Free will vs. coerced choice

[Zzyzx]

.
According to CARM (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry), free will is:

Free will is the ability to make choices without external coersion [sic].
https://carm.org/what-is-free-will

Coercion is defined as: the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion

If a person is told they are free to choose to do or not do something but if they choose to do it they and their family will be tortured, imprisoned and/or executed, have they been coerced by intimidation or threat? Do they make a free will choice in that instance?

If a person is told that they are free to choose to worship one of the proposed gods or not, but if they choose not they will suffer unpleasant eternal consequences (or whatever the threat), have they been coerced by intimidation or threat?

Where, exactly, does free will (choice free of coercion) apply according to Christian beliefs?

[JLB32168]

One can be coerced, but this is still a freewill choice. Do this or Ill punish you still gives me the choice to do X or take my lumps for refusing.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

One can be coerced, but this is still a freewill choice. Do this or Ill punish you still gives me the choice to do X or take my lumps for refusing.

Speaking in God's voice:
Believe that the earth once stopped rotating for a day and then restarted, that a man once rode around in the belly of a large fish for several days as if in a sea going taxi, that hordes of dead people came up out of their graves and wandered about, and that my son died but then came back to life and they flew away, or I will consign you to an eternity in hell. Because I very generously gave you free will to do and believe what you're told.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

I see no mention in the definition of being free from consequence or repurcussion of actions, only the notion that violation comes with forcing someone to do something against their will. Threats and force are not synonyms (threats deal with the conseqence) force is control of a person's actions. Threats still allow the option of choice, even if that choice is an unpleasant one and there is actually no way to force someone to do something they are determined not to do short of controling their mind and subsequently movement of their limbs.

Anyway, I would say "free will" is the innate RIGHT to choice, (a bit like the right to "the pursuit of happiness" many Americans believe all humans have), the right remains even when all options are blocked because you are born with it by virtue of being human, and nobody short of controlling your mind, can take it away from you.

Die Gedanken Sind Frei !

JW

"Die Gedanken sind frei" (Thoughts are free) is a German song about freedom of thought

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

I see no mention in the definition of being free from consequence or repurcussion of actions, only the notion that violation comes with forcing someone to do something. Threats and force are not synonyms since threats still allow the option of choice, even if that choice is an unpleasant one.

Anyway, I would say "free will" is the innate RIGHT to choice, (a bit like the right to "the pursuit of happiness" many Americans believe all humans have), the right remains even when all options are blocked because you are born with it by virtue of being human, and nobody short of controlling your mind, can take it away from you.

Die Gedanken Sind Frei !

JW


[youtube][/youtube]

I would never have guessed you to be a Pete Seeger fan. I have been a Pete Seeger fan literally my entire life. I use to listen to records by the Weavers when I was very young.

With that said, this song of defiance against tyrants and dictators and in the defense of freedom of thought loses some up it's moral sting when sung in German. This despite the fact that the song is much older than the events of the 20th century.

[Zzyzx]

.

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

I see no mention in the definition of being free from consequence or repurcussion of actions, only the notion that violation comes with forcing someone to do something against their will. Threats and force are not synonyms (threats deal with the conseqence) force is control of a person's actions. Threats still allow the option of choice, even if that choice is an unpleasant one and there is actually no way to force someone to do something they are determined not to do short of controling their mind and subsequently movement of their limbs.

Is this to say that coercion and threats do NOT impinge upon "free will"?

CARM seems to disagree

Free will is the ability to make choices without external coersion [sic].
https://carm.org/what-is-free-will

Bold added

Coercion is defined as: the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion

Bold added


If one ignores definitions they can make anything mean anything.

[JehovahsWitness]

If one ignores definitions they can make anything mean anything.

I think the definition is fine as far as it goes, I'm not at odds with it, I'm reasoning on it.

FREE WILL

1.
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
https://www.google.fr/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=an7 ... =free+will+

the ability to choose between different possible courses of action
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

the faculty of freedom of choice.
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101 ... &p=par#h=4

So "free will" is a power or an ability, a "faculty" to do something ie. to make (moral) choices; every human with the capacity to understand a choice has "free will" or has that "ability" by virtue of being human, and this regardless of what those choices will entail or in reality what makes you favor one choice over the other. Thus someone can "encroach" on your free will with threats cohersion but nobody can take it away from you, any more than someone can take "woman" away from an adult female.

Look more closely at the CARM definition again

Free will is the ability to make choices without external coersion [sic].
https://carm.org/what-is-free-will

It is STILL refering to what you are capable (able) of doing. It's saying without someone or something forcing (coersing/threatening/forcing) you, you have the capacity/the ability to make a decision. It is NOT saying you lose that ability if someone coerse or threatens you or that its only free will if there is no coersion (which is I think what you are reading into the definition).

If you make a decision under duress, you haven't lost the ABILITY to make a decision, you have decided to bow to the pressure or you have lost the freedom to exercise (act in accord with your chosen course). The only way to take away your power/ability/capacity to decide is to take away your mind, which is the point of the Pete Segar song.

"I think as I please and this gives me pleasure
my conscience decrees this right I must treasure
My thoughts will not cater to duke or dictator
No man can deny "Die Gedanken Sind Frei "

So I am not arguing against the CARM definition, I am explaining it.


JW

[Zzyzx]

.

I think the definition is fine as far as it goes, I'm not at odds with it, I'm reasoning on it.

Are you "reasoning" that even a forced decision is "free will"? Is that to say that any time two or more options exist a person has "free will"?

If a person is beat until they say "yes", is their decision an example of "free will"?

If a person is told they will be beaten until they say "yes", is their decision an example of "free will"?

[Talishi]

If a person is told they will be beaten until they say "yes", is their decision an example of "free will"?

The sort of Americans who support torturing captives taken in the Middle-East, as if that "yes" would mean anything, tend to be the sort of people who tell God "yes" when faced with their own eternal torture.

[Zzyzx]

.

The sort of Americans who support torturing captives taken in the Middle-East, as if that "yes" would mean anything, tend to be the sort of people who tell God "yes" when faced with their own eternal torture.

There is high likelihood that those who support and conduct torture of prisoners are Christians since the US population is heavily Christian. Thus, their God gave the prisoners "free will" to choose whatever they decide when they are water boarded.

Isn't it strange how nearly anything can be justified in the name of religion.