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.

[Divine Insight]

I was being sarcastic. If choices are made based on preexisting things then those preexisting things are the base of the choice. How is this hard to understand?

Being the base of a choice and being the cause of a choice are two entirely different things.

I mean, clearly there are things we do that may not even require "free will choice".

If I'm working on my car, and I need to remove a 1/2" bolt, I really don't have much "choice" in which size wrench "decide" to I use do I? The decision is pretty much made for me. I either "choose" the correct size wrench or I never succeed in removing the bolt.

Of course I always have the "Free will Choice" available to me that I could just take the car to a garage and let someone else repair it.

But even that "choice" is dependent upon service garages being available.

I mean, just because our "choices" are based on the limitations of what's available to us, or our previous knowledge doesn't mean they aren't "Free will choices".

How hard is that to understand?

I didn’t say “hard work,� so don’t quote me on it. I said hard for me to do. I have no qualms against hard work at all; I’ve worked on my family farm for many years and can appreciate that line of work, its very labor intensive, but physically and mentally rewarding. I’m not choosing the “easier road� by not being a millionaire, and “hard work� has nothing to do with it; people work hard all their lives and still don’t become millionaires.

Well I certainly agree that hard work alone does not automatically guarantee financial success. But that's missing the point.

If you're not a millionaire, how can you be sure that it's not simply because you have failed to chose to become one?

I know that I have not chosen to become a millionaire. Money has never been important to me. Almost to my own detriment. But can I say that I couldn't have become a millionaire had I chosen to pursue that goal.

No I definitely can't say that. On the contrary, if I had chosen to make that a goal I probably would have succeeded at it quite fabulously.

I have no regrets that I didn't chose that as my goal because, while I wouldn't mind being a litter better off financially than I currently am, I really have no desire even now to become filthy rich.

If there are reasons and causes that led to me making a decision, then that is an example of determinism.

I disagree. If you've chosen which reasons you deem to be valuable for your choices, then it's not determinism at all because you've chosen which reasons to give import to.

Determinism would be having no choice in which reasons you chose to assign importance to.

We can't just decide to grow wings and fly away for example. But that doesn't mean that we have no free will at all.

Sure it does. Your choices are limited, the choices you arrive at are affected by these limitations; that’s an example of determinism.

Well, if you're going to hold the physical limitations of being human up as a criteria for not having free will, then of course we have no free will (by that standard).

That's clearly obvious and there's no point in even mentioning it unless you're arguing with someone who thinks they can grow wings and fly away.

I'm trying to address the question in a practical and meaningful manner.

Of course, we aren't unlimited omnipotent Gods. That's obvious.

So yes, based on that criteria, your argument that we have no free will stands.

But was that even remotely realistic? I wouldn't even begin to argue against that notion based on that criteria. You've already "won" by definition in that case.

Free will states that there was no cause to that choice except for “will,� no events leading up to it, no environmental factors, no preferences, just will.
Determinism states that all of these causal factors played a role in the outcome of the choice being made.
One of these makes sense.

Like I say, if you wish to "define" the concept into a box where the only possibly conclusions can be made based on your restricted definitions, then of course you're going to force the issue.

That's a cheap trick used by many "philosophers", if you really want to call that tactic "philosophy".

It's also just a play on words. This is the kind "philosophical semantics" that wastes everyone's time.

I'm pointing out that if we can make a "Choice" at all that choice must necessarily already be "free" and clearly we are willfully making that "free" choice.

But you're jumping on the semantics of "Free Will" and trying to idolize that into some sort of lofty "Philosophically Perfect" idealization.

Gee whiz. If that's where you're headed then sure, I agree no such perfect imaginary philosophical idealization exists.

But who cares?

That certainly wouldn't have anything to do with the real world. That's really nothing more than an esoteric play on semantics just to play unrealistic philosophical games.

I mean, if those are the kind of games you want to play, then I agree, when you play those kinds of idealized games you'll force the issue into an idealized box that has no connection with reality whatsoever.

You'll basically keep re-defining what you mean by "Free Will" until your very definition of it described precisely what you're attempting to argue for.

This is why I don't even bother arguing with "Pure Philosophers". It's just totally meaningless idealized semantic tricks that don't have any practical value.

If you ask me if we have Free Will Choice, as a practical matter, my answer is yes.

If you're challenging me to play philosophical games to see who can redefine the concept into the most idealized box, then no, I have no desire to play those kinds of games.


I agree with Richard Feynman when it comes to the futility of philosophy:

"We can’t define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers…one saying to the other: �you don’t know what you are talking about!�. The second one says: “what do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you? What do you mean by know?� - Richard Feynman

I use my free will to chose not to get bogged down like that.

And the fact that I freely chose this is further evidence to me that I do indeed have free will choice.

[Coldfire]

I was being sarcastic. If choices are made based on preexisting things then those preexisting things are the base of the choice. How is this hard to understand?

