About the idea of 'Free Will"...

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

About the idea of 'Free Will"...

Post #1

Post by William »

In recent discussion with forum member 'The Tanager' and also in relation to the thread "Did Christ have free will?" where I answered that he did indeed have free will and forum member EBA argued that free will doesn't actually exist - which essentially I eventually had to agree with, given the definition of both 'free' and 'will'.

The end of our interaction went like this:
William wrote: [Replying to post 131 by EBA]
Fair enough. May I ask why you think it is so important that Jesus possess free will?
No, because it does not matter, given you think free will does not exist...for anyone.
As I contemplated the discussion I began to understand that 'free will' is an incorrect description which adds confusion to any discussion about will.

It isn't that people do not have WILL, for they certainly do, but that given our circumstances, our WILL can never be FREE, because our circumstances - our situation in this physical universe in these physical instruments suppresses any true freedom that we might imagine we could experience and so freedom becomes relative.

One can, of course, argue for philosophical ideas to do with ones internal sense of freedom despite the external bondage and that may relate and align more to the idea of 'free will' but in relation to the will and the external reality, isn't it more appropriate to refer to the will, simply as the will without adding confusion to the mix by introducing the word 'free' in front of the word 'will'?

In relation to biblical referencing, is the concept 'free will' to be found within its pages, or is it only ever about the will? I ask this because it is often the case that 'free will' comes into the argument from Christians as if it were relevant and essential to truth, but are they taking liberties in arguing for something they call 'free will' when such does not actually exist, and why argue 'free will' if 'will' would suffice?

Is it because many arguments would fail, if only 'will' was used instead of 'free will'?

Thoughts?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Post #41

Post by William »

[Replying to post 38 by Divine Insight]
But aren't there examples of individuals who have chosen to get out from under the circumstances they find themselves in?

It seems to me that your "theory" here is not well fleshed out.

There are examples of brothers born to the same parents, in the same poverty-stricken neighborhood, with the same criminal influences and peer pressures. One brother falls into the rut he was born into, the other brother chooses to escape that fate and makes a better life for himself. You could probably even find a situation where this happens to twin bothers.

So I think it would be difficult to argue that our circumstances force our choices.
Not at all. Your example above shows how someone uses their will as apposed to how someone else in similar circumstances uses their will.

There may be lots of unknown reasons why one twin chooses to do things contrary to how the other does things. My point is to say that in all cases the aspect of coercion comes into play, whether in making apparent good choices or bad ones.

Both brothers have will. One does not have will while the other is without will.

Both twins co-exist in a world where 'freedom' is relative and - as I have been pointing out - the word 'free' does not need to be used in relation to 'will'.

Someones circumstances may be less free than someone else's, but both are still able to exercise their will in regard to their individual circumstance.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Post #42

Post by The Tanager »

[Replying to post 39 by William]
William wrote:No? Admittedly, how you wrote it can be taken that way...
That's why I clarified my position.
William wrote:The reason you had a chocolate-peanut butter-banana smoothie for breakfast yesterday instead of a bowl of oatmeal is because you used your will to make that choice.

The reason you live under a republican form of government is that people used their will to vote them in.

The reason you are a member of a Christian church is because you made that choice through exercising your will to do so.

Notice that at no time was it necessary to use the word 'free' when using the word 'will' in the above.
Sure, but then that is because you seem to substitute the phrase "you used your will to make that choice" to denote the same concept. Which would mean my problem with you trying to strike 'free' out of the discussion that doesn't already use the above substitution is that you are causing unneeded confusion. It also begs the question against the person who thinks that we are completely determined in our choices (what terminology would you use to describe their position?).
William wrote:You argued in the other thread that coercion involved with the will is not a sign of love, because there is not 'free will' in coercion. You brought the idea of free will into the argument as if it were relevant...
Using your language, I would make the same critique (although I won't pursue that here...if I've understood you correctly here, then I'll move back to that thread to talk about this further). Having a will (if it means what you say above, that we can use our will to choose between alternatives) requires the possibility (in your theology) that a when will never occur.
William wrote:All in all though, the above tends to show that adding the word 'free' changes the dynamics of the argument, and in relation to the Christian ideas of GOD, beckons a less mature audience for that...apart from those Christians who understand that we are all aspects of GOD - consciousness and base their expressions into the world from that platform and position.

So bringing the notion of 'free' will into any argument is unnecessary and even contradicts truthfulness.
I don't see what has changed in the argument. You seem to be talking about the same concept, just wanting to not use the word 'free' for some reason that is not clear to me.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Post #43

Post by The Tanager »

ttruscott wrote:While I tend to accept this line of thought, the most compelling argument that humans have no free will is that Jesus said that we are enslaved to evil. I think enslaved equates to the modern idea of an overriding addiction.
As a Christian myself, we would agree that Jesus' words have an authority here, so granting your reasoning for that conclusion, why do you think Jesus meant this? What particular passage(s) are you drawing on? The verses in John and Matthew you mentioned don't seem to speak to this issue of enslavement/addiction.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Post #44

Post by William »

[Replying to post 42 by The Tanager]
I don't see what has changed in the argument. You seem to be talking about the same concept, just wanting to not use the word 'free' for some reason that is not clear to me.
I think the reason given in the OP is clear enough.

Perhaps if you want to argue things related to having choices, simply use the word WILL, and that should be adequate.
And if it turns out not to be, then maybe you can examine why that might be the case.

How about that. Do you agree with the compromise?

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Post #45

Post by The Tanager »

[Replying to post 44 by William]

For the purposes of our other thread, I will use that language, but I really don't think that is helpful generally. If we were to use this language with a determinist they could easily respond by saying "No, the reason The Tanager ate the smoothie was because he was forced to "exercise his will" to make that specific choice. So, it wouldn't be enough to just talk about a will. Both the determinist's view and ours talk about exercising a will. That is why most philosophers talk about free will vs. determinism.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Post #46

Post by William »

[Replying to post 45 by The Tanager]
For the purposes of our other thread, I will use that language, but I really don't think that is helpful generally.
Well we shall see if that is the case or not, as we proceed. :)

If we were to use this language with a determinist they could easily respond by saying "No, the reason The Tanager ate the smoothie was because he was forced to "exercise his will" to make that specific choice. So, it wouldn't be enough to just talk about a will. Both the determinist's view and ours talk about exercising a will. That is why most philosophers talk about free will vs. determinism.
Well then, perhaps in that, the answer is established regarding the OP question.

Even if so, that is a specific rather than a general. As in, it may only be specifically necessary to revert to having to place 'free' before 'will' when arguing against a determinist/determinism, which imo would still be giving them too much unnecessary slack anyway, so to speak.

But until an actual determinist comes along to argue this, I see no point in pursuing. Neither of us are in support of determinism are we?

My points are also, that there is always some type of coercion going on in relation to the will and choices and this in itself doesn't necessarily mean there is no genuine love involved does it? We can continue this where we left off, in the other thread.

Post Reply