Some concluding remarks from Martin Luther’s The Bondage of the Will.
Sect. CLXVII.
I SHALL here draw this book to a conclusion: prepared if it were necessary to pursue this Discussion still farther. Though I consider that I have now abundantly satisfied the godly man, who wishes to believe the truth without making resistance. For if we believe it to be true, that God fore-knows and fore-ordains all things; that He can be neither deceived nor hindered in His Prescience and Predestination; and that nothing can take place but according to His Will, (which reason herself is compelled to confess;) then, even according to the testimony of reason herself, there can be no “Free-will” — in man, — in angel, — or in any creature!
Hence: — If we believe that Satan is the prince of this world, ever ensnaring and fighting against the kingdom of Christ with all his powers; and that he does not let go his captives without being forced by the Divine Power of the Spirit; it is manifest, that there can be no such thing as — “Free-will!”
Again: — If we believe that original sin has so destroyed us, that even in the godly who are led by the Spirit, it causes the utmost molestation by striving against that which is good; it is manifest, that there can be nothing left in a man devoid of the Spirit, which can turn itself towards good, but which must turn towards evil!
Again: — If the Jews, who followed after righteousness with all their powers, ran rather into unrighteousness, while the Gentiles who followed after unrighteousness attained unto a free righteousness which they never hoped for; it is equally manifest, from their very works, and from experience, that man, without grace, can do nothing but will evil!
Finally: — If we believe that Christ redeemed men by His blood, we are compelled to confess, that the whole man was lost: otherwise, we shall make Christ superfluous, or a Redeemer of the grossest part of man only, — which is blasphemy and sacrilege!
I have posted previously on free will.
http://blog.eternalvigilance.me/2012/05/problem/
http://blog.eternalvigilance.me/2013/02/the-neurophysiology-of-free-will/
http://blog.eternalvigilance.me/2013/02/free-will-what-is-it-good-for/
http://blog.eternalvigilance.me/2013/02/original-sin-what-is-it-good-for/
No one in the comments has yet had an answer to my main question about free will. What is it good for?
First it led to the Fall of Man, and it’s led to tears ever since. So I’m told. Free will. Who needs it?
“Free will. What is it good for?”
That is like asking: existence, what is it good for? Or, consciousness, what is it good for? Free will is axiomatic, and like all axiomatic concepts, it is self-evident and any attack against it is self-refuting.
Terry, you believe that you have free will.
Suppose that you also believed in God. Would it bother you that God foreknows all the free choices you will ever make?
Richard, I do not believe I have free will. I know I have it. Just like I know I am conscious and not dreaming. Just like I know I am alive and not dead. To question any of these axioms is to question the very foundations upon which all knowledge of reality rests. One can always choose to severe oneself from reality if one wishes to. But what is *that* good for?
I agree that free will is not compatible with the concept of an all knowing, all powerful, ever present God. One cannot have their cake and eat it too. But then again, that is what believing in God permits one to do, conceptually.
I should have added “perfectly good” to God’s list of attributes
Terry, so what you’re saying is that your choices aren’t free if someone else knows in advance what your choices are going to be. But how can something that goes on in someone else’s head (knowing in advance what your choices are going to be) have such an effect on what goes on in your head (having your free choices demoted to unfree choices)? What if you didn’t know that someone else knew in advance what you were about to choose. Would your choice then still be free?
If someone or something knows for certain not only what you are going to do, but everything you are ever going to do, whether you know that they know or not, means that what you are going to do is already *pre*-determined. One cannot, in that case, have free will.
No one can know *for certain* what any ‘reasoning consciousness’ is going to do. To engage one’s reason, as opposed to act on instinct, is a *volitional* choice each of us must make at each moment – a choice that rests solely with the agent that possess the reasoning consciousness: us.
Why can’t one, in that case, have free will? Free from whom or from what? Free from the law of causality?
Free from the Law of Identity.
But, as I have already said, once you believe in God, logically, anything goes. You are no longer constrained by it. Nor do you need to be, since apprehending and comprehending and living in reality is no longer your primary concern.
