Do commandments and threats negate free will?

[Greatest I am]

Do commandments and threats negate free will?

Christians think that God gave man free will. There is no question in my mind that we have free will. I think it natural. I believe that free will is something that we take and not something that can be given. Freedom is a natural part of human existence and can only be given to us if it is being forcibly restrained.

When my children chose to exercise their freedom or free will from the restrictions in our home and moved to their own, any right to control their actions was shifted from my hands to theirs. In effect I did not give them that freedom. They took it. Just as you did when you left your parental care and control. I lost the right to impose my standards on them as well as the right to reward or punish them for what they do in their homes.

God also gives mankind all kinds of commands. We are also told that if these commands are not followed, we will be severely punished. This includes loving and adoring him.

To Christians then, God gave us freedom or free will yet kept the right to reward and punish. If we compare that to the reality of life with most families, it seems that God did not give anyone free will. Instead he gives command and basically says to follow them or be punished.

Do commands and threats negate your idea of what free will is?

Regards
DL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtSM2oVy_E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pg5UNxOmTIY

 

[Syne]

As your children grow you do give them progressively more freedom of choice, usually coinciding with their progressive maturity and responsibility. They only "take", say, a later bed time if you're just a push-over. You clearly do give them freedoms such as owning a dog, but generally with the liability of their responsibility for that dog. You enforce penalties for not caring for that dog in order to teach them consequences. These consequences do not end at you ceasing to penalize, they merely become other consequences. Not caring for a pet properly can lead to the pet dying or criminal charges for animal cruelty. We impose penalties to teach consequences, with the hope that worse consequences will not be experienced later.

Consequences do not inhibit free will. Actually, for free will to exist for everyone, consequences are explicitly necessary, as there's no other way for competing wills to be reconciled.

As far as a god doling out final punishment or reward, if true, would be no different than a parent trying to instill some sense of consequences to their children. You have to teach children to make good choices until they can do so on their own.

 

[Greatest I am]

As your children grow you do give them progressively more freedom of choice, usually coinciding with their progressive maturity and responsibility. They only "take", say, a later bed time if you're just a push-over. You clearly do give them freedoms such as owning a dog, but generally with the liability of their responsibility for that dog. You enforce penalties for not caring for that dog in order to teach them consequences. These consequences do not end at you ceasing to penalize, they merely become other consequences. Not caring for a pet properly can lead to the pet dying or criminal charges for animal cruelty. We impose penalties to teach consequences, with the hope that worse consequences will not be experienced later.

Consequences do not inhibit free will. Actually, for free will to exist for everyone, consequences are explicitly necessary, as there's no other way for competing wills to be reconciled.

As far as a god doling out final punishment or reward, if true, would be no different than a parent trying to instill some sense of consequences to their children. You have to teach children to make good choices until they can do so on their own.

For sure but they cannot make good choices without full disclosure of all the facts.

Our first example of God informing us, through Adam and Eve, of the consequences of their actions, was partial and incomplete.
That was for consequences here on earth and he did not even tell them anything of the consequences after death. That is not moral or truthful.

Do you see that as a lie of omission on God's part?

Adam and Eve were not aware of any but one consequence. They were misled.

Count the consequences given in his short list and compare that short list to the long list of consequences he arbitrarily added on.

Would you threaten your child with one punishment and then give him 10?
That is what did.

Note the immorality of God.

Regards
DL

 

[wynn]

Still fixated on Christianity? Oh.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Do commandments and threats negate free will?

Of course religious doctrine will establish the strange idea that God imposes rules, but leaves you free to choose to obey them, as a test, because God needs confirmation from his subjects before passing judgment.

It's quite an elaborate hoax, somewhat peculiar to the Abrahamic tradition.

I would also note that the notion of free will develops in opposition to the problem of omnipotent determinism, in other words: is it possible I am not in control of my actions, but God is pulling all the strings? That would be something religion would need to nip in the bud, before it got out of hand.

Hence the doctrine of free will.

 

[Syne]

For sure but they cannot make good choices without full disclosure of all the facts.

Our first example of God informing us, through Adam and Eve, of the consequences of their actions, was partial and incomplete.
That was for consequences here on earth and he did not even tell them anything of the consequences after death. That is not moral or truthful.

Do you see that as a lie of omission on God's part?

Adam and Eve were not aware of any but one consequence. They were misled.

Count the consequences given in his short list and compare that short list to the long list of consequences he arbitrarily added on.

Would you threaten your child with one punishment and then give him 10?
That is what did.

Note the immorality of God.

