Free Will: Yea or Nay?

[WoundedDeep]

No, what I did not accept as substantiation was your hand waving at "psychology" and being told to "get it yourself".

No, that is not what you said. You called psychology as something "arguably not a science", therefore I assumed you dismissed psychology all together since you demand "scientific substantiation". Why then would I give any substantiation from a source you outrightly reject from the beginning, I am not a fool.

Indeed. See #23.

How about seeing #28.? There, you clearly rejected psychology all together as being "arguably not a science".

Perhaps I have already done this, and have a good idea of what information is available on this subject.

And you expect me to believe that just because of mere statements? If you wish, show me how psychology proves the non-existence for free will. I will gladly read what you provide and will not react to you with the same rhetoric you gave to me. Please, prove your statement with scientific substantiation, even if its psychological science.

I asked no such thing. I only asked that you provide a citation to substantiate your opinion. Do try for some intellectual honesty.

Lol... You asked me to provide a "scientific citation" when you dismissed psychology completely as a science. Pardon me then if I fail to understand exactly what you were asking for. So do you accept psychological sources as "scientific citation" or no? Do try to make your statements more intellectually honest.

No, but I would ask that you at least make an attempt at it.

An attempt at what? People, however young, learn from experience. I have made enough attempts at providing evidence to people like you on other threads to receive nothing more than smirk insults or active dismissal. I will not attempt to expose myself to such rudeness again.

Which is none, so far.

Yeah, because you have rejected it right from the start, even before I could provide any links, with the rhetoric "arguably not a science".

Please, tell me more about how I think.

Nah, I don't read minds, but I have pretty good intuition on people.

Then your opinions will be dismissed as such.

And I have to dismiss yours too on the accounts of trolling.

 

[juvenissun]

Because God gave you the ability to like sweets and He gave you your preferences.

Not to the point. I don't think God would tell me to pick ice cream today and choose a pie tomorrow. It is MY decision.

So the correct question should be: how much free will do we have?

 

[lesliedellow]

Can you explain the bolded part in greater detail, preferably with an example? Thanks in advance.

Free will can be taken to mean that you are free to act in accordance with your wishes. Understood in that way, it is unproblematic.

The power of contrary choice means that you could have acted in a way other than you did, completely unconstrained by the inexorable operation of the laws of nature, or by the will of God, or by both. That idea is problematic, because it would mean that the universe does not operate deterministically at the macroscopic level, in spite of all appearances to the contrary, and it would mean that history cannot be under divine control, which would be a source of enormous difficulties for Christian theology.

 

[Messy]

You only have free Will If God set you free.
romans 7
15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

 

[thepromiseofgrace]

i believe we have free will.

 

[Audacious]

WoundedDeep: Psychology is the study of human behavior, and does not seek to explain whether or not we have free will. Rather, it seeks to explain why we do the things we do, and "free will" is too vague an explanation to be used by scientists in the fields of psychology and neurology (and neuropsychology).

It's hand waving because you have no evidence to prove your point, and instead demand evidence from the opposite side. However, since your claim is a positive claim ("x exists because y"), it's up to you to prove it, not up to other people to disprove it.

To quote Harry Potter: "If you can believe something because nobody can disprove it, you may as well believe anything!" There are unicorns living on the moon. You can't prove me wrong. Therefore, I'm right.

 

[WoundedDeep]

Free will can be taken to mean that you are free to act in accordance with your wishes. Understood in that way, it is unproblematic.

Yes, that is a pretty decent understanding of free will.

The power of contrary choice means that you could have acted in a way other than you did, completely unconstrained by the inexorable operation of the laws of nature, or by the will of God, or by both. That idea is problematic, because it would mean that the universe does not operate deterministically at the macroscopic level, in spite of all appearances to the contrary, and it would mean that history cannot be under divine control, which would be a source of enormous difficulties for Christian theology.

