Yet Another Thread on Freewill

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Claim: God is immoral, incompetent, or negligent because pain, suffering, and hardship exist
Counter-claim: pain, suffering, and hardship exist as a consequence of free-will

If free-will is rejected, the counter claim fails.

That is very, very short-sighted. Pain, suffering and hardship exist for a vast number of reasons involving not a whit of "free will," or anybody's will of any kind. Think tsunamis, and earthquakes, lightning strikes and tornados hitting like bombs in Mississippi. Free will is not involved in strokes and heart-attacks, in cancers, in rapidly spreading viruses. If you believe in God, all of those, and more, belong to God alone, with not a jot of human will involved.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Claim: God is immoral, incompetent, or negligent because pain, suffering, and hardship exist
Counter-claim: pain, suffering, and hardship exist as a consequence of free-will

If free-will is rejected, the counter claim fails.

That is very, very short-sighted. Pain, suffering and hardship exist for a vast number of reasons involving not a whit of "free will," or anybody's will of any kind. Think tsunamis, and earthquakes, lightning strikes and tornados hitting like bombs in Mississippi. Free will is not involved in strokes and heart-attacks, in cancers, in rapidly spreading viruses. If you believe in God, all of those, and more, belong to God alone, with not a jot of human will involved.

 

[dybmh]

I'm not going to play this game with you.

Then I guess it was silly to imply that casting God as evil didn't require denying freewill. Anyway, you don't want to play a game where you're going to lose. And that's because without God's perspective it's impossible to judge.

 

[dybmh]

That makes the arguments harder for you, then, since instead of arguing that God preserves free will generally, you would need to argue for why God would want to preserve the free will of, say, a murderer in the act of murder when he's fine with getting rid of free will in other contexts.

It's not that difficult. If God values improvement; then once the improvement has occured, freewill is no longer needed.

 

[dybmh]

That is very, very short-sighted. Pain, suffering and hardship exist for a vast number of reasons involving not a whit of "free will," or anybody's will of any kind. Think tsunamis, and earthquakes, lightning strikes and tornados hitting like bombs in Mississippi. Free will is not involved in strokes and heart-attacks, in cancers, in rapidly spreading viruses. If you believe in God, all of those, and more, belong to God alone, with not a jot of human will involved.

Freewill occurs in the reaction to these events.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not that difficult. If God values improvement; then once the improvement has occured, freewill is no longer needed.

So you consider murder "improvement?"

For the perpetrator or the victim?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then I guess it was silly to imply that casting God as evil didn't require denying freewill. Anyway, you don't want to play a game where you're going to lose. And that's because without God's perspective it's impossible to judge.

Okay, Pilate.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Freewill occurs in the reaction to these events.

You mean, like, when the tsunami sweeps you out to sea, you drown of your own free will? When the building collapses on you during the earthquake, it's free will that causes your head to split open?

 

[dybmh]

So you consider murder "improvement?"

For the perpetrator or the victim?

The murderer has an opportunity to improve. The victim is sacrificed and gets rewarded greatly. The friends and family bond over the event, and have the opportunity to focus on what matters in the short time they have on earth.

The murderer though is punished greatly for their action, and would receive a great reward for conquerering their evil inclinations. It would be better for them not to murder, but there is still opportunity for good after the murder has occured.

 

[dybmh]

You mean, like, when the tsunami sweeps you out to sea, you drown of your own free will? When the building collapses on you during the earthquake, it's free will that causes your head to split open?

There is freewill involved in how the buildings are constructed, also in the manner that he public is alerted and evacuated. But I was more talking about the public response after the event. These natural disasters inspire changes, they are an opportunity to make positive changes.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There is freewill involved in how the buildings are constructed, also in the manner that he public is alerted and evacuated. But I was more talking about the public response after the event. These natural disasters inspire changes, they are an opportunity to make positive changes.

I'm afraid I think that's incredibly weak. It doesn't deal in any way at all with the 50,000+ people who died in Turkey and Syria, or the quarter million in the Boxing Day tsunami in Singapore and elsewhere in the Indian Ocean. Humans are not yet even remotely capable of making "positive changes" that could ameliorate those events, or the damage, terror and misery that result.

