My Understanding of Free Will

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Here I would like to outline my thoughts on Free Will and the capacity that we have it. There will be several steps to this, but I hope it is clear at the end of this that you [all] know where I stand on this issue.

First, I should break up human psychology so that we know what is going on when we have Free Will. This is necessary because, without this, there is nothing to ground Free Will in. People who hold to Libertarian Free Will believe it is a power we possess that gives us the ability to choose. They assume we are rational so we have Free Will. But my overarching point is that it is only when we are rational (by operating in the Truth) that we are Free.

First, In my view, there are essentially three levels of consciousness.
1) Experiences are made up of our senses which are the most conscious
2) Questions are made up of our reasoning and our short-term memory which are semi-conscious
3) Schema made up of our worldview and our long-term memory which are unconscious

So what happens is that we will filter what we experience and question those experiences which then get integrated into our schema. There are different levels of this. It moves from shallow to deep.
1) Who and what questions get answered first.
2) Where and when questions get answered second.
3) How and why questions get answered last.
4) As the depth increases, so does context.
5) As context increases, so does the relation to the fundamental axioms of reality.
6) Given 5, since context is king in understanding Truth, that is why there are so many different opinions.

https://imgur.com/o2SNtul

Given the above, this syllogism may be helpful but does not paint the whole picture.

P1. If humans’ perception is based on the truth, then they have free will.
P2. Humans’ perception is sometimes based on the truth.
Therefore,
C. Humans sometimes have free will.

So if Humans can sometimes know what is true, then they are sometimes free.

In a theistic framework (the only framework that I think actually works) I would state it like this:


P1. God chose to create all information.
P2. Persons are a subset of information God created.
P3. The information a person perceives is a subset of the information God chose to create.
P4. Persons make choices based on the information they perceive.
P5. A person’s choices are a subset of information.
Therefore,
C. A person’s choices are a subset of God’s choices.


The mechanism for discovering what is true is based on an openness of mind that takes the factors of what is in your schema and measures that against your experiences. It is then a matter of noticing the differences without holding prejudice against what you are experiencing. In a sense, it is trust in your experiences, but only so far as you can identify how they differ from your schema.

And this picture more or less depicts how I see Free Will in a nutshell.

https://imgur.com/B98vlaI

 

[Maria Billingsley]

C. A person’s choices are a subset of God’s choices

Thanks for sharing. By this statement it appears we have no free will if " subset" is defined as follows:

"A subset is a collection of elements that is contained within another collection. In other words, if A is a subset of B, then every element of A is also an element of B."

Blessings

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Thanks for sharing. By this statement it appears we have no free will if " subset" is defined as follows:

"A subset is a collection of elements that is contained within another collection. In other words, if A is a subset of B, then every element of A is also an element of B."

Blessings

Consider everything I said rather than the small thing you disagree with.

Would you disagree that if we align ourselves more closely with God we are more free?

Free Will in the West has come to mean freedom from constraints. In other words, I am free to do A or B as if both options are neutral. That is not what it means to be free. What it means to be free is to operate in the Truth. If we reason that Christ was the freest person who ever lived, then we can say that to be like Christ is to be free. Anything less than acting like Christ is false and therefore is a negation of what is. In other words, God is what is True an His creation operates at a lower resolution than what He Himself possesses.

So, no. I do not believe that every element of what we do is what God does. The way I would say it is that we are God's image bearers. As such, we reflect God in what we do.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Consider everything I said rather than the small thing you disagree with.

Would you disagree that if we align ourselves more closely with God we are more free?

Free Will in the West has come to mean freedom from constraints. In other words, I am free to do A or B as if both options are neutral. That is not what it means to be free. What it means to be free is to operate in the Truth. If we reason that Christ was the freest person who ever lived, then we can say that to be like Christ is to be free. Anything less than acting like Christ is false and therefore is a negation of what is. In other words, God is what is True an His creation operates at a lower resolution than what He Himself possesses.

So, no. I do not believe that every element of what we do is what God does. The way I would say it is that we are God's image bearers. As such, we reflect God in what we do.

It's not a " small thing" it is the foundation of the argument. Aligning our choices with God is " doing His will" and not ours. This is the purity of free will, the choice to do His will. And yes, there is certainly freedom in doing His will!
Blessings

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

It's not a " small thing" it is the foundation of the argument.

You are telling me what the foundation of my argument is?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

You are telling me what the foundation of my argument is?

Man's free will argument is not unique and has been debated for centuries. I am simply stating it's foundation,God's character and how He interacts with mankind. Apologies for my interpretation of your post. Be blessed.

 

[Bob Crowley]

I'm a cyinic about this. For one thing what sort of decisons are we talking about?

We're inclined to think we're independent and therefore have "free will" as a consequence.

Let's take a look at the business of being independent first, taking transport as one example.

I drive a car built by others on roads built by others which are maintained by others. The car is powered using fuel drilled, stored, transported and refined by others. The traffic moves in line with remote control designed and installed by others at traffic lights; the overriding authority is traffic laws enacted by others; and when I get to my destination I stop in a car park built by others.

I breathe air which God provided; drink water and eat food provided both by God and others; wear clothes made by others; sleep in a bed made by others; clean my teeth using a toothbrush made by others and take the dog for a walk using a lead made by others.

So how "independent" am I? Not very!

So how much "free will" have I got? Well for many questions such as what will I have for breakfast my "free will" is no different from that of an atheist. For one thing I need to eat and don't have much independence in that area.

In the end then the only real question that boils down to "Free Will" is whether I'll obey God or not. For all the rest of our questions the atheists and I have exactly the same amount of "free will".

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

In the end then the only real question that boils down to "Free Will" is whether I'll obey God or not. For all the rest of our questions the atheists and I have exactly the same amount of "free will".

Without faith, it is impossible to please God.

You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.