The two alternatives "you did it" and "it did you" are too black and white to represent reality.
The title was just an attempt at getting people's attention, no more. In other words, That is not the way I see things.
From a philosophical perspective, I believe freewill is in essence an act of creativity. We are made as creative creatures in that we can produce ideas which are not caused by mere mechanical procedure. As NetDoc notes, artistic and critical thinking capabilities are also dependant on this creative side. We were not built as robots that follow prescribed algorithms.
Even our creative side has a a base to it and a reason behind it. For example even artists use reality as inspiration. Even abstract art has emotions behind it and even driving it. I would love for someone to name something "creative" that had absolutely no inward or outward inspiration (Ecc. 1:9). The whole definition of the word "critical" begs to differ the description given above.
*** The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 ***
Critical \Crit"ic*al\ (kr[i^]t"[i^]*kal), a. [See {Critic}, n.,
{Crisis}.]
[1913 Webster]
1. Qualified to criticise, or pass judgment upon, literary or
artistic productions.
[1913 Webster]
It is submitted to the judgment of more critical
ears to direct and determine what is graceful and
what is not. --Holder.
[1913 Webster]
2. Pertaining to criticism or the critic's art; of the nature
of a criticism; accurate; as, critical knowledge; a
critical dissertation.
[1913 Webster]
"critical thinking" could not be critical by definition if it had no bases for it's judgement.
If we were the only inhabitants of the Universe (as creative creatures), perhaps we could create it however we wanted, like a lucid dream.
As a Christian Theist, I only know of one creator that has this ability, and he doesn't even need a 'lucid dream" for inspiration. Can you describe a dream that you have had that has had no basis from the reality that you know or inspiration from emotions, etc.? I sincerely can't.
However, once we share the same environment with other creatures with freewill, there must be a means to resolve conflicts between the wills. For example, if I want the couch on the north side of the room, and my wife would like the couch on the south side of the room, there must be some mechanism to resolve this conflict. This could easily be implemented as a set of rules, such as the laws of physics. As such, our bodies become the instrument of our will to act as we wish in this Universe. C.S. Lewis proposes that this arrangement is so that our free spirits have an environment in which we can build relationships with each other
This is an example of wills driven by selfish desires for all sorts of reasons. This is not an example of wills that had no influence behind them. The resolve is needed because the first "law of Thelema"( Do what thou wilst, Make it the whole of your law) could never work. We are selfish beings, that are never satisfied, no matter what the costs. If there were no laws, we'd eventually destroy ourselves.
However, for us to have meaningful relationships the interaction cannot be one way. We can not only affect the Universe, but the Universe can affect us. Our bodies impose impulses and desires onto us, and it is from these impulses that we base our actions. Our consciousness is the arena where our impulses are presented to us, and where the will deliberates and manifests itself. Without our conscious being, our freewill would not exist. If we become drunk, or have a sudden fit of rage, our consciousness becomes altered and our freewill becomes impotent.
So either our impulses or consciouces is in control of our wills. My favorite part of this argument is the last sentence, because if it is true than it must also be true that if our consciousness alters our impulses, since they both drive our wills, then our "freewill" has once again become impotent. Either way, the only logical conclusion of this argument is that whenever any influence that drives our wills is altered, it takes away the potency of out "freewills". On top of that, I'm sure science can come up with an argument stating that our conscious is just as much a part of our bodies as our "impulses".
In order to overcome a strong impulse, a person must have a strong will. One might argue that the strongest impulse will always win, but I do not think it is this simple. How it decides what option to pick cannot be formulated with any set of absolute rules, but rather it is a self-determining thing which operates under its own direction and not according to an external necessity (such as the laws of nature).
Name an inpulse as you defined above that is not considered a law of nature(the impulse for survival, the impulse for pleasure, etc). After that, name an issue of the conscious, like morality, logic, etc. that was not taught or had any sort of external influence.
That is all I have time for right now, I will address the Biblical side later.
please do
to say free will doesn't exist is to say that there is no difference between Hitler and the late Pope...that is something i can not bring myself to do
All one needs to do to see the difference between these two is to look at what influnces them. For Hitler, read "Meine Komph", which he authored and is a telling book describing the plans he had before he implemented them and his inspiration behind those plans. For the Pope, read the Bible, I am sure that any good follower of Catholicism and the pope would agree with Phi. 2:12.
Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria
