by jimwalton » Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:36 pm
First of all, the ability to reason is grounded in free will. Reasoning involves deciding if something is true or credible by equating it to the reality to which it refers, then comparing it with competing ideas, and choosing which idea best fits reality. Without free will and the legitimate ability to choose, the role of reason itself in any intellectual discipline is suspect—there is no mechanism for evaluating information and deciding on plausibility. Without free will, then, science itself is an illusion, all conversations are meaningless, and our thoughts are unreliable. Our lives are irredeemably incoherent.
We study our natural world (the sciences) as if self-awareness, self-direction, and reason are real. We can evaluate that there are realities outside of ourselves that we can observe and draw true conclusions about. The notion of truth takes us beyond mere biological determinism, which is only concerned with survival (food, flight, fight, and reproduction). We act as if we honestly believe that we can ask "what if..." questions, assess the possibilities, make authentic decisions, and conclude truth. All of these are evidences of free will, reason, and objective truth, all of which show that we live and function as if these things are real, reliable, and even have a facet to them that could be considered "true."
Secondarily, if free will didn’t exist, we couldn’t know it, because I can’t evaluate possibilities or draw conclusions. I couldn’t think my way out of a paper bag let alone ascertain free will. Without free will, we couldn’t know anything. Knowledge is justified true belief. We decide if a belief is true by comparing it to the reality to which it refers, comparing it with competing ideas, and choosing which idea best fits reality. This requires some level of free will. If you don’t believe in free will, then you don’t believe in the validity of reasoning, and all arguments to the contrary are self-defeating.
Third, without free will, the characteristics that most make us human are impossible: love, forgiveness, grace, mercy, and kindness, to name a few. If I have no choice but to love you, it’s not love at all. Love requires the will to choose. If the only reason I forgive you is because I have no other alternative, then I have not forgiven you at all, but only followed an irresistible force. Without free will, I am a determined animal, perhaps even robotic, but I am not human.
Fourth, without free will there is no such thing as justice. I can neither find nor enforce justice in a court of law if there is no self-direction, either on the criminal’s part (he can’t be held accountable if he was determined to do it) or on the judge’s part (he can’t make a rational decision if there is no such thing).
One cannot have free will without self-direction, and one cannot have self-direction without self-awareness, and one cannot have self-awareness without consciousness. The evidences are convincing that we have all these things. I have consciousness, therefore I am self-aware, and therefore I am self-directed. Both reason and experience tell us these things are so. Everything about humanity and reason point to the necessity of free will.
Now let’s deal with the question of God’s omniscience. That God knows everything has no impact on my freedom to choose. Knowledge has nothing to do with causality. No matter what I know, it doesn’t make you do anything. Suppose I know you love chocolate, and I know every time we go for ice cream you pick chocolate. My knowledge has nothing to do with your choices, and doesn’t cause you to do anything. It doesn’t even matter what I know or how much I know. My knowledge, or anybody’s knowledge, does not and cannot have any effect on your behavior. Knowledge doesn’t cause anything outside of its own entity. It matters not whether it’s trivial or substantial, because knowledge can only make an effect in someone or something else if it is linked with a power (a causal mechanism) to create an effect. Knowledge by itself is impotent as a causal mechanism in another entity. No matter how much I know, you can never say that my knowing something caused (forced) you to do something. Knowledge just doesn’t work that way.
But suppose I’m twice as smart as I am in real life (wouldn’t that be nice). How does that affect you? It doesn’t. Suppose I’m ten times as smart. How does that affect you? It doesn’t. Suppose I’m omniscient. How that affect you? It still doesn’t. Knowledge is passive, not causal. Just because I know something is going to happen doesn’t mean I caused it to happen. Knowledge, even omniscience, by itself is impotent as a causal mechanism in another entity. It must be teamed with some kind of power (force) to cause anything.
Your marble analogy is flawed from the beginning and everywhere. If you're going with Christian theology...
1. The marbles don't need to wonder about the world. What the Bible teaches is that God revealed himself and characteristics of the world.
2. The marbles don't need to be uncertain about the future. God revealed the options of life and death.
3. The marbles don't need to develop right and wrong ideas about the world and their nature. As pertaining to the "screen", it has been made known to them. They do need to learn, however, scientific knowledge.
4. The marbles don't just "think" they have free will. Free will is a logical necessity. They know they have it, from the start.
And so on.
Summary: Every marble is the same size, and can fit through the holes in the screen. All have been selected (2 Pet. 3.9; Jn. 12.32) and invited. The screen is actually tilted in favor to receive all marbles through the holes. God knows that some will not pass through of their own volition, but he still repeatedly invites them and rigs the system to get them through the holes. The only true obstacle to them passing through the holes is their own free will. God's knowledge did not have a causal effect on each marble's actions.
