What do you mean by "free will?"

[Glaurung]

The problem with your premise is that if free will originates from something beyond the material world, it still needs to interact with the material world, and such interactions would be visible and measurable in the material world. No such observations have been made to suggest something beyond the material world interacts with it, in a way to suggest souls/spirits exist. So claims about anything that cannot be observed like souls, gods, ghosts, aliens, and big foot should be taken as just claims until actual evidence is provided. The alternative, if you are being fair and unbiased, is to believe every claim about anything, until it is disproven or proven.

I take it as axiomatic that the physical world was created by a source outside of all physical casualty, because I don't accept the coherence of the materialist view of the universe as existing as a brute fact infinitely into the past. Regardless, to take such an in-your-face phenomenon as the ability to make choices and deny its reality for no over reason than to be "consistent" with a particular brand of metaphysical dogma seems to me to be both a violation of Occam's Razor and absurd.

I experience volition every day, and I see no compelling reason to deny its reality simply because its reality isn't consistent with materialist assumptions about how the universe supposedly works. Perhaps, rather than dogmatically insisting that a basic experience of consciousness is an illusion, question instead the coherence of a metaphysics that can't take it into account without circularly denying it as an illusion. If volition is an illusion, so is consciousness itself. If that is what you want to believe, fine. But in my opinion such a view is no more intellectually valid than solipsism.

I can come off as a jerk sometimes and I'm not trying to be a jerk with my next question. How is your belief that Jesus was real and walked on water really any different than an ancient Norseman's belief that Thor threw lightning? From my perspective both are myths. I give as much credence to Jesus as I do Thor or Leprechauns, they all have the same level of credible evidence backing them up.

What you believe is irrelevant, a rational person accepts what their reason has lead them to. My reason lead me at first to the existence God (not gods but GOD) and then gradually to the conviction that Catholic Christianity really does hold what it claims to hold, the authentic and exclusive revelation from God. The worship of elemental spirits (in their thousands of guises) has for the most part been defeated. Thus your bogus comparisons are talking points, nothing more. It serves more to sure up your own convictions to yourself and for those you believe like you than it does to actually threaten mine.

 

[atanu]

I can't count how many times I've heard theists brush off the Problem of Evil by just saying "free will!"

... but how would that work, exactly? Those of you who do this: exactly what do you mean by "free will" and how is it relevant?

Considering deliberate evil acts inflicted by one person on another, there's a three-step process:

1. The person has an evil desire.
2. The person chooses to act on their evil desire.
3. The person causes the evil desire to happen.

Any description of free will I've ever heard deals with step 2: the decision to act. It doesn't deal with step 1, since we generally can't choose our desires. For instance, someone who might be predisposed to adultery won't commit adultery if he isn't attracted to the person he might commit adultery with.

It also doesn't deal with step 3, since what we desire isn't necessarily physically possible. For instance, no matter how much I want to kill someone by making their head explode telekinetically, it won't happen. If I want to kill them by lightly misting them with water, I can do this, but they won't die from it.

All three steps are required for a deliberate evil act to happen, but "free will" claims only deal with step 2.

So how could a change in step 1 (e.g. taking away evil desires) or step 3 (e.g. making an evil act physically impossible) deny someone their free will in step 2?

Below is a link that summarises the Hindu view.

Fate, Free Will And Law Of Karma

 

[JustWondering]

You are projecting.

You are the one using wishful thinking. Because you refuse to accept responsibility for your own actions. You wish to blame it on the universe or whatever keeps you from accepting the responsibility of your own actions. Your "logic" is nothing but a mere cop out.

My actions are my actions yes, no argument there. If I or anyone else commits a crime they need to be held accountable, no argument there either. My argument is not about accountability it is about reality. Our will and judgement originate from the workings of the brain (a physical organ) which is bound by the physical laws of this universe, which includes cause and effect. Where do you think our minds and thoughts originate from if not the brain? Why are you so unwilling to honestly answer my questions?

 

[JustWondering]

I take it as axiomatic that the physical world was created by a source outside of all physical casualty, because I don't accept the coherence of the materialist view of the universe as existing as a brute fact infinitely into the past.

