well, if you would like my to be more specific, then your “argument” will need to be more specific, i mean, if its a proof, as you believe, please take the trouble to put it in syllogistic format with numbered premises.
now my response was in regard to a particular buried premise which runs something like this:
1*Human freedom necessitates the possibility of doing evil.
my response, is a re-framing of the question while rejecting this claim. we are capable of doing evil (in this life, distinguished from “heaven”) because we are only partially free now, sorta free. the reason for this is the original decision to sin, which damaged the human nature of our first parents and that lessened human nature has been bequeathed to us. another illustration, evil is not a function of free choice, but the result of a failure of free choice. evil is not another product of the machine, but the result when one throws a monkey wrench somewhere in the gears. the machine will still function, but poorly.
second buried premise: 2* The way human freedom is on earth is the same as it will be in “heaven.”
i don’t know how one would support his claim. the only way one can truly speak of heaven is on the authority of the Scriptures and the Church. an argument from these two sources (that is, the Bible or Church doctrine) to support this claim would be an uphill battle to say the least.
also,
skeptic griggsy claims:
why ever not? we’re talking about The One here, the Big IT, the LIGHT of ALL LIGHTS, the Still Point of the Turning World, the Ever-Present-Moment! if anything needs to be argued (and it does) one must argue why we can know anything at all about God: how is the human intellect is capable of making any meaningful claims at all about God?
so, in short, this claim needs clarification and support.
finally,
i had not intended this to be a discussion of the Problem of Evil per se, nor to constructing a theodicy of God’s allowance of evil. the subject was “the definitive disproof of the free will argument” and i suggest if you want to steer directly into the problem of evil we do it in a new thread.
I would like to believe this, but I don't know that I can yet. It seems to me that we characterize free-will most of the time as an [i]absence[/i] of certain mechanisms. If we can describe definitively how free will works, and the options it allows for (and those is doesn't!) then it sounds like we're being determinists.
I do agree with you though that acts of evil are often failures of free will in the sense that we know as we commit these acts that we are behaving outside of our ideal selves- 'I hate what I do, and I cannot do what I want to do' says Paul in paraphrase. So then how to we classify the perfectly free person's reaction to evil? Are evil acts things they are [i]unable[/i] to do, things they would never happen to choose, or something else?
If, as you appear to imply, we cannot truly value good without experiencing evil, then wouldn’t evil really be a necessary and good thing with respect to our education? Evil as a good thing???
I don’t believe that polemics are necessary for us to ontologically value that which is endemically life-affirming – it isn’t necessary to experience evil to value what is intrinsically good on its own merit.
We just need to spend less time in our polemic black and white epistemological mindset, and more time in our ontological gut center of our being … as God intended.
It’s important to recognize that what Griggsy has posted is not an argument against free will, but rather against the Christian idea of Heaven: an immortal and perfectly good existence as essentially the same individuals that we are now. He was pointing out that the idea of perfect goodness, or absence of sin, is incompatible with the idea that people have free will in Heaven. There’s nothing in that argument anywhere to suggest that we don’t have free will on earth.
As for Kierkegaard’s idea of freedom as freedom to choose the good, that’s easily dealt with, as follows:
Free will requires that there be more than one choice of possible actions in a given circumstance. If there is only one possible choice, then there is no freedom.
Between any two possible actions, one choice will be morally superior to the other.
While the choice of a morally inferior action may not constitute “sin” in the Jewish conception, where sins are clearly and explicitly defined by the Law and only exist where the Law is transgressed, in the Christian conception, to fall short of perfection is to sin. (Hence the need, in Christian theology, for grace, as all people are sinners.)
