Christianity without freewill

[scourge99]

Lately I have engaged in many debates that revolve around the question of whether freewill exists. Its interesting to note that many Christians take the side that freewill does exist while non-theists often take the side that freewill does not exist. I want to forgo the debate of whether freewill exists and look beyond it. For this thread lets assume that freewill does not exist. The goal of this thread is to investigate, brainstorm, and debate about reasonable formulations of Christianity assuming there is no freewill.

For arguments sake let us assume that science has demonstrated a lack of freewill to the same extent that it has demonstrated the theory of gravitation and the theory of evolution. I would guess many Christians would reject the science just as many in the past and present reject science when it comes to heliocentricism, a world wide flood, and evolution. But ignoring the science-deniers, what sense can a science-accepting Christian make of the core concepts of Christianity in light of no freewill? For example:

1) Jesus atonement for sins by dying on the cross. If people are not genuinely in control of their choices--past, present or future--and thus the sins they make then how is the (alleged) death and resurrection of Jesus redemptive?

2) Believing in God and Jesus gets you into heaven. If people cannot genuinely choose their beliefs but rather come about them by means beyond their personal control then wouldn't entrance into heaven be by pure luck?

I think many of these problems are far easier for liberal Christians to resolve but what about fundamentalists and moderates?

I believe there are other interesting problems that can be examined or need to be reassessed if we lack freewill such as the problem of evil and the problem of non-believers. Feel free to bring up any other problems. But more importantly, try to provide or propose some reasonable solutions to the problems.

[ttruscott]

...
In the long run, if god does truly exists, free will has zero influence on where we spend our eternity. God has set that up long before we were born. And nothing we can do will change the end result.

I've posted enough about free will to know this is not a misrepresentation of Christian free will but a straw-man.

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

Religion is poison because it asks us to give up our most precious faculty, which is that of reason, and to believe things without evidence. It then asks us to respect this, which it calls faith. - Christopher Hitchens

Hitchens is wrong, either deliberatly or accidently but no one has given up their reason for belief...in fact the evidence was studied deeply before faith is accepted

and to say that reasonable people do not live by faith in things like the future ie without hope that is not proven, is ludicrous, as I've proven many times. Everyone has hopes that are not proven and that is living by faith.

If you hope for something and you get it are you still hoping?? No sir, not a bit and FAITH is the word meaning BELIEF IN AN UNPROVEN HOPE, ie

FAITH does NOT mean belief in unexamined options.

peace, Ted

[connermt]

...
In the long run, if god does truly exists, free will has zero influence on where we spend our eternity. God has set that up long before we were born. And nothing we can do will change the end result.

I've posted enough about free will to know this is not a misrepresentation of Christian free will but a straw-man.

Peace, Ted

You confuse "know" with "believe" - again.
And so you're clear, posting doesn't mean you know anything past how to post. Yeah...think about it.

[connermt]

Religion is poison because it asks us to give up our most precious faculty, which is that of reason, and to believe things without evidence. It then asks us to respect this, which it calls faith. - Christopher Hitchens

...

FAITH does NOT mean belief in unexamined options.

peace, Ted

You're right there. Faith means hope. Pure and simple. No facts. No data. Just hope.

[Coldfire]

If Christianity has no free will, then no Christian can ever be frustrated for someone else not being a Christian—because they have no choice.

Similarly, if a non-Christian believes in determinism, then s/he can never be annoyed with someone for being a Christian, since the Christian in question never had a choice in the matter.

No free will in one example and determinism in the other. Did you mean to give an example of what free will would be like? Just curious.

At any rate, determinism doesn’t necessarily mean that there is no choice in the matter, just that we aren’t in complete control of those choices. The free will vs determinism debate is more about the cause of choices then the capability of making a choice.

I shouldn’t get frustrated with someone who believes in what they’re told since childhood, they simply trust their elders and loved ones. However, if I were to explain with sound reasoning why their outlook and the outlook of their elders is flawed, and they were not able to comprehend it or too afraid or proud to, then I can see why some people might get frustrated or annoyed.

[Coldfire]

From an old post of mine:

Whenever this topic comes up, I feel compelled to ask -

WHOOO CAAARES?

Whether free will is an illusion or not, I still seem to have to decide what to eat for lunch.

Even if the universe is absolutely deterministic, we still seem to be constrained to make decisions - or to think we do, which as a practical matter is precisely the same thing.

When somebody can show me how this question has any more impact on my life than as meaningless abstract theory with absolutely zero practical consequences, I'll think about it. Till then - mmm, I think I'll have a combo burrito and a couple of tacos with a Diet Coke.

Gee, it sure feels like I could have sent out for pizza....

And by the way, how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin?

You guys let me know when I can stop pretending to make decisions and not have to think any more... and while you're at it, explain to me what we're all doing here. If we have no choices about what to do, we have no choices about what to believe either, so what's the point of having these discussions? What's the point of learning anything? What's the point of thinking at all?

Arguing (or assuming, as in the present case) that free will does not exist strikes me as no more provable, verifiable, or objectively true than assuming or arguing that God does exist. Both are, like any thought expressed in words, mental constructs and not actual Reality. The difference is that between the word "pain" and what you actually feel when you hit your thumb with a hammer.

"There is no such thing as free will" is a string of words without a practical, real-world meaning. Rather like "God objectively exists," if one considers it.

Sorry for the interruption. Carry on with your theorizing.

It’s a common mistake to compare the free will vs determinism debate with that of “choice or no choice.�

Arguing that free will does not exist does not necessarily need proof; it is not the job of someone making this claim to prove the inexistence of free will. The burden of proof lies on those that claim free will exists.