My beliefs about the physical world are based upon observation and reason. I see no evidence that the universe is eternal or otherwise, so I'll make no claims about it. Maybe universes pop into and out of existence all the time, who knows? I see no evidence of gods, yours or anyone else's. I see no evidence for the existence of supernatural things like spirits, ghosts, and other "magical" entities. Sorry if that bothers you. Also, one issue theists that argue that the universe needs a creator always ignore is that if a god can just exist, why can't a universe just exist?

Regardless, to take such an in-your-face phenomenon as the ability to make choices and deny its reality for no over reason than to be "consistent" with a particular brand of metaphysical dogma seems to me to be both a violation of Occam's Razor and absurd.

I've never denied that we have the ability to make choices. My position is that choices are determined by the workings of the brain.

I experience volition every day, and I see no compelling reason to deny its reality simply because its reality isn't consistent with materialist assumptions about how the universe supposedly works. Perhaps, rather than dogmatically insisting that a basic experience of consciousness is an illusion, question instead the coherence of a metaphysics that can't take it into account without circularly denying it as an illusion. If volition is an illusion, so is consciousness itself. If that is what you want to believe, fine. But in my opinion such a view is no more intellectually valid than solipsism.

So to you consciousness is just magic? It doesn't conform to any rules or laws, it just is?

What you believe is irrelevant, a rational person accepts what their reason has lead them to. My reason lead me at first to the existence God (not gods but GOD) and then gradually to the conviction that Catholic Christianity really does hold what it claims to hold, the authentic and exclusive revelation from God. The worship of elemental spirits (in their thousands of guises) has for the most part been defeated. Thus your bogus comparisons are talking points, nothing more. It serves more to sure up your own convictions to yourself and for those you believe like you than it does to actually threaten mine.

Humans simply want answers to questions that can't be answered. Humans want something to comfort them in an uncaring and merciless universe. Thus, humans have created many god concepts and myths to fill in the blanks and give themselves comfort over the centuries.

 

[Enoch07]

My actions are my actions yes, no argument there. If I or anyone else commits a crime they need to be held accountable, no argument there either. My argument is not about accountability it is about reality. Our will and judgement originate from the workings of the brain (a physical organ) which is bound by the physical laws of this universe, which includes cause and effect. Where do you think our minds and thoughts originate from if not the brain? Why are you so unwilling to honestly answer my questions?

What you are proposing is that because we are bound by the laws of physical reality that free will cannot exist. Which is complete and utter nonsense to me. You might as well be trying to convince me that unicorns and leprechauns are real. Which is just not gonna happen.

So that being said, there is nothing to discuss.

Just agree to disagree and move on.

 

[JustWondering]

What you are proposing is that because we are bound by the laws of physical reality that free will cannot exist. Which is complete and utter nonsense to me. You might as well be trying to convince me that unicorns and leprechauns are real. Which is just not gonna happen.

So that being said, there is nothing to discuss.

Just agree to disagree and move on.

This thread is in the debate section, not the state my opinion and then bow out without backing it up or even discussing it section. You want to have your opinion/position taken seriously, yet refuse to defend or describe your position. Debate/discussion requires active participation from both parties. If you have no intention of honestly debating/discussing the topic of the thread, why did you even bother posting in the first place?

 

[Enoch07]

This thread is in the debate section, not the state my opinion and then bow out without backing it up or even discussing it section. You want to have your opinion/position taken seriously, yet refuse to defend or describe your position. Debate/discussion requires active participation from both parties. If you have no intention of honestly debating/discussing the topic of the thread, why did you even bother posting in the first place?

Lol

Give it up. Agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Vaderecta]

I can't count how many times I've heard theists brush off the Problem of Evil by just saying "free will!"

... but how would that work, exactly? Those of you who do this: exactly what do you mean by "free will" and how is it relevant?

Considering deliberate evil acts inflicted by one person on another, there's a three-step process:

1. The person has an evil desire.
2. The person chooses to act on their evil desire.
3. The person causes the evil desire to happen.

Any description of free will I've ever heard deals with step 2: the decision to act. It doesn't deal with step 1, since we generally can't choose our desires. For instance, someone who might be predisposed to adultery won't commit adultery if he isn't attracted to the person he might commit adultery with.

