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.

[cnorman18]

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.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 6:

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.

I think you fail to grasp that some to many theists declare humans "fallen" based on their "free will", and thus worthy of suffering, up to and including at the hands of theists.

But if you speak in terms of how the notion of free will directly impacts my current day to day living, I can't much argue.

[ttruscott]

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.

It was these considerations about our lack of free will which I think is proven, that led me to put my faith in a pre-earth existence where we could make true free will decisions which DO make Christianity and the the Bible a more logical spiritual reality.

I was convinced of Christian reality but it made no sense to me before I understood our pre-conception existence and one of the things that did not make sense was our lack of free will yet still being held accountable.

Now I know how that works...

Peace, Ted

[connermt]

Seems to me that the concept of "free will" within christianity is nothing more than a buzzword used to excuse their god of ultimate responsibility of the current state we're in.
Christianity could exist w/o free will just as it does now. God would simply pick those it wants to make it to heaven.
The biblical god is a very self centered, egocentric deity. It seems to want people to worship it rather than being loving and accepting of them the way they are (which, is the way it ALLOWED them to be - some would even say MADE them to be) and allowing them to get to heaven, based on the popular christian thought.

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.

[Peter]

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.

I think you're convolving will and choice. Obviously, we all make choices but "will" entails a much deeper understanding of motivations and consequences than "choice" does. Religious free will is basically a little man whispering absolute truth into your ear which you are free to follow or ignore at your peril. Religious free will is like making your choice but then allowing the little man with absolute truth to change it. It's like being able to will what we choose.

How many times have you made a choice you didn't make? We typically make choices without even knowing why we make the choice we do. I'm going to write a word now, rabbit. Why did I write rabbit? I don't know. It just bubbled up to my conscious. Did I employ religious free will to write rabbit? No.

We can easily convince ourselves that we can make a very considered choice. We weigh all the variables we can. We account for the positives and negatives of a decision but in the end we still don't really understand all the factors that went into it. There is now little man whispering absolute truth that can will what we choose.

[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.