It sounds like a fascinating subject, so you'll have to explain. What kind of will can exist where it isn't free? How can one have intention but be determined/set/not free? I'm trying to think it through, but I'm hitting mental obstacles. If the thoughts that come to my mind are biologically determined, how can my subsequent action be called "will"? Isn't it just chemistry? An explanation would help for me to respond in a responsible way.

Before anything else, can I ask if you would agree that there is a difference between will and free will? There can be a case of intention that cannot change the nature of itself, expect by way of a stronger intention, can't that sometimes be the case? (Perhaps not always, but on occasion)

> In answer to the article, it refers to a specific section of a specific population. Furthermore, I would argue that it is not about "modern" Vs "older" values, but about differing tendencies among different individuals and groups.

The article was just an illustration, not an evidence, per se. I'm not really saying anything about older vs. modern values, but more the point that human behavior is predictably self-oriented and all-too-willing to make decisions based on benefit to oneself.

> Your post seems to be saying, overall, that humans have a certain lack of perfection in their attributes and thus intentions and actions

I certainly agree that humans have a lack of perfection, and this necessarily so. Aside from Jesus (whom Christians put in a different category and who is also widely recognized by many people and religions as being in a different category, i.e., enlightened, a prophet from God, etc.), no human who has ever walked the Earth was perfect.

> Doesn't this detract from free will if it is by necessity?

No it doesn't. Free will is necessarily constrained by human limitation. We can't decide to jump over the Atlantic Ocean, to transport ourselves to the surface of Saturn, or to disappear at will. Those are physical realities, of course, but neither can we just decide to never make a mistake, to know everything there is to know in every field of science, or to read minds. Our human nature includes both physical and mental limitations, but that's no reflection on their reality of free will within the human sphere.

> Wouldn't this make punishment in the brimstone sense illegitimate?

First of all, I'm quite positive I've told you that punishment is not "in the brimstone." Secondly, the punishment is not illegitimate, because it is based in our willful wrongs, disobediences, and rebellions. You won't be punished because you didn't do something outside of your capability or because you were human and therefore flawed. Any punishment received will be based on what you did when you knew it was wrong.

> Humans might have consciousness, which distinguishes them from robots, but that doesn't necessarily mean free will.

It's quite impossible that we are just functioning by biological impetus. If that were so, if I wanted to raise my right arm, I could sit here until my biology did that. Instead, I volitionally make my right arm rise. Now, you may argue that my biology is telling my mind to tell my biology to raise my right arm, but then we have an infinite regression. I can't raise my arm until my biology does it, but my biology won't do it until my will tells my biology to do it. By that reasoning either it never moves or we have an infinite series of volitions in every action, which is absurd.

In addition, if my intentions are always brain states, you would also be claiming that I can't will something unless my brain is in a certain specific state. This is most certainly neither logical nor true. I can raise a glass to my lips regardless of any brain or neural state.

From every angle, as I have explained over numerous posts, free will is a necessity of human existence.

[list][*] Any being that is self-aware is also self-directed, and any being self-directed has free will.
[*] Without free will, I am not really thinking, but only sequencing. Reasoning, and even science, are impossible.
[*] If I am a determinist, I am so not a pure determinist, because I cannot believe it for rational reasons, but only because I was determined to believe it. The only way to believe in determinism for rational reasons is if determinism is false. The whole position is self-defeating.
[*] Without free will, there is no such thing as the basic human behaviors of love, kindness, forgiveness, and courage. It's all programmed.
[*] If I have no free will, I am absurd, for my intentional actions are either non-existent or an infinite series.
[*] If I have no free will, my brain states are the condition of my intentions, and therefore my intentions can never exist outside of particular neural states, which is obviously not true.[/list]

We are necessarily creatures of free will.

> All of this gives weight to the idea that God would not be detracting from free will by intervening to stop certain atrocities, since he would simply be changing the nature of humans in how they respond to such an intervention, rather than their free will as such.

Therefore God would be detracting from free will by intervening to stop certain atrocities. Free will is necessary to human existence, and to force humans against their free will is a contradiction in terms.

