"Free Will" vs "Free Choice" vs "Predestination"

[oi_antz]

I have recently been shown that my understanding of the term "free will" is different to the dictionary definition and general use of the term. I think everyone else is wrong and I am right, but for the sake of appearances, I will conform and every time I hear someone use the term, I will hear "free choice" instead. So let me explain what I used to think it means.

A person has a will, that is the determination to stick with a decision. The will is probably the strongest force in the universe IMO, because it has the power to cause anything to happen that is within a human's capacity. Eg, presently it has the ability to destroy the world many times over. In future I expect it may have the ability to manipulate solar systems and bring life to other parts of the universe. Maybe. But that is the will. Notice this is not desire alone, but a determination to a given decision.

My understanding of free will has traditionally been that a person has freedom to have their own will, a definition I will begin referring to as "sovereign will". This gets interesting when discussing the concept of God's foreknowledge and human freedom of choice. What seems to be the correct regard in this topic, is that human choice is mechanical, and the ability to choose is an illusion, because the sum of desire, circumstance and belief will always result in the same decision. Sometimes a decision will be difficult, but it will always equate the same unless one of those three factors is to change.

So the discussion quickly becomes, at that point, whether God is responsible for causing our actions, because He claims to know the future and Christians mostly agree that He knows the future as though it has happened. Therefore it is positted that because He allowed it to happen, He must have designed it that way, or it must be His will that this has happened.

This is fine when considering that God has perfect foreknowledge and that human choice is mechanical. But then I throw in the idea that we can sometimes forego our will and allow someone else to exercise their will. For some reason (which I hope to understand), people get a bit confused at that, even stating logical paradox etc. But it seems very clear to me that humans have a will, they are often allowed to express that will even when it contradicts God's expressed will. That demonstrates that God does tolerate disobedience, and that He isn't a control freak. A good example is when Cain killed Abel. God warned Cain that sin was wanting to control him, yet He allowed Cain to kill Abel anyway, a clear example of Cain exercising a will that contradicted God's will.

So, in conclusion I state that humans are responsible for how they exercise their will, and just because something happened it does not imply that it was God's will for it to happen. He did allow it to happen against His will, which the question "why" might be interesting to investigate, but what I am hoping to achieve in this thread is a richer understanding of the concept. This thread was inspired by a brief discussion with DogmaHunter on another thread which got deleted according to forum rules. Hopefully this is the better place for this discussion.

 

[KCfromNC]

It's weird. There's a ton of text about human behavior here. And yet count the number of times God is used compared to peer-reviewed research, neuroscience, psychology, biology or anything that would indicate that there's anything other than dogma at work here.

I guess we are in the philosophy forum, but still, if you're going to talk about how the human brain [appears to] make choices, I'd think some discussion of the actual workings of the brain would be in order.

 

[Chany]

The biggest problem with your theory is that you claim this:

1) Human choice is mechanical.

2) Humans can choose to allow other's wills to override theirs.

3) Therefore, humans have a part of them that is free.

If human choice is entirely deterministic (or, at least, the process of random causes entirely out of their control), then the choice to allow other's wills to override our own is also deterministic. You still have the same problem of God controlling everything.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

In order to get any sort of coherent answer about this, one must limit the discussion to a single underlying set of assumptions.

As noted by KC, one view requires examination of brain function, while the Divine design faction require an understanding of the grand flow of theistic principles. If all backgrounds play at once, the result will appear similar to a terrifying vision of playing six sided Chinese checkers with live hand grenades.

But since you ask, all I can say is this: With the greatest of reverence to the Sovereignty of Almighty God, and a basic understanding of Skinnerian Operant Conditioning - it seems like I have to pick out my clothes every morning. If I don't really have 'free choice', I have a great delusion of such.

I might also add, the Bible tells me God will hold me responsible for my actions - which are based on my choices. The secular world tells me the judicial system will hold me responsible for my actions - which are based on my choices. I don't get a break for 'couldn't help myself'.

 

[oi_antz]

It's weird. There's a ton of text about human behavior here. And yet count the number of times God is used compared to peer-reviewed research, neuroscience, psychology, biology or anything that would indicate that there's anything other than dogma at work here.

