get a job, have no money, and I'm running late for an interview. Same exact $300 penalty, but a much higher coercion. And this is the problem with grey areas. In either case though, both people have the free will to double park.

 

[Briebee72]

I do appreciate everyone's input and perspectives on this topic. I also appreciate the adult way the conversation has been conducted which is rare in today's internet, especially with such a personal topic. Again thank you all.

Sponsored