It also doesn't deal with step 3, since what we desire isn't necessarily physically possible. For instance, no matter how much I want to kill someone by making their head explode telekinetically, it won't happen. If I want to kill them by lightly misting them with water, I can do this, but they won't die from it.

All three steps are required for a deliberate evil act to happen, but "free will" claims only deal with step 2.

So how could a change in step 1 (e.g. taking away evil desires) or step 3 (e.g. making an evil act physically impossible) deny someone their free will in step 2?

The second step is the fiction. Many humans have desires, urges and because of those urges and desires they commit acts of neutrality, benevolence and malevolence. Hypothesizing they had a choice is what most people want to believe.

Example, someone feels the urge to eat a Doritos Cool Ranch chip. They do not know how to make one but know how they taste, crave that taste and are aware of many places they can get one. They don't cease pursuing other needs or desires but this is now part of what they want. People are screaming if they have self control when the opportunity shows up they won't eat that chip. Self control = free will. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what is happening. Individual narrative is going to explain things AFTER they happened as if you knew what was going happen and chose to act differently then how you already acted.

Free will is not out there. At least not in the way most people think it is. People do have desires and commit actions that cause things to happen. But the idea that they choose these things the way you think you choose things is the deception. They could only choose from the actions they have been primed and trained for and your variance in those two factors make you think they could have acted as you would have discounting they do not have your priming and training. That's the illusion.

 

[Willamena]

The second step is the fiction. Many humans have desires, urges and because of those urges and desires they commit acts of neutrality, benevolence and malevolence. Hypothesizing they had a choice is what most people want to believe.

Example, someone feels the urge to eat a Doritos Cool Ranch chip. They do not know how to make one but know how they taste, crave that taste and are aware of many places they can get one. They don't cease pursuing other needs or desires but this is now part of what they want. People are screaming if they have self control when the opportunity shows up they won't eat that chip. Self control = free will. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what is happening. Individual narrative is going to explain things AFTER they happened as if you knew what was going happen and chose to act differently then how you already acted.

Free will is not out there. At least not in the way most people think it is. People do have desires and commit actions that cause things to happen. But the idea that they choose these things the way you think you choose things is the deception. They could only choose from the actions they have been primed and trained for and your variance in those two factors make you think they could have acted as you would have discounting they do not have your priming and training. That's the illusion.

I would peg the first step as the fiction.

 

[Vaderecta]

I would peg the first step as the fiction.

That is interesting. You know if I stop and just focus on my thoughts and where they come from they seem so random. Am I causing the facts to arise or am I reacting to thoughts that are arising. The more I consider that the more it seems what I am questioning is what "I" means....

The reason I do not think step one is fiction is that people seem to legitimately have desires. They may not be the cause of their desires... Maybe watching homer made them want a donut but desires do seem to arise in people. (Whatever their cause)

 

[Willamena]

That is interesting. You know if I stop and just focus on my thoughts and where they come from they seem so random. Am I causing the facts to arise or am I reacting to thoughts that are arising. The more I consider that the more it seems what I am questioning is what "I" means....

The reason I do not think step one is fiction is that people seem to legitimately have desires. They may not be the cause of their desires... Maybe watching homer made them want a donut but desires do seem to arise in people. (Whatever their cause)

People legitimately have desires. To label some of those desires "evil" is entirely arbitrary.

What I find interesting is that in both scenarios, where you are causing facts to arise and where you are reacting to thoughts that arise, you are distinct from what arises. "I" is something else from facts or thought. So I have to wonder what it is you think is "I"? What does "I" refer to?

 

[Vaderecta]

People legitimately have desires. To label some of those desires "evil" is entirely arbitrary.

What I find interesting is that in both scenarios, where you are causing facts to arise and where you are reacting to thoughts that arise, you are distinct from what arises. "I" is something else from facts or thought. So I have to wonder what it is you think is "I"? What does "I" refer to?

This is a really hard question. One in flux for me. Nonetheless what does I mean? And I did say facts but I meant thoughts but we can't be using thoughts over and over again. When we talk about the idea of "I" I think we are thinking about a very real idea of what all of us think that means.

