What do you mean by "free will?"

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I guess one can ask if your premise is correct in the first place... is #1 correct? Is there a 1 a?

I'm sure you can break things down into as many sub-steps as you want. My point is that the raw material that free will works on - our ideas and desires - aren't subject to "free will" but are necessary for deliberately evil acts to happen.

As an example: I find bananas revolting, so even if I had the opportunity to steal a banana, I wouldn't do it because I have no desire to have a banana. I had no choice in this matter - my dislike of bananas is reflexive and was never consciously chosen by me.

The evil of me stealing a banana will never happen, but free will was irrelevant to this. Regardless of whether I might want to steal, stealing a banana will not give me any benefit that I value. Nothing I chose caused this circumstance to happen.

 

[savagewind]

I'm sure you can break things down into as many sub-steps as you want. My point is that the raw material that free will works on - our ideas and desires - aren't subject to "free will" but are necessary for deliberately evil acts to happen.

As an example: I find bananas revolting, so even if I had the opportunity to steal a banana, I wouldn't do it because I have no desire to have a banana. I had no choice in this matter - my dislike of bananas is reflexive and was never consciously chosen by me.

The evil of me stealing a banana will never happen, but free will was irrelevant to this. Regardless of whether I might want to steal, stealing a banana will not give me any benefit that I value. Nothing I chose caused this circumstance to happen.

Not so! I might hate bananas but my little children might love them.
Or.....you might be actually starving and a banana is all there is.

 

[idav]

I can't count how many times I've heard theists brush off the Problem of Evil by just saying "free will!"

... but how would that work, exactly? Those of you who do this: exactly what do you mean by "free will" and how is it relevant?

Considering deliberate evil acts inflicted by one person on another, there's a three-step process:

1. The person has an evil desire.
2. The person chooses to act on their evil desire.
3. The person causes the evil desire to happen.

Any description of free will I've ever heard deals with step 2: the decision to act. It doesn't deal with step 1, since we generally can't choose our desires. For instance, someone who might be predisposed to adultery won't commit adultery if he isn't attracted to the person he might commit adultery with.

It also doesn't deal with step 3, since what we desire isn't necessarily physically possible. For instance, no matter how much I want to kill someone by making their head explode telekinetically, it won't happen. If I want to kill them by lightly misting them with water, I can do this, but they won't die from it.

All three steps are required for a deliberate evil act to happen, but "free will" claims only deal with step 2.

So how could a change in step 1 (e.g. taking away evil desires) or step 3 (e.g. making an evil act physically impossible) deny someone their free will in step 2?

The free will argument is a scapegoat for evil. It ultimately means that god cares more about letting us do what we want and cares less about the actual suffering that can be caused. The human system would wish to prevent the more heinous crimes, not wait for it to happen just so you can punish someone.

 

[Willamena]

I can't count how many times I've heard theists brush off the Problem of Evil by just saying "free will!"

... but how would that work, exactly? Those of you who do this: exactly what do you mean by "free will" and how is it relevant?

Considering deliberate evil acts inflicted by one person on another, there's a three-step process:

1. The person has an evil desire.
2. The person chooses to act on their evil desire.
3. The person causes the evil desire to happen.

Any description of free will I've ever heard deals with step 2: the decision to act.

It doesn't deal with step 1, since we generally can't choose our desires. For instance, someone who might be predisposed to adultery won't commit adultery if he isn't attracted to the person he might commit adultery with.

It also doesn't deal with step 3, since what we desire isn't necessarily physically possible. For instance, no matter how much I want to kill someone by making their head explode telekinetically, it won't happen. If I want to kill them by lightly misting them with water, I can do this, but they won't die from it.

All three steps are required for a deliberate evil act to happen, but "free will" claims only deal with step 2.

So how could a change in step 1 (e.g. taking away evil desires) or step 3 (e.g. making an evil act physically impossible) deny someone their free will in step 2?

I think free will is better described in the power to act, which is none of the steps of the process of choice that you outlined. It is an abstract or meta of the process, the recognition that in the right circumstances the process could occur--the right circumstance, in this case, being that the process is executed by free and independent agency.

free will | Definition of free will in English by Oxford Dictionaries

 

[savagewind]

The human system would wish to prevent the more heinous crimes

Should.

 

[InChrist]

I can't count how many times I've heard theists brush off the Problem of Evil by just saying "free will!"