That only shows the contrast in our perspectives and bias.

I guess we are in the philosophy forum, but still, if you're going to talk about how the human brain [appears to] make choices, I'd think some discussion of the actual workings of the brain would be in order.

I think that would be a valuable contribution. Are you qualified to produce it?

The biggest problem with your theory is that you claim this:

1) Human choice is mechanical.

2) Humans can choose to allow other's wills to override theirs.

3) Therefore, humans have a part of them that is free.

If human choice is entirely deterministic (or, at least, the process of random causes entirely out of their control), then the choice to allow other's wills to override our own is also deterministic. You still have the same problem of God controlling everything.

Why did you choose the word "control" to describe God's involvement? Do you say that because you think if He allows something to happen then it must have been His will that it happened? Also, what do you think of the distinction I have made between will, desire, free will and free choice?

In order to get any sort of coherent answer about this, one must limit the discussion to a single underlying set of assumptions.

As noted by KC, one view requires examination of brain function, while the Divine design faction require an understanding of the grand flow of theistic principles. If all backgrounds play at once, the result will appear similar to a terrifying vision of playing six sided Chinese checkers with live hand grenades.

I don't understand this comment, could you explain the point you are making for me? (I'm not from a philosophical background, please don't make that assumption. I only posted here because I wanted inclusive discussion and this seemed like the best fitting forum for that.)

But since you ask, all I can say is this: With the greatest of reverence to the Sovereignty of Almighty God, and a basic understanding of Skinnerian Operant Conditioning - it seems like I have to pick out my clothes every morning. If I don't really have 'free choice', I have a great delusion of such.

I might also add, the Bible tells me God will hold me responsible for my actions - which are based on my choices. The secular world tells me the judicial system will hold me responsible for my actions - which are based on my choices. I don't get a break for 'couldn't help myself'.

Yes I agree, but does God tell you to lift your leg every time you take a step? You have made a good point about Operant Conditioning. I don't know what to say about it though, someone else might.

 

[Ken-1122]

IWhat seems to be the correct regard in this topic, is that human choice is mechanical, and the ability to choose is an illusion,

How would things be different if the ability to choose were NOT an illusion?

Ken

 

[oi_antz]

How would things be different if the ability to choose were NOT an illusion?

Ken

I don't know what that might be like, can you imagine it? Good question!

 

[Ken-1122]

I don't know what that might be like, can you imagine it? Good question!

I don't believe the ability to choose is an illusion, but if it were I could imagine how things would be different.

Ken

 

[oi_antz]

I don't believe the ability to choose is an illusion, but if it were I could imagine how things would be different.

Ken

This is very interesting. First let me clarify my understanding a bit as I too don't think the ability to choose is an illusion, that was a poor choice of words. Mechanical is better. The idea is that given the same exact circumstances, desires and beliefs, the subject will always make the same choice. This cannot be proven of course because time is constantly changing circumstance and belief. Is this different from your understanding, and if so can you explain why?

It seems I must have misunderstood your previous comment, I thought you were asking what it might be like if choices weren't a matter of consideration. Obviously I was struggling to imagine that sort of reality.

 

[quatona]

Why did you choose the word "control" to describe God's involvement? Do you say that because you think if He allows something to happen then it must have been His will that it happened?´

I certainly do. At least when we are to accept the idea that God is
1. The creator of everything (including the conditions, natural laws, mechanisms...).
2. Omnipotent.
3. Omniscient.
With such an entity there is no way for things to unfold other than according to his plan and will.

 

[oi_antz]

I certainly do. At least when we are to accept the idea that God is
1. The creator of everything (including the conditions, natural laws, mechanisms...).
2. Omnipotent.
3. Omniscient.
With such an entity there is no way for things to unfold other than according to his plan and will.

Do you and I agree what "will" is? Was it God's will that Cain killed Abel?

 

[Chany]

I like the focus upon the meaning of the words "free will" and what that actually means. However, that's the point most people will accept. Most libertarians will not say every choice we make is free, but some of them are.