Thus: If the individual soul does go to an immortal existence in Heaven, then either that soul will continue to sin, or it will be deprived of free will.
this appears to be a strong argument because it closely matches what we seem to experience in making choices. however, the Christian idea of free-choice, as i’ve presented it, found in Kierkegaard (and also St Thomas and Ratzinger/Pope Benedict), argues that our free-choice is only partially free and not a full manifestation of freedom.
so Premise 1 seems pretty solid.
however, i think according to your thoughts, Premise 2 should actually be formulated:
2) Between any two possible actions, one choice is necessarily morally superior to the other.
i don’t think this changes the meaning and only clarifies the gist of your argument. if i’ve done violence to it, let me know.
now, i would challenge this premise that between two possible actions, one is necessarily morally superior. it is OFTEN the case and it is those choices that we commonly think of because those choices force us to stop and reflect upon our course of action.
however, there are many choices we make that are not between morally superior or inferior options. the reason why we are so commonly faced what particularly moral choices is because we are beings with imperfect virtue (strength of character) and imperfect knowledge of what is good.
what are some examples of non-moral choices:
Do I want to paint or go for a run?
Do I want to play the tuba or the trumpet?
Think of all the choices we have on our own self-improvement and that for the good of others. One can imagine that true free-choice is the unhindered ability to enjoy oneself and others. No doubt this is the beauty of free-choice: One can participate in one’s own self-actualization. One manifests one’s freedom by acting as a partner and co-Creator with God according to one’s own abilities.
finally, as mentioned in previous posts, we remember that doing evil or morally inferior is actually a abdication that would limit future options or choices: i.e. to rob a convenience store would limit the freedom one has on shopping there again - the clerk might recognize you and report you!
arg. i’ve got the hammer coming down and the wolf at my door already with school work but i don’t want to abandon this conversation.
Uccisore,
these are some very interesting comments are forcing me to think creatively, so thank you!
i wrote this reply on the fly yesterday. i don’t know if its clear or it even makes sense. i’ve tried to give an account of a certain way of thinking, not really an argument.
Uccisore wrote:
first of all, i think any account of free-choice should not work in the gaps of physics: i’ve read and heard of several attempts to justify free-choice by perceived unpredictability in quantum mechanics. correct me here, but i think Democritus (?) may have tried to justify free-choice despite an otherwise mechanistic materialism by postulating that the atoms falling through space occasionally swerve or veer off. i think these attempts are problematic.
instead, i am inclined to conceive of free-choice in terms of a finite human’s process of decision-making. we don’t make decisions because of random material/mechanical factors (that sometimes appear in scienctific theory). if our decisions were random, we would not be responsible for our actions (but this is an un-livable philosophy).
instead, let us postulate that: We choose based upon the hope to achieve some end or goal. let us say that we desire to accomplish a certain end, say, get a girl interested in you. we cannot simply choose to do this, we have to balance a couple factors to make this likely and plan a course of action. one will choose a particular course of action (to achieve the end) according to how effective one considers that course of action to be as a means to the end. right, so one desires the friendship of a girl that one knows is allergic to chocolate, an ineffective course would be to get her a box of chocolates.
right, now this is somewhat commonsensical.
second, let us postulate that: By having human nature, all of us necessarily have certain in-born desires we long to satisfy.
there are several layers to this: inasmuch as we are living, animals and rational, we have desires that correspond to the being alive, being an animal, and being rational.
e.g. insofar as we are alive, we desire: nourishment etc.
as we are animals, we desire: heat, sex, etc.
as we are rational, we desire: friendship, and goods of the mind, like humor, art, knowledge, etc.
Thus, in practical, real-life decisions, we are balancing several desires for different ends: friendship, food, sex etc. We desire them all, and as rational creatures we have free-choice in what courses of action to adopt to satisfy these desires. However, our free-choice does not extend to WHAT to desire; we cannot choose not to desire food anymore. While the free-choice I am trying to describe is genuine, it is also limited, as we are limited creatures.
The Importance of Knowledge
Now, we have nailed down, I hope, that we have certain desires based upon human nature and we choose particular ways to satisfy those. However, it is clear that to make good choices, one must be able to make intelligent choices: One must have some knowledge of what means or course of actions will achieve one’s goals. But something else is necessary.
