Is there freewill?

[Michael B]

What what will would happen to the christian religion of there is not? As it is right now the only reason to think there could be freewill is because of the heinzberg uncertainty principle which states that you cannot know where the electron is. This principle was postulated in the 1920s, and has yet to be proven wrong. How ever there is good reason to think it may be wrong, and simply a limitation of our knowledge and technology. If that is the case that mean that according to classical everything has been set in motion since the big bang. In other words no freewill.

Hi Lemon

A few thoughts. Sorry if they seem a bit disconnected.

1) A pedantic point: I think you mean 'Heisenberg', and the principle is that you can't know a particle's location and speed at the same time (the principle is actually framed in terms of momentum, but momentum and speed are proportional). As precision of one measurement is increased the other reduces proportionally (a doubling in the precision of the measurement of location leads to a halving of the precision of measurement of speed).

2) Discussion of free will has never, as far as I know, rested on the Heisenberg principle which simply describes a measurement problem. Free will is more a philosophical position (and an existential one) than a straight scientific one. Or, to put it another way, it is generally taken from experience rather than measurement.

3) Christianity has traditionally not asserted free will. Rather it has asserted a certain bondage of the will to disordered desires, and that the grace of God is required to free that will from that bondage. That bondage has traditionally been seen to continue even in the life of the Christian, the subject of a great debate between Pelagius (who asserted the Christian, certainly after baptism, was capable of a sinless life) and Augustine (who asserted that the Christian still has some disordered will until death) in the fifth century. Augustine 'won' that debate and Pelagius was widely declared a heretic (though the Eastern Church, which was to become the Orthodox Church, had greater sympathy for Pelagius's views, at least as an ideal). Occasionally Christians have held out an ideal of being able to choose a sinless life, certainly after 'conversion' of some kind (be it through baptism or otherwise); John Wesley, for example, took this position, but that position has generally been a minority report among the theologians of the Church.

4) Whenever anybody raises the subject of free will I want to ask 'what do you mean?' What must the will be free from to be considered free? Must the will be free of all influence from nature and nurture?

5) Because of the problems in defining 'free will' I simply stick to the term 'agency' (the term 'free agency' was mentioned earlier but I have pretty much the same problems with that term as with free will, from what is the agency free?). I would say that the position of agency simply means that we, as agents, are responsible for our actions. I might have had a terrible upbringing (I didn't) that would have influenced my behaviour but I would still be culpable for crimes I committed, despite my protestation to Officer Krupke to the contrary. The only exception to this might be if a person is never exposed to a higher ideal of behaviour, but justice holds us all to the highest standards of society and not the norm. I can't imagine how society would work without the notion of agency, so I hold to it largely for pragmatic reasons.

[fr0d0]

Are hobbits good at dodging because they're small or is that just you?

What don't you understand? Mine isn't a dodge, but a precise answer.

An agent is free to do what their will dictates. If I'm holding you prisoner and restricting your movements and making most of your choices for you, then you are no longer a free agent.

The distinction is the choice to so something (will) and the ability to do it (agency).

To repeat, we have no free will, but we are free agents.

To be clear, there isn't any reference to belief or faith in what I'm saying here.

[robvalue]

Not if there is an all knowing god. If there is a god and god knows everything then god knows the future. So he knows everything I'm going to do for my whole life. So I have no free will. I cannot "choose" to do something he did not already know would happen. Of course not every religion would posit that their god knows everything, which is a truly ridiculous claim. It is filled with problems like him knowing his own future, thus having no free will either. Not that "his future" means anything if he is "outside of time"... Wow, are we really still talking about this? I think this is to do with human's arrogant view of themselves. If there is something out there that created us, and is more powerful than us, then it must be all powerful and all knowing! The caveat that gets put on the abilities like he "knows everything that is logically possible to know" shows just what a stupid thing it is that you are trying to defend.

