What is TRUE "Free Will"?

[arian]

It's not all that nebulous...free will is the ability to choose between available options. It does not mean 'free to do anything one can imagine and a few things one cannot, without consequences."

As in...one is quite free to choose which side of the fence to walk on, when looking at a fenced off cliff. However, if one chooses to walk on the cliff side of the fence, then one is also choosing to do without the protection of that fence, and therefore choosing the possible consequence of falling off. . . .

I agree with this, as well as with the idea that if we have insufficient facts to make a decision, that although the decision may be 'free' it is not an informed decision; and in that sense, particularly if the facts have been suppressed, in that sense, the decision, if 'free' was still compromised.

The intriguing part of this question was brought up by Z.
It involves a more philosophical approach. How do we know our choices were truly freely made? Free will may simply be an illusion. We certainly have the appearance of free will, but how 'free' is that decision?

Does a 15 year old brought up in poverty and relative ignorance, surrounded by parents and peers who are thieves and have no meaningful education beyond the 6th grade, really have the same choice and choices as the 15 year old brought up by upper middle class, college educated, church going parents, whose peers all have parents similar to his?

I'm not suggesting that both adolescents are not responsible for their decisions and the consequences of those decisions. But is it fair to apply the same judgment to each? Don't they have a different spectrum of choices?

Let's take that idea even further. Do religious people really believe that someone from 10,000 year ago has the same "Free Will" that humans will have in the year 3000, when their knowledge of the Universe, and basically EVERYTHING will be so much Greater!?

Surely religious people HAVE to see that we all do NOT have the same "Free Will". What's the Major difference in these examples? One thing: Knowledge/Information! This is the Main Point I was making in the Original Post. You can not have True "Free Will" about things you don't know enough about! For something that will supposedly affect us for ALL of Eternity, why wouldn't this "Loving God" want us to make an Informed decision, instead of an Uninformed decision? Only an EVIL god would do that!


And for those that keep saying that if god were to show himself, we would somehow NOT have True "Free Will", because you say that would somehow "Coerce" our decision, then what you are saying is that the People that DID meet Jesus and see all his supposed Miracles when he was supposedly here in Person did NOT have True "Free Will"..........right? So in that case, Jesus being there in Person basically Sabotaged those people? They had No "Free Will", so they were Doomed?

Surely you have to see how ridiculous that is, right?

-----

Any religious people want to reply to that last post ^^^^^?

Sorry, but I'm not religious, so I don't have a religious view on this purely religious POV Post.

[instantc]

It's not all that nebulous...free will is the ability to choose between available options. It does not mean 'free to do anything one can imagine and a few things one cannot, without consequences."

As in...one is quite free to choose which side of the fence to walk on, when looking at a fenced off cliff. However, if one chooses to walk on the cliff side of the fence, then one is also choosing to do without the protection of that fence, and therefore choosing the possible consequence of falling off. . . .

I agree with this, as well as with the idea that if we have insufficient facts to make a decision, that although the decision may be 'free' it is not an informed decision; and in that sense, particularly if the facts have been suppressed, in that sense, the decision, if 'free' was still compromised.

The intriguing part of this question was brought up by Z.
It involves a more philosophical approach. How do we know our choices were truly freely made? Free will may simply be an illusion. We certainly have the appearance of free will, but how 'free' is that decision?

Does a 15 year old brought up in poverty and relative ignorance, surrounded by parents and peers who are thieves and have no meaningful education beyond the 6th grade, really have the same choice and choices as the 15 year old brought up by upper middle class, college educated, church going parents, whose peers all have parents similar to his?

I'm not suggesting that both adolescents are not responsible for their decisions and the consequences of those decisions. But is it fair to apply the same judgment to each? Don't they have a different spectrum of choices?

Let's take that idea even further. Do religious people really believe that someone from 10,000 year ago has the same "Free Will" that humans will have in the year 3000, when their knowledge of the Universe, and basically EVERYTHING will be so much Greater!?

Surely religious people HAVE to see that we all do NOT have the same "Free Will". What's the Major difference in these examples? One thing: Knowledge/Information! This is the Main Point I was making in the Original Post. You can not have True "Free Will" about things you don't know enough about! For something that will supposedly affect us for ALL of Eternity, why wouldn't this "Loving God" want us to make an Informed decision, instead of an Uninformed decision? Only an EVIL god would do that!


And for those that keep saying that if god were to show himself, we would somehow NOT have True "Free Will", because you say that would somehow "Coerce" our decision, then what you are saying is that the People that DID meet Jesus and see all his supposed Miracles when he was supposedly here in Person did NOT have True "Free Will"..........right? So in that case, Jesus being there in Person basically Sabotaged those people? They had No "Free Will", so they were Doomed?

Surely you have to see how ridiculous that is, right?

