Free will and determinism

childeye 2 said:

I was speaking more about a predisposition. For example, 'trust' would be the positive state and 'distrust' would be the corrosive negative. Just like the truth exists independently but a lie only exists to undermine the truth, so it is dependent upon the truth <--It's asymmetrical. I'm not sure what you mean by my getting into free will vs predestination. My point is more like saying that one must understand that, by definition, whatever is eternal cannot be proven nor disproven as eternal. If the positive precedes the negative, then Eternity is likely a "Positive" state, an infinite Presence rather than an infinite void.

I notice that free will in the moral/immoral context is dependent upon an ability to choose, yet right and wrong are not symmetrical. One would have to first be believing a lie to choose what is wrong.

The Paradox: If you are "believing a lie," are you truly free? If a pilot crashes a plane because they believe the horizon is the sky, they are "choosing" to fly that way, but they aren't free from the consequences of their delusion.

---

Click to expand...

I guess I misunderstood you about free will vs predestination. Your idea about trust and distrust is very good. A willingness to trust would be in the choice mode. I’m not sure you can have and eternal God and an infinite void, but you could have voids that are without space, time, spirits other than God’s, and matter. I’m a little confused about your point about voids.

You wrote, “One would have to first be believing a lie to choose what is wrong.” You might tell a lie, while knowing the truth, with the hope the truth will not be revealed to the one you are telling the lie.

I probably won’t be on the forum again today, but I look forward to your ideas.

Bradskii said:

Whoa. Let's back the truck up here. You have stated that what is right is the truth and what is wrong is a lie. If so...then I'll have to ask if you know about anything that you consider to be a lie is actually morally right. Or anything that you consider to be true is morally wrong.

I can't see you doing that. Which then would mean that if I want to know if an act is morally correct...then I ask you. You become my Oracle Of Morality.

I see a problem with that. As others have given me the same explanation. And they would disagree with you on some matters. So...how do I know that you are right and they are wrong?

This is just about relevant to free will, so let's continue.

Click to expand...

It's absolutely relevant to both determinism and to a neutral free will.

What I actually meant to convey was that a person has to believe something untrue before choosing something morally wrong. That’s a structural point, not a personal claim of moral authority.

Proof: In pragmatics, there’s a well‑known constraint: we can’t reason symmetrically inside a dichotomy that is defined by its asymmetry. Truth and falsehood form that kind of asymmetry; truth is a presence, and a lie is a deviation of it. If we try to treat them as interchangeable, we collapse the objective meaning of the distinction.

Right and wrong are subjective derivatives of that deeper asymmetry. They play out horizontally in the moral/immoral context of actions; how we treat others as ourselves. That’s why moral dilemmas often involve conflicting obligations rather than two equal “options.”

For example, if I lie to a Nazi to protect a Jewish family hiding in my basement, I’m not treating “lying” as a moral good. I’m recognizing that my obligation to protect innocent life overrides my obligation to disclose information to someone who intends harm. If I told the Nazi the truth, I would be betraying the people I promised to protect.

So the question isn’t “is lying ever good,” but rather: which obligation reflects the truth about how I should treat others in this situation?

Maybe the entire debate about “free will” goes off the rails because the term itself is misleading. Nothing in human life is truly free in the sense of being uncaused, unshaped, or detached from prior circumstances. Every decision a person makes comes from who they are, what they’ve learned, what they’ve experienced, and the pressures or influences acting on them at the moment. In that sense, every choice is predetermined by the individual’s internal state and history.

But that doesn’t mean we’re puppets. It means the agent—the person—is the one doing the choosing.

So instead of calling it “free will,” which suggests some magical, cause‑less freedom, it makes more sense to call it Free Choice or simply Human Choice. The individual evaluates, weighs, reacts, reasons, and then chooses. Even when persuasion or outside forces are involved, the final decision still comes from the individual mind. The cause of the choice is still the person.

Whether a choice is made alone or within a group, it still originates from each individual contributing their own internal reasoning. So rather than insisting on “free will,” which implies something uncaused, we can acknowledge that:

Choices are caused.

Causes come from the individual’s character, experiences, and circumstances.

The individual still chooses.

In that sense, there is no such thing as “free will” if we define “free” as “uncaused.” But there is genuine individual choice, shaped by the person’s own internal structure. Predetermined influences don’t eliminate the ability to choose—they explain how choosing works.

