If there is no free will, how can we be judged for our sins?

How did you arrive at the proposition that there is no free will?

That's a good question, Neo. I, for one, know that I have free will so that makes me accountable for my actions.

We don't know that we have free will - some recent theories state that we don't, infact have free will. There was recently a article in New Scientist about free will.

Free will (or lack of it) is a very complicated thing. I don't understand it myself.

If you think about it, everything we do is caused by some thing else. (See the thread, "Is there a reason for everything we do?").

What do you mean you don't know if you have free will? Didn't YOU make the decision to post what YOU posted? No one else made that decision for you, did they?

What do you mean you don't know if you have free will? Didn't YOU make the decision to post what YOU posted? No one else made that decision for you, did they?

That's gross oversimplification. The implication of what he is saying is that he may have posted this thread due to compulsions inherent in his personality over which he has no control. It is useful to religious fervor to see the world in simple-minded terms which make all issues black and white. It is not, however, respresentative of the reality of our world.

I'm not saying that there is or isn't free will. However, the member Aperson is asking a hypothetical which goes to the heart of the issue of responsibility if there were no free will. Discussing the topic entails accepting the terms of the debate. Of course, Aperson may be willing to discuss whether or not there were free will--but simple-minded responses such as MOAN's last response aren't helpful.

Rats! I coulda cought botha ya in a double post.

Such is my level of boredom.

Allow me to give an example of a complex situation in which it would be entirely inappropriate to state that someone's behavior was the product of what might be called "free will."

Frederick William was the King of Prussia from 1713 to 1740. He was the father of Frederick, who became King Frederick II, famous as Frederick the Great. Frederick William suffered from a condition known as porphyria--in his case he suffered from acute porphyria, and there was no treatment for the condition in the 18th century (it cannot be cured, and only managed with the medical knowledge we possess today). He lived most of his adult life in severe pain, and was given to fits of temper in which he verbally and even physically abused those around, from mere employees of the royal administration to his principle ministers and the members of his family. On one occassion, when Frederick was still a boy, his father became angry at a remark he made at the dinner table, and beat him into insensibility, lashing out at his wife and daughter when they attempted to intervene, so that they fled the room in tears and hysterical.

From the National Digestive Disease Information Clearinghouse page on porphyria:



Therefore, i one were to ask, as MOAN did above, whether or not Frederick William made the decision to beat his son into insensibility, or whether someone else made the decision for him--the answer in both cases would be no. Frederick William suffered a physical condition which lead him to behave in an irrational manner for which it would not be reasonble to consider him to have been responsible--his wild fits of violent temper were not the product of the exercise of "free will."

This is simply one example of how it is that a person's behavior may not be the product of a conscious effort of will on the part of that person. I chose that example because it is extreme and dramatic. Nevertheless, it is an example out of many thousand examples of conditions and circumstances in which a person might act, while making no conscious effort of will to act in any particular manner, and many in which a person may behave compulsively contrary to their personal desires.

Cheers, Setanta.

Anyway I'm assuming that we have no free will.

I may seem somewhat simple-minded to some but to me the concept of free will is simple.

To me, free will means having the ability to make a choice. No one makes my choices for me. I make them for myself. To me, that's free will. How much simpler does it need to be? Maybe a better question is why look for a complicated answer when the simple truth will do?

No, you are giving a simple answer for a complicated truth.

You have the illusion of free will.

Anyway, I'm assuming that we have no free will, can't you accept that?

I do not believe that "no free will" is the equivalent of "not being able to act independently". Similarly, I don't believe that "free will" means the gift of total self-command.

Everything depends on something. I cannot exist without my environment, and if my own "apartness" from everything else is a misconception, then how is it relevant to talk of freedom?

It is a relative term, and applying it to will, a function that requires such strict frames to operate within, is just paradoxical.

So, I don't believe in free will. But I also don't believe in absolute determinism.
Both are dualistic parts of some non-dualistic notion that is in many ways "will" itself. The curious thing about will is that absolute submission to it rewards absolute control of it. So how does "freedom" apply?