How can one be free from the Law of Identity? This free will business sounds like magic to me.
And Richard, It’s bogus to say that foreknowledge means determinism.
Eg I know that when you get out of bed that within ten minutes you will look at your computor. Just because I know this does not mean I made you do it. It simply means I have an insight into your personal drives. God has a perfect insight into your morals and values… even better than you have of yourself, and he also knowns the same thing about everyone else, and what deterministic things are happening in respect to the material universe and so he can easily predict the futrue…. without controlling you or I.
And Terry is Right. *we know* we have freewill… every time we choose between marmite or vegemite. Only ‘philosophers’ have trouble accepting such a self evident thing… because of their whack/ vain imaginations/ rationalisations… ‘Professing themseves to be wise, the became fools’
(I know you are busy rationalising all this to make out as if you have no choice but to pick your favorite flavour between Marmite or vegemite… when we know you can pick your least favorite if you so determined to do so… self determined that is) What is the virtue of ‘resolve’ if in reality you have no choice to do something difficult that you would prefer to avoid? We know we can shirk responciblity, etc. All these virtues and vise hang on our freewill choices… upon our self made character…. sloth vs effort etc.
Free will makes it possible for us to do good. It’s a good thing.
>>”How can one be free from the Law of Identity? This free will business sounds like magic to me.”
One can’t. That’s the point. What sounds like magic to me, and *is* magic, is the supposed existence of God. Which is why I concede the point: free will CAN exist if one supposes the existence of God. For where magic exists, the Law of Identity doesn’t.
Magic doesn’t exist.
Terry, I don’t understand what you’re saying.
You said that one cannot have free will if what one is going to do is already *pre*-determined. I asked you about the ‘free’ in ‘free will’. Free from whom or from what? You answered, free from the Law of Identity. Then you said that one can’t be free from the Law of Identity. Therefore, one cannot have free will.
You have arrived at a contradiction. (Warning: to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and evict oneself from the realm of reality.)
Tim, if facts about what I’m going to do in the future are *already* true (which they must be, if God has foreknowledge of them), then what I’m going to do *is* determined—by the facts! But I don’t have a problem with this. I control what I do, and what I do is caused by me, even though what I am is causally determined.
We don’t need free will to make choices. Free from whom or from what? You still haven’t said.
What you mean ‘we’, white man?
So this is your answer to my question about free will? It’s good for choosing the yeast extract spread that I don’t actually want, instead of the one I do want? What the hell use is that?!
Richard –
You misunderstood me.
You asked me “Suppose that you also believed in God. Would it bother you that God foreknows all the free choices you will ever make?”
I replied that “I agree that free will is not compatible with the concept of an all knowing, all powerful, ever present God. One cannot have their cake and eat it too. But then again, that is what believing in God permits one to do, conceptually.”
You then continued with your line of questioning and my “supposing” God’s existence:
“What if you didn’t know that someone else knew in advance what you were about to choose. Would your choice then still be free?
I replied that “if someone … knows … everything you are ever going to do, whether you know that they know or not, means that what you are going to do is already *pre*-determined. One cannot, in that case, have free will.” But I immediately pointed out that “No one can know *for certain* what any ‘reasoning consciousness’ is going to do” and why.
You persisted though, despite my rejection of your premise:
“Why can’t one, in that case, have free will? Free from whom or from what?”
I replied one *cannot* be free of Law of Identity (here you misunderstood me, thinking I said one *can* be free of the Law of Identity…) and I reiterated that “once you believe in God, logically, anything goes.”
You then replied “How can one be free from the Law of Identity? This free will business sounds like magic to me” to which I replied “One can’t. That’s the point”.
I then “conceded the point” about free will and God being incompatible. I realised that despite the pre-determinism implied by the existence of an all-knowing God, and free will could still exist, because once one accepts the notion of God, a contradiction in itself, then “anything goes”. Once one has accepted that one contradiction can exist, there is nothing epistemologically stopping you from accepting an unlimited number of contradictions from existing.
I must admit my use of the expression “concede the point” was confusing, since I was referring to a different point to the one I referred to with “That’s the point”.