What is Free Will?

[docrob57]

I don't mean to be so frustrating, please bear with me. It's slow going but I think we are still making some progress.

Let me ask another question.

Do you think that our choices are like proverbial dominoes where one dominoe (an event/cause) falls into another and that one in turn falls into the next and so on and the result is a domninoe (event/cause) called "our choice"?

I am not really frustrated (well, not too frustrated).

Sort of. But the dominos can include things like personality characteristics, level of surrender to God's will, anything that makes us who we are.

 

[docrob57]

Are you a moderator Clete? If so, can we move this to a non-exclusively Christian place. I think that Balder would like to participate, and though I kicked him out before, there is really no reason for it I guess.

 

[Clete]

Are you a moderator Clete? If so, can we move this to a non-exclusively Christian place. I think that Balder would like to participate, and though I kicked him out before, there is really no reason for it I guess.

I am not a moderator but no such movement of the thread is necessary. As long as Balder has something on topic to contribute and you don't mind (it's your thread) then he's welcome to participate. The whole point of having an exclusively Christian Theology thread is to keep the discussion about Christian theology not about keeping out non-Christians.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[docrob57]

I am not a moderator but no such movement of the thread is necessary. As long as Balder has something on topic to contribute and you don't mind (it's your thread) then he's welcome to participate. The whole point of having an exclusively Christian Theology thread is to keep the discussion about Christian theology not about keeping out non-Christians.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Okay. Though I sort of like keeping non_Christians out. :chuckle:

 

[Balder]

Thank you for opening this up to my participation (I think!). I have been following the thread and appreciating the careful way both of you have been exploring this important question. I will keep my participation here to a minimum, since I think you two are doing a good job of it and I don't want to detract from what is developing.

From what I've read so far, I have one question that appears important to ask:

If God does not commit evil or sinful actions, and does not will to do so, is there a reason for that? Is there a reason he does not do evil? If so, would those possible reasons -- nature, knowledge, whatever -- be considered causes of some sort? Proximate if not direct?

 

[Clete]

I am not really frustrated (well, not too frustrated).

Sort of. But the dominos can include things like personality characteristics, level of surrender to God's will, anything that makes us who we are.

Okay, maybe this dominoe analogy will be helpful then.
Let me try to explain in terms of the dominoe analogy how I think our will works. (You won't like it so get ready )

I think that it works something like this.
For most natural processes things work EXACTLY like when some guy sets up one of those fancy dominoe displays and knocks the first one over. It can get as complex as the guy setting it up wants for it to get but when it's all said and done all the dominoes (assuming they've been set up properly) will inevitably fall in their turn, not before and not after. There is no such thing as a stuborn dominoe which defies the laws of gravity, enertia and friction; one dominoe falls which causes one or more other dominoes to fall and so on. It is a chain reaction which has an outcome that is as certain as certain as can be. This is what is commonly refered to as "Causal Determinism" (CD) and is what it seems to me that you position logically leads to.
I however, do not think that our choices work this way at all. For our choices I think it is more like there is a causal chain that leads up to a decision point where the domnioes stop falling until I decide which to knock over next. The dominoes may apraoch a branching off point that has two or more possible directions and everything that has lead up to that point is completely compatible with going in any ONE AND ONLY ONE of those directions. And when it does, by the force of my own will, then that sets off a new causal chain reaction that terminates again at the next "decision time" branch off point.

Now I've written this right off the top of my head and while it sounds right for now, I reserve the right to modify my comments at any time.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[docrob57]

Thank you for opening this up to my participation (I think!). I have been following the thread and appreciating the careful way both of you have been exploring this important question. I will keep my participation here to a minimum, since I think you two are doing a good job of it and I don't want to detract from what is developing.

From what I've read so far, I have one question that appears important to ask:

If God does not commit evil or sinful actions, and does not will to do so, is there a reason for that? Is there a reason he does not do evil? If so, would those possible reasons -- nature, knowledge, whatever -- be considered causes of some sort? Proximate if not direct?