... but how would that work, exactly? Those of you who do this: exactly what do you mean by "free will" and how is it relevant?

Considering deliberate evil acts inflicted by one person on another, there's a three-step process:

1. The person has an evil desire.
2. The person chooses to act on their evil desire.
3. The person causes the evil desire to happen.

Any description of free will I've ever heard deals with step 2: the decision to act. It doesn't deal with step 1, since we generally can't choose our desires. For instance, someone who might be predisposed to adultery won't commit adultery if he isn't attracted to the person he might commit adultery with.

It also doesn't deal with step 3, since what we desire isn't necessarily physically possible. For instance, no matter how much I want to kill someone by making their head explode telekinetically, it won't happen. If I want to kill them by lightly misting them with water, I can do this, but they won't die from it.

All three steps are required for a deliberate evil act to happen, but "free will" claims only deal with step 2.

So how could a change in step 1 (e.g. taking away evil desires) or step 3 (e.g. making an evil act physically impossible) deny someone their free will in step 2?

I believe freewill involves all three points, not just step 2. Taking away the ability of a person to have their own thought life (step 1) would create mindless individuals, which was not God's intention when He created human beings in His image. Our thought life is the most important area for the necessity of freewill as the battle between right and wrong begins there. The Bible so often refers to the heart and in doing so it means our mind, thoughts and seat of our emotions. There can be no real love for God or others without the ability to choose freely: good over evil, love over hate, etc.

And He said, “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man.” Mark 7:20-23

For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ... 2 Corinthians 10: 4-5

Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things. Phil. 4:8

 

[Willamena]

If there was such a thing as "free will," there would be no such thing as "insomnia." If someone wants to go to sleep but can't, then something is keeping them awake, and there goes "free will" right out the window. Someone who is chronically sleep-deprived may go psychotic, and that may also affect their choices and "free will."

Another example is memory loss. Can a person instantly recall any moment in their life with absolute accuracy? If not, then there is no "free will." If one can't even control their own memory and thought processes, then where is the "free will"?

The entire concept of "free will" is BS. Anyone who would propagate that idea has not thought it out very clearly.

Free will isn't the ability to do whatever you want, whenever and however you want.

 

[idav]

Should.

We wish to prevent horrible tragedies but without full knowledge we are rather limited in scope. When an amber alert goes off, for example, we wish to prevent the ultimate tragedy and the justice system knows there is a ticking clock.

 

[Stevicus]

Free will isn't the ability to do whatever you want, whenever and however you want.

Then it's a bogus concept.

 

[savagewind]

Then it's a bogus concept.

No, it isn't. I can't do a lot of things that I might want to do. I might want to fly.
I might want to go on one of those very awesome vacations that I see advertised.
Maybe I want to own a cafe and bookstore.

 

[Willamena]

The Problem of Evil addresses how God made the world to be, but free will defies God or predestiny just as it defies the universal fate or determination, by presenting the human as a free and independent agency.

Any interference by God in what a human is and how it is constructed robs a person of free will, because it (in turn) defies that they are a free and independent agency.

 

[1137]

I don't believe in omni-gods and so the problem of evil isn't of much importance to me. As for what free will is, I think the best way to understand it is that free will allows conscious control over events that would otherwise be quite deterministic. Further simplified, it's the ability to recognize and veto natural, deterministic processes.

I don't think free will is something inherent though, it takes hard work, maturity, and great lifelong effort. Self-regulation is a simple type of free will most can understand, it's the ability to recognize and control our emotions, out biological needs, and so forth. It's not breaking down crying in fear when presenting something, or not punching your boss when they're being an *******. The mechanic, natural, deterministic processes say "hit them!", but the conscious will catches this, vetos it, then helps calm the body down.

In the end free will is pretty separate from the topic of religion at this point, just some science and common sense. I think the love for determinism is two fold: (1) being due to the West's dogmatic and ingrained obsession with materialism, and (2) a new version of the age old tradition that demonizes and fears consciousness, personal will, etc.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Hmm... That is a contentious point.

That's what we're here for!

It heavily depends on how you interpret morality.
For starters, there are some people that believe that whatever God does is, by definition, good. No matter what it is. This means that God is always doing good actions, and can't ever do evil actions.

[/quote]

I'd say that's the same interpretation; he knows the difference between good and evil and he chooses only good, he gave us the free will to learn this for ourselves.

 

[Koldo]

That's what we're here for!