So questioning whether commandments negate free will is just a guise for questioning the morality of a god, huh? Full disclosure? How many times have you heard "ignorance of the law is no excuse"? Same thing. Is it the authority's responsibility to make sure you're informed, or your own? Free will would seem to indicate that the responsibility lies with the individual.

Care to address your actual OP, or would you prefer the topic to be the morality of a god, i.e. the problem of evil?

 

[Balerion]

Of course religious doctrine will establish the strange idea that God imposes rules, but leaves you free to choose to obey them, as a test, because God needs confirmation from his subjects before passing judgment.

It's quite an elaborate hoax, somewhat peculiar to the Abrahamic tradition.

I would also note that the notion of free will develops in opposition to the problem of omnipotent determinism, in other words: is it possible I am not in control of my actions, but God in pulling all the strings? That would be something religion would need to nip in the bud, before it got out of hand.

Hence the doctrine of free will.

I wonder, Aqueous: Does this mean that a free will doctrine is required for a faith that claims an omnipotent creator? In other words, would the Abrahamic faiths have crumbled without it?

 

[Aqueous Id]

I wonder, Aqueous: Does this mean that a free will doctrine is required for a faith that claims an omnipotent creator? In other words, would the Abrahamic faiths have crumbled without it?

It sure gives you pause. How long could people go on believing that every atrocity they experienced was directly caused by God, not by bad people? In fact, the Jesus story arises amid the Gnostic view that the creator God was a sadist. It is entirely possible that the only reason the Gospels were written was to counteract this movement. Note, if this turns out to be true, it completely invalidates the New Testament, i.e., it was the product of a brand war, completely invented to refute the Gnostic scriptures.

It's hard to say how Judaism or Islam might have struggled with this over the centuries. Neither of them seems to have the problem of heresy upon heresy like the early Catholics did.

It's crazy how reactionary religious authority can be. Check out this example. This is a fundie group, worried that free will undermines their ability to hold on to their literalist position:

The doctrine of free will (so-called libertarian freedom or the concept that man is autonomous) is pernicious--subtly pernicious. It asserts that man, not God is sovereign. It asserts that God does not have ultimate control over His creation. It ultimately asserts that the Creator of the Universe is impotent.

Dr. Lewis S. Chafer aptly noted:

"...the erroneous exaltation of the human ability in the beginning, becomes man's effectual undoing in the end."

When fallible men considers themselves sovereign, they engage in the idolatry spoken of in Romans 1:21-23. With fallible men in the seat of so-called sovereignty, theoretical uncertainties are thereby introduced--uncertainties regarding outcomes over the destiny of creatures, as well as uncertainties regarding the entire process of Divine revelation, inspiration, illumination, and interpretation.

Both the authority and veracity of the Word of God rest upon its inerrancy. Without a God capable of insuring inerrancy, without a God capable of overriding men's fallibility, nothing--absolutely nothing--is certain.

If men have free will, then that free will allows for errors to be introduced at any point in the Divine chain of communication mentioned above. And if errors can be shown at any point, then the entire process falls to the ground, and its value and worth are rendered void.
from: http://withchrist.org/veracity.htm

So there you even see it working the opposite of what we might expect - since they need to stand apart from the crowd as strict literalists. (By the way their claims are unabashed. They go on to more fully state the problems of allowing that the Bible authors might have put their own free thoughts into the text, if free will were true.)

But it does seem that all the "normal" churches would have had an uprising on their hands by now, if they had been preaching that God makes people screw up. So hey have one the opposite direction, explaining that we are judged on how we use our free will, and this wold seem to appeal to the more modern incarnation of religion.

What a crazy jumble of ideas, all for the sake of preserving somebody's weird idea of a close encounter of the .... zeroth? .... kind.

 

[Balerion]

That fundie group actually raises a good point:

But we also hold, as evangelicals, that human beings wrote the Bible. The Bible did not descend from heaven, nor was it dictated by God to human secretaries. Rather, as Peter puts it, "men spoke from God" as they wrote the very letters and narratives and historical accounts that they thoughtfully and carefully chose to write (2 Pet. 1:20-21). So, Scripture is simultaneously the word of God and the word of men. Every word is exactly as God wanted it written, and yet every word was written by men who chose to write what they wanted.

Their assertion ("compatibilistic" free will is what we have, as opposed to "libertarian" free will) is bunk, but they do highlight a very prominent contradiction within the foundation of Christian faith.

