What do you mean by "free will?"

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

 

[Brickjectivity]

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

Is that an official theological position worked out philosophically or is someone winging it? Backyard Bible buffs are all over the map, ranging from free willies to determinators. I believe the Puritans were very big on predestiny, and they considered themselves theists.

 

[Stevicus]

I addressed this same topic in post #81 that previous thread, and I would also like to know how religionists who propagate "free will" would answer this:

When it comes to the "problem of evil," this is where the rubber meets the road. It's easy and convenient to blame humans and our alleged "free will" for the evil of this world, but what is that really saying?

When did "evil" in humans really begin? Was it when we were created? Or is it because humans don't like to feel cold, hunger, pain, or other such travails of life?

Imagine an early human, unable to find food or shelter, yet sees another human who has both but not enough to share. So, the first human decides "Hey, if I kill this guy, then I can eat his food, take over his shelter, and I will survive." According to religion, this human is exercising his "free will" to do evil.

But let's look at this more closely: Why would this person be hungry and cold in the first place? Who designed humans to get hungry in the first place? Who designed humans to require copious amounts of food on a daily basis? If humans were designed so that they could live on a single grain of rice every year, then I guarantee that most "evil" probably never would have happened. That's not because of humans and their "free will," but because of a bad "Designer."

---

If there was such a thing as "free will," there would be no such thing as "insomnia." If someone wants to go to sleep but can't, then something is keeping them awake, and there goes "free will" right out the window. Someone who is chronically sleep-deprived may go psychotic, and that may also affect their choices and "free will."

Another example is memory loss. Can a person instantly recall any moment in their life with absolute accuracy? If not, then there is no "free will." If one can't even control their own memory and thought processes, then where is the "free will"?

The entire concept of "free will" is BS. Anyone who would propagate that idea has not thought it out very clearly.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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?

As I currently understand it, free will means that you have moral ability to determine right from wrong. The free will movement is one that historically overruns certain other ideas, that people need a lord to tell them right from wrong and that their actions are only evil if their lord says so. It is like a freedom movement and not supposed to be about whether life is deterministic. Its not supposed to be an argument against or for predestiny, but I am aware that many people seize upon the phrase when studying Bible passages and start wondering about predestiny. They should actually be focusing on passages about freedom, because that is what free will is related to through the exercise of moral ability.

 

[savagewind]

A person can learn to squelch evil desires.
If an evil desire shows up a person can choose to ignore it.

 

[savagewind]

It isn't free. Work is involved and work deserves to be paid for.

 

[Koldo]

A person can learn to squelch evil desires.
If an evil desire shows up a person can choose to ignore it.

By the means of what desire ?

 

[savagewind]

By the means of what desire ?

The desire to be good? LOL

Maybe I don't understand the question.
I tell my children, "be safe, not sorry".
Maybe I esteem safety more than some others do.

 

[savagewind]

I think that getting into trouble or staying out of trouble becomes a person's habit.
So, after a while, the person loses choosing. But, the attitude was chosen which I think has been called "free will".

I can put on an attitude of caring or not caring. I can care about some things but not other things.
Such choosing is called "free will".

 

[Kenny]

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.

I guess one can ask if your premise is correct in the first place... is #1 correct? Is there a 1 a?

1. An evil desire is place into the soul
   1. The free will person decides whether he wants it or not...
   2. The person decides he doesn't want it because of free will
2. The person, because of free will, decides to mediate on it and begins the process of imagination.
   1. At this point, free will decision #2. He can stop or not.
3. The person chooses to act on his imagination
4. The person does what he imagined.

 

[Jumi]

I don't use the term. It sounds like either/or to me, when in reality there are many factors. Only in debates where someone tries to create a position for me that I haven't even taken, do I talk about free will.

 

[Koldo]

The desire to be good? LOL

Maybe I don't understand the question.
I tell my children, "be safe, not sorry".
Maybe I esteem safety more than some others do.

So, If an evil desire shows up a person can choose to ignore it if this person desires to be good.
Sounds about right.

 

[Koldo]

I guess one can ask if your premise is correct in the first place... is #1 correct? Is there a 1 a?

1. An evil desire is place into the soul
   1. The free will person decides whether he wants it or not...
   2. The person decides he doesn't want it because of free will
2. The person, because of free will, decides to mediate on it and begins the process of imagination.
   1. At this point, free will decision #2. He can stop or not.
3. The person chooses to act on his imagination
4. The person does what he imagined.

By what means do you decide whether you want it or not ?
On what basis would you choose you don't want it ?

 

[PureX]

1. The person has an evil desire.

The person ignores the evil desire, knowing it to be evil (by recognizing that it will only lead to a negative result).

Step 2., then, becomes unnecessary.

 

[Koldo]

The person ignores the evil desire, knowing it to be evil (by recognizing that it will only lead to a negative result).

Step 2., then, becomes unnecessary.

Even if a person recognizes that their action(s) will only lead to a negative result, this person might still do it.
For instance, a murderer might be fully aware of the negative consequences his actions might have, such as all the suffering and pain he is going to cause, and yet, still go ahead and do it.

So, the mere act of "recognizing that it will only lead to a negative result" is not sufficient to refrain from doing something.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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?

Right, so we CHOOSE at step 2, to overcome the innate desire/ temptations of step 1, and so prevent step 3 from happening, ourselves, by our own FREE WILL

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Even if a person recognizes that their action(s) will only lead to a negative result, this person might still do it.
For instance, a murderer might be fully aware of the negative consequences his actions might have, such as all the suffering and pain he is going to cause, and yet, still go ahead and do it.

So, the mere act of "recognizing that it will only lead to a negative result" is not sufficient to refrain from doing something.

That's the value of morality, without it, the only 'negative consequence' to avoid is getting caught..

 

[Koldo]

That's the value of morality, without it, the only 'negative consequence' to avoid is getting caught..

But even if there are other negative consequences beyond getting caught, that is still not sufficient to prevent one from acting on the basis of an evil desire.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But even if there are other negative consequences beyond getting caught, that is still not sufficient to prevent one from acting on the basis of an evil desire.

I'd agree, free will still applies though, it includes the inevitability that we all give in to temptation, me make mistakes and see other people doing so, it's up to our own consciousness to make the choice to do the right thing,

without that potential choice to be 'evil', there is no possibility to be 'good' is there?

 

[Koldo]

I'd agree, free will still applies though, it includes the inevitability that we all give in to temptation, me make mistakes and see other people doing so, it's up to our own consciousness to make the choice to do the right thing,

without that potential choice to be 'evil', there is no possibility to be 'good' is there?

Hmm... That is a contentious point. It heavily depends on how you interpret morality.
For starters, there are some people that believe that whatever God does is, by definition, good. No matter what it is. This means that God is always doing good actions, and can't ever do evil actions.