We all have an idea of "I" and your idea of who you are and my idea of who "I" am are very different. That said you meandered down this path to pose the question that only I could could cause actions to arise. Again facts was a bad word in that sentence but have you never had a commercial or a jingle get stuck in your head? Do you think you think it is you in the way you imagine you and who you are that wants you to sing or a hum or even remember some jingle you perhaps don't even like?

And if not how do you account for these rebellious thoughts and feelings? Are you causing them or are you reacting? That is approaching the question. Who is "I"?

 

[Willamena]

This is a really hard question. One in flux for me. Nonetheless what does I mean? And I did say facts but I meant thoughts but we can't be using thoughts over and over again. When we talk about the idea of "I" I think we are thinking about a very real idea of what all of us think that means.

We all have an idea of "I" and your idea of who you are and my idea of who "I" am are very different. That said you meandered down this path to pose the question that only I could could cause actions to arise. Again facts was a bad word in that sentence but have you never had a commercial or a jingle get stuck in your head? Do you think you think it is you in the way you imagine you and who you are that wants you to sing or a hum or even remember some jingle you perhaps don't even like?

And if not how do you account for these rebellious thoughts and feelings? Are you causing them or are you reacting? That is approaching the question. Who is "I"?

I think that I am every thought, from the random fact to the persistent jingle. The jingle that haunts me doesn't differ from me, until I tell it to go away. And then I forget it was there, but that's just me.

The jingle isn't rebellious, it's just me. The thought to hurt another person is no more rebellious than the thought to hug a person, and who would these thoughts be rebelling against, except me?

"Evil" is a narrative that happens after the fact, to explain the fact. It's not the fact. However, if I was hungry and fed myself of my own volition, that isn't a narrative easily denied.

 

[Vaderecta]

I think that I am every thought, from the random fact to the persistent jingle.

So we don't disagree so far but going back to your original point who or what generates the random thoughts or persistent jingle? Some external force has created things like jingles or cool ranch doritos that now drive your life. You said that a person has an evil desire is the illusion or fiction. And you might not be wrong about that. But you are admitting you think or reflect on things other people invented like jingles and you are essentially saying that you choose to recite these things in your head. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

What I am trying to convey is you will be exposed to various ideas and situations that heavily influence how you respond or explain various events that others not exposed to the same stimuli would not express the idea that they believe or embody such things. I think you are focusing on evil desires vs good desires and you may think people striving to do things evil in your mind see the things they are doing in their mind as evil but that would involve them knowing and experiencing your same upbringing and experiences. (And likely being genetically identical but lets leave nature vs nurture out of it)

The thoughts that arise in your mind are based on you. I do not have the same physical or mental capabilities of you. I don't live where you live or have your friends and your family. I am a completely different human with different friends and family. That said things pop up in my head which I don't think I caused. Per my original example I may want a cool ranch dorito chip having never made one nor knowing how to make them. That want is not put there by me. That is an external force abusing what people desire to sell chips. The idea that I would reflect on a dorito jingle and say yeah I like that jingle... thats just what I like is missing the bigger picture.

 

[Willamena]

So we don't disagree so far but going back to your original point who or what generates the random thoughts or persistent jingle? Some external force has created things like jingles or cool ranch doritos that now drive your life. You said that a person has an evil desire is the illusion or fiction. And you might not be wrong about that. But you are admitting you think or reflect on things other people invented like jingles and you are essentially saying that you choose to recite these things in your head. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

If the persistent jingle is me, why must I believe that an external force is the cause of it? It's just me. Someone else wrote it, but the persistent thought is nothing but me.

I wouldn't use the word "choice" for that. It's a choice to dispel the thought, but not to have it. Choices involve options. Where a persistent thought exists, not having it is an option, but the same isn't true of the non-existent thought. Existence isn't an option.

