One would have to define "free will" first.

But depending upon the definition, it'd be easier to argue the negative than the positive. When one looks at the work of behaviorists and their studies on decision making, there is a strong indication that we react and respond as oppose to deciding.

"The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion."

It is always hard to sort out necessity/fate. One's own "discretion" is almost impossible to detect.

...which is what philosophers and scientists use to do studies and write books.

It doesn't "rule it out". It does suggest an alternative view of the phenomenon called "free will". Each of us may only be capable of making certain decisions and understanding certain things. However, there may be no two people whose capabilities are identical. To the degree we can and do make similar or identical decisions is what creates a society and culture. To some extent the differences also contribute to it within bounds. At some point, there will be individuals who can only make certain decisions which are so different, they threaten the culture and/or society. This is where the concept of free will begins to break down.

Presuming the existence of free will allows a society to demand or expect basically everyone to make certain decisions (choices) as "everyone else". Now, if you don't presume free will, and instead presume that people are only capable of making certain choices/decisions, or even more so, understanding certain concepts, how does that change the way society deals with individuals?

But that to me implies a choice which implies free will.

So, in your view free will exists to a certain extent but the ability to choose varies by the individual.

I don't think it is possible to prove that free will exists. It is a presumption of cultures, or a postulate so to speak. Our common law in the US recognizes a variable sense of free will which is where we get "...by reason of insanity" type defenses. Various cultures and religions offer up various "possession" explanations for the absence of or a diminished capacity for, free will. We have clinical diagnosis of "diminished capacity" which tends to create the explanation of the same.

It explains some behavior at a fairly simple level, but rapidly gets out if its depth when confronted with complex behavior. Like scientists working on quantum theory or playing with imaginary numbers to produce fractal equations, etc.

If god already knows the entire history of the universe from beginning to end then god also knows everything one will ever do making one's free will a mere farce.

...that limits his own freedom as well.

If, on the other hand, he's just contemplating what he might do in the future, then the future isn't set in stone (and at least god has free will).

wouldn't have the ability to understand god's nature. I assume god would be as complex as the entire universe. so there isn't someone "knowing" what will happen and contemplating what they are "going to do." That's just reducing the concept to the absurd simplicity of human thought.

If you go back and read confessional statements of the last 400 years or so even in America you will find many have flat out denied free will although many state man had free will before the fall of Adam. As a Christian myself who also denies free will I don't find it cynical at all nor does it undermine faith in fact it comforts and strengthens the faith of a believer. To know that their faith was given to them by God and they are kept in faith by God.


God created man with a biological nature to behave in exactly the manor they behave and by exactly the means and at exactly the time in which they behave. Sense it is biological not mechanical it does not reduce humans to automatons.

If we don’t have free will, then it seems like God would not condem souls to torment since they had no choice in how they acted.

I don’t think he’ll exists as an afterlife, but I do think that it exists as a state of being in this life because I’ve been there. And the fact that I did have that experience is due to some choices that it seems to me that I made freely.

then he would not send anyone to hell regardless of the choices they make in life. Being saved from hell has nothing to do with God's justice and everything to do with God's mercy. Romans 9:21 Hath not the potter the power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour. Romans 9:22 What if God willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known endured with with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. Romans 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory.

For one thing, why are they even communicating anything about anything to anyone if that is true? That would be an illusion thinking it is communicating with an illusion. Silly idea. But Tobin S, I have to take issue with your comment that [the concept] just doesn't ring true to [you] in [your]experience. That's a tautology because your "experience" is your memory of what you have consciously experienced which assumes your consciousness is not an illusion.

More interesting might be how close our conscious experience of reality actually reflects objective reality. How different is my consciousness of reality different from yours?

I write posts like the OP when I’m grappling with something and trying to sort things out. I appreciate everyone’s posts here. I wish this forum was always this active.

I don’t know if human beings can experience objective reality in their normal states of consciousness. I’ve heard that might be possible with psychedelics or under other abnormal circumstances.

A philosophy course I took in college on "Mind and Body" was fascinating. For one thing, the prof took us through what each great philosopher had discussed on the topic, starting with Socrates and Aristotle. It was a great way to learn a little about how a lot of philosophers thought, and some of the ideas they introduced to look at the topic from a different perspective than those who came before them. But if I came away with anything solid, it was that while reality might get distorted as it is processed by our sensory organs, and then processed by our brain, there is a solid reality "out there" that we all sense and interpret. Otherwise, it wouldn't even occur too us to discuss anything at all. You will encounter some folks one DU who dabble in the idea that the universe is just a computer program of which we are a part.

For example, I believe that electromagnetic radiation in the visible wavelength exists in the world. So, I believe, the electromagnetic radiation that maps to our experience of the color red exists. I'm not sure that what I experience as the color red has any existence in the world external to a brain. So, if people claim that our experience of red is an illusion because it does not actually exist in the external world, then I can accept that as a possibility. However, I don't believe that anyone has yet demonstrated that color, as we experience it, doesn't exist in the external world. Even if someone does demonstrate that, I will still want to understand how the experience arises in our brain.

I don't think the claim that consciousness is an illusion actually gets us anywhere toward understanding consciousness.

refers to free will and sentience.

Free will implies the freedom to choose what causes harm to oneself and others. Some atheists have made the argument that if the Creator is all knowing, free will is an illusion. This implies a universe of puppets.

The Missouri Synod is very right wing and bares little or no relationship to my church, the ELCA.

And we are conscious of that.

I would agree that we have limited free will. Limited in the sense that we are also products of our raising and our society. So what we perceive is also a product of our surroundings.

My own view is that the phrase "created in the image and likeness" refers to our free will and our sentience. But our free will and sentience compared to that of the Creator is limited.