I'd say that's the same interpretation; he knows the difference between good and evil and he chooses only good, he gave us the free will to learn this for ourselves.

No, you didn't understand what I meant.
I meant there are some people who hold that whatever God does is good. Not because he knows the difference between good and evil, but rather because good is defined as whatever is God's will and evil is defined as whatever is against God's will.

 

[Koldo]

I don't believe in omni-gods and so the problem of evil isn't of much importance to me. As for what free will is, I think the best way to understand it is that free will allows conscious control over events that would otherwise be quite deterministic. Further simplified, it's the ability to recognize and veto natural, deterministic processes.

I don't think free will is something inherent though, it takes hard work, maturity, and great lifelong effort. Self-regulation is a simple type of free will most can understand, it's the ability to recognize and control our emotions, out biological needs, and so forth. It's not breaking down crying in fear when presenting something, or not punching your boss when they're being an *******. The mechanic, natural, deterministic processes say "hit them!", but the conscious will catches this, vetos it, then helps calm the body down.

In the end free will is pretty separate from the topic of religion at this point, just some science and common sense. I think the love for determinism is two fold: (1) being due to the West's dogmatic and ingrained obsession with materialism, and (2) a new version of the age old tradition that demonizes and fears consciousness, personal will, etc.

But on what basis do you veto something ?
It's not completely arbitrary, is it ? Why are there situations where you say 'It's fine this way' and others where you say 'I ought to veto this for good' ?

 

[savagewind]

No, you didn't understand what I meant.
I meant there are some people who hold that whatever God does is good. Not because he knows the difference between good and evil, but rather because good is defined as whatever is God's will and evil is defined as whatever is against God's will.

I understand you.
I think that it is not true that anything that God will do is good.
God was going to destroy those people in Ninevah but when given the chance, they repented.
If Jonah had not arrived to warn them, God would have destroyed them.

Right?

 

[Asiya Lisa]

I can't count how many times I've heard theists brush off the Problem of Evil by just saying "free will!"

... but how would that work, exactly? Those of you who do this: exactly what do you mean by "free will" and how is it relevant?

Considering deliberate evil acts inflicted by one person on another, there's a three-step process:

1. The person has an evil desire.
2. The person chooses to act on their evil desire.
3. The person causes the evil desire to happen.

Any description of free will I've ever heard deals with step 2: the decision to act. It doesn't deal with step 1, since we generally can't choose our desires. For instance, someone who might be predisposed to adultery won't commit adultery if he isn't attracted to the person he might commit adultery with.

It also doesn't deal with step 3, since what we desire isn't necessarily physically possible. For instance, no matter how much I want to kill someone by making their head explode telekinetically, it won't happen. If I want to kill them by lightly misting them with water, I can do this, but they won't die from it.

All three steps are required for a deliberate evil act to happen, but "free will" claims only deal with step 2.

So how could a change in step 1 (e.g. taking away evil desires) or step 3 (e.g. making an evil act physically impossible) deny someone their free will in step 2?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, you didn't understand what I meant.
I meant there are some people who hold that whatever God does is good. Not because he knows the difference between good and evil, but rather because good is defined as whatever is God's will and evil is defined as whatever is against God's will.

I've never heard anyone who believes that God does not recognize evil... and I think they are wrong if they do. Good and evil are relative terms, like left and right, they define each other.

 

[Enoch07]

1. The person has an evil desire.
2. The person chooses to act on their evil desire.
3. The person causes the evil desire to happen.

It's quite simple.

In step 1 if you have an evil desire and recognize it as an evil desire than the rest is easy. Step 2 you have a choice to act or not act on that desire. If you chose to not act on step 2 there is no step 3. If you chose to act on step 2 then your just an immoral evil person. Because now you have knowingly committed an evil act.

This is where morals come into play. If you can recognize the difference between good and evil actions then the rest is easy. If you have trouble determining a good act from an evil one you have a moral problem, not a free will problem.

 

[Stevicus]

No, it isn't. I can't do a lot of things that I might want to do. I might want to fly.
I might want to go on one of those very awesome vacations that I see advertised.
Maybe I want to own a cafe and bookstore.

Yeah I get that. My point, however, is about the actual "will." How can people claim we have "free will" if we can't even control our own memory? If we forget something that we wanted to remember, then it's an indication that humans don't really have that much control over their "will." If God exists, then He is actively interfering in our thought processes and making us forget things. If God is actively interfering in our minds, then "free will" is just an illusion.