Being the base of a choice and being the cause of a choice are two entirely different things.

I’m certain I can get my point across whether I use the word “base� instead of “cause.� But ok, if you say so.
Considering you see much difference in the terms, would you agree with my above statement? “If choices are made based on preexisting things then those preexisting things are the base of the choice." After all, base is entirely different then cause, so what does it matter?

I mean, just because our "choices" are based on the limitations of what's available to us, or our previous knowledge doesn't mean they aren't "Free will choices".
How hard is that to understand?

It’s very hard indeed. Please elaborate on how we have free will when the choices we arrive at are not based on free will, but on the limitations of what’s available and our previous knowledge, as you said.

I didn’t say “hard work,� so don’t quote me on it. I said hard for me to do. I have no qualms against hard work at all; I’ve worked on my family farm for many years and can appreciate that line of work, its very labor intensive, but physically and mentally rewarding. I’m not choosing the “easier road� by not being a millionaire, and “hard work� has nothing to do with it; people work hard all their lives and still don’t become millionaires.

Well I certainly agree that hard work alone does not automatically guarantee financial success. But that's missing the point.

If you're not a millionaire, how can you be sure that it's not simply because you have failed to chose to become one?

Failed to choose to become one? Is that the point you were referring to that I missed?
It never occurred to me to make that conscious choice. Even if I had, what does it matter? Hard work alone doesn’t guarantee financial success, neither does choice alone.
Now, it appears that you are missing a very important point here too. That it’s not about a choice being made, we can agree on the fact that people make choices. The free will vs determinism debate is not debating that clear fact, its debating what causes choice. Free will or a vast array of causal factors; social, familial, psychosocial, biological, environmental, upbringing, brain synapses, physical and mental limitations etc etc etc etc.

If there are reasons and causes that led to me making a decision, then that is an example of determinism.

I disagree. If you've chosen which reasons you deem to be valuable for your choices, then it's not determinism at all because you've chosen which reasons to give import to.

Determinism would be having no choice in which reasons you chose to assign importance to.

Again, it’s not about having or not having choice. What is importance based on? Why is that importance relevant to the choice we want to make?

We can't just decide to grow wings and fly away for example. But that doesn't mean that we have no free will at all.

Sure it does. Your choices are limited, the choices you arrive at are affected by these limitations; that’s an example of determinism.

Well, if you're going to hold the physical limitations of being human up as a criteria for not having free will, then of course we have no free will (by that standard).

It’s not necessarily criteria for not having free will; it’s simply one example of why we don’t.

Free will states that there was no cause to that choice except for “will,� no events leading up to it, no environmental factors, no preferences, just will.
Determinism states that all of these causal factors played a role in the outcome of the choice being made.
One of these makes sense.

Like I say, if you wish to "define" the concept into a box where the only possibly conclusions can be made based on your restricted definitions, then of course you're going to force the issue.
This is the kind "philosophical semantics" that wastes everyone's time.

Those are not my personal definitions, determinism and free will have already been defined, I was just informing you of what you are actually supporting in this argument.

Determinism - a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws. - Merriam-Webster
Free will - voluntary choice or decision; freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention. - Merriam-Webster

You think it’s a waste of time, but could it be that you don’t know what the ef you’re debating about? Who’s wasting whose time then?
Perhaps someone should have defined it for you from the very beginning, or perhaps you should have done a small amount of research about it.

I'm pointing out that if we can make a "Choice" at all that choice must necessarily already be "free" and clearly we are willfully making that "free" choice.

And you’re not doing a good job. What makes it free? And why must it necessarily be so?

But you're jumping on the semantics of "Free Will" and trying to idolize that into some sort of lofty "Philosophically Perfect" idealization.



That certainly wouldn't have anything to do with the real world. That's really nothing more than an esoteric play on semantics just to play unrealistic philosophical games.

You act like I invented these definitions, the free will vs determinism debate has been going on for thousands of years. If by pointing out that the terms are already defined you end up getting upset with the definition of the position you seem to support, it’s not my fault.

You'll basically keep re-defining what you mean by "Free Will" until your very definition of it described precisely what you're attempting to argue for.

This is why I don't even bother arguing with "Pure Philosophers". It's just totally meaningless idealized semantic tricks that don't have any practical value.

If you ask me if we have Free Will Choice, as a practical matter, my answer is yes.

If you're challenging me to play philosophical games to see who can redefine the concept into the most idealized box, then no, I have no desire to play those kinds of games.

I don’t consider this a game, it’s a debate and I find that there is a practical use for debates.
Where do you see that I keep redefining what I mean by free will? Of course the definition of free will is precisely what I’m arguing against, what else would I be debating against as a determinist? “free will� is just a word, it’s the meaning of that word that I’m against.

I use my free will to chose not to get bogged down like that.

Free will? Or was it your desire of not wanting to get bogged down that led you to make that choice.

