Free Will

Do we really have free will?

At the societal level, the assumption that we have free will is an essential requirement. In fact, our legal system is premised on this assumption, and that we must take personal responsibility for our actions. If a person is tried legally and found to be in violation of the law of that country or state, then he or she is likely to face some form of punishment, even including the death penalty. In some cases, if a person's action is found to be commendable, he or she may be rewarded.

A person's socialization, that is, the type of home and social environment in which he or she was brought up, especially in the earlier stages of life, may be related to his/her actions or behaviour in later life; however, this is not necessarily so. The legal system normally does not make provision for this factor. A person who is legally tried and found guilty of a violation of the law, even if he/she was raised in an “adverse” environment, that is, a “broken home” with a lack of love and support from his/her significant others, and in a “high crime rate” neighbourhood, cannot expect any special consideration from the legal system. The system insists that, regardless of a person's socialization, he or she has “free will” and personal responsibilty for his/her behaviour.

Perhaps, future research may show that a person's genetic make-up may predispose him/her to certain behaviours that violate the legal system; this is only a suggestion. I am not aware of any such research findings at present.
Even if research uncovers such genetic evidence, this is unlikely to impact on the legal position that a person must take personal responsibilty for his/her behaviour.

Most theists, insist that we have “free will”, which is given to us by God.
God is normally viewed as being omniscient, infallible and omnipotent. My personal view is that if we accept those attributes of God, then there is a logical inconsistency between those attributes and the acceptance that human beings have “free will”. I have summarised this position in the following argument:


Premise 1:
To have free will, there must be no constraints on how one chooses to act.
One must be free to act how one chooses.

Premise 2:
God's foreknowledge places a constraint on one's actions.

God is omniscient and infallible. He knows everything - past, present and future.
God knows the future actions of everyone and since he can never be wrong,
one's future actions are constrained by God's foreknowledge since they must be in accordance with it.

Conclusion:
Therefore, in the context of God's foreknowledge, one does not have free will.


The question of whether God's foreknowledge “causes” one to act in a certain way is irrelevant; besides, this blog is not making such a claim.
The fact remains that one cannot act outside the constraints of Gods foreknowledge.


In summary, I agree that I have the freedom to act according to what I honestly feel or believe to be my free will. Thus, relative to my thinking, I am exercising free will, that is, with no constraints.

However, if God knows how I am going to act, even before I do so, and since I have to act in accordance with God's foreknowledge and I cannot do otherwise, I do not have free will.

As an analogy, I exercise my free will within a box, or limited space, constrained by God's foreknowledge.
The question here is:

Is such “free will” really “FREE”?


In the context of God's foreknowledge with respect to the actions of everyone, and if our actions determine our ultimate fate, then God already knows what our ultimate fate will be. Based on this, Reform theologian John Calvin, argued that some people are predestined to be saved and some are predestined to be damned, and there is nothing anyone can possibly do about it.


What do you think?
Post Comment

Comments (20)

That will be the next product of the Leftoids - no one is responsible for their actions because it's the fault of their neural wiring(which itself will reinforce any negative aspects within peoples' neural wiring).

With the exception of law-abiding White males. The politically correct boogeymen will not be excused because of our neural wiring.
Hello Soc,

With how you explain things, which I do not find any discrepancies in it, something does not add up.

Is it possible that life is such a complex thing and our human brains operate on a much more simplistic level that our free will does seem intact from our conscious state? So, maybe from our human form, we actually do have free will. (maybe?)


Otherwise, we do not have free will (just a grand illusion of it).

or

God is not all knowing and our lives are not predestined.


I can imagine from a more "scientific" viewpoint, people would probably be more inclined to think the latter.



wave
I suspect free will is just an illusion like most of what we perceive as reality. The interconnectedness of everything makes it impossible to have free will. What makes us decided to do or don't do something? I is definitely not just the consequences of our actions as we seldom know what consequences our actions are going to have. Our actions are mostly motivated by intention but are we sure where our intentions come from? Don't think there is a absolute yes or no to the question of free will as with most of life it is more complicated or maybe simpler than we think. dunno
Johnny

Thanks for your input, part of which is quoted below:

"Is it possible that life is such a complex thing and our human brains operate on a much more simplistic level that our free will does seem intact from our conscious state? So, maybe from our human form, we actually do have free will. (maybe?)"

In my opinion, exercising one's free will is a conscious human activity.


"Otherwise, we do not have free will (just a grand illusion of it).
or
God is not all knowing and our lives are not predestined"

Of the two options you stated above,
in my opinion, free will seems more feasible with the second.
ek

Thanks for your input, especially in pointing out the interconnectedness of everything in relation to the question of free will.
In this regard, I think that genetic and environmental factors re our socialization have an effect on our actual behaviour.
lou

Thanks for your comment.
I agree with you that there may be exceptions in some cases but I wonder how widespread such a practice is. Perhaps, a lot depends on the judge in charge of the trial.
pjatheart

Dear Sir

Instead of just chiding and condemning me, as if you were God himself, would you please kindly show me the fault in my logic?

Thank You!

Have a nice day!
No human being can judge another human being's heart.

In fact, it is a sin to do so.

We don't know why this issue bothers Socrates so much, but evidently it does, as this is his second blog on the subject, and the first one, as mentioned, had many valid points that did not seem to help with the matter.

I hope you find peace to your questions, Socrates. But being on the premise that God is good (as PJ said), wouldn't it follow on that alone that He would be just and loving in His dealings with us?