Science wise, I think things are headed more and more towards free will being an illusion, and either things are entirely predictable or subject to random chance only (I tend to think "random" is a placeholder for "don't understand well enough yet"). But even if this is proved, I don't think most religious people will care. They are already really good at denying demonstrable facts and producing convoluted arguments to sidestep the ever growing rift with reality. It's a defense mechanism, since making one more silly argument is less effort than thoroughly evaluating the whole thing. And it's a huge step to come forward and admit you have been wrong about something for the last x years, so it's understandable to defend the position at any cost. And to be fair, if there is no free will, that is just more non-choices being made so is universally no more ridiculous than anything else.

[Lemonvariable72]

Are hobbits good at dodging because they're small or is that just you?

What don't you understand? Mine isn't a dodge, but a precise answer.

An agent is free to do what their will dictates. If I'm holding you prisoner and restricting your movements and making most of your choices for you, then you are no longer a free agent.

The distinction is the choice to so something (will) and the ability to do it (agency).

To repeat, we have no free will, but we are free agents.

To be clear, there isn't any reference to belief or faith in what I'm saying here.

There, did that hurt? However if we are free agents, but without free will my point to Erich above still stands

---

What what will would happen to the christian religion of there is not? As it is right now the only reason to think there could be freewill is because of the heinzberg uncertainty principle which states that you cannot know where the electron is. This principle was postulated in the 1920s, and has yet to be proven wrong. How ever there is good reason to think it may be wrong, and simply a limitation of our knowledge and technology. If that is the case that mean that according to classical everything has been set in motion since the big bang. In other words no freewill.

Hi Lemon

A few thoughts. Sorry if they seem a bit disconnected.

1) A pedantic point: I think you mean 'Heisenberg', and the principle is that you can't know a particle's location and speed at the same time (the principle is actually framed in terms of momentum, but momentum and speed are proportional). As precision of one measurement is increased the other reduces proportionally (a doubling in the precision of the measurement of location leads to a halving of the precision of measurement of speed).

2) Discussion of free will has never, as far as I know, rested on the Heisenberg principle which simply describes a measurement problem. Free will is more a philosophical position (and an existential one) than a straight scientific one. Or, to put it another way, it is generally taken from experience rather than measurement.

3) Christianity has traditionally not asserted free will. Rather it has asserted a certain bondage of the will to disordered desires, and that the grace of God is required to free that will from that bondage. That bondage has traditionally been seen to continue even in the life of the Christian, the subject of a great debate between Pelagius (who asserted the Christian, certainly after baptism, was capable of a sinless life) and Augustine (who asserted that the Christian still has some disordered will until death) in the fifth century. Augustine 'won' that debate and Pelagius was widely declared a heretic (though the Eastern Church, which was to become the Orthodox Church, had greater sympathy for Pelagius's views, at least as an ideal). Occasionally Christians have held out an ideal of being able to choose a sinless life, certainly after 'conversion' of some kind (be it through baptism or otherwise); John Wesley, for example, took this position, but that position has generally been a minority report among the theologians of the Church.

4) Whenever anybody raises the subject of free will I want to ask 'what do you mean?' What must the will be free from to be considered free? Must the will be free of all influence from nature and nurture?

5) Because of the problems in defining 'free will' I simply stick to the term 'agency' (the term 'free agency' was mentioned earlier but I have pretty much the same problems with that term as with free will, from what is the agency free?). I would say that the position of agency simply means that we, as agents, are responsible for our actions. I might have had a terrible upbringing (I didn't) that would have influenced my behaviour but I would still be culpable for crimes I committed, despite my protestation to Officer Krupke to the contrary. The only exception to this might be if a person is never exposed to a higher ideal of behaviour, but justice holds us all to the highest standards of society and not the norm. I can't imagine how society would work without the notion of agency, so I hold to it largely for pragmatic reasons.

Apologies for the misquote. You are right its Heisenberg. And no that principles isnt the only example its my favorite. The issue in basic is this, if all things in the scope of physics are predictable, other words if the future is knowable, then we are simply actors acting out a line of cause and effect. I hope that clarifies

[FreeTony]

Hypothetical - take 2 humans, one is a normal human, and the other one has a dice which he rolls, then makes all decisions based on the outcome of the dice.