Well that question sucks!! Go back to where you came from!!

Just kidding. Not doing evil is one of God's limitations. It is not in His nature to do so.

 

[Clete]

Thank you for opening this up to my participation (I think!). I have been following the thread and appreciating the careful way both of you have been exploring this important question. I will keep my participation here to a minimum, since I think you two are doing a good job of it and I don't want to detract from what is developing.

From what I've read so far, I have one question that appears important to ask:

If God does not commit evil or sinful actions, and does not will to do so, is there a reason for that? Is there a reason he does not do evil? If so, would those possible reasons -- nature, knowledge, whatever -- be considered causes of some sort? Proximate if not direct?

Interesting question. To get a better idea of where you might be headed with this can I ask you to give what your answer would be to this question, or at least what your impression of what the Christian answer would be?

 

[Clete]

Well that question sucks!! Go back to where you came from!!

:rotfl:

 

[docrob57]

Okay, maybe this dominoe analogy will be helpful then.
Let me try to explain in terms of the dominoe analogy how I think our will works. (You won't like it so get ready )

I think that it works something like this.
For most natural processes things work EXACTLY like when some guy sets up one of those fancy dominoe displays and knocks the first one over. It can get as complex as the guy setting it up wants for it to get but when it's all said and done all the dominoes (assuming they've been set up properly) will inevitably fall in their turn, not before and not after. There is no such thing as a stuborn dominoe which defies the laws of gravity, enertia and friction; one dominoe falls which causes one or more other dominoes to fall and so on. It is a chain reaction which has an outcome that is as certain as certain as can be. This is what is commonly refered to as "Causal Determinism" (CD) and is what it seems to me that you position logically leads to.
I however, do not think that our choices work this way at all. For our choices I think it is more like there is a causal chain that leads up to a decision point where the domnioes stop falling until I decide which to knock over next. The dominoes may apraoch a branching off point that has two or more possible directions and everything that has lead up to that point is completely compatible with going in any ONE AND ONLY ONE of those directions. And when it does, by the force of my own will, then that sets off a new causal chain reaction that terminates again at the next "decision time" branch off point.

Now I've written this right off the top of my head and while it sounds right for now, I reserve the right to modify my comments at any time.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I really don't have any problem with that. It is just that at the point the will is exercised, there has to be a reason that it is exercised the way it is. The only alternative is random choice, or coin flip. That would seem to me to be an even more distasteful and less probable alternative.

 

[Balder]

Do you really think the question is a bad one, Doc?

As I understand common Christian arguments, human beings are limited by "sin nature" from ever perfectly following God's will on their own. Fallen man is incapable of turning to God without the "intervention" of prevenient grace. Is that correct? On the opposite side, God is "constrained" by his own nature from committing evil. In both instances, it seems "nature" is understood as a restrictive or constitutive factor in the movements of the wills of these different types of "entities."

One reason I brought the question up is that, while I recognize that many Christians think along these lines, I am not sure that Clete does (from our discussion or Presuppositionalism and Euthyphro's Dilemma sometime back).

 

[justchristian]

I am interested in thoughts on the nature of the will making free will choices. Does the will make the choice based on its character? Is it random? If it isnt random how can you say it isnt just another cause or "domino" in the universe. While we cant understand how, if it isnt random, how can it do other than what is within it's character to do?

 

[Clete]

I really don't have any problem with that. It is just that at the point the will is exercised, there has to be a reason that it is exercised the way it is. The only alternative is random choice, or coin flip. That would seem to me to be an even more distasteful and less probable alternative.

The reasons are the previous dominoes that have already fallen. You are trying to introduce more dominoes into the set up and that only leads to the CD (Causal Determinism) that I described. In other words, I can by the force of my will decide to do something for the EXACT SAME reasons that I decide NOT to do that thing. All the reasons are compatible with both actions.

 

[docrob57]

Do you really think the question is a bad one, Doc?

