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]

Yes, we can convince ourselves that we've carefully considered every major factor in a choice but without understanding the very basic factors how can we "will" a choice? We can't "will" what we choose if we can't weigh all the factors

So you're basically suggesting that omniscience is required before free will choice can exist?


Edited to add:

In terms of religions that proclaim that to choose not to believe in them is a sin, I would agree with you. But that's only because the religion is demanding that you make choices about things you cannot possibly know are true.

That's a special case there.

To not believe in something is not the same as "not choosing it".

So those kinds of religions could only be true if humans were indeed omniscient. At least omniscient in terms of what they are being asked to chose from.

So, yes, in terms of religions that accuse people of being 'sinners' for not choosing to believe in their religion, "free will choice" wouldn't even apply at all.

Such religions are clearly false because of this oxymoron.

I will agree with that.

[scourge99]

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.

There are reasons to care. Our beliefs inform our actions and holding poor beliefs (or ignorance) often is the root cause for poor behavior. Coldfire gave a few good examples of this that I agree with and planned to explain myself such as:
1) criminal justice
2) responsibility
3) social justice
4) personal accomplishment

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 562#496562

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.

Yes but that doesn't mean the decisions we make are good or optimal. There is much room for improvement. And having a greater understanding of how the world works and operates is one way to improve the decisions we make regardless of whether we have freewill or not.

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.

See above. E.G., its highly consequential to how we interact with other people and run our society.

You guys let me know when I can stop pretending to make decisions and not have to think any more...

If you think a lack of freewill means that you don't make decisions then you don't understand what a lack of freewill actually is. Perhaps you should try understanding what exactly a lack of freewill implies rather than pompously knocking down strawmen.

and while you're at it, explain to me what we're all doing here.

We are debating Christianity and religion. But you appear to be bloviating.

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?

I can't tell you what meaning or point there is in this for you. I'm not a mind reader. What point or purpose you find here is something only you can inform us of. I am here because i enjoy debating, learning, and discussing the wide variety of topics. And that holds true regardless of the existence or non-existence of freewill, wouldn't you agree?

Can you explain why it would be pointless to debate on this forum if we all lacked freewill?

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.

That you are incredulous and intransigent about the validity of this topic with no good reason is an irrational and self imposed personal problem, not anyone elses.

"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.

Until some theist or freewill'ist actually defines the term "freewill" and "god", then I agree that the terms are largely meaningless.

Daniel Dennet has taken up this task many years ago and has defined freewill in a very specific manner. He describes his definition as "the only type of freewill worth having". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism I would guess many theists would disagree with his definition because it creates quite a few problems for their theology such those referenced in the OP.

Sorry for the interruption. Carry on with your theorizing.

So says the self declared "expert" on freewill who declares by fiat, without reason, evidence, or even the slightest of intelligible arguments that we are all wasting our time. Perhaps you could enlighten us all as to how you know such things by providing something more substantial than rhetorical questions, bald faced assertions, and personal incredulity?

[Divine Insight]

I think before there can be any genuine discussion about "Free will choice", it might first be beneficial to recognize that not everything we do is a "choice", especially not in an intellectually sense of having been an evaluated response to something.

For example, some people simply "react". They aren't really making any choices at all. They are simply reacting to stimuli.

Imagine that you're involved in a slight fender-bender accident. The other car is very expensive and brand new. The driver jumps out of his vehicle running toward you screaming all manner of obscenities and accusing of you of being a stupid idiot. It's clear that he's extremely emotionally distraught and can't even seem to calm himself down or be reasonable.

Did he "chose" to do that. Was that a "Free will choice"? I would say no, it was not. It was merely a primal reaction to stimuli. A brainless emotional reaction that serves no one any good including the man who is in this emotional state of primal ignorance.

Now imagine that this man finally comes to his senses and realizes that he reacts like this to emotion far too often so he seeks out counseling in some form, even if only via self-reflection and meditation. He finally decided to take more control over his life by actually taking advantage of his ability to make "Free will choices".

So he buys another brand new car and lo and behold someone bangs into his fender. His initial reaction is to "see red" and become extremely angry and distraught. But at the very moment he feels that coming on he thinks to himself, "No. I'm not going to do that. I'm going to calm down and just get this guys insurance information and try to be polite and sane about it as I can be."

So there you go, an example of making a free will choice as opposed to merely just reacting to stimuli.

As far as I'm concerned humans absolutely have the ability to make free will choices, and it is the fact that we have a brain where logic can override instinct that provides us with this ability.

So that's my assessment of the situatoin.

Yes, we have free will choice.

And this arises because we can indeed chose between just reacting to stimuli or behaving in a more methodical well-thought out manner.

If we didn't have analytical brains we wouldn't be able to make analyzed choices. All we would be able to do is react. But clearly we can do more than just react, we can chose how to react. And that's all that Free Will Choice means as far as I'm concerned. It's the ability to chose how to act or react.

And we clearly have that ability, thus we clearly have free will choice.

How can there be any doubt?

It's crystal clear to me as a practical matter that free will choice necessarily exists.

[Peter]

Yes, we can convince ourselves that we've carefully considered every major factor in a choice but without understanding the very basic factors how can we "will" a choice? We can't "will" what we choose if we can't weigh all the factors

So you're basically suggesting that omniscience is required before free will choice can exist?

I wouldn't go so far as to call it omniscience(knowledge of everything), it's simply understanding all the factors that went into a personal choice.

[Divine Insight]

Yes, we can convince ourselves that we've carefully considered every major factor in a choice but without understanding the very basic factors how can we "will" a choice? We can't "will" what we choose if we can't weigh all the factors

So you're basically suggesting that omniscience is required before free will choice can exist?

I wouldn't go so far as to call it omniscience(knowledge of everything), it's simply understanding all the factors that went into a personal choice.

Well, what do you think about what I said in the post directly above your post here?

How about my example of a person who merely reacts to things without thinking about it at all (not really even making a choice really), versus the "changed man" who decided to actually methodically think about what he's doing and make a "willful choice" to behave differently from how he might instinctually react.

Wouldn't that be an example of "free will choice" versus an example of not even making any choice at all?

I mean, any "choice" we make is already in a sense 'free will'.

So doesn't the question of "free will choice" ultimate reduce to just the question of whether or not a choice is even being made at all?

[Peter]

It's crystal clear to me as a practical matter that free will choice necessarily exists.

If it's truly "crystal clear" to you then I submit you don't understand the contrary argument.

To me, it's crystal clear that we simply make choices. The question is how free are we to make a choice we didn't make? Now that's a tough question. Can you ever remember making a choice you didn't make? Is it even possible to make a choice you didn't make?

It's simple after the fact to say, "well I could have made the opposite choice," but you didn't so it's impossible to say how free you really were to make that choice.

The question is further confounded by the incredibly strong illusion of free will which would be necessary to function even if we had no free will.

Overall, I think people who dismiss this most important question are not thinking about it enough or maybe they're smart and just trying to preserve their sanity.

[Peter]

So doesn't the question of "free will choice" ultimate reduce to just the question of whether or not a choice is even being made at all?

Nope, see above.

[Divine Insight]

If it's truly "crystal clear" to you then I submit you don't understand the contrary argument.

Well, I confess that I don't see the point to the contrary arguments that you appear to be making.

To me, it's crystal clear that we simply make choices.

Well for me, any choice is necessarily a "free will choice".

As opposed to not being able to make any choice at all. I hold that that if we never made any choices we would always just be reacting to raw primal emotion and instinct. The mere fact that we do chose to otherwise (or at least most of us do) is "observational evidence" to me that we do indeed make "free will choices".

Certainly "free" from primordial instincts at least.

I supposed if you're really going to argue whether or not a choice is "Free" or not would require an in-depth description of precisely what it is that you believe it to be 'Free' from.

The question is how free are we to make a choice we didn't make? Now that's a tough question.

To me, it's not a tough question at all. It's simply a meaningless question. You're basically asking why we can't change the past? That's covered by the concept of entropy and the arrow of time.

Can you ever remember making a choice you didn't make?

Like I say. It's a meaningless question to me. To ask if I can remember making a choice I didn't make is like asking me of I can remember doing something I've never done, or going somewhere I've never been. Of course I couldn't remember something I didn't do. So your question here is simply meaningless to me.

It's a nonsensical question to even ask, IMHO.

Is it even possible to make a choice you didn't make?

It's quite possible that in the past I've simply reacted instinctively or emotionally without truly making a "choice" at all. In fact, I've done that quite often and expect that I'll probably continue to do it.

If someone sneaks up on you when you think you are alone and shouts "Boo!" at you from 2" away from your ear, and you react by jumping back and hitting your head on the corner of a cabinet. Did you choose to do that?

I would say no, you just reacted, no choice was involved at all. In fact, you didn't even have time to fully grasp your situation much less make a choice about how to react to it.

So everything you do is not a choice.

It's simple after the fact to say, "well I could have made the opposite choice," but you didn't so it's impossible to say how free you really were to make that choice.

