http://afcmin.org/ateam/114/the-implications-of-free-will Helping plans come together, one post at a time Sun, 03 May 2015 14:00:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.9 http://afcmin.org/ateam/114/the-implications-of-free-will/comment-page-1#comment-339 Sun, 29 May 2005 00:10:20 +0000 http://afcmin.org/ateam/?p=114#comment-339 Irony- I just ordered that book yesterday.

]]> http://afcmin.org/ateam/114/the-implications-of-free-will/comment-page-1#comment-338 Sat, 28 May 2005 23:04:23 +0000 http://afcmin.org/ateam/?p=114#comment-338 The best summary/defense of Calvinism I have ever read is J.I. Packer's introductory essay to John Owen's The Death of Death, found here.

]]> http://afcmin.org/ateam/114/the-implications-of-free-will/comment-page-1#comment-337 Sat, 28 May 2005 05:58:41 +0000 http://afcmin.org/ateam/?p=114#comment-337 As a matter of procedure, when two people whom I respect as being more knowledgeable in an area tell me I'm wrong I consider that grounds enough to say I probably am. In this case, I really haven't studied the philosophical issues that much, and Brett and Melinda have. So everyone is free to ignore my ramblings and I withdraw any claim I've made to being worthy of Talbot.

]]> http://afcmin.org/ateam/114/the-implications-of-free-will/comment-page-1#comment-336 Sat, 28 May 2005 00:48:20 +0000 http://afcmin.org/ateam/?p=114#comment-336 Brett, after re-reading my own post I think you're right. Melinda mentioned this as well. I didn't mean to say that the libertairan view completely denies the influence of outside factors in choices. Rather, outside factors do not necessarily impacts choice. The libertarian view says that our choices may be arbitrary, whether they are our not depends on the agent, the potentially “unmoved mover.” Perhaps Moreland says differently in Body and Soul, I haven't read it, but I don't know how else to read this article I've quoted from. Additionally, this is how I viewed it when I was a libertarian.
You haven't shown how my conclusions at the end fall apart or constitute a straw man. Further, I only offered it as what may be the case, something I think is worth considering.
Micah, the use of “arbitrary” wasn't moral. It was in relation to that factors that influence our choices. I agree that some choices are morally arbitrary as you put it- however, I don't believe any of our choices are causally arbitrary.
As I said, I affirm free will. I don't think our choices are illusory. We actually make choices. The question is why we make the choices we do.
As for Ware, I'm not sure if he's ignorant or ignoring distinctions. My guess is his writing is more precise in dealing with the nuances. He may believe that even though a libertarian would make these distinctions they inevitably end up with how he characterized it. I have no idea.

]]> http://afcmin.org/ateam/114/the-implications-of-free-will/comment-page-1#comment-335 Fri, 27 May 2005 23:27:02 +0000 http://afcmin.org/ateam/?p=114#comment-335 The generalization/motivation sword cuts both ways (societies in history and their morality seems more cyclical than downward spiral, but that's just an aside). Oddly, having read the piece, I find its description of choice nearly identical to Thomas Hobbes' mechanistic account of human decision-making in the beginning of the Leviathan. The last desire wins out, and we have no or very limited access to the underlying and unseen factors that make us choose what we do. Ware has God knowing these things; Hobbes doesn't address God (at least relating to human decision-making).
This doesn't mean Ware is wrong, that would be guilt by association (the similarities with Marx's historical theory notwithstanding). I don't want to go down this rabbit hole again, but I do want to make three brief points (ultimately I think I'm leaning toward the view that one's view of free will is an a priori first principle, incapable of proof or disproof because the conclusion is always assumed in the premise).
1) Free-willers (for lack of a better term atm) do not think free choice means radically free choice absent underlying factors. This is a false characterization. No one, not even God, is free to make decisions against one's nature. His ice cream example compared the moment before making the choice (peppermint looks good, but chocolate does to), with the moment afterwards after the choice has been made.
2) I affirm that there are arbitary choices. This does not entail that every choice is arbitrary. Chocolate or vanilla, steak or chicken, these are morally arbitrary and it doesn't really matter morally what we choose. But there are morally non-arbitrary choices too: adultery or not, white lie or embarrassing truth, smoking or not. I think there are reasons, some good, and some not, and we can use our God-given reason to align our (imperfect and rebellious) will with the right reason. I don't know why it follows, biblically or philosphically, why some arbitrary choices means all choices are arbitrary. I think Ware confounds “reasons” with “causes”. In his understanding, there is no such thing as a “reason” classically understood (a synopsis can be found here and here .)
3. Finally, I don't see how Ware's thinking doesn't lead to the hyper-determinism expressed by others in a similar vein (i.e the last comment-rabbit-hole-Hades I contributed to here 😉 ).
None of these points prove my point, nor will be persuasive I know. I don't see how this viewpoint is compatible with “morality” at all. If our illusion of making choices is truly illusory, then we are basically watching a movie of our lives, waiting (perhaps?) to wake up in heaven truly free (though it seems if free will here is nonsensical and/or an insult to God's sovereignty I don't know why it would be okay in the hereafter).
(one last btw, totally agree that the Founders thought freedom the ability to do what one ought. But this is a different kettle of fish from the free-will issues addressed by Ware, I suspect the FF would fall on both sides of the question)

]]> http://afcmin.org/ateam/114/the-implications-of-free-will/comment-page-1#comment-334 Fri, 27 May 2005 23:17:27 +0000 http://afcmin.org/ateam/?p=114#comment-334 Roger, Roger, Roger…what a caricature you (and Ware) have offered of libertarian agency. If J.P. sees you haphazardly erecting straw men like this, he may change his mind about letting you into the M.A. Philosophy program at Talbot!
See J.P.'s discussion of libertarian agency in the book, Body and Soul, chapter 4. Notice the careful distinctions libertarians make between pure voluntary acts and intentional voluntary acts done for a reason. Also, note the distinction between effecient and final causes. Ware either ignores these key distinctions or he is uninformed.
And the wildly implausible causal connection you draw between libertarian freedom and same-sex marriage, abortion, etc. simply falls apart along with your straw man.
Don't let this happen again or I'm telling J.P. on you!

]]>