I take the definition that free will is when there are no restraints, no one objects. We are then free to do what we want. No natural or moral laws. If there is one objection, then we are being restrained, not free.
Is there intent that no one objects to? Yes, Gal 5:20-21 ends with “to which there are no laws against”. Neither divine, legal, or social.
Thanks to naivete? Else the right choice is obvious and singular. Would free-choice knowingly select something less desirable, for what purpose? Once the choice is made, often the freedom to chose is gone.
The idea of freedom comes from choice seems problematic, to me, choice comes from naivete and freedom to choose is temporal as we are not free of its consequences.
In contrast, freedom to do what is accepted by all seems a clearer picture of true freedom.
To me, the concept of freedom of choice is a claim about our naivete. IMHO.
I can’t make a free and arbitrary choice between which of two cards to turn over in a card game? Or which of two things of equal importance to do next on my to-do list? Which flavor of ice cream to buy?
Removing naivete, knowing what each card is, and no one is objecting, You are free to choose. grin. What are you basing your choice on? Why are you preferring one card or letting random do the selecting?
Not disagreeing, Just bouncing it around.
Or Sam Harris the guru verse Sam Harris the false teacher.
I certainly have that illusion, contrary to Herr Doktor Harris!
A article in this month’s ASA Journal touches on that “Theodicy and Historical Adam:Questioning a Central Assumption Motivating Historicist Readings”. Not sure is it is accessible if not a member.
Harris’ logic that we don’t even have an illusion of free will is simply that just as our intentions, choices and decisions only follow certain mysterious and uncontrollable brain activity, so does the concept of an illusion come and appear in the same way. Thus not only do we not have free will, our illusion of it stems from the same process of unknown synapses. So we don’t really have an illusion at all.
Is it an illusion to experience uncontrollable bodily activity? Like your arm raising straight in the air when you tell yourself you are in control. Or are both it and controllable bodily activity possible?
An action or event that can be observed is real. It is our thoughts that the “no free will” folks tell us cannot be controlled or directed. So to raise ones arm above his head requires only that we voluntarily react to an input. That input can be audible (teacher tells you), or come from our brain activity not under our control. At least that is my understanding.
My point I guess is if it is possible to experience uncontrollable bodily activity, like your arm going straight in the air on its own, then shouldn’t a person be able to distinguish that from when they intend to raise their hand in the air?
For sure. But the issue is not whether or not one can recognize reality, but whether or not it is illusory to have an illusion. From what source is the thought to originate about something that is not originating in our conscious mind? BTW, I do not subscribe to Sam Harris’ notion that even the illusion of free will is an illusion.
??? “illusory to have an illusion”?
If it is, would a person who has an illusion have be disillusioned twice?
While I think Sam Harris is very mistaken, I give him more credit than this.
Yes believe it or not, revealing I kind of understand what you are saying – to the extent my hubby says if you travel near the speed of light towards the earth you see the future and if you travel away at that speed you see the past (is that the right way around?). Begs the question “how fast can God go?”
Which is a rather silly question.
…
Read his book: Free Will. It is a quick read and really good. His intellect and thoughtfulness is not in question at all. His (only) concession is only that even if our thoughts and actions are the product of unconscious causes, they are still our thought and actions at least. That breaks the rejection of free will into being compatibilist or noncompatabilist.
The fact that all of us tend to believe that we have the freedom of thought, but that ignores the ignorance of what has precipitated earlier thoughts and actions. You can do what you decide to do, but you cannot decide what you will decide to do. Why were you able to decide, only today, to lose 5 pounds? Why not yesterday?
Belief in free will has certainly given us both the religious conception of sin and the judicial belief in retributive justice. After all, if a person is not responsible for his thoughts and actions, he should not be tried for his crime, should he? (some defenses even invoke the warrior gene defense). There are 4 genes believed to act in some way to modulate aggressive behavior. And the Monamine Oxidase A gene (MAOA) has even been called the “serial killer gene” and used in defense work. And to digress even more, a Finnish study of 893 criminals found a strong association of 2 genes found in violent vs. petty criminals.
Study here: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/science/killers-born-murder-gene-scientists-4528684
Anyway…
I doubt anyone can say they control every thought they have. But what you decide to dwell or mediate upon, certainly has some measure of influence on the thoughts you will continue to have. But even then, the thoughts and questions that arise, do seem at times to come from outer space.
The unconscious mind is indeed a wonder. A mind in a mind is an experience that anyone can attest to, whether it be in a dream or awakened state.
Again, I get what Harris is saying about the manifold of sensory and unconscious experiences that influence a person’s desires, and how these desires will often cause a person to act without thinking. But to be a soft determinist, that is acknowledging that a person may at times be responsible for their action, would be like being a soft atheist, that is admitting that the cause of the universe is unaware of its action.
Which is really quite outstanding when you think about how you are aware of your action, when you can act.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