The problem with the sovereign will idea is that when changing our will or when dropping our will for the place of another, we are really making a choice in the process of doing so. As such, since all human choice is mechanical and pre-determined, the process of changing our will is also pre-determined.

I say control because a lack of free will in humans means God pretty much controls us. And if God controls our actions, everything's his fault.

 

[quatona]

Do you and I agree what "will" is?´

I´m sorry, I couldn´t find your definition of "will". Could you please point me to it so I can answer your question?
In any case, I don´t think that "will" can point to the same concept
a. when we talk about an omniscient, omnipotent creator of all, and
b. when we talk about beings that are born into certain conditions and have limited knowledge and abilities.
This would be a false equivocation, and thus the idea that our will and God´s will are or can be in conflict is based on a fallacy.

Was it God's will that Cain killed Abel?

Why sure. How could it not? Unless God changed his will somewhen between the creation process and the point in time when Cain killed able (which again would be irreconcilable with the idea that God is "unchanging/eternal").

Here´s another question: Was it God´s will for Judas to betray Jesus?

There are many possible and interesting ways of thinking about human will, free will, desires etc. (and, if you are capable of reading German: the Swiss philosopher Peter Bieri has written a thrilling and comprehensive book on that topic: "Das Handwerk der Freiheit" ).
None of which can be used to for the "free will" defense, though. Given the premises, God can´t be rid of his responsibility.

 

[oi_antz]

I like the focus upon the meaning of the words "free will" and what that actually means. However, that's the point most people will accept. Most libertarians will not say every choice we make is free, but some of them are.

I would like to clarify that most choices we make are "free", in fact every choice is free, but sometimes a perceived negative outcome might prevent certain options being considered. However, the mechanical assertion is about identifying the predictability of our decisions, and is most relevant when considering that God knows our decisions even before that time has come to pass. I am not a fan of the "God is outside of time" argument, I believe God has perfect knowledge of all of time because He has not failed to predict our choices.

The problem with the sovereign will idea is that when changing our will or when dropping our will for the place of another, we are really making a choice in the process of doing so. As such, since all human choice is mechanical and pre-determined, the process of changing our will is also pre-determined.

Then you and I don't agree what a will is. Thefreedictionary.com's definition states

"4. Deliberate intention or wish: Let it be known that I took this course of action against my will."

So it seems that the proper meaning of will is something that is not necessarily represented by our actions.

I say control because a lack of free will in humans means God pretty much controls us. And if God controls our actions, everything's his fault.

Is is scriptural that He controls us? I don't think it is impossible for Him, but I don't make the assumption that He always does. If you think He does, then how do you explain Genesis 6:3?

I´m sorry, I couldn´t find your definition of "will". Could you please point me to it so I can answer your question?

Read the second paragraph of the OP. Also look at will - definition of will by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

will 1 (wĭl)
n.
1.
a. The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action: championed freedom of will against a doctrine of predetermination.
b. The act of exercising the will.
2.
a. Diligent purposefulness; determination: an athlete with the will to win.
b. Self-control; self-discipline: lacked the will to overcome the addiction.
3. A desire, purpose, or determination, especially of one in authority: It is the sovereign's will that the prisoner be spared.
4. Deliberate intention or wish: Let it be known that I took this course of action against my will.
5. Free discretion; inclination or pleasure: wandered about, guided only by will.
6. Bearing or attitude toward others; disposition: full of good will.
7.
a. A legal declaration of how a person wishes his or her possessions to be disposed of after death.
b. A legally executed document containing this declaration.
v. willed, will·ing, wills
v.tr.
1. To decide on; choose.
2. To yearn for; desire: "She makes you will your own destruction" (George Bernard Shaw).
3. To decree, dictate, or order.
4. To resolve with a forceful will; determine.
5. To induce or try to induce by sheer force of will: We willed the sun to come out.
6. To grant in a legal will; bequeath.
v.intr.
1. To exercise the will.
2. To make a choice; choose.
Idiom:
at will
Just as or when one wishes.