So let’s drop the confusing term “free will.” It’s not about being free from causes. It’s about having the freedom to choose within your will, based on the life you’ve lived and the person you’ve become. I am free to think for myself, free to decide how I want to live, and free to make choices—even if those choices arise from the causes that shaped me.

The idea that “free will is an illusion” only sounds dramatic because the term is wrong. If all choices are shaped by prior causes, then yes, “free will” (as in uncaused will) is an illusion. But my freedom to choose is not an illusion. It’s real, it’s continuous, and it comes from me.

TGGIL said:

Maybe the entire debate about “free will” goes off the rails because the term itself is misleading. Nothing in human life is truly free in the sense of being uncaused, unshaped, or detached from prior circumstances. Every decision a person makes comes from who they are, what they’ve learned, what they’ve experienced, and the pressures or influences acting on them at the moment. In that sense, every choice is predetermined by the individual’s internal state and history.

But that doesn’t mean we’re puppets. It means the agent—the person—is the one doing the choosing.

So instead of calling it “free will,” which suggests some magical, cause‑less freedom, it makes more sense to call it Free Choice or simply Human Choice. The individual evaluates, weighs, reacts, reasons, and then chooses. Even when persuasion or outside forces are involved, the final decision still comes from the individual mind. The cause of the choice is still the person.

Whether a choice is made alone or within a group, it still originates from each individual contributing their own internal reasoning. So rather than insisting on “free will,” which implies something uncaused, we can acknowledge that:

Choices are caused.

Causes come from the individual’s character, experiences, and circumstances.

The individual still chooses.

In that sense, there is no such thing as “free will” if we define “free” as “uncaused.” But there is genuine individual choice, shaped by the person’s own internal structure. Predetermined influences don’t eliminate the ability to choose—they explain how choosing works.

So let’s drop the confusing term “free will.” It’s not about being free from causes. It’s about having the freedom to choose within your will, based on the life you’ve lived and the person you’ve become. I am free to think for myself, free to decide how I want to live, and free to make choices—even if those choices arise from the causes that shaped me.

The idea that “free will is an illusion” only sounds dramatic because the term is wrong. If all choices are shaped by prior causes, then yes, “free will” (as in uncaused will) is an illusion. But my freedom to choose is not an illusion. It’s real, it’s continuous, and it comes from me.

Click to expand...

The term free will is unstable only in a neutral mode of meaning (neither positive nor negative).

Note: If being alive/sentient and self-aware means every moment we must be choosing to do something or not do something, then the libertarian free will built on the assertion "could have done otherwise" is no different than determinism which counts being alive as an antecedent event.

Jerry N. said:

I guess I misunderstood you about free will vs predestination. Your idea about trust and distrust is very good. A willingness to trust would be in the choice mode. I’m not sure you can have and eternal God and an infinite void, but you could have voids that are without space, time, spirits other than God’s, and matter. I’m a little confused about your point about voids.

You wrote, “One would have to first be believing a lie to choose what is wrong.” You might tell a lie, while knowing the truth, with the hope the truth will not be revealed to the one you are telling the lie.

I probably won’t be on the forum again today, but I look forward to your ideas.

Click to expand...

A void would imply asymmetry denoting the absence of objective qualities of Character attributable to the Creator, or the vanity of the creature thinking it independently decides to manifest those virtues or not, as if they are the generator, not the vessel. For example, kindness/unkindness, honest/dishonest, heartful/heartless, faithful/faithless. <- These are qualities of Character attributable to Agape.

I'm therefore not advocating that faith/unfaith is a choice/option. Because in objective language faith/trust implies trust in objective virtues that reflect the presence of Agape and subsequently God's Holy Character. To even think I could choose to distrust God is to create a corrupt image of God. Distrusting others however is another matter.

Incidentally, I've read up a little about Descartes. Using subjective semantic analysis with applied pragmatics I determined that Descartes ends up conflating choice/option with choice/decision.

Therefore the “choice/option” is never between God and not‑God; it is between a true image and a false one.

This means: Unfaith is NOT a choice/decision, it is a misperception. Faith is NOT a choice/decision, it is a realization.

(See the prodigal son: he “came to himself”; he did not “make a decision from a neutral free will.”)