 

[dybmh]

I'm afraid I think that's incredibly weak. It doesn't deal in any way at all with the 50,000+ people who died in Turkey and Syria, or the quarter million in the Boxing Day tsunami in Singapore and elsewhere in the Indian Ocean. Humans are not yet even remotely capable of making "positive changes" that could ameliorate those events, or the damage, terror and misery that result.

Every tragedy is an opportunity to improve.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Every tragedy is an opportunity to improve.

Just not for those who died in them...think babies ripped from their mother's arms in the tsunami.

I do not find it pleasant watching people try to turn unbearable grief into "opportunities." I don't know what makes you even want to do that.

 

[dybmh]

Just not for those who died in them...think babies ripped from their mother's arms in the tsunami.

I do not find it pleasant watching people try to turn unbearable grief into "opportunities." I don't know what makes you even want to do that.

They're both tragedy and opportunity. I'm not sure why a person would deny that.

This is a good article describing the 2004 tsunami and the improvements that have been made. Also, there were mistakes people made in response which could have saved lives. There's also reason to be grateful that some indigenous people knew to evacuate based on their oral traditions. And there is a push to educate those in tsunami danger of what those natural signs are, and what to do if they occur.

Tsunami 10 years later: Is the world better prepared for disaster?

The Indian Ocean tsunami came without warning in 2004; now a mix of technology and outreach has helped make the world safer

www.cbsnews.com

The mention of the indigenous tribe is here:

The Wave That Eats People – The Value of Indigenous Knowledge for Disaster Risk Reduction

As the United Nations today commemorates the 17th International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples under the theme of "Indigenous designs: celebrating stories and cultures, crafting our own future", it is perhaps timely to flag the positive contributions such cultures are able to make to DDR...

www.undrr.org

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

They're both tragedy and opportunity. I'm not sure why a person would deny that.

Explain the opportunity available to the infant torn from it's mother's arms in the tsunami. That should be most instructive.

Explain the opportunity available to the people in the Florida condo who were crushed by their building falling upon them. I can anticipate one possible answer: "it's always possible your building could collapse, so never go home." Do you think that's a good idea?

 

[dybmh]

Explain the opportunity available to the infant torn from it's mother's arms in the tsunami. That should be most instructive.

Explain the opportunity available to the people in the Florida condo who were crushed by their building falling upon them. I can anticipate one possible answer: "it's always possible your building could collapse, so never go home." Do you think that's a good idea?

Not just the infant, but each and every death inspires the survivors to make improvements in their own lives, to reassess what is most meaningful to them in this material life.

The impact of each death is much more than the individual life itself. Each victim can be seen as a martyr, and perhaps there is a great reward for them.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Not just the infant, but each and every death inspires the survivors to make improvements in their own lives, to reassess what is most meaningful to them in this material life.

The impact of each death is much more than the individual life itself. Each victim can be seen as a martyr, and perhaps there is a great reward for them.

And do you really think that was an honest reply to my post?

You keep trying to turn the question away from what actually happened -- under the auspices of whatever gods you believe in. As if all that death didn't matter a bit. Tell you what -- when your child dies in such a way, tell me then that you think your first instinct will be to try to improve yourself.

 

[dybmh]

And do you really think that was an honest reply to my post?

Of course it was honest. What was dishonest about it?

You keep trying to turn the question away from what actually happened -- under the auspices of whatever gods you believe in. As if all that death didn't matter a bit.

Now THAT is dishonest. I said the opposite. i said the death had a large impact. See below:

The impact of each death is much more than the individual life itself.

You claimed I said: all that death didn't matter a bit. That's not what I said at all.

Tell you what -- when your child dies in such a way, tell me then that you think your first instinct will be to try to improve yourself.

That is precisely what a parent thinks. "What could I have done differently? What did I do wrong?" That's a normal parental reaction to anything negative that happens to a child. But yes, if tragedy strikes I will try to see it as an opportunity after I have had time to grieve.

Whatever it is, whatever happens, it's always an opportunity.

This Turns Tragedy into an Opportunity for Personal Growth

75% of all people will live through a traumatic event. 35-37% will experience PTG.

bigthink.com

Post-traumatic growth - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[shunyadragon]

I would say, in defense of libertarian freewill, allergies, culture preference and social pressure unless being directly applied from some other individual are internal factors. Even physical factors are your personal physiology which is fair game for a person to take into consideration in libertarian freewill.