In any case, I don´t think that "will" can point to the same concept
a. when we talk about an omniscient, omnipotent creator of all, and
b. when we talk about beings that are born into certain conditions and have limited knowledge and abilities.
This would be a false equivocation, and thus the idea that our will and God´s will are or can be in conflict is based on a fallacy.

Can you explain why you think this is true?

Why sure. How could it not? Unless God changed his will somewhen between the creation process and the point in time when Cain killed able (which again would be irreconcilable with the idea that God is "unchanging/eternal").

Please read the story, Genesis 4:1-12 and then if you think it was God's will, please explain why you have that opinion. It does not appear that way to me.

Here´s another question: Was it God´s will for Judas to betray Jesus?

I don't think so, I have not read that, is is scriptural? It was certainly Judas' will.

There are many possible and interesting ways of thinking about human will, free will, desires etc. (and, if you are capable of reading German: the Swiss philosopher Peter Bieri has written a thrilling and comprehensive book on that topic: "Das Handwerk der Freiheit" ).
None of which can be used to for the "free will" defense, though. Given the premises, God can´t be rid of his responsibility.

His responsibility to who? You? I don't blame Him for what someone else has done.

 

[oi_antz]

@quatona, it might seem that I am being dogmatic or something, I'm not. It just happens that you haven't said anything in that post that I can accept or agree with. Please don't be put off by my 100% negative response rate in that last post, I would like clarification and elaboration so to be able to decide if I should change. Noticed this when reviewing and thought I should let you know that I'm not just against you.

 

[quatona]

Read the second paragraph of the OP.´

Ok, so in your definition it is the "determination to make a decision".
Now, this definition seems to simply shift the crucial issue to the question: "What is required for an action to be a decision?"
´

Also look at will - definition of will by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

will 1 (wĭl)
n.
1.
a. The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action: championed freedom of will against a doctrine of predetermination.
b. The act of exercising the will.
2.
a. Diligent purposefulness; determination: an athlete with the will to win.
b. Self-control; self-discipline: lacked the will to overcome the addiction.
3. A desire, purpose, or determination, especially of one in authority: It is the sovereign's will that the prisoner be spared.
4. Deliberate intention or wish: Let it be known that I took this course of action against my will.
5. Free discretion; inclination or pleasure: wandered about, guided only by will.
6. Bearing or attitude toward others; disposition: full of good will.
7.
a. A legal declaration of how a person wishes his or her possessions to be disposed of after death.
b. A legally executed document containing this declaration.
v. willed, will·ing, wills
v.tr.
1. To decide on; choose.
2. To yearn for; desire: "She makes you will your own destruction" (George Bernard Shaw).
3. To decree, dictate, or order.
4. To resolve with a forceful will; determine.
5. To induce or try to induce by sheer force of will: We willed the sun to come out.
6. To grant in a legal will; bequeath.
v.intr.
1. To exercise the will.
2. To make a choice; choose.
Idiom:
at will
Just as or when one wishes.

These are - what? - almost 20 definitions. Which one do you want to work from, for purposes of this thread?

Can you explain why you think this is true?

I think I have explained this already. Which part would you like me to expand on?
If you insist that a word should be used for entities with completely different abilities, faculties, conditions etc., it is fallacious to assume that the word points to the same concepts.

E.g. if I insisted that non-human animals or rocks have a "will" it would be obvious that "will" in this case can´t mean what it means when we ascribe it to humans.

The concept "will" has been developed as applying to humans and their particular conditions of existence. You can´t expect to carry it elsewhere and have it remaining the same concept.
With humans, for example, we often have the case that they exert their will but the result isn´t turning out to be what they intended. With God, this option doesn´t exist: whatever the result - it must be God´s will.

Please read the story, Genesis 4:1-12 and then if you think it was God's will, please explain why you have that opinion. It does not appear that way to me.

Well, just because the bible states that it wasn´t God´s will doesn´t render this a logically possible statement.
I still need to be explained how something that´s necessarily unfolding according to how God had set up things (and which he knew would be the inevitable consequence of the way he intentionally had set up things) can even be considered to be against his will. God, as an allegedly eternal being and the creator of everything, can´t make spontaneous decisions. He had made all his decisions already when he created the universe.

I don't think so, I have not read that, is is scriptural?