Can you tell which one has free will, or if indeed either of them do?

Depending on your definition of free will, the human with the dice may appear to have more free will than the normal human, whereas in reality he is just a slave to the outcome of the dice and does not have free will.

[fr0d0]

if we are free agents, but without free will my point to Erich above still stands

I think it's a moot point.

[Lemonvariable72]

if we are free agents, but without free will my point to Erich above still stands

I think it's a moot point.

And yet dont care to elaborate why?

[Ben Davis]

---

What what will would happen to the christian religion of there is not? As it is right now the only reason to think there could be freewill is because of the heinzberg uncertainty principle which states that you cannot know where the electron is. This principle was postulated in the 1920s, and has yet to be proven wrong. How ever there is good reason to think it may be wrong, and simply a limitation of our knowledge and technology. If that is the case that mean that according to classical everything has been set in motion since the big bang. In other words no freewill.

---

I dislike the term 'free will' and prefer to frame the situation in terms of decision-making: What are the assumptions, constraints, dependencies, risks and issues surrounding human decision-making processes? I think this is a far better defined and more answerable question. In real-world terms, there are far more constraints around the decision to eat when compared to the decision to wear socks, for example, and using that model allows us to review moral questions, too. We can also use the model to compare human decision-making to that of other life-forms.

Since human decision-making is a property of the neural processing of data, I don't know if quantum measurements have much influence and re. Heisenberg, I don't see the relevance of particle-location methods.

[fr0d0]

I think it's a moot point.

And yet dont care to elaborate why?

I thought it was too obvious. I apologise. What fate, or God knowing the future, if indeed he does (that is debatable), gives any bearing on our journey is neither here not there. The question has to be considered from the perspective of the only one that can know it. The natural order of things and the mechanics of this physical reality are both good and bad, from our egocentric perspective. From Gods perspective "it is good" by virtue of its existence.

[Drich]

How does offering atonement absolve of his responsibility of being the ultimate creator of sin as well as the only agent involved that possesses free will? For indeed of he is a free agent and all powerful while we are acting in accordance to how things have been set motion since the beginning of time, that makes gods offering of atonement a cruel and shallow gesture because he has know since he created which of us would accept and which would not. So he made us disbelieving, knowing that we be disbelievers, and in greater context ultimately unable to change weather end up as believers or nonbelievers. Yet he punishes us while absolving himself of all blame. Fuck sakes even I could be a better god then that.

Man was created free with a will of his own as represented by the choice given in the garden. This freedom was traded for slavery to sin in exchange for knoweledge of it.

In turn as a means to save man from our elected slavery God offers a way to break the chains.

[/quote]

---

If you wish to remain separated form God no. Your sin will eternally separate you from God.

Promises promises....lol. You're omitting something here though, I fear........

There is only obligation if you want to be with God for eternity.

Good to know that I'm in the clear for whatever fucking atrocity I may lose my mind and decide to commit - according to your god. Ever occur to you that your description of god makes him out to be a moral midget with less sense than you or I? You and I don't handle moral accountability between each other (or our fellow human beings) this way, do we? Why not, do you suppose....and do you think that we should?

It's all a matter of perspective. You view morality as the cornerstone of right and wrong. The problem with that philosophy is that your understanding of morality changes to fit the current generation's thoughts of right and wrong. Which means your morality ceases to be a corner stone for anything, and becomes a thermometer of pop culture. To judge anything or anyone with your trivial standard/ pop culture is only a testament to one's own self righteousness.

That would be like someone from the 60's looking from someone today and saying they dress funny.. Again by who's standards? The pop culture standard of the 60's? What if we are no longer bound by the pop standard of that time? Then of course that judgement is deemed null and void.

So to is any judgement of morality against God based on our current pop culture beliefs of right and wrong.