Excellence of Character
However, I do not agree with Socrates on this point. Socrates famously argued that knowledge is all that is necessary to live the good life, because one can then know what will effectively satisfy one’s desires and what SEEMS like it will, but in fact, DOES NOT. According to Socrates’ theory, knowledge is sufficient and ignorance is the only thing that will keep you unhappy and unsatisfied.
But, the plain fact of reality is that we do things we know we ought not to do. Heck, who knows that they should not procrastinate? Everyone. Who does procrastinate? Everyone.
So we need something besides knowledge, we need an excellent character. In fact, there are several excellences of character we need:
A) we need to perceive situations clearly, and make decisions decisively.
B) we need to be inclined to pay back what we owe to others (its different almost all cases with either friend, teacher, or employee).
C) We need to know how to control our desires but still enjoy ourselves (for example, “how many drinks can i responsibly have tonight? if i need to drive later on, i should only have one beer”).
D) We also need the character trait to withstand difficulties and go after and accomplish difficult tasks without excessive fear or hesitation.
Right? I’m sure several of you have picked up i’m trying to describe a rough sketch of Aristotelian virtue ethics, specifically A-prudence, B-justice, C-temperance, D-courage.
Now finally, this is leading somewhere:
Uccisore asked
this is a tough question. but i would simply say that the Perfect Person would not ever choose to do evil for Two Reaons:
By knowledge, S/He would understand that an evil action would never actually deliver what it promises, i.e. the satisfaction of a certain desire, but is an illusion or “apparent good.”
By strength of character or virtue, one would have the ability perceive quickly and accurately, the situation, to keep control of one’s desires, or not be scared off by difficulty, and not fail to pay back what one owes (like loyalty to a friend).
I disagree. Given the premise in Christian theology that only behaving perfectly is morally acceptable to God, there must inevitably be a moral distinction, however trivial someone more reasonable than God would find it, between any two choices. Often, which comes out as better depends on specific knowledge of circumstances. To use your examples:
How much exercise have you had lately? Do you have any artistic talent? Are you a professional artist with a painting on order and overdue? Do you have a date with a friend to run together?
The answer to any of these questions might make one or the other choice morally preferable. However, in all cases, one of them will be.
Is the local band or orchestra in more need of one or the other? Do you have the lung capacity to play the tuba well? Do you live in an apartment with poor soundproofing? Were you given one of these instruments as a gift?
Again, which is morally superior depends on the answers to these and other questions, but in all cases it will have an answer, and that answer will not be “neither.”
in each of these situations, we can imagine a situation in which there is a need as you say, but also one without any pressing need or responsibility to fulfill. sure, in SOME scenarios there may be a need for a tuba player to help a fellow human, but certainly not all the time! sure, one can invent a side-story to place human need and a measure of corresponding moral responsibility along side any hypothetical choice, but that is not the way of reality.
I don’t understand all the discussion about such a simple idea as free will. No one ever stated or implied when speaking of free will that one could choose anything or decide what choices they were going to ponder, it is understood by the rational thinking humans that we live in a closed system where laws and boundaries govern all of our actions and this free-will resides within this system and is subject to the laws as well.
I have seen no logical argument against the idea of free will that considered these well known and proven laws, each argument that is given credence illogically places free will outside this system and supposes that free will is completely free with no boundaries, this is absurd as nothing is completely free this way, and most know what is meant by the word free. It takes a philosopher to strip man made words from their environment and try to analyze their meanings, no wonder many great philosophers had such ridiculous ideas.
There does not have to be any “pressing need.” There only has to be some circumstances making one choice superior to the other. And I contend that there always is.
Remember, we are talking about Christian morality here, not Jewish morality. “Be therefore perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect.” And consider Jesus’ Two Commandments, compared to Moses’ Ten. The Ten Commandments are fairly simple and easy to keep: Have no other God before JHVH, make no religious artwork or “graven images,” worship no idols or graven images, honor your parents, keep the Sabbath, don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t commit adultery, don’t bear false witness, and don’t covet what belongs to someone else. Only the last of those is even remotely challenging.