By my experience, yep. Especially in our modern era, we are attracted to big payoffs and quick solutions, and not as motivated by morality. Here's a fun (or frightening) little tidbit ([url]https://www.elitedaily.com/social-news/6-percent-americans-murder-billion-dollars/1346072[/url]).

Sorry about the late reply. There will be several posts to follow. In answer to the article, it refers to a specific section of a specific population. Furthermore, I would argue that it is not about "modern" Vs "older" values, but about differing tendencies among different individuals and groups.

Your post seems to be saying, overall, that humans have a certain lack of perfection in their attributes and thus intentions and actions, likely by necessity. (Again, sorry if I'm wrong) Doesn't this detract from free will if it is by necessity? Wouldn't this make punishment in the brimstone sense illegitimate? Humans might have consciousness, which distinguishes them from robots, but that doesn't necessarily mean free will. All of this gives weight to the idea that God would not be detracting from free will by intervening to stop certain atrocities, since he would simply be changing the nature of humans in how they respond to such an intervention, rather than their free will as such.

> Would they?

By my experience, yep. Especially in our modern era, we are attracted to big payoffs and quick solutions, and not as motivated by morality. Here's a fun (or frightening) little tidbit (https://www.elitedaily.com/social-news/6-percent-americans-murder-billion-dollars/1346072).

> Why must this be so?

It's not that it must be so, it's just the human condition and more so our modern mindset.

> Also see my other question about why God would create a world in which people are drawn to evil.

It is of benefit that humans (whether through natural evolution or investment by God) have a sense of right and wrong, so that survival is not only possible but enhanced. For the sake of this discussion, since you asked why [i]God[/i] would create in such a way, I'll take the conversation in a theistic direction.

If this is not the best possible world (a world in which life-enhancing behaviors were impossible), then such moral choice to make a positive difference in the world is an asset. For this, a being needs three things: knowledge of the good and its benefits, the ability to make such a choice for good/benefit, and the power to play out such a choice. A world where choices only make things worse would hardly be worth having.

Knowledge of the good and its benefits implies or necessitates commensurate knowledge of alternatives to that direction. So God could be motivated to make such beings who have knowledge of the alternatives and some power over themselves and at least somewhat over their environs, both people and circumstances. They are able to participate in determining the destiny of things. That there should be beings with such motivation and control is good. They would be higher than mere robots, higher than animals (who are more concerned with and capable of power, instinct, and survival), and more like an image of their Creator—little creators.

Such creatures would by necessity be of limited knowledge, power, and choice, for another being of unlimited attributes as God Himself would potentially be able to stop God doing things, and it's logically contradictory to have two omnipotent beings in competition with each other.

A creature with limited knowledge, power, and choice would not by necessity be perfectly good. His limited knowledge may not always perceive the right. His limited choice may not always select the right. His limited power may not always effect the right. Because of his freedom, he has no intrinsic inhibitions to avoid what is wrong and always do what is right. For that, he would have to have the good and the right perpetually forced on him.

What seems to be the only logical and rational option is creatures who are created almost morally good from the start, who have a knowledge of what is right and good, and who have considerable choice over a period of time of self-determination.

An omniscient being such as God would always know to choose the right and an omnipotent being would have to power to always do what is right. Those of limited knowledge and power do not have that same capability, by necessity. Sometimes he will choose the wrong in ignorance, sometimes he will be in the wrong by lack of power, and sometime he will choose the wrong for some perceived (though misguided) benefit.

> In addition, can't the loving relationship itself be the payoff?

Yes. This is why I have chosen Christianity. It's not for health and wealth here in this life, but for the relationship with God. That's the prize (Philippians 3.7-8, 14).

> I agree with this, too. But we know humans. They would do anything for the wrong reason if the payoff was big enough.

Would they? Why must this be so? More importantly, how can you claim this to be true? I know some humans, but not all. Also see my other question about why God would create a world in which people are drawn to evil. In addition, can't the loving relationship itself be the payoff?

> I would say people should choose to be good because of good being experienced as something desirable itself.

I agree with this, too. But we know humans. They would do anything for the wrong reason if the payoff was big enough.

> love is made manifest through action, but the prior impetus must be there.