Jerry N. said:

I had never heard of Brett Whitely, so I looked him up. I don’t think I would want a copy in my home, but they are amazing. He obviously had talent and training. I tried my hand at leather craft for a while, but I mostly copied other designs. I showed one of my embossings to a friend, and he nicely said, “You are and artist.” I’m not, but it drove home the idea that the term “artist” is much too broad. I’ve been thinking about how one would properly define the term ever since.

There are a lot of old wooden churches here in Poland, and I visit them sometimes even though I’m not Catholic. The walls are often painted by some artist in the area with limited talent, but you can see the pride and dedication in the works. This is a reflection of the “self” of the artist. It always makes me a little bit happier. Thank you too.

Click to expand...

Art I think but more literature became the measure of what is real in postmodernism. Whereas art and literature were seen as a particular expression of the time. Literature played a more prominent role of reality itself.

Thus we have seen the age of self expression through words and narratives as the measure of what is real. We have seen changes to meanings and those new meanings becoming the measure of what is real and moral. Certian words banned and even people suffering bad consequences for not using the proper words or meanings. Or affirming peoples self proclaimed labels and narratives of identity ect.

Even trumping objective reality in some cases. As though the self referential truth are real and truth while everything else and even science is itself a narrative or perspective that is human created and not necessarily reflecting true reality. As opposed to the new reality created by self referential truths.

childeye 2 said:

A void would imply asymmetry denoting the absence of objective qualities of Character attributable to the Creator, or the vanity of the creature thinking it independently decides to manifest those virtues or not, as if they are the generator, not the vessel. For example, kindness/unkindness, honest/dishonest, heartful/heartless, faithful/faithless. <- These are qualities of Character attributable to Agape.

I'm therefore not advocating that faith/unfaith is a choice/option. Because in objective language faith/trust implies trust in objective virtues that reflect the presence of Agape and subsequently God's Holy Character. To even think I could choose to distrust God is to create a corrupt image of God. Distrusting others however is another matter.

Incidentally, I've read up a little about Descartes. Using subjective semantic analysis with applied pragmatics I determined that Descartes ends up conflating choice/option with choice/decision.

Therefore the “choice/option” is never between God and not‑God; it is between a true image and a false one.

This means: Unfaith is NOT a choice/decision, it is a misperception. Faith is NOT a choice/decision, it is a realization.

(See the prodigal son: he “came to himself”; he did not “make a decision from a neutral free will.”)

Click to expand...

I mentioned that Descartes gets a little murky, and he even got a little silly with the pituitary gland. Bardskii was trying to convince his readers that there is only one definition of free will. I mentioned Descartes among others to show that there are other definitions. It has been many years since I read Descartes, but the idea that stuck in my mind was the relationship of the spirit/soul with the physical body. I think it is key to understanding the relationship between determination and free will. H.G. Wells, who was a good writer but wrong about many things, had this idea that very few things are dichotomies. There is a spectrum for most things. Stealing an apple from a fruit stand when you are hungry is different from stealing a lady’s purse when you are hungry. They are both wrong, but one deserves more mercy than the other. The dichotomies you are describing, in the human realm, only apply to individual actions. I can be both honest and dishonest if my life. Hopefully, I am more often honest. Godly love and satanic hate are the extremes, but we live in a world somewhere between the two.

Maybe I missed it, but how do you define “neutral free will?”
There is also the relationship between faith and hope. There can be no faith without doubt, but we hope our faith is in the right things.

stevevw said:

Art I think but more literature became the measure of what is real in postmodernism. Whereas art and literature were seen as a particular expression of the time. Literature played a more prominent role of reality itself.

Thus we have seen the age of self expression through words and narratives as the measure of what is real. We have seen changes to meanings and those new meanings becoming the measure of what is real and moral. Certian words banned and even people suffering bad consequences for not using the proper words or meanings. Or affirming peoples self proclaimed labels and narratives of identity ect.

Even trumping objective reality in some cases. As though the self referential truth are real and truth while everything else and even science is itself a narrative or perspective that is human created and not necessarily reflecting true reality. As opposed to the new reality created by self referential truths.

Click to expand...