Jesus’ Two Commandments, while simpler, are also impossible to keep: “Love God with all your heart,” and “Love your neighbor as yourself” – these are things that nobody can accomplish; they are ideals to strive for, not laws to obey.
Since we are talking about perfection here, it is not necessary for one choice to be what a reasonable person would call “evil,” or even “irresponsible” or “frivolous,” to make that choice a “sin” in Christian terms. It is not even necessary for a reasonable person to care what choice another person makes! In the Christian conception of good and evil, to fall short of perfection, even by a trivial and inconsequential degree, is to sin.
And between any two choices, one will always be better, at least by a trivial and inconsequential degree. And therefore the other choice will be sin.
I think there's two ways to argue with this, one internal to Christian doctrine, and one external to it.
The internal method is to point out that Jesus [i]lived[/i]. He actually walked left instead of right, said these words instead of those words, went to sleep at 8:57 instead of 9:02. If Jesus was supposed to be the model of human behavior, and as such perfect, this means that either He had no free will, or that what you're saying is wrong, and there are multiple sinless paths He could have taken (all leading to the Cross, I speculate).
If you consider it as obvious as I do that human beings have free will, then Jesus' incarnation as freely human means that He had free will as well, so there must be a way to be free and sinless. The Christian's ideal of perfection is not an abstract standard or standards against which every possible behavior can be compared. It is rather a Man, who lived for a finite amount of time, did a finite amount of things, and therefore addressed a finite number of issues.
From a non-theological perspective, I'm not convinced that there is such a thing as a 'trival and inconsequential' degree of moral difference. We aren't [i]really[/i] talking about something that can be quantified and measured here, and while the analogy of quantity seems to work when comparing things like theft and murder, it [i]is[/i] just an analogy, and they always break down. To say that there'must be some moral difference between eating Froot Loops vs. Lucky Charms places too much emphasis on the analogy of quanitfying moral worth, and not enough on moral worth as we actually experience it.
You guys forget that the morality issue, or doing right vs. wrong is about intent, not content. You can make a mistake through a poor choice and not be morally wrong.
Personally I don’t see any relevance of morality entering into rather or not there is free-will, there is still a possibility of choice with free will even if it’s a pedestrian as choosing a color or flavor.
I don’t think my argument has any relevance outside Christian doctrine, but I’ll look at your second comeback merely because what you say is usually interesting.
No, that doesn’t follow, because to say that a person has the free will to sin is not to say that everyone will do so. It is merely to say that everyone can, and so every non-perfect person will. If Jesus is regarded as perfect, then he made perfect (non-sinful) choices at every opportunity. This does not, however, mean that he HAD to do so; he merely chose to do so. As nobody else is perfect, nobody else will be able to follow his example. Christians are expected to try, but it is recognized that no one will ever succeed.
(Actually there is a good bit in the Gospels that argues against Jesus’ perfection, as well as against his omniscience, but that’s a whole different argument.)
Yes, but so does Christian theological morality, in which as a matter of fact I do not believe.
Thanks for the reply. As has become usual when talking with you, I feel like I agree with everything you've said, but I also feel my original point is still intact. I agree that Jesus freely chose to live a sinless life. What I'm saying is that since He lived [i]in the world[/i], it seems unlikely that every particular action He took was the only sinless one at any given time. Like us, He could have gone left or right. Like us, He could have said "Ok" or "Alright" or "Yes". I believe you were arguing that since every action has more or less moral worth than every other, that a person who was morally perfect would not be free, right? I'm saying Jesus' life refutes that. If He was human and God, then He was free and perfect. Having our moral standard be a real exemplar and not an abstract ideal frees us up from the potential of minutea, doesn't it? How can there be a moral difference between pancakes and waffles, if my aim is to be like Jesus?
Here's a good example. On the Mt. of Olives, Jesus says (I paraphrase heavily)
"With You all things are possible. If You would, please spare me from this fate You have set before me. Even still, not my will, but Yours."
I don’t think anyone would argue that it would have been sinful for Jesus to have skipped asking to be spared. In fact, that seems to be an expression of human vulnerability. If this isn’t sinful, then clearly Christianity must allow for there to be multiple sinless options in situations.