Exactly. That's why the Retribution Principle isn't going to work. The RP is too vulnerable as something that could be used very cheaply and flippantly as a means to an end.

> In society we want people to choose to be good (regardless of the reason: morality, praise, survival, fear—they all work in this scenario); in our relationship with God, people choosing the good just to receive praise becomes counter-productive, so also if they choose the good to get a prize or out of fear. The whole system is self-contradictory and so doomed to failure.

I would say people should choose to be good because of good being experienced as something desirable itself.

> Imagine that your spouse wants you to love him/her for the right reasons, so he/she says "they" will give you good sex if you just love them deeply. Well now they're in a pickle. They have no way to tell if you really love them or are just being good to get the sex, or if you're afraid of the alternatives, or if you're just trying to get by. The system is its own demise.

They would be able to tell if they didn't make such an offer. If I love them it occurs at a deep rooted level within myself. I don't choose to do it out of thin air. Of course, love is made manifest through action, but the prior impetus must be there. Love is experienced as good in itself and thus desirable, not simply as something used cheaply as a means to an end.

> but that there are inexcusable cases of bad. Cases of evil that, as far as I can see, have no good reason to exist.

I agree that it looks like that. The Bible the sin capability and cruelty quotient of humanity is extreme, and these are the extreme examples of why we need a redeemer. Secondly, we are not in a position to judge whether any good comes from these horrific events somewhere in the line (which might show a possible small reason for them be allowed to happen). Third, since humans have free will, God doesn't intervene in every negative exercise of free will, not even the extreme bad ones. Fourth, if God were to intervene, it would lead to untenable life consequences for humanity. But we've covered this ground.

> God could leave a trail for police to catch the criminal before the crime occurs.

Ah, "Minority Report." Arresting people before they've done anything wrong. I think this strategy is rife with problems.

> but it would be better if their action was orientated towards good in the first place.

This is where the real work of God is: changing hearts, not preventing crime.

> Interesting. I see plenty of bad and evil (too much), but I think if the good in the world didn't outweigh the bad, we would have a whole lot less of "live and let live" as well as many forms of cooperation for survival. I think if the bad outweighed the good in the world, there would be far more violence than there is and far less tolerance of one's neighbor is is gathering and using resources that could be valuable to "me" in my efforts to survive and thrive.

> When I look at a city like Mexico City and its miles and miles of corrugated steel shacks and barely subsistence living, if bad outweighed the good we would (in my opinion) see more murder and arson to reduce the competition and enhance my potential for minimal precious resources. And so also around the world. But people tolerate and cooperate, and even assist.

The point I'd make regarding all this is not that there isn't a significant amount of good, but that there are inexcusable cases of bad. Cases of evil that, as far as I can see, have no good reason to exist.

> I disagree. OK, someone murders a family. He or she is unremorseful, actually feeling happy and smug about it, and no amount of punishment will rehabilitate or change him. So ... just... let him go? Or put him in therapy for a little while (which, in my hypothetical, won't be effective).

I'm not saying just let them go. I'm saying the situation of them doing evil should be prevented in the first place. God could leave a trail for police to catch the criminal before the crime occurs. All involved would still have free will according to what appears to be your definition. You said earlier that victims still had free will even when evil was inflicted upon them.

> Inflicting suffering on this person is uncalled for? See, I could never agree with that. It's not about rehabilitation or prevention (though those are both desirable). It's about justice for the perpetrator.

I would have a good mind to kill someone who killed my family without hesitation. I think we would both have thoughts of inclination that way in those circumstances. I would also want to know why the perpetrator did so however, and I would want to deal with the reason, whether it was mental illness, difficult circumstances for survival, etc. Of course they have responsibility, but it would be better if their action was orientated towards good in the first place. If you're talking about a killer that kills for no other reason than enjoying it, there will often be a biological or phenomenological defect from which their impetus stems. This doesn't discount that their conscious self is responsible, but they could have been prevented from having a murderous impulse simply through a different state of affairs being steered into being. This wouldn't take away from their free will according to what appears to be your definition (discussed earlier, sorry if I misinterpreted). They would simply respond to a different set of stimuli. The same way victims according to a supposed free will scenario still have it but are reacting to being a victim.