Quick argument against Free Agency

[_madeleine]

Aquinas is a good example. I also like the often-used example of a painting. We see each brush stroke as it happens, God sees the complete painting. My favored explanation is that of the author of a book. The author has set the characters and context, and the story. Knows what is going to happen. But if we look at the characters, we see they have choices, and free will.


In regards to Aquina's theology on the ideas of God. It is Christian doctrine that creation exists in the will of God. So conversely, without the will of God, creation would cease to exist. Time and space both being part of creation, that is, existing in the will of God.

Aquinas, to my limited but not entirely empty understanding, takes the idea of creation as a result of Gods will completely seriously. His construction however underlines the problem of complete determinism. Your illustration of a book is an example. When the character in the book does an awful sin he does so because the author made him that way. Yes in the process inside of time the character decides. It may appear that from eternity only God decides who commits what sins. My inexact memory says Aquinas at some points inserts a separation ,creation is deficient because made from nothing. A very large, useful and completely ambiguous consideration. I am inclined to imagine such a separation would also make a separation between God and the future. (it will all return to God when it does and before then God is present to the present,just as he is present in the Eucharist,now) Aquinas may well have not agreed with my parenthesis..

Creation was from the beginning, if you recall Genesis, Good. It was by the fall that creation became deficient, and by the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus that the world is restored.

In contrast to the Mormon idea of free agency, that has the meaning of the more numerous the choices comes more free agency. The Christian understanding of free will is God created us as rational creatures, able to reason, and able to choose freely for the reason of loving God freely, as love by definition cannot be forced. Numerous choices don't increase free will.

Aquinas of course has explained this better than I. My point being, the analogy of an author is a good analogy, but like all analogies it can never convey entirely the accuracy of thought, or teaching.

With the analogy of authorship, must also be the understanding that God is not the author of evil. God allows evil. God is present to the person even when an evil act is committed, and likewise the person is present to God. The person has made an evil choice, of their own free will, but again, as God is not a linear being existing inside time, the evil act is present to Him. Period. (It would not be accurate to say an act is present to God before it occurs, because there is no before for God.)

A conclusion that God is the decisive factor of a sinful act is not a satisfactory conclusion in light of scripture, but more importantly, in light of Jesus Christ.

[_huckelberry]

You seek to impose a "present" by defining our frame of referencing time is the "present" and all other observers must normalize to our frame of reference. That isn't a good way to look at it. The question is only, if an observer outside of our frame of reference, could communicate with our frame of reference instantly, what could they tell us? If that is possible (and it very may well be), then that would mean what we perceive as the future is fixed and knowable to someone outside of our frame of reference (and they could possibly tell us about it).

Tobin somehow you are not hearing what I am saying, I have zero interest in imposing a present. If there was a way of seeing the future I would be interested in that. There is personal curiosity.There would also be vast fortunes for the picking with such information. You say there is a way to see the future but offer zero clues as to how it could happen. Then considering the money at stake perhaps it is wise to keep your secret a secret.

[_brade]

Accusing them of manipulative word misuse is somehow nicer than their merely being mentally sloppy, i.e. inconsistent? If so, convict me of being overly nice.

It takes some cleverness to be manipulative.

[_Tobin]

You seek to impose a "present" by defining our frame of referencing time is the "present" and all other observers must normalize to our frame of reference. That isn't a good way to look at it. The question is only, if an observer outside of our frame of reference, could communicate with our frame of reference instantly, what could they tell us? If that is possible (and it very may well be), then that would mean what we perceive as the future is fixed and knowable to someone outside of our frame of reference (and they could possibly tell us about it).

Tobin somehow you are not hearing what I am saying, I have zero interest in imposing a present. If there was a way of seeing the future I would be interested in that. There is personal curiosity.There would also be vast fortunes for the picking with such information. You say there is a way to see the future but offer zero clues as to how it could happen. Then considering the money at stake perhaps it is wise to keep your secret a secret.

I think I understand what you are saying, but as I have repeatedly pointed out - under Einstein-Minkowski Spacetime, when events transpire (the sequence) which is essentially time may not be perceived the same by all observers. In and of itself, this isn't very interesting. Just because theoretically someone can observe a slice of our light cone and see our future does not mean they can impact it (or send us information about what is about to transpire). I do think it is interesting that Quantum Mechanics may make this possible however. But, nevertheless, it would seem that since in Einstein-Minkowski Spacetime, the theory is that observers can see slices of our light cone (our past, present, future) most likely implies that it is fixed (since it is observable) which would imply that free agency does not exist. That mean the future will transpire as it must transpire - we can not determine an alternate future.