Tbh, I don´t care whether it is scriptural. Rather, I am interested in what is logically possible and what is not.
Judas betraying Jesus was a necessary part of God´s salvation plan. As such, it doesn´t even make sense to say it was against God´s will.
At the point when God made his decision (your definition of "will") to create the way he did it was what he decided would happen. Saying that at the point in time it took place it wasn´t his will is directly contradicting your definition (because God didn´t decide anything at that point. He exerted his will at the point of creation.)

It was certainly Judas' will.

Undisputedly. Which, however, doesn´t mean it wasn´t God´s.

His responsibility to who? You? I don't blame Him for what someone else has done.

Yes, you have a point there: "responsibility" (just like "will") is another concept that can not simpy be transposed to an omnimax entity.
So when I said "God is responsible", I meant that God intentionally set created a mechanism that he knew would inevitably result in whatever happens. Thus, declaring something to be against God´s will doesn´t make any sense whatsoever. He willed the universe and everything into existence. If it hadn´t been his will he would have done it differently.
Or, IOW postulating that we are responsible to God makes as little sense as postulating God is responsible to us.

 

[quatona]

No problem, oi_antz - we are cool. No offense taken, nothing personal perceived.
If there is no common ground there is no point in pretending there is.
I´m doing my best to clarify whereever requested.

@quatona, it might seem that I am being dogmatic or something, I'm not. It just happens that you haven't said anything in that post that I can accept or agree with. Please don't be put off by my 100% negative response rate in that last post, I would like clarification and elaboration so to be able to decide if I should change. Noticed this when reviewing and thought I should let you know that I'm not just against you.

 

[KCfromNC]

But since you ask, all I can say is this: With the greatest of reverence to the Sovereignty of Almighty God, and a basic understanding of Skinnerian Operant Conditioning - it seems like I have to pick out my clothes every morning. If I don't really have 'free choice', I have a great delusion of such.

Research indicates that there's a lot of the later going on. Or at least that relying on believing our conscious mind about the things it takes credit for will be incredibly misleading.

You'd never get that understanding from just thinking about the problem, but the research showing that it is true is pretty easy to find and digest. That's why I hinted that it is pointless to treat this as a thought exercise.

ETA - Here's a paper where researchers were able to use a simple test setup to trick people into thinking they chose to perform an action someone else did - http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~wegner/pdfs/Wegner&Wheatley1999.pdf. What implications does such an outcome have for the idea that we can reason our way to understanding our own choices?

 

[Ken-1122]

This is very interesting. First let me clarify my understanding a bit as I too don't think the ability to choose is an illusion, that was a poor choice of words. Mechanical is better. The idea is that given the same exact circumstances, desires and beliefs, the subject will always make the same choice. This cannot be proven of course because time is constantly changing circumstance and belief. Is this different from your understanding, and if so can you explain why?

Makes perfect sense to me.

It seems I must have misunderstood your previous comment, I thought you were asking what it might be like if choices weren't a matter of consideration. Obviously I was struggling to imagine that sort of reality.

I guess we had a misunderstanding.

Ken

 

[Noxot]

there are so many different variables to what affects our will that sometimes our will is not 'free', it simply becomes the will of what is master over it. the soul sticks to this or that, she builds it up and that is what she is. you are what you eat, this is why God told us not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. good mixed with evil is what this world is and it kills the purely good perspective of reality which is the reality that Jesus Christ lived by and yet humans can't see it because they view the world through the glasses of certain ways of being that Jesus was not a slave to. thus humans go about attempting to understand something that they can only understand if they become it. and so if there is evil in my heart when I view pure goodness, then I will have created something that is not the pure goodness, but what is already inside of me. therefore in the book of revelation humans end up worshiping a lamb that speaks like a dragon, the same thing that happened in the garden when eve (symbol of the soul) ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

look at the constant repeating patterns thrown out everywhere, they are ideas, angels. this angel is over one person, that angel over another and humans sometimes start worshiping the angels over God, such was the case with the jews because the angels gave the law to moses but there are 2 angels over the law, a good one and an evil one and the evil one trys to get people to understand it according to its view while the good one trys to get the person to see it according to its own capacity for God. the highest angels have the most capacity for the divine and they give all that they receive down to the lower ranks of angels. the highest angels receive everything from Christ and Christ receives everything directly from God. so the angels are in one sense types for the soul and where it is at in its spiritual progression.