[Peter]

So to me, the concept of Free Will, and Christianity aren't even remotely related.

Your position is clear. I see no reason to continue tit for tat comments. Best.

[Divine Insight]

@ Coldfire,

You have just given me precisely the criteria that you can personally use to decide whether or not YOU have free will choice.

You say:

“If choices are made based on preexisting things then those preexisting things are the base of the choice."

Agreed.

Please elaborate on how we have free will when the choices we arrive at are not based on free will, but on the limitations of what’s available and our previous knowledge, as you said.

Where did I ever say that? I said that it's clear that our knowledge can be a basis for our choices. And what we "believe" to be available to us in the future will also have an affect on what we chose.

We are unlikely to "chose" things that we believe are impossible. As far as we're concerned, they simply aren't "available choices".

You say:

Hard work alone doesn’t guarantee financial success, neither does choice alone.

This is a faith-based belief on your part. One that you may even believe that you can support by evidence by simply pointing to other people who had apparently chosen to succeed at something and failed. But that kind of evidence isn't convincing because you can't truly know why they failed or if that would be the case for you if you had made a choice to succeed at something.

In short what does this reveal?

It reveals that choices are not being made solely on previous knowledge, but often times they are being made based entirely on FAITH.

Therefore, what must the conclusion be?

True FREE WILL is a matter of FAITH.

You "must" have faith in order to have free will. Otherwise you are doomed to only making choices based on logic, reason, and what you believe is available to you based on those restrictions.

Therefore whether or not you have true free will, simply comes down to the question of whether or not you have faith that you are free to chose things outside of the "box" of determinism.

In short, you have the FREE WILL choice to remain inside the box of determinism, or to exercise a leap of FAITH to step out of that box.

So whether or not you personally have any "Free Will" depends entirely on whether or not you are willing to make a "Faith-based" choice. A choice that is free from the determinism that you have defined.

I use my free will to chose not to get bogged down like that.

Free will? Or was it your desire of not wanting to get bogged down that led you to make that choice.

Well, since I chose it as a matter of pure faith and it worked I would say it was a free will choice because I had no real evidence that it would work prior to choosing it.

[Coldfire]

@ Coldfire,

You have just given me precisely the criteria that you can personally use to decide whether or not YOU have free will choice.

You say:

“If choices are made based on preexisting things then those preexisting things are the base of the choice."

Please tell me how I can apply this criterion to prove to myself that I have free will.

Please elaborate on how we have free will when the choices we arrive at are not based on free will, but on the limitations of what’s available and our previous knowledge, as you said.

Where did I ever say that?
I said that it's clear that our knowledge can be a basis for our choices. And what we "believe" to be available to us in the future will also have an affect on what we chose.

“just because our "choices" are based on the limitations of what's available to us, or our previous knowledge doesn't mean they aren't "Free will choices�.� – from post 61
Free will advocates claim that free will is the base of our choices; not preexisting factors such as limitations and prior knowledge. Do you agree with that claim?

You say:

Hard work alone doesn’t guarantee financial success, neither does choice alone.

This is a faith-based belief on your part. One that you may even believe that you can support by evidence by simply pointing to other people who had apparently chosen to succeed at something and failed. But that kind of evidence isn't convincing because you can't truly know why they failed or if that would be the case for you if you had made a choice to succeed at something.

How is that type of empirical evidence unconvincing? What does it matter how they failed? The point is that choice alone doesn’t guarantee success, simple.

It reveals that choices are not being made solely on previous knowledge, but often times they are being made based entirely on FAITH.

Therefore, what must the conclusion be?

True FREE WILL is a matter of FAITH.

Therefore whether or not you have true free will, simply comes down to the question of whether or not you have faith that you are free to chose things outside of the "box" of determinism.

So whether or not you personally have any "Free Will" depends entirely on whether or not you are willing to make a "Faith-based" choice. A choice that is free from the determinism that you have defined.

I’m a little confused now. Do you realize that “free will� has already been defined, and that this free will vs determinism debate has been going on for thousands of years? What you appear to be debating isn’t related to free will or determinism, I hope you do realize that.

Are you suggesting that to believe in free will it requires faith?
Also, do some people have free will and some don’t?

I use my free will to chose not to get bogged down like that.

Free will? Or was it your desire of not wanting to get bogged down that led you to make that choice.

Well, since I chose it as a matter of pure faith and it worked I would say it was a free will choice because I had no real evidence that it would work prior to choosing it.

That’s irrelevant, people make choices without knowing the outcome all the time, both determinists and free willists alike agree on that fact. That’s not what the debate is about though.

I’m afraid I may have to bow out of this little back and forth with you Divine Insight, I would be willing to go head to head with you on this topic, but I’m afraid you don’t seem to know what it is you are arguing for. Free will has a definition, it’s not one that I made up, and it’s been debated on numerous times before. You seem to be uncomfortable with that definition of free will but are unwilling to accept that it’s not what you think it means.