There is certainly a pile of confusion there between objective reality, which is only known by God, and perceived or constructed reality. Some constructed reality is completely wrong to be used to rationalize our choices, or it is assumptions bases on insufficient data, like every action is determined. One might consider the changes that have taken place in the scientific community on the construction of the atom. The best we can do is seek objective reality the best we can.

Bradskii said:

You being free to make a decision ain't the definition of free will.

Click to expand...

It isn't in the definition you presented.

Bradskii said:

Making decisions was covered in the very first sentence of the very first post. Everything led on from the fact that we obviously make decisions.

Click to expand...

I know. I just want the other readers of this thread to know that your definition is not the only definition ever proposed. I didn’t check more than a few, but I suspect there are many.

Bradskii said:

But he was a compatibilist. He considered the world to be determined but that we still had free will. He was the poster boy for dualism. At least he offered a source for it (the pineal gland, not the pituitary). Everyone else hand waves it away, still claiming it's there somewhere.

Click to expand...

Sorry I said "pituitary," my memory is getting fuzzy.

Bradskii said:

His definition then matches the standard definition, examples of which I have given.

Click to expand...

I don't see it.

Bradskii said:

There aren't any definitions of free will that don't include making decisions. If you're not making decisions then there's nothing to discuss. Nothing's happening.

Click to expand...

I’m not questioning whether decisions are made. I’m questioning how much free will we have in those decisions. I’m contending that it is not zero.

The depth of our choices. They seem so free to us. But consciously and unconsciously many processes influence our decisions.

I happen to be a guy who has a hard time making decisions. 2 years now and I still have not bought the new truck. If my choice is predetermined its not working very well.

Jerry N. said:

I mentioned that Descartes gets a little murky, and he even got a little silly with the pituitary gland. Bardskii was trying to convince his readers that there is only one definition of free will. I mentioned Descartes among others to show that there are other definitions. It has been many years since I read Descartes, but the idea that stuck in my mind was the relationship of the spirit/soul with the physical body. I think it is key to understanding the relationship between determination and free will. H.G. Wells, who was a good writer but wrong about many things, had this idea that very few things are dichotomies. There is a spectrum for most things. Stealing an apple from a fruit stand when you are hungry is different from stealing a lady’s purse when you are hungry. They are both wrong, but one deserves more mercy than the other. The dichotomies you are describing, in the human realm, only apply to individual actions. I can be both honest and dishonest if my life. Hopefully, I am more often honest. Godly love and satanic hate are the extremes, but we live in a world somewhere between the two.

Maybe I missed it, but how do you define “neutral free will?”
There is also the relationship between faith and hope. There can be no faith without doubt, but we hope our faith is in the right things.

Click to expand...

1. Why We Must Begin With “Choice” Itself​

Before discussing free will, it’s important to recognize a basic fact:

Anything we do or don’t do can be described as a “choice” simply because we are alive.

Acting, refraining, hesitating, drifting, surrendering, resisting — all of these can be labeled choices in ordinary language. But if everything counts as a choice, then the word becomes meaningless unless we distinguish:

• choice/options — the circumstance of having alternatives
• choice/decision — the orientation or direction of the will

When these two meanings are conflated, we end up calling a menu a will, or calling a neutral chooser a moral agent. So clarity requires separating the circumstance of choice from the structure of willing.

This distinction is the foundation for everything that follows.

2. Positive, Neutral, and Negative Modes of Free Will (in the Moral Option‑Space)​

These modes are not metaphysical categories of the will itself. They describe how the will relates to the moral/immoral choice/option‑space.

Positive Mode (Free‑From the Negative)​

This is directional freedom: free from deception, distortion, unrighteousness.

It is the will oriented toward the good.

Neutral Mode (Free‑To Choose Among Options)​

This is non‑directional freedom: free to choose among alternatives without intrinsic orientation.

This is the “neutral chooser” — the mode Descartes describes. It is not a will in the moral sense; it is simply the condition or circumstance of having options.

Negative Mode (Free‑From the Positive)​

This is directional in the wrong direction: free from truth, free from righteousness.

It is the will existing in a state of unfaith — a blindness to the eternal.

These modes only make sense inside the moral option‑space. They are not psychological states; they are structural descriptions of orientation.

3. How “Will” and “Free” Morph (and Why Clarity Matters)​

Both terms drift across meanings unless stabilized.