what we as humans see is a thin slice of what is going on just like the earth is less than a spec of dust in this universe.

humans are controlled by knowledge ( or lack thereof ) and belief systems, and their unique perspective of the things they encounter. why a man picks what he picks... is something unique to each instance of this occurring and what is growing in his garden that is his soul.


consider that freedom is also fate and you will come to the conclusion that where everything came from, it shall also return to and that further nothing really left where it came from but freedom contains all capacity and is not contained by a capacity, thus freedom gave birth to all capacity and this is what the soul is and she is the same as freedom because she came from freedom and thus the soul has free will but the spirit is freedom and when the soul is not attached to the spirit the soul reflects darkly the never changing brilliance of the light and this is what an evil spirit is, the souls being attached to things less than God which creates a non-perfect image of God. sin is anything less than God. sin means to miss the mark and the mark is God. capacity misses God because God has no capacity, he is not limited and thus the soul being limited can never know God unless she is united to God but how can she do that if she is attached to so many things that are not directly God? whatever she loves, that will be what she is.


but freedom is something higher than free will, freedom proceeds free will. freedom proceeds being. Gods freedom is darkness and light, or a more accurate description is Gods freedom is brilliant light. if freedom chooses anything other than freedom, it is not freedom anymore because it made a choice which limits it... at least according to being.. freedom is still freedom, it just crystallizes part of itself and calls itself a soul, and so the soul is like metal and when it is in its natural environment it stays burning hot but if it leaves it cools down, and the word for soul in greek is from the word "cold". angels are said to be fire because those types are not cold souls, but burning with reality, who is God. but smaller, lower realities or perspectives one becomes and adopts as the truth are more dense or cold.

do souls have a choice? yes. if a man is born blind can he see? no but if he was healed he can see things and make different choices. an infant can not make the same choices of will as a full grown adult. spiritual babies can not do much, if they are abused or mistreated what can they do? and so "father forgiven them for they know not what they do." but Jesus knew what he was doing, the will of God, even in dying by the hand of a bunch of fools because God saw it best to alter this world with such a thing in his overarching plan for he sees all possibilities and so he would use a will to shift this and that around since all things move in the direction of good. God moves everything for the good without getting rid of the free will, because it is easy for him since he birthed all things and possibilities and contains all things.

what is everything? they are Gods contemplation and imagination. we are in a grand story of God, a wedding play like the third ( which equates to spirit ) book of wisdom, song of songs is. just because the physical body is an animal, does not mean we have to be a slave to it even though genes and conditions could hinder us. but in revelation everyone is worshiping a beast and a lamb that speaks like a dragon and the harlot soul is a cage for every unclean spirit, but it is the virgin soul who gives birth to Christ.

all this has to do with the soul and why things are the way they are and it can not be separated from free will at all. there are different levels of free will, because what is happening in the totality of reality is much more than what we see or go through as humans. we have no clue how the angels view our reality, how what they see is this same world but they see it in its complete form in eternity. most of us see this world in its non-finished form and make choices based on that.... or the one that does not believe in God but in science alone, he will only be able to know what science tells him, and that includes all other parts of what was behind the science and giving the conclusion for the information it provided based on theories/perspectives about reality.

most humans are so caught up in education and information that they don't ever think to birth new understandings, new facets of reality. they simply reuse and repeat over and over the same old information and so they constantly walk around in a circle. they have memorization and a lawyer-like attitude about knowledge but they have no life in them, just a bunch of dead mens bones that construct the city of the dead they live in. they live by bread alone rather than by the mouth of God and thus they build a temple with hands. but God builds the temple without hands for he himself is the temple. and he is the new jerusalem come down from heaven with his bride and on the outside they gnash their teeth and weep and they don't know that they are spiritually poor and blind and naked, that they are in prison and that Jesus equated them to himself.