-----

Any religious people want to reply to that last post ^^^^^?

Perhaps you would like to explain what being informed has to do with having free will in the first place? Are you talking about free will as to the consequences of given action? So for example, if I throw a sandwich to the sea, and the smell of that sandwich attracts a shark that ends up killing a local surfer, then you'd say that I didn't freely cause the death of that surfer?

You claim that God would want us to make informed decisions, as in he would want us to know all the consequences of our actions, so that we could choose the right actions. However, I don't think that the morality of an act is determined by its factual consequences at all, but rather an evil act can in some circumstances have good consequences and vice versa. What matters is the good or bad motive.

[Danmark]

Perhaps you would like to explain what being informed has to do with having free will in the first place? Are you talking about free will as to the consequences of given action? So for example, if I throw a sandwich to the sea, and the smell of that sandwich attracts a shark that ends up killing a local surfer, then you'd say that I didn't freely cause the death of that surfer?

You claim that God would want us to make informed decisions, as in he would want us to know all the consequences of our actions, so that we could choose the right actions. However, I don't think that the morality of an act is determined by its factual consequences at all, but rather an evil act can in some circumstances have good consequences and vice versa. What matters is the good or bad motive.

There appears to be at least two major types of 'free will' being discussed here.
1st, there is the absolute or 'pure free will' which asks
"Do I freely choose to pick up the pen on my desk, or is it preordained?"
2d, we have a more complicated, or I'd say 'muddled' notion of 'free will' that says "I don't have free will unless I have all knowledge relevant to my choice at the time I make it."

This 2d version seems to me to be an absurd question, since we can never have absolute knowledge. If the 2d version is used, then the free will debate is over.

[arian]

Perhaps you would like to explain what being informed has to do with having free will in the first place? Are you talking about free will as to the consequences of given action? So for example, if I throw a sandwich to the sea, and the smell of that sandwich attracts a shark that ends up killing a local surfer, then you'd say that I didn't freely cause the death of that surfer?

You claim that God would want us to make informed decisions, as in he would want us to know all the consequences of our actions, so that we could choose the right actions. However, I don't think that the morality of an act is determined by its factual consequences at all, but rather an evil act can in some circumstances have good consequences and vice versa. What matters is the good or bad motive.

There appears to be at least two major types of 'free will' being discussed here.

1st, there is the absolute or 'pure free will' which asks
"Do I freely choose to pick up the pen on my desk, or is it preordained?"

2d, we have a more complicated, or I'd say 'muddled' notion of 'free will' that says "I don't have free will unless I have all knowledge relevant to my choice at the time I make it."

This 2d version seems to me to be an absurd question, since we can never have absolute knowledge. If the 2d version is used, then the free will debate is over.

Another good point, and I have been wondering about this. Since we are created, isn't all our possible choices already there? Where all we have to do is pick one from all the possible choices at that moment.

I see it like this, .. a train placed on one track has one choice, which is to follow that one track, right?
But what if after every train-move there were tracks leading in all possible directions, up, down, and in every other conceivable direction? Here I see that the choices were preordained, but not our choice. What is your take on this?

Another word; "Free will to pick from all the preordained choices", .. but is this really 'absolute free will?' as you noted?

[instantc]

There appears to be at least two major types of 'free will' being discussed here.
1st, there is the absolute or 'pure free will' which asks
"Do I freely choose to pick up the pen on my desk, or is it preordained?"
2d, we have a more complicated, or I'd say 'muddled' notion of 'free will' that says "I don't have free will unless I have all knowledge relevant to my choice at the time I make it."

This 2d version seems to me to be an absurd question, since we can never have absolute knowledge. If the 2d version is used, then the free will debate is over.

Yes, I don't get this 2nd notion of free will either. The first question is more interesting. I do indeed experience free will when making choices in life. I could also imagine observing the world from inside my body but not being able to affect any of its choices, in which case there clearly would not be free will. Therefore free will does exist at least as a matter of experience. I don't know how else it could exist. What would a decision look like in a world that has free will, as opposed to a world that doesn't have free will? I have no idea.

[Danmark]

There appears to be at least two major types of 'free will' being discussed here.
1st, there is the absolute or 'pure free will' which asks
"Do I freely choose to pick up the pen on my desk, or is it preordained?"
2d, we have a more complicated, or I'd say 'muddled' notion of 'free will' that says "I don't have free will unless I have all knowledge relevant to my choice at the time I make it."

This 2d version seems to me to be an absurd question, since we can never have absolute knowledge. If the 2d version is used, then the free will debate is over.

Yes, I don't get this 2nd notion of free will either. The first question is more interesting. I do indeed experience free will when making choices in life. I could also imagine observing the world from inside my body but not being able to affect any of its choices, in which case there clearly would not be free will. Therefore free will does exist at least as a matter of experience. I don't know how else it could exist. What would a decision look like in a world that has free will, as opposed to a world that doesn't have free will? I have no idea.

