free will and free choice in religion

[chair jockey]

If you have faith in God because you want to avoid going to hell, or even get into heaven, then you're choosing faith in order to get something out of it, and God is likely to be upset with you. He doesn't do used car sales and doesn't want you trying to do used car sales with Him, either. The choice to have faith must be free, which means it must be made without a reason. That's the essence of free will.

But it's not as hard as it sounds. Ultimately, there is no reason for any choice. If you keep asking "why" over and over again and dig deep enough, you encounter vacuum. There are no ultimate explanations in life. So, in the end, all choice really is free, and we just _think_ our choices are constrained. So, even though philosophers have discredited the concept of free will a zillion times, the concept of free will not only makes sense but is actually the way things really are.

[Zerο]

I've never liked the reward/punishment system most religions seem to practice.

[Titus Oates]

Why is having a reason for a choice not a free choice?

Edit: I would also argue that the choice to have faith must have a reason, otherwise it is not truly free. Our reason is what enables us to make choices... Those who are deemed to be "without reason" - children, the mentally impaired, animals - cannot be held to account for their decisions in the same way as adults can. In a sense, they are not choosing because they did not have the materials with which to make an informed decision.

[fiѕh]

i think it would be hard (which means, i'm wondering if i should use the word "impossible") to actively choose things without having a reason...

there's always gonna be some reason, right? whether it makes you feel good or you think it's the right thing, that's all reasons.

[dissolved]

I have free will. It enables me to choose to have nothing to do with religion.

[test account]

.

[Skycaptain]

The best thing about "Western Society" is the opportunity to choose what form of theism we wish to follow, hopefully without enduring an adverse reaction from our peers,

Personally I am an atheist, mainly, because "If humanity is created in god's image" then I am so abnormal I cannot be human. However I am no alternative organinsm , so I must be human. Ergo, in my view, there cannot be a god.

I will say that this is a moderated view of my opinion, because if I was to vent my full spleen on this subject, then it will cause considerable offence t those who derive comfort solace and a sense of existence from their beliefs, and I would probably be banned from AVEN.

[chair jockey]

Why is having a reason for a choice not a free choice?

From the viewpoint of law, freedom can be conditioned, but from the viewpoint of philosophy, any condition abrogates freedom. If you eat because you need sustenance then you are compelled to eat by the need for sustenance and the choice ot eat is therefore not free. Sure, some people can choose to stop eating until they die, but many cannot because their instinct for food is too strong. That means eating is _not_ something we do freely from a philosophical point of view, even if part of legal and political freedom actually includes having enough food available to eat. Hope that helps.

[Tarfeather]

Why is having a reason for a choice not a free choice?

Because if there's one dangerous thing to such religions, then it is the idea that coming to a decision based on practical considerations is the right and good thing to do. If you can be "good" just by doing what's in your best interest, or in the best interest of your collective, then you don't need the religion any more. You already have a means to determine your actions, morals, etc. Religion often requires a really twisted and complex framework, and the idea that "free will" is only "decisions that were made without outside influence" is very effective and can actually seem logical if you don't think about it for two seconds.

[chair jockey]

Why is having a reason for a choice not a free choice?

Because if there's one dangerous thing to such religions, then it is the idea that coming to a decision based on practical considerations is the right and good thing to do. If you can be "good" just by doing what's in your best interest, or in the best interest of your collective, then you don't need the religion any more. You already have a means to determine your actions, morals, etc. Religion often requires a really twisted and complex framework, and the idea that "free will" is only "decisions that were made without outside influence" is very effective and can actually seem logical if you don't think about it for two seconds.

Practical considerations cannot withstand indefinite inquiry. If you keep asking "why" and dig deep enough, you end up getting to a point where there is no practical reason to do anything. Ultimately everything in the physical universe is meaningless. That's an exttremely well-established philosophical principle. While I'm not religious, I understand that some people choose to deal with the absence of ultimate expalations and justifications by making the free choice to believe in a supernatural creator. Others avoid religion limit the depth of their inquiry to a point at which they can function.

[SorryNotSorry]

The major religions should be understood in the context of the times in which they were more or less founded. The world is a different place than it was then.

[Titus Oates]

Why is having a reason for a choice not a free choice?

From the viewpoint of law, freedom can be conditioned, but from the viewpoint of philosophy, any condition abrogates freedom. If you eat because you need sustenance then you are compelled to eat by the need for sustenance and the choice ot eat is therefore not free. Sure, some people can choose to stop eating until they die, but many cannot because their instinct for food is too strong. That means eating is _not_ something we do freely from a philosophical point of view, even if part of legal and political freedom actually includes having enough food available to eat. Hope that helps.

But surely there is a difference between having a reason for a choice and compulsion.

You may be compelled to eat to survive, but you could choose to eat certain things because you want to lose weight, or build muscle, or for whatever reason. Or you could chose to not eat meat for ethical reasons. You are not compelled to eat a particular kind of food. That's free will. Just because we have a reason for eating the food that we do doesn't make it not free.