About "judgement". I believe any judgement to be dynamic and instantaneous, in the form of reaction.

Actually. . . No.

It's true that we have physical (and psychological) limitations to our free will. But we all have a degree of moral free will. How we struggle to assert it defines the type of person we are.

neologis,

At the risk of sounding like frank, Do you KNOW this?

To me it is a more reasonable explanation than most offered, but still, can we know that it is so?

An illusion of free will? aperson, are you trying to tell me that something or someone other than myself controls my decisions? Are you trying to tell me that is what is going on with you? Something or someone other than you controls your decisions?

Of course, when we make decisions we consider many different things depending upon what we are deciding about. But, those are factors, considerations, things to consider in order to make what we feel is the right and best choice. Our morals, life experiences, etc. do play a part in making that decision because our decisions reflect who and what we are (or at least should). But when it all boils down to it, I and I alone make the decision to do what I do or don't do. It's the same with everyone else.

So, if you are asking, does it just appear that way and do I KNOW that it isn't, I can tell you that with all the information available to me and after considering, etc., yes, I believe I KNOW that. Now, is there information I don't have that might change that? I don't know.

So let me ask you something if I may. What is your point about free will? I know plenty of people who think we have no free will and therefore; will pass off the responsibility of everything they do, have done, or will do to whatever/whomever they believe controls that free will. For some I have spoken with, accepting we have free will is almost like asking them to stand in front of a firing squad.

There is free will. But, there are consequences to the actions of that free will. No matter what decision you might be making in life, there is something or someone to consider when making it, so in that respect, there isn't (IMO) a free standing single free will thought, but all those thoughts, considers, etc., are mine and mine alone to make .

Have you considered the possibility that the 'you' making these decisions is naught but a byproduct of 'your' environment and experience? If that was so, as seems to be the case, wouldn't 'your' decisions be naught but the a step in the chain of causality?
Perhaps, as fresco is quick to point out..it is not just freewill that is the illusion, but also the self that perceives it.

Nope, just looked in the mirror. My 'self' is not illusion. I was there! C'mon Doktor S, you are now speaking like the "some" that I have spoken to that don't seem to want to take that "final" step into accepting responsibility for your own actions. Now, I don't KNOW that this is 100% true in your case, but it appears to be that way from what I have read.

So tell me Doktor S, who/what made the decision for you to post what you just posted? I'm being serious. I know how simple that sounds, but that's the whole point about this. It is simple. WE make our own choices. WE make those choices based on whatever WE want to base those choices on. I.E., you and I. You have said that you make choices based on what is "beneficial" (probably not the exact word) for you and you alone and don't really consider what it does to effect others? If I am misrepresenting that, please correct me. I make my decisions based on what I feel is the right thing to do (and yes, morally guided by God's laws). But WE, as individuals, make those choices

You control what decisions you make, but not always what you make them about.

You chose what you want to wear, but only from a limited assortment of designs that are available.

It is entirely possible that we are bouncing between reactions with no real say. That when bouncing, the only say you will have is wether to land on your back or your face.

Is that free will?

We are dominated by so many factors. We are utterly dependent on our environment, and subject to it's laws.

You are not here (in existence) by choice. You will likely not leave by choice.

Further, the grounds upon wich I base any and all desicions is to a very large extent the sum of my experiences up to that point. Wich are influences on my being.

Yet to say "free will" sounds reasonable. Will I have steak or pizza?
It is not an independend choice. It is suited to whatever is available.

Maybe we're just grabbing at air with this "free will" notion, because to set up will in one corner, and freedom in another seems to me like a chessgame with springer on black versus springer on white. They will never meet.

And perhaps you are like "some" that refuse to accept complete responsibility for your own choices, actions, etc.? Not saying that you are Cyracuz, please don't misunderstand me. I'm having a very hard time trying to understand why one would seemingly fight against the concept that they have free will. I would imagine that if they KNEW they didn't have free will, they'd be upset about that too.

If you could explain to me why it seems so hard for some to accept the fact we have free will, I would be in your debt.