Jaltus
July 10th 2003, 10:35 AM
Originally posted (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=145229&action=showthread) by Solly in the thread Foreordination?? Free Will?? (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=6981)
"5 point" Calvinist, I guess, though of the High Calvinist variety
I didn't vote for either option because 1 is not what I hold, and 2 is not a clear formulation.
If by Free Will you mean this:
Libertarianism : Consider the fact that a human action is genuinely free only if the entire context of prior and contemporaneous events is not causally sufficient to determine what one will do. In other words, if my actions are entirely the product of internal or external factors that constitute my circumstance, then what I do is causally "fixed," and therefore it is impossible for me to do otherwise.
So there must must not be anything that determines that my actions must be.
So a necessary condition for one to be able to choose from different alternatives is a degree of reality (the action) to be undetermined. The only way an action can involve genuine alternatives is if it is undetermined.
This introduces to us another term, agent causation : the view that I actually cause my free actions
So, in the symbolic equation:
Circumstance [C] + Free Will [FW] = Undetermined Action [A]
C is not sufficient to make A obtain, but it may be true that a varying amount of C is necessary to make A obtain. Only the conjunction of FW and C causally implies that A is an undetermined action.
posted by Mattballman
Then no.
If by two you mean we seem to have this, then I can't vote that either.
I am a determinist theologically, philosophically and psychologically. there are no uncaused events in the created universe. But I am not a fatalist, I do not believe it is "written in stone" from our point of view. We have free moral volition to do that which we want to do. The important point is that it is what we want to do. There is prior determination and causation to all our actions; there is not an autonomous "Self" or "Originator" sitting above it all, uncaused yet causing, unmoved yet moving, undetermined yet determining; residing in a state of equilibrium bring forth acausal events in line with some people's [mis-]understanding of quantum physics, yet also somehow not bringing forth random events, but events that happen to fall into a very small circle of possible events - do I go to the Pizzahut, the McD or KFC? Which ever it is, I certainly don't decide to climb the roof and sing swedish love songs instead. Do I resist the intruder violently or passively or something else? Either way I don't start some random action totally unconnected with the options before me. Libertarians want a free agent untouched by God, the universe or other people, yet cannot explain what that free agent is, other than being a ghost in the machine with no serious connection with brain or mental states.
slly4 iconcross
Just a great post, even if it does not state what I think. Thanks, Solly, for being such a clear writer.
"5 point" Calvinist, I guess, though of the High Calvinist variety
I didn't vote for either option because 1 is not what I hold, and 2 is not a clear formulation.
If by Free Will you mean this:
Libertarianism : Consider the fact that a human action is genuinely free only if the entire context of prior and contemporaneous events is not causally sufficient to determine what one will do. In other words, if my actions are entirely the product of internal or external factors that constitute my circumstance, then what I do is causally "fixed," and therefore it is impossible for me to do otherwise.
So there must must not be anything that determines that my actions must be.
So a necessary condition for one to be able to choose from different alternatives is a degree of reality (the action) to be undetermined. The only way an action can involve genuine alternatives is if it is undetermined.
This introduces to us another term, agent causation : the view that I actually cause my free actions
So, in the symbolic equation:
Circumstance [C] + Free Will [FW] = Undetermined Action [A]
C is not sufficient to make A obtain, but it may be true that a varying amount of C is necessary to make A obtain. Only the conjunction of FW and C causally implies that A is an undetermined action.
posted by Mattballman
Then no.
If by two you mean we seem to have this, then I can't vote that either.
I am a determinist theologically, philosophically and psychologically. there are no uncaused events in the created universe. But I am not a fatalist, I do not believe it is "written in stone" from our point of view. We have free moral volition to do that which we want to do. The important point is that it is what we want to do. There is prior determination and causation to all our actions; there is not an autonomous "Self" or "Originator" sitting above it all, uncaused yet causing, unmoved yet moving, undetermined yet determining; residing in a state of equilibrium bring forth acausal events in line with some people's [mis-]understanding of quantum physics, yet also somehow not bringing forth random events, but events that happen to fall into a very small circle of possible events - do I go to the Pizzahut, the McD or KFC? Which ever it is, I certainly don't decide to climb the roof and sing swedish love songs instead. Do I resist the intruder violently or passively or something else? Either way I don't start some random action totally unconnected with the options before me. Libertarians want a free agent untouched by God, the universe or other people, yet cannot explain what that free agent is, other than being a ghost in the machine with no serious connection with brain or mental states.
slly4 iconcross
Just a great post, even if it does not state what I think. Thanks, Solly, for being such a clear writer.