What I am trying to convey is you will be exposed to various ideas and situations that heavily influence how you respond or explain various events that others not exposed to the same stimuli would not express the idea that they believe or embody such things. I think you are focusing on evil desires vs good desires and you may think people striving to do things evil in your mind see the things they are doing in their mind as evil but that would involve them knowing gand experiencing your same upbringing and experiences. (And likely being genetically identical but lets leave nature vs nurture out of it)

The thoughts that arise in your mind are based on you. I do not have the same physical or mental capabilities of you. I don't live where you live or have your friends and your family. I am a completely different human with different friends and family. That said things pop up in my head which I don't think I caused. Per my original example I may want a cool ranch dorito chip having never made one nor knowing how to make them. That want is not put there by me. That is an external force abusing what people desire to sell chips. The idea that I would reflect on a dorito jingle and say yeah I like that jingle... thats just what I like is missing the bigger picture.

Unique, I am. My thoughts, I am. Desire is but one incidence of thought, and whether it is spawned by a television commercial or my own memory of previous encounters with a tasty chip or a catchy jingle, it is me. My possession of a desire doesn't differ from me, it (posession) is just a narrative to place "me" in the world. That "ownership" is a narrative, because there's nothing possessing desire, no 'self.' There is just desire.

Free will in terms of that dorito is the hand that reaches out in response to desire and places the dorito in the mouth. It is the follow-up thought to, "Oh, look! A dorito!" with the added idea of "I" who did that thing.

To deny free will is to deny that "I."

PS: I should mention that I am a compatibilist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So we don't disagree so far but going back to your original point who or what generates the random thoughts or persistent jingle? Some external force has created things like jingles or cool ranch doritos that now drive your life. You said that a person has an evil desire is the illusion or fiction. And you might not be wrong about that. But you are admitting you think or reflect on things other people invented like jingles and you are essentially saying that you choose to recite these things in your head. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

What I am trying to convey is you will be exposed to various ideas and situations that heavily influence how you respond or explain various events that others not exposed to the same stimuli would not express the idea that they believe or embody such things. I think you are focusing on evil desires vs good desires and you may think people striving to do things evil in your mind see the things they are doing in their mind as evil but that would involve them knowing and experiencing your same upbringing and experiences. (And likely being genetically identical but lets leave nature vs nurture out of it)

The thoughts that arise in your mind are based on you. I do not have the same physical or mental capabilities of you. I don't live where you live or have your friends and your family. I am a completely different human with different friends and family. That said things pop up in my head which I don't think I caused. Per my original example I may want a cool ranch dorito chip having never made one nor knowing how to make them. That want is not put there by me. That is an external force abusing what people desire to sell chips. The idea that I would reflect on a dorito jingle and say yeah I like that jingle... thats just what I like is missing the bigger picture.

The OP was directed at people who were trying to reconcile free will with the existence of evil and a benevolent god. If you don't believe in free will, fine, but this is irrelevant to the question of how - or whether - free will can be reconciled with these things.

 

[Vaderecta]

The OP was directed at people who were trying to reconcile free will with the existence of evil and a benevolent god. If you don't believe in free will, fine, but this is irrelevant to the question of how - or whether - free will can be reconciled with these things.

The ability to see thoughts that arose in your brain are somehow apart and aside from you is not a complete argument against free will but more a question of how hard someone has considered their internal workings.

Saying I don't believe in free will is not entirely accurate. I have very strong inclinations that the person we think we are is largely influenced by our environment and internal subconscious processes which our conscious mind is tasked with explaining as our conscious choices. Reconciliation of questionable free will with a good or evil god largely depends on other illogical powers like omniscience and one's personal interpretation of god.

If we go back to the original post you were focused on step two of your three choices. Cases like Charles Whitman who had a brain tumor causing him to most likely have the inability of choice when it comes to step two invalidate your argument. They cause more in depth arguments like Sam Harris's argument that maybe its brain tumors all the way down to be at least worthy of exploration. (Playing on the famous turtle argument)

Putting the blame solely on a person and what they did in the moment regardless of what was going on with them it was still their choice and thus they must be accountable doesn't sit well. (Though I see your argument)

Free will is not proven or disproven and assuming one side of the argument as being a compatibilist or the argument that everyone clearly has the ability to choose good rather than evil are just oversimplifying the problem. (Your step 2)

Lets say some one has an evil desire to do heroin. Having done heroin before they are addicted and can not choose not to do it again. They would actually have to be physically restrained, managed and counciled into not doing heroin again and even then would be strongly inclined to do heroin again. Blaming that persons decision to do heroin again is profoundly an uninteresting argument for free will.