So? I can't disprove solipsism either, but I still have many reasons to not bother believing in it.

In a similar way here, I can't prove that I could have made difference choices, but I have many reasons to believe that I could have.

Just because I can't proof or disprove something doesn't mean that I have to consider it.

I can't disprove that Satan isn't real and that he's really the true benevolent God whilst and Jesus is the demon who's trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

So should I consider that this is mostly likely true just because I can't prove that it's false?

Just because I can't prove or disprove something is no reason to go jumping to radical conclusion.

The question is further confounded by the incredibly strong illusion of free will which would be necessary to function even if we had no free will.

I can propose all sorts of confounded exclusionary scenarios about any topic you can bring up. Does that mean that I should focus on those extreme speculations?

I mean, if you're going to bother to even ask the question you must be prepared to entertain "evidence". Otherwise why even bother asking the question?

The observational evidence that I see is that we do indeed make choices that are at least "Free" from mere thoughtless reactions. And apparently (observational evidence again) that's what we actually do.

Sure, I can consider your views as a matter of "pure speculation". Contrary to how things "appear" we may very well have no free will. But, IMHO, that's pure groundless speculation that has no observational evidence or rationale behind it.

It's a pure speculated guess that has nothing to support it other than the idea "Well it can't be proven to be wrong".

Fine, that may be reality.

But is it worthy of investing any serious thought to?

Overall, I think people who dismiss this most important question are not thinking about it enough or maybe they're smart and just trying to preserve their sanity.

Well that's the best point you've made thus far I think.

Of course they're smart enough to preserve their sanity. And that would be a choice to wouldn't it?

I point out observational evidence along with detailed explanations of how I see where free will can indeed work, and even actually does work. And I'm cool with that.

You apparently reject this observational evidence and reasonable explanation and instead continue to bang your head against the wall pondering something that you have no evidence for, nor could ever prove to be true in any case.

I would suggest that this is your free will choice in action.

My free will choice is to remain sane and save my head from all the bruises it would receive from banging it against a wall that isn't going anywhere.

I mean, do you have a proposal for how you might substantiate your speculation?

If not, then yes, you're just banging your head against a wall that isn't going to move.

Is that a smart choice?

Or do you have no choice in the matter?

The mere fact that you imply that people who don't do that might be "smart" indicates to me that you recognize that they have indeed made an intelligent choice.

[Peter]

If it's truly "crystal clear" to you then I submit you don't understand the contrary argument.

Well, I confess that I don't see the point to the contrary arguments that you appear to be making.

Thanks for the honesty.

To me, it's crystal clear that we simply make choices.

Well for me, any choice is necessarily a "free will choice".

As opposed to not being able to make any choice at all.

I don't think "free to make a choice" is the same as a free will choice.

I hold that that if we never made any choices we would always just be reacting to raw primal emotion and instinct. The mere fact that we do chose to otherwise (or at least most of us do) is "observational evidence" to me that we do indeed make "free will choices".

Certainly "free" from primordial instincts at least.

Ah, but how free from instincts are our decisions? That's kinda the point. How reasoned and "free" from instinctual biases are our decisions? Can we tell? Will we ever know?

I supposed if you're really going to argue whether or not a choice is "Free" or not would require an in-depth description of precisely what it is that you believe it to be 'Free' from.

Free from instinctual bias is a start.

The question is how free are we to make a choice we didn't make? Now that's a tough question.

To me, it's not a tough question at all. It's simply a meaningless question. You're basically asking why we can't change the past? That's covered by the concept of entropy and the arrow of time.

Actually, I think the free will supposedly given us by a god is exactly the question of how free are we to make a choice we didn't make. The answer to this question has great meaning.

Can you ever remember making a choice you didn't make?

Like I say. It's a meaningless question to me. To ask if I can remember making a choice I didn't make is like asking me of I can remember doing something I've never done, or going somewhere I've never been. Of course I couldn't remember something I didn't do. So your question here is simply meaningless to me.

It's a nonsensical question to even ask, IMHO.

It may be impossible to answer but that doesn't make it meaningless. It's impossible to answer the question "is there a god" but the question seems to have great meaning for vast numbers of people.

Is it even possible to make a choice you didn't make?

It's quite possible that in the past I've simply reacted instinctively or emotionally without truly making a "choice" at all. In fact, I've done that quite often and expect that I'll probably continue to do it.

If someone sneaks up on you when you think you are alone and shouts "Boo!" at you from 2" away from your ear, and you react by jumping back and hitting your head on the corner of a cabinet. Did you choose to do that?

I would say no, you just reacted, no choice was involved at all. In fact, you didn't even have time to fully grasp your situation much less make a choice about how to react to it.