No, there is no such free will as retracting history so you can go back in time to re-do what you have already done. I never meant that kind of free will either. When I mean free will, I mean the power of contrary choice before any action is taken. Say you are trying to make a decision whether to eat Macdonalds tomorrow. Before you actually take action, you can indeed have free will to choose between eating or not eating. But once the action is taken, the choice is not alterable.

 

[WoundedDeep]

WoundedDeep: Psychology is the study of human behavior, and does not seek to explain whether or not we have free will. Rather, it seeks to explain why we do the things we do, and "free will" is too vague an explanation to be used by scientists in the fields of psychology and neurology (and neuropsychology).

I have in fact read about willpower which is acknowledged by psychology as the ability for a person to make decisions or exercise self control. That is not a complete description of free will, but it hints at the liberty everyone has to act according to what they wish.

It's hand waving because you have no evidence to prove your point, and instead demand evidence from the opposite side. However, since your claim is a positive claim ("x exists because y"), it's up to you to prove it, not up to other people to disprove it.

I have evidence, but I see no point raising them up if there is an outright rejection of it. Besides, the issue here is not "hand waving".

 

[cuja1]

Not to the point. I don't think God would tell me to pick ice cream today and choose a pie tomorrow. It is MY decision.

So the correct question should be: how much free will do we have?

God doesn't tell you to pick pie or ice cream. He gives you desires and those desires determine what you chose. You are not capable of giving yourself desires. How much free will do we have? I don't know. To me, it seems that we don't have any at all.

 

[Willtor]

Then why don't our brains do what they're wired to do? "Ah, but they do", you may say. Then I ask, "what are they wired to do"? I say they are wired to exercise will and make decisions.

That may be. As I say, for any practical purposes, I don't see a reason not to behave and reason as though people have free will. However, there are clear bounds on that freedom, and the bounds become more restrictive if our brains are not more computationally powerful than modern computers (that is, if the difference is one of degree, as opposed to a difference of type).

 

[Albion]

That may be. As I say, for any practical purposes, I don't see a reason not to behave and reason as though people have free will. However, there are clear bounds on that freedom, and the bounds become more restrictive if our brains are not more computationally powerful than modern computers (that is, if the difference is one of degree, as opposed to a difference of type).

That's right. The "problem" I find with posters who are asserting that Man has "free will" is that they insist that there is absolutely no limitation upon that free will...and, also, that to deny this must mean believing we have NO decision-making ability at all.

If it were possible to get them to address the issue in real terms, not as though it's a black and white matter (complete freedom from all environmental forces that affect our judgment vs Man having been created as a robot), we might move these debates forward.

 

[lesliedellow]

When I mean free will, I mean the power of contrary choice before any action is taken. Say you are trying to make a decision whether to eat Macdonalds tomorrow. Before you actually take action, you can indeed have free will to choose between eating or not eating. But once the action is taken, the choice is not alterable.

You are free to follow your wishes, but those wishes, and the things you do as a result of your wishes, are themselves predetermined; whether by the outworking of the laws of nature or by the will of God.

 

[WoundedDeep]

You are free to follow your wishes, but those wishes are themselves predetermined, whether by the outworking of the laws of nature or by the will of God.

That is not true. Not every choice we make is subject to the laws of nature, and God has allowed our will to be exercised freely in many areas, especially areas regarding moral decisions.

 

[lesliedellow]

That is not true. Not every choice we make is subject to the laws of nature

Everything in the universe is subject to the laws of nature. Without exception.

God has allowed our will to be exercised freely in many areas, especially areas regarding moral decisions.

So if Judas had decided to act in a way other than he did, what would have happened to God's plans for the redemption of mankind?

 

[WoundedDeep]

Everything in the universe is subject to the laws of nature. Without exception.

So your decision on whether you will eat Macdonalds tomorrow is subject to the laws of nature? Your decision to enter a particular university is subject to the laws of nature? Your decision to be benevolent and forgiving towards someone else is subject to the laws of nature? Sorry, but that is beyond my logic.