 

[Vaderecta]

If the persistent jingle is me, why must I believe that an external force is the cause of it? It's just me. Someone else wrote it, but the persistent thought is nothing but me.

I wouldn't use the word "choice" for that. It's a choice to dispel the thought, but not to have it. Choices involve options. Where a persistent thought exists, not having it is an option, but the same isn't true of the non-existent thought. Existence isn't an option.


Unique, I am. My thoughts, I am. Desire is but one incidence of thought, and whether it is spawned by a television commercial or my own memory of previous encounters with a tasty chip or a catchy jingle, it is me. My possession of a desire doesn't differ from me, it (posession) is just a narrative to place "me" in the world. That "ownership" is a narrative, because there's nothing possessing desire, no 'self.' There is just desire.

Free will in terms of that dorito is the hand that reaches out in response to desire and places the dorito in the mouth. It is the follow-up thought to, "Oh, look! A dorito!" with the added idea of "I" who did that thing.

To deny free will is to deny that "I."

PS: I should mention that I am a compatibilist.

Ok. I thought we could have a conversation but you are like like Ra? Yeah I'm a catholic and Ra is fake news.

I don't mean to be rude and will try to resurrect the conversation. There are over 7 billion people on the planet and you are unique. I have seen at least a 100 people that like their coffee with lots of sugar and lots of cream and while all of them are still all unique they all like their coffee the same way. I'm not saying your are some automaton with no unique characteristics. Two things: You said if you are possessed with a desire by some external mechanism - Are you are saying to act on that desire or not is what separates you? Second do you think free will hinges on your ability to react to your personal desires and your personal repulsion's?

 

[Daisies4me]

Lol

Give it up. Agree to disagree and move on.

(quote)

Hi
Just "passing by", and noticed something amusing to me. Why do people who are otherwise intelligent and knowledgable still attempt to make the Inspired Scriptures that were written long before there was an English language, insist on trying to make as if interested persons must speak in a manner popular in the early 1600's, in Europe?
~smile~
riddle me this, batman...

LOL

If God could preserve His Inspired Word from the original languages of Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, and see the words written and completed around the time that the last Apostle ,John, was murdered, having now been translated into over 400 languages and dialects around the earth, why do people stay stuck in the 'King's English" of 1600? Don't they trust that translators can do an even better job today, in light of the "Dead Sea Scrolls" and other recently discovered artifacts that were found and compared and found to show that modern day translators, overall, have done a decent job of making the sayings of the True God available to most all humans on earth today in their own native tongue, and that no one speaks in the Kings English today? so why try to make the 'received text' authorized by King James, (who was not a very upstanding person, history has shown) be used today by those searching the scriptures?
The language is stagnant, and keeps many from accurate understanding of what was written originally, imho.
Just saying'....

Not intending to offend anyone, just my thoughts as I am perusing posts that I have not read before...

take care

 

[Enoch07]

(quote)

Hi
Just "passing by", and noticed something amusing to me. Why do people who are otherwise intelligent and knowledgable still attempt to make the Inspired Scriptures that were written long before there was an English language, insist on trying to make as if interested persons must speak in a manner popular in the early 1600's, in Europe?
~smile~
riddle me this, batman...

LOL

If God could preserve His Inspired Word from the original languages of Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, and see the words written and completed around the time that the last Apostle ,John, was murdered, having now been translated into over 400 languages and dialects around the earth, why do people stay stuck in the 'King's English" of 1600? Don't they trust that translators can do an even better job today, in light of the "Dead Sea Scrolls" and other recently discovered artifacts that were found and compared and found to show that modern day translators, overall, have done a decent job of making the sayings of the True God available to most all humans on earth today in their own native tongue, and that no one speaks in the Kings English today? so why try to make the 'received text' authorized by King James, (who was not a very upstanding person, history has shown) be used today by those searching the scriptures?
The language is stagnant, and keeps many from accurate understanding of what was written originally, imho.
Just saying'....

Not intending to offend anyone, just my thoughts as I am perusing posts that I have not read before...

take carfe

There is an old saying "There is no such thing as a stupid question". I think we may have found a loop hole!

But I shall answer it.

It's not about the accent used.

LoL