[_huckelberry]

Tobin, if we assume an instant seeing across great distance device and an instant communication device who in what situation could use these to tell me this morning who will be elected president and which states will choose which by which margin in November?

Sure it is set in the sense that they both will not win. It really is one or the other. People may make educated estimates. God seeing all the processes in action today with perfect transparency would know. However my space traveling buddy does not know. He would look with the instant seeing device and see me at my computer Sunday morning Sept 2, 2012. He may be astonish that he was seeing the future. His calendar says July2,2009. that's interesting but gives no information for the outcome of the election. I see no way where his speed or direction would produce vision of the November election. Different speeds would change the date on his calendar not mine.

[_brade]

I think I understand what you are saying, but as I have repeatedly pointed out - under Einstein-Minkowski Spacetime, when events transpire (the sequence) which is essentially time may not be perceived the same by all observers. In and of itself, this isn't very interesting. Just because theoretically someone can observe a slice of our light cone and see our future does not mean they can impact it (or send us information about what is about to transpire). I do think it is interesting that Quantum Mechanics may make this possible however. But, nevertheless, it would seem that since in Einstein-Minkowski Spacetime, the theory is that observers can see slices of our light cone (our past, present, future) most likely implies that it is fixed (since it is observable) which would imply that free agency does not exist. That mean the future will transpire as it must transpire - we can not determine an alternate future.

It's important to be careful here because it doesn't imply that free agency (from here out "free will") does not exist. It might imply that a certain sort of free will does not exist -- namely, libertarian free will. Libertarian free will is the ability to do otherwise. But, there are other notions of free will that don't depend on anyone being able to do otherwise, so assuming Einstein-Minkowski Spacetime model is the way things really are, and we do not have the ability to do otherwise, we may still have a type of free will.

[_huckelberry]

Creation was from the beginning, if you recall Genesis, Good. It was by the fall that creation became deficient, and by the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus that the world is restored.

In contrast to the Mormon idea of free agency, that has the meaning of the more numerous the choices comes more free agency. The Christian understanding of free will is God created us as rational creatures, able to reason, and able to choose freely for the reason of loving God freely, as love by definition cannot be forced. Numerous choices don't increase free will.

Aquinas of course has explained this better than I. My point being, the analogy of an author is a good analogy, but like all analogies it can never convey entirely the accuracy of thought, or teaching.

With the analogy of authorship, must also be the understanding that God is not the author of evil. God allows evil. God is present to the person even when an evil act is committed, and likewise the person is present to God. The person has made an evil choice, of their own free will, but again, as God is not a linear being existing inside time, the evil act is present to Him. Period. (It would not be accurate to say an act is present to God before it occurs, because there is no before for God.)

A conclusion that God is the decisive factor of a sinful act is not a satisfactory conclusion in light of scripture, but more importantly, in light of Jesus Christ.

Madeleine, I would not wish to contradict the points you have made here. They are a good set of signposts on the road of Christian understanding. They do skip the questions about providence and predestination. Perhaps there is enough uncertainty in those questions that Christians can and do leave them unresolved.

It may be worth observing that in terms of predestination those whom God allows to fall into sin are responsible for the sin. The sinner is the one who chooses. Ok I believe that but am not completely satisfied with the statement. If a person steps back a bit they may see that no decision is a result of only that one person. Culture family,friends, history, the specifics of a situation all play a role in what the decision is. Yet if we as sinners reject our responsibility thinking it was only influences , we lose some of our very self, the part making the decision.

[_huckelberry]

I do believe that the main problem in these discussions is the difficulty in achieving sufficient conceptual clarity on the very notions of "choice", "free choice" "agency", "self-hood and identity" etc.

It may be counter-intuitive but it isn't so easy to explain the problem with the following:

"The universe ineluctably unfolded in such a way that Joe freely chose to kill Bill."

or

"Bill knew he would freely choose to kill Bill"

or

"It will certainly turn out that John will make at least one free choice".

Is there a direct logical contradiction in any of those? It would be boring to simply give a stipulative definition of "free" so as to exclude all of the above.

So again we are back to asking about the very meaning and conditions of "free choice" "or free action".

Frankly, if I find out that the universe is physically deterministic but that my actions are still best explained in terms of my having relevant reasons, considerations, thoughts and desires (supervening on brain states) and if there is no overt ordinary coercion such as the use of drugs, handcuffs, restraints, violence etc, then I am fine calling that freedom. I don't care if my freely choosing to spare Bill was in principle determined by the initial physical conditions of the universe.