So if Judas had decided to act in a way other than he did, what would have happened to God's plans for the redemption of mankind?

I do not know, but why will an omnipotent God be prevented from redeeming men because of a choice of Judas? Is God not able to insert His plan on top of history, however it will be, seeing He has foreknowledge?

 

[lesliedellow]

So your decision on whether you will eat Macdonalds tomorrow is subject to the laws of nature? Your decision to enter a particular university is subject to the laws of nature? Your decision to be benevolent and forgiving towards someone else is subject to the laws of nature? Sorry, but that is beyond my logic.

My decision on whether I will eat at MacDonald's tomorrow will arise from neural activity in my brain, and like all processes in nature, neural activity is governed by the laws of nature.

I do not know, but why will an omnipotent God be prevented from redeeming men because of a choice of Judas? Is God not able to insert His plan on top of history, however it will be, seeing He has foreknowledge?

To quote Jesus' exact words:

"And truly the Son of man goeth, AS IT WAS DETERMINED: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed."

 

[WoundedDeep]

My decision on whether I will eat at MacDonald's tomorrow will arise from neural activity in my brain, and like all processes in nature, neural activity is governed by the laws of nature.

Any evidence to back that up? It is very foreign to me. And what about moral decisions, are they also the workings of neural activity?

To quote Jesus' exact words:

"And truly the Son of man goeth, AS IT WAS DTERMINED: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed."

Yeah, what was determined was the Son's death on the Cross, not what Judas would do.

 

[Chany]

Yes, that is a pretty decent understanding of free will.

No, there is no such free will as retracting history so you can go back in time to re-do what you have already done. I never meant that kind of free will either. When I mean free will, I mean the power of contrary choice before any action is taken. Say you are trying to make a decision whether to eat Macdonalds tomorrow. Before you actually take action, you can indeed have free will to choose between eating or not eating. But once the action is taken, the choice is not alterable.

We are not talking about altering the past. When we say "could not have done otherwise than they did", we mean that, given the circumstances and the way the person thinks, the person could not have done otherwise. He doesn't have the power to perform contrary to his nature. This applies to all decisions in a person's life, past, present, and future.

Your decision to eat or not eat is determined by causes outside of your control. Who you are and what you desire are, ultimately, the products of something you could not possibly have control over.

Either there is a reason you decide to do X or there is not a reason. If there is a reason, I can eventually trace said reason back to a point outside of your control, making the reason determined. If there is no reason, then X is a random choice, just as likely as any other option available.

 

[lesliedellow]

Any evidence to back that up? It is very foreign to me. And what about moral decisions, are they also the workings of neural activity?

The evidence is that every doctor, scientist and medic works on the assumption that the laws of nature are universally applicable. If they were wrong in their assumption, none of the medical science, which flows from it would work.

Yeah, what was determined was the Son's death on the Cross, not what Judas would do.

So God determined that Jesus would be nailed to a cross on Good Friday AD30, but somehow omitted to decree the means by that was to come about? I suppose it was just good luck that God's intentions were fulfilled then.

 

[WoundedDeep]

The evidence is that every doctor, scientist and medic works on the assumption that the laws of nature are universally applicable. If they were wrong in their assumption, none of the medical science, which flows from it would work.

That is a naive conclusion. The laws of nature explains the material world, but our decisions (at least moral decisions) are tied not only to material consequences, but spiritual consequences. Laws of nature cannot determine for us what we should do when there is a spiritual consequence since it cannot be applied to the spiritual realm.

So God determined that Jesus would be nailed to a cross on Good Friday AD30, but somehow omitted to decree the means by that was to come about? I suppose it was just good luck that God's intentions were fulfilled then.

He does not need to decree, He had foreknowledge what Judas would do under those circumstances. Why is this hard to understand?