[Titus Oates]

Why is having a reason for a choice not a free choice?

Because if there's one dangerous thing to such religions, then it is the idea that coming to a decision based on practical considerations is the right and good thing to do. If you can be "good" just by doing what's in your best interest, or in the best interest of your collective, then you don't need the religion any more. You already have a means to determine your actions, morals, etc. Religion often requires a really twisted and complex framework, and the idea that "free will" is only "decisions that were made without outside influence" is very effective and can actually seem logical if you don't think about it for two seconds.

I don't follow this at all.

Why is the idea that good = practical any more sound than religious systems of morality?

Religion requires a twisted and complex framework of what?

Many people feel the desire to do things other that what is simply practical. Not many people equate this with being good. *I* believe people do feel genuine altruistic impulses, that can't merely be explained away as advancing the collective. People have a desire to help strangers. People have a desire to help animals; even animals that can sometimes be destructive to human interests.

This doesn't come from a sense of practicality, but a sense of moral duty entirely separate from practical considerations.

[Titus Oates]

I just don't see why, just because you don't have an ultimate answer to "why do we exist?" that the world is necessarily meaningless and there is no reason for anything.

Just because we can't ultimately answer the question doesn't mean there is no answer.

You have to start with something, a set of axioms, to make sense out of anything.

[chair jockey]

Titus, there are indeed conditional answers, but their essence is that they are conditional upon assumptions. If you question the assumptions underlying conditional answers you ALWAYS find that the assumptions are not self-evidently true and require further proof. This process of questioning can be carried on indefinitely without reaching a point at which it can satisfactorily terminate (although in practice the limitations of human brain structure prevent questioning beyond a certain point). It is because no axiom is self-evidently true in an absolute sense--and I do mean NO axiom--that using axioms in the first place is a convenience that enables us to function rather than a determiner oif objective truth. And, yeah, it's a great thing to be able to function, but many proponents of axioms like to pretend that those axioms are self-evidently true, which they absolutely are not, so we need to recognize that axioms are a convenience rather than true knowledge. The impossibility of true knowledge that arises from the certainty of indefinite questioning and indefinite challenges given a mind of infinite capacity is what makes everything ultimately meaningless. Thus my argument that free will really does exist because the only real constraints on our will are unchallenged assumptions (although we are quite often constrained by our physical limitations as well, especially our brain structure).

EDIT: In a fit of ego I actually googled "the impossibility of true knowledge given the necessity of indefinite inquiry given a mind of infinite capacity" and got this interesting search result: https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/chomsky.htm

[Perseus]

I have never agreed with most religions. The only religions I could follow is New Age or Neo-Panan. I am very spiritual and I agree with a lot of things about bout of these religious practices.

[Perseus]

Titus, there are indeed conditional answers, but their essence is that they are conditional upon assumptions. If you question the assumptions underlying conditional answers you ALWAYS find that the assumptions are not self-evidently true and require further proof. This process of questioning can be carried on indefinitely without reaching a point at which it can satisfactorily terminate (although in practice the limitations of human brain structure prevent questioning beyond a certain point). It is because no axiom is self-evidently true in an absolute sense--and I do mean NO axiom--that using axioms in the first place is a convenience that enables us to function rather than a determiner oif objective truth. And, yeah, it's a great thing to be able to function, but many proponents of axioms like to pretend that those axioms are self-evidently true, which they absolutely are not, so we need to recognize that axioms are a convenience rather than true knowledge. The impossibility of true knowledge that arises from the certainty of indefinite questioning and indefinite challenges given a mind of infinite capacity is what makes everything ultimately meaningless. Thus my argument that free will really does exist because the only real constraints on our will are unchallenged assumptions (although we are quite often constrained by our physical limitations as well, especially our brain structure).

EDIT: In a fit of ego I actually googled "the impossibility of true knowledge given the necessity of indefinite inquiry given a mind of infinite capacity" and got this interesting search result: https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/chomsky.htm

Interesting link.

[Perseus]

I just don't see why, just because you don't have an ultimate answer to "why do we exist?" that the world is necessarily meaningless and there is no reason for anything.

Just because we can't ultimately answer the question doesn't mean there is no answer.

You have to start with something, a set of axioms, to make sense out of anything.

I agree with you here T.

If you have faith in God because you want to avoid going to hell, or even get into heaven, then you're choosing faith in order to get something out of it, and God is likely to be upset with you. He doesn't do used car sales and doesn't want you trying to do used car sales with Him, either. The choice to have faith must be free, which means it must be made without a reason. That's the essence of free will.

But it's not as hard as it sounds. Ultimately, there is no reason for any choice. If you keep asking "why" over and over again and dig deep enough, you encounter vacuum. There are no ultimate explanations in life. So, in the end, all choice really is free, and we just _think_ our choices are constrained. So, even though philosophers have discredited the concept of free will a zillion times, the concept of free will not only makes sense but is actually the way things really are.

I agree with you on the first paragraph.