This doesn't bother me anymore that being told than the future will turn out one way or another.
I am tempted to say "I am destined to be free".

It is crazier imagine that nothing at all determines my actions (not even anything about me or my soul).

in other words, is an act only free if you never know what it will be even the instant before doing it? Must I be surprised by my action for it to be free?

Tarski I have excerpted these comments because I think they are worth repeating. Often a discussion of freewill seeks some random events or events having no cause ,to shore up freedom. I can only see the destruction of freedom in such a confused environment.I would imagine an act or decision most free when it clearly sees its intention and can understand how to move to that intention. I would see freedom limited by ignorance, fear, laziness, hopelessness and lack of access to tools. A clear future helps to be rid of these.

[_madeleine]

Creation was from the beginning, if you recall Genesis, Good. It was by the fall that creation became deficient, and by the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus that the world is restored.

In contrast to the Mormon idea of free agency, that has the meaning of the more numerous the choices comes more free agency. The Christian understanding of free will is God created us as rational creatures, able to reason, and able to choose freely for the reason of loving God freely, as love by definition cannot be forced. Numerous choices don't increase free will.

Aquinas of course has explained this better than I. My point being, the analogy of an author is a good analogy, but like all analogies it can never convey entirely the accuracy of thought, or teaching.

With the analogy of authorship, must also be the understanding that God is not the author of evil. God allows evil. God is present to the person even when an evil act is committed, and likewise the person is present to God. The person has made an evil choice, of their own free will, but again, as God is not a linear being existing inside time, the evil act is present to Him. Period. (It would not be accurate to say an act is present to God before it occurs, because there is no before for God.)

A conclusion that God is the decisive factor of a sinful act is not a satisfactory conclusion in light of scripture, but more importantly, in light of Jesus Christ.

Madeleine, I would not wish to contradict the points you have made here. They are a good set of signposts on the road of Christian understanding. They do skip the questions about providence and predestination. Perhaps there is enough uncertainty in those questions that Christians can and do leave them unresolved.

It may be worth observing that in terms of predestination those whom God allows to fall into sin are responsible for the sin. The sinner is the one who chooses. Ok I believe that but am not completely satisfied with the statement. If a person steps back a bit they may see that no decision is a result of only that one person. Culture family,friends, history, the specifics of a situation all play a role in what the decision is. Yet if we as sinners reject our responsibility thinking it was only influences , we lose some of our very self, the part making the decision.

Catholic teaching on morality is unambiguous. To your point of circumstance and sin, there is no instance where circumstance makes an immoral (sinful) act moral. Neither does a "good end" justify an immoral act.

A life of sinful influence resulting in sinful acts is judged by God. It is Catholic teaching that a person is not accountable for a sinful act if they were not aware, had not been taught, that the act is a sin.

And finally, in the Person of Jesus Christ we know God's Mercy and love. God has provided a Way for our sins to be redeemed and forgiven. Including those where circumstance is a major influence.

We are predestined for God, every single one of us. There is no one who is not. Jesus Christ is the ultimate evidence for this belief. Sin is a diversion from our destiny, who is Jesus Christ. Sin is neither created by God or caused by God. We are called to turn away from sin, and turn to Christ. In this we live who we are predestined to be.

[_Tobin]

Tobin, if we assume an instant seeing across great distance device and an instant communication device who in what situation could use these to tell me this morning who will be elected president and which states will choose which by which margin in November?

Sure it is set in the sense that they both will not win. It really is one or the other. People may make educated estimates. God seeing all the processes in action today with perfect transparency would know. However my space traveling buddy does not know. He would look with the instant seeing device and see me at my computer Sunday morning Sept 2, 2012. He may be astonish that he was seeing the future. His calendar says July2,2009. that's interesting but gives no information for the outcome of the election. I see no way where his speed or direction would produce vision of the November election. Different speeds would change the date on his calendar not mine.

You are being generally incorrect when speaking about the Einstein-Minkowski Spacetime model as it stands when stating your space faring buddy can not know the future. Time (or in other words, the view of the sequence of events) can be perceived differently based on a number of factors affecting the observed and observer. Your space faring buddy quite possibly (depending on those factors) could see the future, past or present depending on speed, distance, gravity and direction. You should familarize yourself again with this model. Here is a quick URL that talks about the light cone and the ability of observers to see slices of a light cone differently than how we might perceive the sequence of an event (or time) - http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/minkowski.html.