 

[Syne]

An omnipotent god is not logically incompatible with a libertarian free will. For one, an omnipotent god doesn't necessitate a hard determinism. Christians generally do not realize this, as their picture of a god is quite constraining. But a compatibilist free will is easier to defend than a libertarian one.

 

[ughaibu]

a compatibilist free will is easier to defend than a libertarian one.

Go on then, let's see your defence.

 

[Greatest I am]

Of course religious doctrine will establish the strange idea that God imposes rules, but leaves you free to choose to obey them, as a test, because God needs confirmation from his subjects before passing judgment.

It's quite an elaborate hoax, somewhat peculiar to the Abrahamic tradition.

I would also note that the notion of free will develops in opposition to the problem of omnipotent determinism, in other words: is it possible I am not in control of my actions, but God is pulling all the strings? That would be something religion would need to nip in the bud, before it got out of hand.

Hence the doctrine of free will.

That omnimax is what led some of the founding fathers like Augustine did not think we had free will.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_freewill.html#Augustine

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

So questioning whether commandments negate free will is just a guise for questioning the morality of a god, huh? Full disclosure? How many times have you heard "ignorance of the law is no excuse"? Same thing. Is it the authority's responsibility to make sure you're informed, or your own?

It is the responsibility of authority to put all the conditions of a law within it.

If as in this case, God just arbitrarily adds to the law without telling anyone, whose fault is it if A & E were ignorant of what had never been stated?

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

Go on then, let's see your defence.

Compatibilists simply define free will as the determinate character acting "freely" without any coercive enforcement or inhibition. IOW, one determinate will acting without interference of another.

Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills". -Schopenhauer​

It is the responsibility of authority to put all the conditions of a law within it.

If as in this case, God just arbitrarily adds to the law without telling anyone, whose fault is it if A & E were ignorant of what had never been stated?

Well if you're going to use the Bible as you sole, authoritative reference, afterlife penalties did not exist until the law was given to man.

"Yes, people sinned even before the law was given. But it was not counted as sin because there was not yet any law to break." -Romans 5:13(NIV)​

People were informed, with the law, when the penalty changed, so all conditions were always knowable.

 

[ughaibu]

Compatibilists simply define free will as the determinate character acting "freely" without any coercive enforcement or inhibition. IOW, one determinate will acting without interference of another.

Compatibilists have various strategies, but I put it to you that they have failed as soon as they have to italicise one of the defining words in the term that they ostensibly defend. On top of which, as expressed, your defence localises the notion of "determine", but determinism is irreducibly global.

 

[Syne]

Compatibilists have various strategies, but I put it to you that they have failed as soon as they have to italicise one of the defining words in the term that they ostensibly defend. On top of which, as expressed, your defence localises the notion of "determine", but determinism is irreducibly global.

I don't espouse compatibilism, but that doesn't change the fact that compatibilists simply follow the expedient of restricting the definition of free will to allow it to be logically consistent with determinism. I agree that such determined will has only a rather arbitrary separation between the interference of other wills and any other determining factors, but that doesn't necessarily make in logically untenable.

Such a separation is pragmatically useful, as it facilitates judgment of criminal liability. Hard determinism cannot do this, and libertarian free will is probably the most difficult to defend.

 

[ughaibu]

libertarian free will is probably the most difficult to defend.

Of course it's not, we can demonstrate it. All healthy human adults unavoidably assume that they have libertarian free will. Hundreds of times every day, they successfully act on that assumption.

 

[Syne]

Of course it's not, we can demonstrate it. All healthy human adults unavoidably assume that they have libertarian free will. Hundreds of times every day, they successfully act on that assumption.

There's a major difference between being subjectively evident and being logically defensible. Same reason that religious faith isn't easily defended logically.

 

[ughaibu]

There's a major difference between being subjectively evident and being logically defensible.

We dont need to logically defend that which can be observed, because observation beats theory, every time.

Same reason that religious faith isn't easily defended logically.

If you're attempting to equate realism about the existence of gods with acceptance of free will, forget it. Gods are not observable, and never will be. They are fictions, that's all.

 

[Syne]

We dont need to logically defend that which can be observed, because observation beats theory, every time.If you're attempting to equate realism about the existence of gods with acceptance of free will, forget it. Gods are not observable, and never will be. They are fictions, that's all.

Perhaps you need to look up the word "subjective". Free will has not been empirically proven, and a person's subjective experience of exercising free will cannot be empirically proven to be other than possibly illusory. Sure, you don't need logic to defend any idea to yourself, but that's not the point of defending an idea.

If free will were directly observable, there wouldn't be any philosophical debate over its existence or nature. Evidence the current discussion.