“Will” morphs between:​

• desire
• preference
• orientation
• capacity to choose
• neutral selector

“Free” morphs between:​

• uncoerced
• voluntary
• autonomous
• having options
• free from lies
• free from truth

If we don’t stabilize these meanings, we smuggle in neutrality where Scripture never allows it; or smuggle in determinism where the structure doesn’t require it.

This is why distinguishing choice/options from choice/decision is essential.

4. Scripture’s Directional Categories (No Neutrality)​

In the Greek, righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) and unrighteousness (ἀδικία) are character‑qualities, not actions. They describe orientation, not behavior.

Paul’s language in Romans 6 is explicit:

• “free from righteousness”
• “free from unrighteousness”

These are directional states, not behavioral spectra.

When Paul says:

“Do not yield your members to unrighteousness,”

Click to expand...

he is not redefining unrighteousness as an action. He is describing the expression of an orientation. That’s why he adds:

“I speak as a man.”

Click to expand...

He is acknowledging that “yielding” is a human metaphor for expressing a directional state, but he mentions it because he knows the flesh can be enticed through vain imagery that always ends in a false hope.

Jesus’ definition is even sharper:​

“The truth will set you free.”

Click to expand...

This is positive freedom: free from lies, not free to hover between options.

Scripture never treats neutrality as a category. James calls it doublemindedness — a collapse of direction.

Scripture describes Christ as the light that shines into the soul, giving the knowledge of God’s person — Agapē crucified, forgiving its crucifiers. This light is not passive; it is the revelation that creates hearing and gives sight. Faith is the Spirit‑given sight of this light, and unfaith is blindness to the Eternal. Because the light is objective and active, the will’s relation to it is never neutral.

5. H. G. Wells and the Two Planes (Why He Sees Spectra)​

Wells famously said there are few real dichotomies. He is observing the plane of degrees, not the plane of absolutes.

Plane 1: Absolutes (Asymmetric Dichotomies)​

These are directional categories:

• truth / falsehood
• righteousness / unrighteousness
• faith / unfaith
• moral / immoral

These are not symmetric opposites. Truth is a presence; a lie is a deviation of it.

Plane 2: Degrees (Gradients of Deviation)​

Human behavior varies:

• stealing bread vs. stealing a purse
• white lies vs. fraud
• temptation vs. action

These are degrees, not categories.

Wells sees the gradient and assumes the category isn’t binary. But the gradient exists within the dichotomy, not instead of it.

6. The Bread vs. Purse Analogy (Discernment Is Directional, Not Neutral)​

Stealing bread because you’re starving and stealing a purse for profit are not morally equivalent. We instinctively apply different degrees of mercy.

But mercy is not neutrality.

Mercy is directional discernment — recognizing that one action deviates less from the good than the other.

Neutrality would mean: “Both actions are equally nothing.”

But that’s not what anyone means.

The analogy reinforces the two‑plane model:

• Plane of absolutes: theft is wrong
• Plane of degrees: some deviations are less severe

Discernment measures distance from the good; it does not create a third category.

7. Faith, Doubt, and the Asymmetric Structure of Trust​

Faith and doubt are often treated as a spectrum, but structurally they form an asymmetric dichotomy:

• Faith is orientation toward what is objectively trustworthy.
• Unfaith is orientation away from what is trustworthy, toward what is false.
• Doubt is not the opposite of faith; it is the degree of interference within faith.

Doubt is the noise that distorts the signal — not a category of its own.

The crucial structural point:​

Faith is only faith when it is directed toward what is objectively trustworthy. If I “have faith” in what is untrustworthy, that is not faith — it is unfaith. Similarly, sincere worship is heartfelt, drawn out by the object of worship not decided upon in the mind.

Click to expand...

So if a person were to place “faith” in a creature who insinuates that God is untrustworthy, that “faith” is actually misdirected trust, which Scripture calls:

• deception
• unbelief
• unfaith
• darkness
• error

In other words:

Subjective confidence does not make something faith. The object’s trustworthiness determines whether the orientation is faith or unfaith. If one's imagery of God is corrupt, then it manifests unfaith. So, if perchance someone said to me, "I don't have any faith", it would be a coherent response to say, "That would imply you do not have a trustworthy image of God".

Click to expand...