“There is no such thing as free will� is not similar to saying “God objectively exists.� Claiming that God exists is a positive affirmation, the other claim is not.

If you wanted to make a claim similar to “there is no free will� then you could use “there is no god.� Both are default positions until evidence is shown to prove their existence.

In the previous post that you referenced, you said “When somebody can show me how this question has any more impact on my life than as meaningless abstract theory with absolutely zero practical consequences, I’ll think about it.�

Well I don’t have an example on how it can affect your life specifically; but I can say that it drastically affects the perspective of how things such as crime and poverty occur and how they should be dealt with. It’s easy to sentence someone to die or not give a shit about a homeless person when we think that they made a free will decision to be the way they are and do the things they do, but when we take a deterministic approach we see that people aren’t entirely responsible for their way of thinking. A deterministic approach looks instead at internal or environmental factors as the cause of these things. If society were to accept this approach it could then seek ways to prevent criminal behavior or poverty before they occur instead of seeking ways to enact retribution or justify their apathy after the fact.

[Crazee]

If Christianity has no free will, then no Christian can ever be frustrated for someone else not being a Christian—because they have no choice.

Similarly, if a non-Christian believes in determinism, then s/he can never be annoyed with someone for being a Christian, since the Christian in question never had a choice in the matter.

No free will in one example and determinism in the other. Did you mean to give an example of what free will would be like? Just curious.

What I meant to say was that I see those two as being the same thing. If everything is determined then there is no free will.

At any rate, determinism doesn’t necessarily mean that there is no choice in the matter, just that we aren’t in complete control of those choices. The free will vs determinism debate is more about the cause of choices then the capability of making a choice.

The way I think of it is that the debate is whether or not the cause of a given decision was our free will or arbitrary forces; whether we made a choice, or we didn't.

I shouldn’t get frustrated with someone who believes in what they’re told since childhood, they simply trust their elders and loved ones. However, if I were to explain with sound reasoning why their outlook and the outlook of their elders is flawed, and they were not able to comprehend it or too afraid or proud to, then I can see why some people might get frustrated or annoyed.

I agree. Everyone does the best they can to form their beliefs through the experiences they've had in their lives. If someone's life has been dominated by close friends and family that are all orthodox believers, I can't blame them.

The way I see it though is that if strict determinism is the case, then no one has actually made a choice about what to believe. If someone hasn't made a choice about what to believe, it is illogical to say that they should have a different value system then they already do.

But, I think there is free will, so we are accountable for our thoughts/actions.

[Coldfire]

If Christianity has no free will, then no Christian can ever be frustrated for someone else not being a Christian—because they have no choice.

Similarly, if a non-Christian believes in determinism, then s/he can never be annoyed with someone for being a Christian, since the Christian in question never had a choice in the matter.

No free will in one example and determinism in the other. Did you mean to give an example of what free will would be like? Just curious.

What I meant to say was that I see those two as being the same thing. If everything is determined then there is no free will.

They’re both examples of determinism, I agree that they are essentially the same thing.

At any rate, determinism doesn’t necessarily mean that there is no choice in the matter, just that we aren’t in complete control of those choices. The free will vs determinism debate is more about the cause of choices then the capability of making a choice.

The way I think of it is that the debate is whether or not the cause of a given decision was our free will or arbitrary forces; whether we made a choice, or we didn't.

Agreed.

I shouldn’t get frustrated with someone who believes in what they’re told since childhood, they simply trust their elders and loved ones. However, if I were to explain with sound reasoning why their outlook and the outlook of their elders is flawed, and they were not able to comprehend it or too afraid or proud to, then I can see why some people might get frustrated or annoyed.

I agree. Everyone does the best they can to form their beliefs through the experiences they've had in their lives. If someone's life has been dominated by close friends and family that are all orthodox believers, I can't blame them.

The beliefs a person has are a result of their experiences, whether they do their best to form them or not.

The way I see it though is that if strict determinism is the case, then no one has actually made a choice about what to believe. If someone hasn't made a choice about what to believe, it is illogical to say that they should have a different value system then they already do.

Correct.
But I would say ‘beliefs’ in place of ‘value system’ though.

But, I think there is free will, so we are accountable for our thoughts/actions.

I’m curious as to why you think that. Can you give me an example of a free will choice that is not determined by causal factors which led you to that choice?

[Crazee]

But, I think there is free will, so we are accountable for our thoughts/actions.

I’m curious as to why you think that. Can you give me an example of a free will choice that is not determined by causal factors which led you to that choice?

I believe very strongly that there is purpose and meaning behind existence. In order to find meaning we have to have the ability to differentiate and make decisions.

I think our current society that is imploding on itself is a result of many decisions we made towards exploitation of people and nature.

What I don't believe is that our society and methods of analysis arose out of indiscriminate chemical reactions that accidentally became self-aware entities.

I can't prove that me thinking this isn't fully determined by various substances. But, is it worth attempting to do anything, or live life to the fullest, if you know there isn't any breaking from a set path?

[Divine Insight]

For arguments sake let us assume that science has demonstrated a lack of freewill to the same extent that it has demonstrated the theory of gravitation and the theory of evolution.

From my perspective that is an extremely imaginary hypothetical situation that clearly has absolutely no scientific basis at the point in time. Science is nowhere near being in a position to make such a claim.

Thus, to even consider such an absurd hypothetical situation is meaningless.

As far as Christianity and Free Will are concerned, of course Christianity would be utterly meaningless without a concept of free will.

But that's not surprising because Christianity is utterly meaningless with a concept of Free Will. The idea that a God would condemn people for merely not believing in him is already a nonsensical idea IMHO.

That idea already flies in the face of a God who is supposed to be wise, intelligent, and sane.