Do We Have Free Will?

I don't think we can ever know this answer. Don't get me wrong, I've had it many times because its a fun topic to talk about, but still, in the end.... you really can't know. Some people sure think they know, but they can't prove it.

 

I would hope so

 

One thing that seems to be important in this discussion (the question of free will) is what is to result from an answer to that question... If you do not take part in any of the factors that first composed your local biology and mind (or any that continue to shape them), is there such things as honor, responsibility or love -- if these things require the contrast of being dishonorable, irresponsible or to be capable of possessing raw hate, in order for them to be meaningful in a person? If you shouldn't blame people for their circumstances, can we condemn pedophiles and murderers for crimes derivable by the same natural functions and processes as those that allow you to make a sandwich, or clean your room? Preferences are very important to note.

We (generally speaking) prefer that people act responsibly, and we (generally speaking) prefer that between a choice of murder or making a sandwich, the subject chooses a sandwich. I would say the "why" behind the preferences are not as important as the preferences themselves. To deny these preferences, though, would lead to the sort of apocalyptic "kill or be killed" attitude most would associate to atheism or anarchy, because then you assume that to prefer is to be convicted of illusions. What, then, would be the subjective way to decide between murder and sandwich-making, if not by deciding between preferences?

One last thing to note -- I read an old passage by William James recently, about the methodological benefits of deterministic thinking:

"Let psychology freely admit that for her scientific purposes, determinism can be claimed; and no one can find fault. If, then, it turns out that the claim has only relative purpose, the readjustment can be made... For [the person who assumes free will], then, the deterministic assumption of psychology is merely provisional and methodological."

I would say that the pragmatic view of utilizing a deterministic question-and-answer method is beneficial to scientific pursuit, but that any claim of "practical" determinism is consistently met with the reply that neither science nor any philosophy can explain why we should not live through free will if, for all intents and purposes, we instinctively assume we possess it.

 

I think your personality, upbringing, society, and peer group in a sence can influence you unconsciously. But I think if you can step back and look at these factors objectively, you then have free will of choice. So you can to grow and make changes to become the person so want to be.

 

I don't believe we do.

 

Freeze all motor functions.

 

Well, the Scripture does not imply that God speaking to Adam and Eve meant that they understood why the fruit from the tree would lead them to death, which means they could not possess anything like knowledge about morality, if "knowledge" is the reasoning drawn from perception and an ability to learn. When the serpent speaks to Eve, she merely repeats what has been told to her, and is easily convinced by the serpent simply from his counter-claim. She did not weigh either scenario, she just went with the reasoning that was last imparted to her. Adam then followed suit. They weren't "stupid", but they were ignorant -- ignorant to pain, toil, adversity, disease, corruption, depression, self-loathing, and every other negative, physical response. They had nothing to compare their situation to.

In defying God, they gained knowledge, and they did so through material substance. I would presume that the meaning behind this is to try to convey that it is through the material world that we are exposed to the nature of reality, where we can begin to articulate "good" and "bad". Through knowing "good and bad" (what can get us killed, what can get others to cooperate) we realize knowledge, and we realize how the world can present to us experiences of pain, toil, adversity, etc., through merely having to survive. Without an ideal to model behavior (say, God), we survive on the basis of whatever is influencing our local environment. So, we must establish a connection with ideals (an ideal community, ideal relationships, an ideal sense of self-preservation) in order to survive the threats that knowledge poses (knowing there are snakes) and to optimize the benefits which knowledge also makes available (how to avoid or defeat the snakes).

I would say it's something like that. Otherwise, what is the point if they already held moral knowledge at creation? It says they were created "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed" (Gen. 2:25). After they were exposed through the fruit of the tree, it says, "And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked" (Gen. 3:7). It is obvious that there is a difference between before eating the fruit and after consuming it.

 

What is sin?

 

You mean that sin is the opposite of love?

https://www.nofap.com/forum/index.p...hoice-or-a-feeling.164286/page-3#post-1405972

 

Does Roady know the answer?

 

*Libertarianism intensifies*