New to DU- I have been following this amazing accumulation of critical thinking human beings and am happy just to stick my big toe in the water. Two year project in China during the Trump ascendency and had a lot of meaningful conversation with my Chinese brethren regarding issues of spirituality, God and belief. The most interesting discovery, that Lao Tzu was the teacher of Confucious. I am but a student facing the universe awaiting my lessons. I have written a treatise on Trump Christians, responding to Sarah's thoughts on Trump being chosen by God, in an interview today.... and they won't allow me to publish because I have no record.

Well, here in, is the first offering

an unusual way to start here. Welcome to DU.

caught my interest. I don't have enough background in philosophy, biology, or psychology to discuss various views of consciousness but I do have some experience of different religious beliefs on free will vs predestination. I think there might be some misunderstandings of what predestination means in some religious contexts.

Predestination vs free will in Christianity refers to how free one is in accepting or rejecting the offer of grace from God in becoming a believer. It does not mean that people do not have responsibility to make choices and decisions about their actions and day to day behavior. People will make good or bad decisions. People, including believers, are not capable of all knowing wisdom even when making what they think are good and moral decisions. That is what forgiveness is for.

Regarding denominations that have doctrines of. predestination. They include Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Presbyterians. Many Catholics don't realize that it is part of their faith but it comes from Augustine. Luther was an Augustinian monk at the time of the Reformation so it influenced his own teachings. Ironically, it was the Catholic humanist and scholar Erasmus who debated the issue with Luther and supported a more midway view leaning toward some choice. Too complex to get into here.

The early Calvinist Puritans in colonial America taught a more extreme version of God arbitrarily saving some and condemning others without rhyme or reason. Some were chosen. Some were not. Presbyterians were founded in Calvinism but have evolved since then. They prefer the term "Reformed."

Most Protestant denominations today have various branches as was mentioned in an earlier post. I have extensive experience with both Missouri Synod and LCA Lutherans, less so after the LCA became the ELCA. Missouri Synod teachings are rather narrow and literalist on many issues vs the more liberal ELCA. But both of them hold Luther' s view of predestination. Neither one emphasized it in my experience. They simply said an all knowing God knows what we will do but.that does not relieve people of responsibility for actions.

I also have some experience with Presbyterians who also have conservative and liberal branches. Conservative ones hold more to the selectivity of God on predestination. The liberal PCUSA is influenced by 20th century theologian Karl Barth on the topic. He proposed salvation extended to all, not selectively. There is more to his view than that but in summary it opens the door to all.

Baptists and Methodists favor free will. They both also have various branches.

I don't know much about the beliefs of various evangelicals on this topic. I don't know when we started calling them that. I know people who call themselves evangelical but are not conservative politically or socially. To them the term means they are enthusiastic in embracing their faith and open to all who want to join.

I prefer the term "fundamentalist" for the more narrow literalists in Christianity. Fundamentalist can also refer to people of other faiths besides Christian who hold to ultra conservativism, exclusivity, and literalism.

of drivers. Some believe in free will some don't. Some think god plans their life others don't believe in god.

What difference does it make what they believe? Nature goes along not asking questions people invent a framework that they want to live in.

developing belief systems. I was merely describing some thst I'm familiar with regarding the predestination that was mentioned in the OP.

As to your question, I think we see in the US today that people's beliefs can make a great difference in our lives as they influence people's politics and social activism. Churches were and still are a community center for activism in civil rights, especially among African Americans. Religious beliefs are associated with Native American ecological preservation. Libersl Christian and Jewish groups are taking active roles in the humanitarian issues of migrants and refugees.

Many agnostics or atheists have well grounded ethics and values that they follow - integrity, compassion and kindness, a sense of right and wrong, of justice and personal and social responsibility. I admire their honesty about what they do not or can not believe and respect their rights on that.

Some people OTOH need or prefer religious beliefs in their lives. In religion they find paths of spiritual growth and a grounding for their moral values as well as hope, comfort, and strength in hard times. Who am I - or any of us - to tell them what to believe or not believe so long as they accept the rights of others who do not share their beliefs? Yeah, there are people whose beliefs are harmful or intolersnt and they need pushback IMO.

But I find it petty and childish that some people need to ridicule all religions or religious people across the board simply because they have a religious faith.

I grew up in a church-going family and was taught the Christian beliefs in our denomination. I attended church as an adult off and on, sometimes regularly and sometimes not so much. I went through a long period of agnosticism.

But I attend church now for a variety of reasons. One is probably my early life exposure to religion influencing me in that direction for spirituality. But my perspective also changed and grew. I look beyond literalism to spiritual meanings in sacred stories, doctrines, and symbols. I find guidance and self reflection for personal growth through meditation and discussions. I've found a liberal church that I feel compatible with. It gives me opportunities to give back to society through community service programs. It also gives me a place to meet regularly with positive minded people in a less than positive minded world.

"God has the power to 'change mens' hearts and has been given the credit for doing so."


Yes that is the standatd Christian teaching on grace and salvation by faith.

I am not so sure, as you said, that if you do not believe in an all-powerful god, you can have all the free will you want. Unless you are just using that as a contrasting statement on religion.

I wonder how many choices and decisions are due to social conditioning and pressure or even biological inheritance to some extent.

Identical twin studies show that some of our preferences seem to have biological bases.

Consider dog and cat breeds. They can be bred for behaviorsl traits as well as physical ones. Each dog or cat within a breed will have its own personality but some behaviors will be pedictable by breed.

Of course we can reason and make rational decisions. We can change our behaviors with conscious choices and efforts. We csn calculate and manipulate our environment and people. We can plan. But perhaps not all of our choices snd decisions can be made with free will.

This Lutheran has never heard of it whether from Sunday school lessons or confirmations or sermons.