It’s late and I’m just getting started with
this week’s post. I’ve been on line discussing free will with my son – an
avoidance technique, no doubt, but the question of free will is so fascinating
and has taken such a beating that perhaps I should just keep the discussion
going here…
Adam, Eve, and Justice Roberts
Free will. The
concept means nothing if we are all, as Darwinists assume, just so much
protoplasm lounging in our Lazy Boys, pulsating, digesting, sloughing dead skin.
If decisions are nothing more than chemicals ricocheting around in our brains,
then this discussion is moot.
That we feel like we’re
making choices is confusing, but for all you atheists out there – it’s all you
have: just a feeling made of chemicals. How exactly you got to the point of
forming an opinion about the absence of God is curious, but nevertheless
mechanics is all you get to work with.
Some of you arrived
in that atheist state of denial because you’ve observed or experienced
horrifying human behavior and reacted with anger against the very God you claim
is non-existent. Never mind that without God we cannot explain evil; we shouldn’t
even see it as an issue. Why would we? Chemicals don’t have morals.
Some of you just don’t
want to be accountable to any being other than your self – but if I understand
your position, your will is nothing but an evolved cascade of endocrine
activity. It’s odd that you would feel the need to guard it so closely.
In either instance I
should point out that our sense of outrage at perceived injustice – whether we
suffer it or someone else does – won’t fit with survival of the fittest. We’d survive just fine without it. My
guess is that it comes from God, from that internal gauge we call a conscience.
It’s hard to account for a conscience with nothing to go on but the periodic
table.
But back to free
will. Let’s say, for the reasons stated above, that God is a given in this
discussion. And let’s pare this down to the original free will, untrammeled by
bad parenting and cultural influences. Let’s look at Adam and Eve. Adam, then
Eve, were created able to make
decisions. God invited Adam to
name the animals – he got to choose; he could
choose – not from between two options; he could name them anything.
He was encouraged to
eat from the trees of the Garden – only one was forbidden him, but the
forbidding didn’t stop that action. He was still able to do it. That’s an important point. He got to choose: to eat or not to eat. That was
evidently an easy choice, until Eve presented him with Choice 2.0 – God or Me.
He could have
remembered where Eve came from in the first place, and assumed that God would
provide him another “helpmeet.” He
could have walked away, but he didn’t. He made that fatal choice. We could
assume he was in love with her – I think it was the first and greatest love
story (see the Frost poem to the right), but lesser men have made more
difficult choices and chosen correctly. For that matter – why did Eve allow
herself to be fooled by the serpent?
Was she blonde? Did her hair color make her do it?
No one, no thing made
Adam and Eve choose as they did. No one had spanked them or sent them to bed
without their suppers. No inherited tendencies tipped their scales. No abusing
weird uncles scarred their memories. No mean schoolteachers had damaged their
self-esteem. No work pressures had them tied in knots. They were clean slates,
and yet, inexplicably they each made the wrong decision.
And now, although we
do have one thing stacked against us – we have inherited the twisted character
that resulted from those first two bad decisions -- we’ve still been given the
option to choose rightly. We can’t please God without His intervention, but we
can choose, say, not to have an adulterous affair. We can choose not to rob a
bank, or gossip about our neighbor, or lie about our age (I’m not really sure that’s a sin…). Hmmm…
And God has made it
possible for us to “unchoose” Adam’s mistake. We can still select for God, but
only on His terms. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.” He didn’t say, ”Work really hard to
show how much you really love me and I’ll pretend it never happened.” Cain tried that course; it didn’t
please God.
But upon belief in
His Son we are so regenerated, so back in God’s favor that He permanently
chooses us to be with Him forever. We are then elected; we are placed in union
with the Son; we are God’s forever. The fact that He knew in eternity past that
would happen for those of us who believe does not cause it to happen. It’s still a free will choice.
Even then we can still
choose wrongly. Why does our free will, once reunited with God, continue to
stumble? Partially because we are still living in bodies affected by Adam and
Eve’s decisions. This is true. But God has given us alternatives and we still
don’t always avail ourselves of their help. We have His Word we can use to
cleanse our thinking. We have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to guide our
way. We have the opportunity to actually please God. Sometimes some of us do.
Sometimes we don’t.
And yet, no one thing
compels us to choose – one way or the other. No thing, no circumstance, no
previous injury, no current illness, no chemistry makes us do anything. God doesn’t make us do anything. Free will is
still intact. If it weren’t the Bible wouldn’t be full of commands. Why tell us
to do something we don’t have any choice in? Wouldn’t we be compelled to
comply? You don’t order a puppet around; you pull his strings.
Paul lamented his
volitional tangle, “I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do,
but what I hate I do,” (Romans 7:15). Yet,
he blamed the situation on nothing. It is as if our selves and our will have
been separated. Perhaps that disjointed predicament is at the heart of original
sin.
Nevertheless, our
lives are filled with puzzling examples of the exercise of free will:
I wrote that just as
I swallowed a handful of chocolate chips. What was it Paul said?
I watch the news and am
dumbfounded. What force is it that makes people choose to ignore the patterns and
laws of history, economics, and foreign policy, stoutly look facts in the face.
and declare Marx and Keynes had it right all along? There is a force that wants
them to do that, but they choose to
acquiesce.
Last week Justice
Roberts made a decision, an inexplicable decision, to pay more attention to
politics and precedence than to the Constitution that he had sworn to uphold.
It is true that no man in recent history has been under greater pressure, but
the pressure was coming at him equally from both sides, so we can’t blame that.
Even if it rose to threatening proportions, he didn’t have to go the way he
did.
The reasons he
admitted to were insubstantial; he just chose – chose to place a greater value
on something (we may never know what) than on the Law of the Land. He chose,
perhaps not doing what he wanted to do, but what he hated. Yet, he chose.
He
exercised his free will. And no one is claiming that God made him do it.
You wrote; "There is a force that wants them to do that, but they choose to acquiesce."
ReplyDeleteThough it's not pleasant to consider, I think of a prisoner of war being tortured. Usually with the intent to glean information from the tortured. When a person is ordered to give up secrets or suffer excruciating pain, is the choice they make free?
Notice I didn't say which choice they made. That's right… because they COULD choose to withhold the information and endure the pain, couldn't they? In fact many men have done just that, haven't they? I have no doubt some have even paid the ultimate price. And yet, I suppose others have resisted for a while, but finally caved under the intense pressure.
For the one who resists through the first 5 torture sessions, but caves on the 6th, is his choice to cave made freely? In other words, could he have chosen otherwise? I think clearly he could have. If he didn't have the ability to choose otherwise, then how did he choose otherwise the previous 5 sessions?
If we must deny that the torture victim's choices are free because those choices are being influenced by the threat of bodily harm, then aren't we really saying that the only free choice is the choice which lacks consequences?
And what choice lacks consequences? If I choose to go fishing, that choice has consequences. Good ones, usually. But actually, there are some bad consequences, too… I lose money in gasoline. I have to spend time away from my family. My back will be sore afterward.
Every choice has positive AND negative consequences and so we cannot say that choices are only free if they lack consequences. After all… why would anyone even make a particular choice if there were literally NO consequences?
Good thinking! I hadn't even thought to touch on the consequences part of the equation. Glad you responded.
ReplyDeleteThe "version" of free will advocated by Jonathan Edwards (and most Calvinists) can be expressed simply as "doing what you want to do, even if you couldn't do otherwise." This is compatibilism. But what's really odd about this is that it seems to take for granted the notion that whatever anyone does is always what they want to do. I dunno 'bout you, but I do A LOT of things that I don't want to do. So where does that fit in?
ReplyDelete