First of all, the ability to reason is grounded in free will. Reasoning involves deciding if something is true or credible by equating it to the reality to which it refers, then comparing it with competing ideas, and choosing which idea best fits reality. Without free will and the legitimate ability to choose, the role of reason itself in any intellectual discipline is suspect—there is no mechanism for evaluating information and deciding on plausibility. Without free will, then, science itself is an illusion, all conversations are meaningless, and our thoughts are unreliable. Our lives are irredeemably incoherent.
We study our natural world (the sciences) as if self-awareness, self-direction, and reason are real. We can evaluate that there are realities outside of ourselves that we can observe and draw true conclusions about. The notion of truth takes us beyond mere biological determinism, which is only concerned with survival (food, flight, fight, and reproduction). We act as if we honestly believe that we can ask "what if..." questions, assess the possibilities, make authentic decisions, and conclude truth. All of these are evidences of free will, reason, and objective truth, all of which show that we live and function as if these things are real, reliable, and even have a facet to them that could be considered "true."
Secondarily, if free will didn’t exist, we couldn’t know it, because I can’t evaluate possibilities or draw conclusions. I couldn’t think my way out of a paper bag let alone ascertain free will. Without free will, we couldn’t know anything. Knowledge is justified true belief. We decide if a belief is true by comparing it to the reality to which it refers, comparing it with competing ideas, and choosing which idea best fits reality. This requires some level of free will. If you don’t believe in free will, then you don’t believe in the validity of reasoning, and all arguments to the contrary are self-defeating.
Third, without free will, the characteristics that most make us human are impossible: love, forgiveness, grace, mercy, and kindness, to name a few. If I have no choice but to love you, it’s not love at all. Love requires the will to choose. If the only reason I forgive you is because I have no other alternative, then I have not forgiven you at all, but only followed an irresistible force. Without free will, I am a determined animal, perhaps even robotic, but I am not human.
Fourth, without free will there is no such thing as justice. I can neither find nor enforce justice in a court of law if there is no self-direction, either on the criminal’s part (he can’t be held accountable if he was determined to do it) or on the judge’s part (he can’t make a rational decision if there is no such thing).
One cannot have free will without self-direction, and one cannot have self-direction without self-awareness, and one cannot have self-awareness without consciousness. The evidences are convincing that we have all these things. I have consciousness, therefore I am self-aware, and therefore I am self-directed. Both reason and experience tell us these things are so. Everything about humanity and reason point to the necessity of free will.
Now let’s deal with the question of God’s omniscience. That God knows everything has no impact on my freedom to choose. Knowledge has nothing to do with causality. No matter what I know, it doesn’t make you do anything. Suppose I know you love chocolate, and I know every time we go for ice cream you pick chocolate. My knowledge has nothing to do with your choices, and doesn’t cause you to do anything. It doesn’t even matter what I know or how much I know. My knowledge, or anybody’s knowledge, does not and cannot have any effect on your behavior. Knowledge doesn’t cause anything outside of its own entity. It matters not whether it’s trivial or substantial, because knowledge can only make an effect in someone or something else if it is linked with a power (a causal mechanism) to create an effect. Knowledge by itself is impotent as a causal mechanism in another entity. No matter how much I know, you can never say that my knowing something caused (forced) you to do something. Knowledge just doesn’t work that way.
But suppose I’m twice as smart as I am in real life (wouldn’t that be nice). How does that affect you? It doesn’t. Suppose I’m ten times as smart. How does that affect you? It doesn’t. Suppose I’m omniscient. How that affect you? It still doesn’t. Knowledge is passive, not causal. Just because I know something is going to happen doesn’t mean I caused it to happen. Knowledge, even omniscience, by itself is impotent as a causal mechanism in another entity. It must be teamed with some kind of power (force) to cause anything.
Your marble analogy is flawed from the beginning and everywhere. If you're going with Christian theology...
1. The marbles don't need to wonder about the world. What the Bible teaches is that God revealed himself and characteristics of the world.
2. The marbles don't need to be uncertain about the future. God revealed the options of life and death.
3. The marbles don't need to develop right and wrong ideas about the world and their nature. As pertaining to the "screen", it has been made known to them. They do need to learn, however, scientific knowledge.
4. The marbles don't just "think" they have free will. Free will is a logical necessity. They know they have it, from the start.
And so on.
Summary: Every marble is the same size, and can fit through the holes in the screen. All have been selected (2 Pet. 3.9; Jn. 12.32) and invited. The screen is actually tilted in favor to receive all marbles through the holes. God knows that some will not pass through of their own volition, but he still repeatedly invites them and rigs the system to get them through the holes. The only true obstacle to them passing through the holes is their own free will. God's knowledge did not have a causal effect on each marble's actions.