This preserves the asymmetry:

• Faith = trust in what is true
• Unfaith = trust in what is false
• Doubt = the degree of interference, not a third category

This matches the entire framework:

• truth vs. lie
• righteousness vs. unrighteousness
• faith vs. unfaith

All are directional categories with degrees of deviation, not spectra of categories.

8. Hope as the First Derivative of Faith​

Hope is often misunderstood as optimism or emotional desire, but structurally:

Hope is the temporal extension of faith.

Click to expand...

Faith is orientation toward what is objectively trustworthy. Hope is the forward‑facing expectation that the trustworthy object will fulfill its meaning in time.

Faith → Hope → Love (the structural sequence)​

• Faith establishes orientation toward the trustworthy.
• Hope projects that orientation into the future.
• Love expresses that orientation in action.

Hope is not neutral. Hope is not a spectrum. Hope is not wishful thinking.

Hope is faith moving forward in time.

And just like faith:

• If hope is directed toward what is false, it becomes false hope, which is simply unfaith in its temporal form.

So:

True hope is hope grounded in what is objectively trustworthy. False hope is hope grounded in what is not.

Click to expand...

This completes the structural symmetry:

• truth / lie
• righteousness / unrighteousness
• faith / unfaith
• hope / false hope

All are directional, not neutral, relative to the eternal.

Closing Summary​

Once we distinguish:

• choice/options from choice/decision
• positive/neutral/negative modes as relations to the moral option‑space
• the morphing of “will” and “free”
• Scripture’s directional categories
• Wells’ two planes
• discernment vs. neutrality
• faith vs. unfaith
• hope vs. false hope

…the entire structure becomes clear:

Neutrality is not a category in scripture. In scripture it is either an inability to discern from which direction the light is shining, or doublemindedness equivocating between two masters, the will of the flesh and the will of the spirit.

Click to expand...

childeye 2 said:

1. Why We Must Begin With “Choice” Itself​

Before discussing free will, it’s important to recognize a basic fact:

Anything we do or don’t do can be described as a “choice” simply because we are alive.

Acting, refraining, hesitating, drifting, surrendering, resisting — all of these can be labeled choices in ordinary language. But if everything counts as a choice, then the word becomes meaningless unless we distinguish:

• choice/options — the circumstance of having alternatives
• choice/decision — the orientation or direction of the will

When these two meanings are conflated, we end up calling a menu a will, or calling a neutral chooser a moral agent. So clarity requires separating the circumstance of choice from the structure of willing.

This distinction is the foundation for everything that follows.

2. Positive, Neutral, and Negative Modes of Free Will (in the Moral Option‑Space)​

These modes are not metaphysical categories of the will itself. They describe how the will relates to the moral/immoral choice/option‑space.

Positive Mode (Free‑From the Negative)​

This is directional freedom: free from deception, distortion, unrighteousness.

It is the will oriented toward the good.

Neutral Mode (Free‑To Choose Among Options)​

This is non‑directional freedom: free to choose among alternatives without intrinsic orientation.

This is the “neutral chooser” — the mode Descartes describes. It is not a will in the moral sense; it is simply the condition or circumstance of having options.

Negative Mode (Free‑From the Positive)​

This is directional in the wrong direction: free from truth, free from righteousness.

It is the will existing in a state of unfaith — a blindness to the eternal.

These modes only make sense inside the moral option‑space. They are not psychological states; they are structural descriptions of orientation.

3. How “Will” and “Free” Morph (and Why Clarity Matters)​

Both terms drift across meanings unless stabilized.

“Will” morphs between:​

• desire
• preference
• orientation
• capacity to choose
• neutral selector

“Free” morphs between:​

• uncoerced
• voluntary
• autonomous
• having options
• free from lies
• free from truth

If we don’t stabilize these meanings, we smuggle in neutrality where Scripture never allows it; or smuggle in determinism where the structure doesn’t require it.

This is why distinguishing choice/options from choice/decision is essential.

4. Scripture’s Directional Categories (No Neutrality)​

In the Greek, righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) and unrighteousness (ἀδικία) are character‑qualities, not actions. They describe orientation, not behavior.

Paul’s language in Romans 6 is explicit:

• “free from righteousness”
• “free from unrighteousness”

These are directional states, not behavioral spectra.