Good analysis.

Not for the first time, I sat down and did THE experiment. An object sits on your desk, a pen for example. You have no immediate need to use it. You realize you can pick it up, or let it lay. Both choices seem equally possible. You really have no need to do either. In fact, in a way the actor is doing both; that is, each second, or infinite fraction of a second that goes by, he is 'choosing by his free will' to not pick up the pen. Then he picks it up and sets it down. Subjectively, it is hard to see how he is not exercising free will. Can he rule out the possibility that some external force is not dictating these decisions and acts. No. But then he cannot absolutely dismiss solipsism either.

I'm not sure any of this is worth thinking about, except to indulge the mind and make us think we are doing something important when we are really just wasting our time.


I'm sort of stealing that from a line of G. B. Shaw's view of chess. He said something like, '... a way for men to think they are doing something important when they're really just wasting their time.'

He didn't much care for recreation. He called golf, "A good walk spoiled."

[arian]

Here you have put forth the confusion between evidence and proof. GOD gives us evidence but withholds the proof of HIS divinity. Why? Because GOD wanted us to choose without proof because we hoped all HE said was true.

2 verses are important:
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance / essence of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen, , that is, unproven,

A really good post ttruscott, and you make so many good points, but I still don't understand how you can believe and see us in a pre-world existence, yet at the same time say God cannot be proven?

We cannot see many things that have been observed by science, like gravity for one, yet we don't say gravity is unproven, right? Gravity is simple, it attracts other physical bodies, but God sustains and governs all the laws in the physical universe including the laws of gravity. So God (unseen) has trillions upon trillions more evidence of His existence then gravity, wouldn't you agree?

Every time I get out of bed, I hope gravity continues to do its job and pull me to the ground, actually after 57 years I am 'convinced' (sure of my faith in this) that it will pull me to the ground rather then just let me float off into space.

6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
and
2 Corinthians 5:7 For we live by faith, not by sight, that is, proof.

Without faith it IS Impossible to please God, but is this referring to just 'faith'? Or is it 'faith in God'? "for he that cometh to God must believe that he is!" NOT 'hope that He Is'

Catholics do a lot "pleasing their religion", and so do other religions like Muslims, but are those actions pleasing our Creator God? It's done by faith!?

Faith without knowing God our Creator, and being certain of our God from evidence is worthless. We have to define God just as we defined gravity, otherwise we could be attributing two objects being pulled together to wind.

The only reason to make a true free will decision to put our faith in GOD is our hope HE IS GOD and will reward our faith, our hope without proof. Proof destroys hope:

Romans 8:24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen, that is proven, is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? so if proof happens before we choose to put our faith in HIM proof will coerce our choice to believe and it will not be by our true free will. He wants faith without proof of HIS divinity as proof of our free will since proof of HIS divinity destroys free will.

Proof destroys hope?

If I hear news of my wayward and lost son coming home, even before I see him, I will run out of my house, all the way to the outskirts of the town to greet him (Prodigals Son). I don't need proof that "Yep, now that I see him and hug him he IS my son" first.

But look at this, what if I cannot define my son, whom would I be running to greet? Who, Allah, Joseph Smith, David Koresh? See what I mean?

So what are you suggesting, .. that once I would see my son (or if I was blind, other telltale signs that convinces me it is him) would destroy my hope and free will?

I have God and He has me, but at a distance. Until I know Him as He knows me I have hope. My hope is not driven by; "I hope I never see/know Him" but that I DO want to see Him, not just through a foggy glass. I want to spend eternity with God because I know what a wonderful and awesome God He IS.

[Danmark]

You say that "we can never have absolute knowledge". Well, if there were some Omnipotent god, then that would be an EASY thing for him to give us! Since we are speaking about religion, how can you say that "we can never have absolute knowledge" if he is All Powerful?? Unless you acknowledge that there is no such thing as that Omnipotent, Perfect god? Is that what you are saying?

And since what is on the line is ETERNAL Damnation, I would think that a Loving god would give us all more than what we have now.

So for those of you that say we do have more than enough Proof of this god, then I ask: "Why are there now over 40k different denominations that use the Bible as their Holy Book??" That's not even counting all the other religions that use other "Holy Books"! What that says is, even the people that believe in the Bible can't agree as to what exactly is says!

[emphasis applied]
I say it because this idea of an omnipotent God is mere fanciful speculation. But let's suppose it is not, and that the God described in Genesis is this omnipotent God. In the Genesis myth God clearly commanded man not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
And the LORD God commanded the man, You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.
So even if you posit that God could grant man omniscience, according to Genesis, he's agin it.