I see no point in repeating any of the points that have already been made; that is going around in circles. It really does seem to have been thoroughly covered in this and your last blog.

All the best,
C bouquet
pjatheart

Remember Matthew 7:1

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged".

As I said to you before, God knows my spiritual condition. That matter is between God and myself.

Have a nice day!
You have only quoted one side of the scriptures that pertains to the subject of judgement. Why have you ommited the part where we
are encouraged to judge with spiritual judgement? God in His word has made it abundantly clear to all,what He considers good
and honorable and what is abominable and evil. If I restate His position,then I do not judge on my own,and I need not fear that God will judge me for repeating His words. Your relationship with God is an adversarial one,with all the consequenses plainly explained. I add nothing of my own,so like it or not,you've been told the truth.
pjatheart(or should I say, God himself)

I shall not engage in personal derogatory comments and judememental statements about you as you have been doing with respect to myself in the past, and still continue to do so.

My judgement is in God's hands, not yours.

I will not stoop to your level.

I engage in discussions with my good friend, Serendipity, whom I respect and I believe he has a similar respect towards myself, even though he may not be in agreement with the views I express.

He does not engage in judgemental claims as you do. Other persons on this site have a similar respect for him.
You can learn a lot from him in this regard.
There're are not,and have not ever been any deragotory or disrespectful comments in my posts to you. It is you who have resorted to twisting and misrepresenting both my words and the intended meaning of the scriptures in order to justify yourself. This is now your 3rd or 4th blog on the same subject,that I'm aware of. I don't know how many you might have deleted. I do learn from all things and people,even yourself. Your discussions are posted in an open forum. They are not between yourself and some other individual member. You purposely use an open forum as a vehicle to publicly besmear God in the eyes of others,which you perceive as your duty,and I simply provide the biblical view.
You have chosen a user name Socrates,in orded to appear wise by assosiation. It's obvious that being considered such is what you really crave to bolster your pride. Is this an incorrect observation? Please,name a religion where a runaway pride is considered an admirable trait? Will you now accuse me once again of being disrespectful or making deragotory remarks? It seems to me that,that to borrow a movie phrase,you siply can't handle the truth,meaning that you would be much happier just dishing out lies unchecked. Lies about God,and about people who speak the truth. And while on the subject of respect,would you consider this to be a behaviour worthy od respect? How about some of that
famous meditative introspection,that you should be an expert at, as a practitionar of your own system of belief? Why aren't you faithful to your own set of preceipts? Honestly,while I only subscribe to Christian views,I do hold much respect for those who sincerely and dilligently practice other faiths. You claim to
know the bible,and I do know form past personal involvement the other faiths. Based on my knowledge,I'm able to confidently state that do not represent even your own faith well. Case closed!
pjatheart

I Agree! Case Closed!
Hello again



Forgot to add a word to complete my sentence. grin



The fact that God does not have foreknowledge, but "sees" what we are doing with our freedom, is a valid point to be made. For if God had any succession in His Being, then God would not be an eternal, timeless, unchanging, Being, that He is. In other words, He wouldn't be God.




God bless, my friend.
Very good, Callie.

I knew Calvinism was also an important point to cover.

You did it very well. cheers
And then bible talks about not casting your pearls....
Seren

I agree that what human beings refer to as past, present and future is viewed by God in a single instant, not successively. In fact, I never disputed that in my comments.
Perhaps, for convenience, we can refer to past, present and future as a “timescape”

Wouldn't he also be aware of what we human beings call past, present and future, even though he views everything in a single instant, not successively?

God is aware of all human actions within that "timescape".

I agree that God's existence is infinite whereas man's existence is finite.

What is wrong with making reference to “future human actions” and saying that God knows those actions,, upon which my Premise 2 is based, in that "timescape"?
This in no way interferes with, contradicts or limits God “seeing” past, present and future in a single instant, not successively, or God's “timeless” view.

In what way does this apply finitude to God?

A lot of what you wrote has already been mentioned. If there is something specific to which you would like my response, please let me know.

Thank you, my friend.
calm

Thanks for your response to my request.

I am only examining the "human" logic involved in the scenario I mentioned.
A person's belief in God is based on faith and their personal experience.
This transcends any logical contradiction, in regard to human reason, real or imagined.

In my last comment to Seren, with respect to God and "foreknowledge" I wrote:

"I agree that what human beings refer to as past, present and future is viewed by God in a single instant, not successively. In fact, I never disputed that in my comments."

Perhaps, you can view that comment.

I think there is some similarity between what I have stated in this blog and Calvinism.

Have a nice day!
Sista

Thanks for your comment.

As I mentioned to calm:

"I am only examining the "human" logic involved in the scenario I mentioned.
A person's belief in God is based on faith and their personal experience.
This transcends any logical contradiction, in regard to human reason, real or imagined."

You have already stated this message quite explicitly in your comment and I appreciate and respect your position.

Have a wonderful day!
Seren

Thanks for an interesting discussion.

Concerning your statement:

"However, I wonder what took you long to mention that you believe that God does not view things in succession,..."

the fact is I never stated otherwise.

Take Care, my friend!
Post Comment - Let others know what you think about this Blog.
Meet the Author of this Blog
socrates44online today!

socrates44

San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago

I identify with the following words of Socrates:
“Know thyself”.
“The unexamined life is not worth living”.

I am a person who seek depth in life and living. This has been an overwhelming desire in me even since childhood. It is identified with a [read more]