When Paul says:


he is not redefining unrighteousness as an action. He is describing the expression of an orientation. That’s why he adds:


He is acknowledging that “yielding” is a human metaphor for expressing a directional state, but he mentions it because he knows the flesh can be enticed through vain imagery that always ends in a false hope.

Jesus’ definition is even sharper:​

This is positive freedom: free from lies, not free to hover between options.

Scripture never treats neutrality as a category. James calls it doublemindedness — a collapse of direction.

Scripture describes Christ as the light that shines into the soul, giving the knowledge of God’s person — Agapē crucified, forgiving its crucifiers. This light is not passive; it is the revelation that creates hearing and gives sight. Faith is the Spirit‑given sight of this light, and unfaith is blindness to the Eternal. Because the light is objective and active, the will’s relation to it is never neutral.

5. H. G. Wells and the Two Planes (Why He Sees Spectra)​

Wells famously said there are few real dichotomies. He is observing the plane of degrees, not the plane of absolutes.

Plane 1: Absolutes (Asymmetric Dichotomies)​

These are directional categories:

• truth / falsehood
• righteousness / unrighteousness
• faith / unfaith
• moral / immoral

These are not symmetric opposites. Truth is a presence; a lie is a deviation of it.

Plane 2: Degrees (Gradients of Deviation)​

Human behavior varies:

• stealing bread vs. stealing a purse
• white lies vs. fraud
• temptation vs. action

These are degrees, not categories.

Wells sees the gradient and assumes the category isn’t binary. But the gradient exists within the dichotomy, not instead of it.

6. The Bread vs. Purse Analogy (Discernment Is Directional, Not Neutral)​

Stealing bread because you’re starving and stealing a purse for profit are not morally equivalent. We instinctively apply different degrees of mercy.

But mercy is not neutrality.

Mercy is directional discernment — recognizing that one action deviates less from the good than the other.

Neutrality would mean: “Both actions are equally nothing.”

But that’s not what anyone means.

The analogy reinforces the two‑plane model:

• Plane of absolutes: theft is wrong
• Plane of degrees: some deviations are less severe

Discernment measures distance from the good; it does not create a third category.

7. Faith, Doubt, and the Asymmetric Structure of Trust​

Faith and doubt are often treated as a spectrum, but structurally they form an asymmetric dichotomy:

• Faith is orientation toward what is objectively trustworthy.
• Unfaith is orientation away from what is trustworthy, toward what is false.
• Doubt is not the opposite of faith; it is the degree of interference within faith.

Doubt is the noise that distorts the signal — not a category of its own.

The crucial structural point:​

So if a person were to place “faith” in a creature who insinuates that God is untrustworthy, that “faith” is actually misdirected trust, which Scripture calls:

• deception
• unbelief
• unfaith
• darkness
• error

In other words:


This preserves the asymmetry:

• Faith = trust in what is true
• Unfaith = trust in what is false
• Doubt = the degree of interference, not a third category

This matches the entire framework:

• truth vs. lie
• righteousness vs. unrighteousness
• faith vs. unfaith

All are directional categories with degrees of deviation, not spectra of categories.

8. Hope as the First Derivative of Faith​

Hope is often misunderstood as optimism or emotional desire, but structurally:


Faith is orientation toward what is objectively trustworthy. Hope is the forward‑facing expectation that the trustworthy object will fulfill its meaning in time.

Faith → Hope → Love (the structural sequence)​

• Faith establishes orientation toward the trustworthy.
• Hope projects that orientation into the future.
• Love expresses that orientation in action.

Hope is not neutral. Hope is not a spectrum. Hope is not wishful thinking.

Hope is faith moving forward in time.

And just like faith:

• If hope is directed toward what is false, it becomes false hope, which is simply unfaith in its temporal form.

So:


This completes the structural symmetry:

• truth / lie
• righteousness / unrighteousness
• faith / unfaith
• hope / false hope

All are directional, not neutral, relative to the eternal.

Closing Summary​

Once we distinguish:

• choice/options from choice/decision
• positive/neutral/negative modes as relations to the moral option‑space
• the morphing of “will” and “free”
• Scripture’s directional categories
• Wells’ two planes
• discernment vs. neutrality
• faith vs. unfaith
• hope vs. false hope

…the entire structure becomes clear:

Click to expand...

This is very well done. Great work. How does one determine the levels of responsibility?