In my view, physique, mental condition, desire, internalized cultural pressure, morality, anything that is internalized/part of the physical body, that is part of the decision fits with the definition, per post #16, of libertarian freewill.

Of course as someone who accepts determinism you could have a different definition of freewill but then it is the definition that is the problem and not the person who believes in libertarian freewill.

None of the above offered any defense of libertarian free will since all you mentioned and many other factors imped potential libertarian free will. There is absolutely no evidence for unimeeded libertarian free will.

Free will, libertarianism, and luck

Do we have free will? Free will is one of the central topics in philosophy, both historically and in the present. The basic puzzles of this topic are easily felt. For instance, it’s easy to wonder whether factors beyond our control -- our genetic constitution, the environment in which we were...

blog.oup.com

Free will, libertarianism, and luck​

Libertarian Free Will: Contemporary Debates​

• BY DAVID PALMER
• FEBRUARY 1ST 2015

Do we have free will? Free will is one of the central topics in philosophy, both historically and in the present. The basic puzzles of this topic are easily felt. For instance, it’s easy to wonder whether factors beyond our control — our genetic constitution, the environment in which we were brought up, and so on — might be among the causes of our behavior. In the light of this, we might wonder whether it’s really possible for us to act freely or, instead, whether everything we do is ultimately shaped by these factors in such a way that undermines our free will.
In contemporary philosophical discussions, this concern is crystallized as a concern about the relationship between free will and causal determinism. Causal determinism is the view that for any given time, a complete statement of the facts at that time, together with a complete statement of the laws of nature, entails every truth as to what happens after that time. On this issue, the basic divide among philosophers is between compatibilism and incompatibilism. Compatibilists believe that free will is compatible with determinism, whereas incompatibilists argue that free will is incompatible with determinism. According to incompatibilists, if our actions are causally determined, then we can’t act freely.
One view about free will that has recently received a lot of scholarly attention is the libertarian view of free will. Libertarianism about free will, which is completely distinct from libertarianism as a political doctrine, is the view that people do have free will, but that this freedom is incompatible with determinism. Thus, libertarians are incompatibilists who think that free will exists. (You could, of course, be an incompatibilist who thinks that free will doesn’t exist — a so-called “free will skeptic.”) In short, if libertarianism is true, then people sometimes act without being causally determined to do so.

In many ways, libertarianism is a natural view to hold about free will. After all, it seems obvious to most of us that we have free will, and many people believe that there’s a clear incompatibility between free will and determinism. But despite this appeal, many philosophers are skeptical of libertarianism. They think that there are powerful reasons to think that this view is false.
One especially prominent objection to libertarianism is the “luck objection.” According to this objection, if our actions aren’t causally determined, then our actions or crucial facts about our actions become matters of luck or chance in a way that undermines our free will. To illustrate, suppose that you have a choice between telling the truth or lying, and you decide to tell the truth. In order for your decision to be a free action, then, according to libertarians, it can’t be causally determined by past events. However, what follows from it not being causally determined is that it was open, up until the time you decided as you did, that you wouldn’t decide that way — that is, it was open, keeping everything else fixed up until that moment, that you would decide to lie instead.
Headline Image Credit: Jubilee Maze, Symonds Yat. CC-BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.
David Palmer is Assistant Professor at the University of Tennessee. He specializes in ethics, metaphysics, and philosophy of action. He edited the volume, Libertarian Free Will: Contemporary Debates (OUP, 2014).

 

[shunyadragon]

I would say, in defense of libertarian freewill, allergies, culture preference and social pressure unless being directly applied from some other individual are internal factors. Even physical factors are your personal physiology which is fair game for a person to take into consideration in libertarian freewill.

In my view, physique, mental condition, desire, internalized cultural pressure, morality, anything that is internalized/part of the physical body, that is part of the decision fits with the definition, per post #16, of libertarian freewill.

Of course as someone who accepts determinism you could have a different definition of freewill but then it is the definition that is the problem and not the person who believes in libertarian freewill.

I would say . . . and the rest of this post does notoffer support for 'libertarian free will.
The following reference offers 11 reasons to reject libertarian free will. Any one defeats the subjective belief. The most common proponent of libertarian free will is the free will choice of religious belief, which is easily defeated.

Eleven (11) Reasons to Reject Libertarian Free Will by John Hendryx

www.monergism.com