No. I was just kidding

As I understand common Christian arguments, human beings are limited by "sin nature" from ever perfectly following God's will on their own. Fallen man is incapable of turning to God without the "intervention" of prevenient grace. Is that correct? On the opposite side, God is "constrained" by his own nature from committing evil. In both instances, it seems "nature" is understood as a restrictive or constitutive factor in the movements of the wills of these different types of "entities."

I would go with that. I don't think it negates free will, but it does place some restrictions on it.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Now I've written this right off the top of my head and while it sounds right for now, I reserve the right to modify my comments at any time.

:rotfl: It's all in the fine print!

 

[docrob57]

The reasons are the previous dominoes that have already fallen. You are trying to introduce more dominoes into the set up and that only leads to the CD (Causal Determinism) that I described. In other words, I can by the force of my will decide to do something for the EXACT SAME reasons that I decide NOT to do that thing. All the reasons are compatible with both actions.

There are 4 aspects to causality, or 4 things that need to be demonstrated in order to demonstrate causality -

1. Logical relationship between X and Y
2. Correlation between X and Y
3. X occurs before Y in time
4. No other explanation explains Y better.

The fourth is always impossible, so our knowledge is always tentative. Where what you say causes problems is in number 2. If the same "cause" leads to separate and mutually exclusive outcomes, it can't be a cause.

 

[Clete]

Do you really think the question is a bad one, Doc?

As I understand common Christian arguments, human beings are limited by "sin nature" from ever perfectly following God's will on their own. Fallen man is incapable of turning to God without the "intervention" of prevenient grace. Is that correct? On the opposite side, God is "constrained" by his own nature from committing evil. In both instances, it seems "nature" is understood as a restrictive or constitutive factor in the movements of the wills of these different types of "entities."

One reason I brought the question up is that, while I recognize that many Christians think along these lines, I am not sure that Clete does (from our discussion or Presuppositionalism and Euthyphro's Dilemma sometime back).

Well you are right, I do not think that way. Although I think that this might be quite a different question (although a related one) than the one the doc and I are discussing. To be free doesn't mean that I can do ANYTHING at all that comes to mind for me to do. Rather, it simply means that I have options that are real. The fact that my options are limited by my nature does not kill my ability to choose.
It must, however, be kept in mind that we are called to choose between good and evil by God and will be held accountable for which ever choice we make by Him. Thus, if God is just (which of course He is) then to say that our nature restricts us from being able to make anything but evil choices would be to take the "nature" thing too far.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[docrob57]

:rotfl: It's all in the fine print!

Uh oh, the boss showed up!

 

[servent101]

Balder

many Christians think along these lines,

those few - are loud and vocal - and the many just do not articulate the "dogma" - but your understanding of Christian Grace - it is simply God's Being - that this is God's Nature - the same One God that is Worshiped by every religion and granted a lot of people get it mixed up and confuse it - but if one were to seek the truth - and focus on the truth, and tell people of the truth, instead of finding out all the misconceptions and politely but still wrongly pointing out that

many Christians think along these lines,

well their lives might go a little better - yes Balder, your life would go a little better if you were to champion the Truth - convince people that the Good News is in fact Good News, that what the likes of BCK says is bunk - your life would be much better.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

 

[Clete]

There are 4 aspects to causality, or 4 things that need to be demonstrated in order to demonstrate causality -

1. Logical relationship between X and Y
2. Correlation between X and Y
3. X occurs before Y in time
4. No other explanation explains Y better.

The fourth is always impossible, so our knowledge is always tentative. Where what you say causes problems is in number 2. If the same "cause" leads to separate and mutually exclusive outcomes, it can't be a cause.

1. Logical relationship between X (cause) and both Y (possible effect or action) and ~Y (some other effect or action).

2. Correlation between the same

3. X occures prior to either Y or ~Y

4. No other explanation explains Y or ~Y better.


Or put in more simple terms. Causality does not explain free will, at least not completely.

Resting in Him,
Clete