I completely agree that this statement is TRUE. However, I don’t agree that it is consistent with Christian theology. If Jesus was perfect in all his actions and thoughts, then for him to do differently than he did would have made him less than perfect, to fall short of perfection is (in Christian moral thought) to sin, and so Jesus would have sinned.
Almost, but not quite. I’m saying that, in Christian thinking, no one is capable of being morally perfect. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” Obviously we are not all murderers, thieves, liars, adulterers, and general villains, so the word “sinned” has a meaning in Christian thought that is different from the ordinary understanding, and the second clause of that passage gives a clue as to what it is: to “sin” is to “fall short of the glory of God.” I’m saying that it is impossible for a free-willed human individual, so long as he or she remains a free-willed human individual, to rise to the glory of God. And that means that, as “sin” is understood in Christian thought, it is impossible for a free-willed human individual to be without sin.
Thus, a sinless Heaven populated by free-willed human individuals is a contradiction in terms, and therefore one of three things must be true:
Those in Heaven are no longer human individuals;
Those in Heaven no longer have free will; or
Those in Heaven continue to sin.
As long as Jesus is held to be a special case, divine as well as human in a way that the rest of humanity is not, his life cannot refute any statement made about humanity in general. God Himself can, obviously, rise to the glory of God, even if human beings can’t.
There are many ways there could be. It would depend on the specifics of the situation, though.
I agree. But then, what I really think is that this is one of those Gospel passages that runs against traditional Christian beliefs about Jesus. Another is a passage in which he is touched by someone in a crowd, drawing off some of his power to enact her healing, and asks “Who touched me?” (Would not God know the answer to this, as to all questions?) Still another is the passage in which a Samaritan woman asks him for something, he answers that he has come to feed the children and not the dogs, she responds that surely even the dogs may receive scraps from the children’s table, and he changes his mind.
But if we do accept the traditional Christian beliefs about Jesus’ perfection and special-case status as the ONLY Son of God, then by extension we cannot use anything about his life to argue about what is possible for the rest of us.
I guess I don't see why a notion of perfection (within Christian doctrine or otherwise) implies uniformity. This is not at all required for the passage "For all men have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" for example.
I actually wrote the above before reading this far. :slight_smile: Two things, to be absolutely anal about this, the passage doesn't [i]equate[/i] sinning with falling short of God's glory. One could read it as saying that sinning is but one of the ways to do so, and that falling short if a broader class. Most people I know don't take that approach, so we can leave it alone.
What’s really important is that it’s not necessary to relate sin to perfection here, or even an understanding of God’s will. Just ask yourself this: Have you ever fallen short of your own moral ideals? I mean in a significant way, not in a minute way that you don’t percieve but assume to be present. I have. If you have too, and it seems reasonable to believe that everyone else has as well, then the “all have sinned” could just be a statement of rather obvious fact, and not a hidden insight into the nature of what sin is.
Well, the important thing is that He retained His full humanity in so doing according to Christianity, so we'd want to look at how important free will is as a human quality.
Besides, your argument is that there is something logically incoherent about a perfectly good, perfectly free being. With respect to logic, God and man are in the same boat- if Jesus can do something, then it’s at least not logically impossible for man to do it, either.
I can respect that. A lot of these Christian/Non-Christian debates come down to a difference between how hard each party wants to try to make difficult passages synthesize. I agree with you that at first glance, they seem to conflict, but I believe they can be understood in a plausible way in which they don't.
Navigator, thanks =D> .And if God can have free will and do only good and still be moral , why not we? However, maybe He has free will with the ability to do wrong and thus, particapates in the evil around us ! One cannot have it both ways .One should be consitent. I favor compatablism- soft determinism-.
Navigator, thanks =D> .And if God can have free will and do only good and still be moral , why not we? However, maybe He has free will with the ability to do wrong and thus, particapates in the evil around us 
! One cannot have it both ways .One should be consitent. I favor compatablism- soft determinism-.