So everything you do is not a choice.

Everything you do is a choice. The reasons may be unconscious but it's a choice all the same. Again, this is really the crux of the problem. How much choice is conscious consideration and how much is subconscious instinct? In simple terms how much of a choice do we have control of?

It's simple after the fact to say, "well I could have made the opposite choice," but you didn't so it's impossible to say how free you really were to make that choice.

So? I can't disprove solipsism either, but I still have many reasons to not bother believing in it.

In a similar way here, I can't prove that I could have made difference choices, but I have many reasons to believe that I could have.

Just because I can't proof or disprove something doesn't mean that I have to consider it.

I can't disprove that Satan isn't real and that he's really the true benevolent God whilst and Jesus is the demon who's trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

So should I consider that this is mostly likely true just because I can't prove that it's false?

Just because I can't prove or disprove something is no reason to go jumping to radical conclusion.

It seems you've already jumped to a conclusion. I suppose where proof is impossible to achieve faith takes its place. The free will question is very similar to the god question.

The question is further confounded by the incredibly strong illusion of free will which would be necessary to function even if we had no free will.

I can propose all sorts of confounded exclusionary scenarios about any topic you can bring up. Does that mean that I should focus on those extreme speculations?

I mean, if you're going to bother to even ask the question you must be prepared to entertain "evidence". Otherwise why even bother asking the question?

The observational evidence that I see is that we do indeed make choices that are at least "Free" from mere thoughtless reactions. And apparently (observational evidence again) that's what we actually do.

How free from instinct are they? 100%? 90%? etc. If they aren't 100% free from instinctual reactions then the choice isn't 100% free.

Sure, I can consider your views as a matter of "pure speculation". Contrary to how things "appear" we may very well have no free will. But, IMHO, that's pure groundless speculation that has no observational evidence or rationale behind it.

It's a pure speculated guess that has nothing to support it other than the idea "Well it can't be proven to be wrong".

Fine, that may be reality.

But is it worthy of investing any serious thought to?

You tell me. Why are you responding to this post?

Overall, I think people who dismiss this most important question are not thinking about it enough or maybe they're smart and just trying to preserve their sanity.

I point out observational evidence along with detailed explanations of how I see where free will can indeed work, and even actually does work. And I'm cool with that.

You apparently reject this observational evidence and reasonable explanation and instead continue to bang your head against the wall pondering something that you have no evidence for, nor could ever prove to be true in any case.

I observe superficially what you observe. I feel a strong sense of free will. The problem is that when I lift the hood and take a closer look it becomes problematic.

Quick, pick a city in the world that you've never visited. Do you understand why you chose that city? Were you really free to choose another city? If you don't know why you chose the city you did how can you be sure you could choose another? If we could rewind time and you could choose again do you think you would choose differently? Maybe you're wired to always choose the same city. Not now of course because your mind could exclude the city you just picked but if we could rewind time.

There must also be a little randomness involved in choosing so I suppose a trivial question(almost in the random noise) like a city name might come up different every time. I suspect important decisions(well above the random noise) like which car to buy off the showroom floor would probably be the same every time if we had our time machine to test the theory.

I find these questions fascinating and if you don't I suggest you ignore them.

[Coldfire]

As far as Christianity and Free Will are concerned, of course Christianity would be utterly meaningless without a concept of free will.

There is no mention of free will or any concept like it in the Bible. On the contrary, there are numerous examples of determinism and pre-determinism in the bible.

Can you provide some examples? I'm curious to read.

Sure.

I don’t know what version you would prefer, there are so many. The passages I am providing are from the King James Version, but feel free to refer to your preferred mistranslation; they will show the same adherence to determinism.

I would also like to point out that the examples in the bible are more often than not examples of “pre�determinism, which is not the same as determinism. Pre-determinism denotes a type of fatalism concept but nevertheless negates any concept of free will.

In order of appearance:

Job 14:5 “Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass;�
Psalm 139:16 “Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.�
Proverbs 16:4 “The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.�
Proverbs 16:9 “A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.�
Proverbs 20:24 “Man's goings are of the LORD; how can a man then understand his own way?�
Isaiah 46:9-10 “Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, 10. Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:�
John 9:1-3 “And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. 2. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? 3. Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.�
Romans 9:11 “(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)�
Ephesians 1:11 “In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:�
Ephesians 3:11 "According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:�
Philippians 2:13 “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.�

There are much more than I’ve listed. I frequently come across examples of determinism or pre-determinism when I’m perusing the bible looking for a passage to teach some Christian about their religion.