Christianity without freewill

[scourge99]

Lately I have engaged in many debates that revolve around the question of whether freewill exists. Its interesting to note that many Christians take the side that freewill does exist while non-theists often take the side that freewill does not exist. I want to forgo the debate of whether freewill exists and look beyond it. For this thread lets assume that freewill does not exist. The goal of this thread is to investigate, brainstorm, and debate about reasonable formulations of Christianity assuming there is no freewill.

For arguments sake let us assume that science has demonstrated a lack of freewill to the same extent that it has demonstrated the theory of gravitation and the theory of evolution. I would guess many Christians would reject the science just as many in the past and present reject science when it comes to heliocentricism, a world wide flood, and evolution. But ignoring the science-deniers, what sense can a science-accepting Christian make of the core concepts of Christianity in light of no freewill? For example:

1) Jesus atonement for sins by dying on the cross. If people are not genuinely in control of their choices--past, present or future--and thus the sins they make then how is the (alleged) death and resurrection of Jesus redemptive?

2) Believing in God and Jesus gets you into heaven. If people cannot genuinely choose their beliefs but rather come about them by means beyond their personal control then wouldn't entrance into heaven be by pure luck?

I think many of these problems are far easier for liberal Christians to resolve but what about fundamentalists and moderates?

I believe there are other interesting problems that can be examined or need to be reassessed if we lack freewill such as the problem of evil and the problem of non-believers. Feel free to bring up any other problems. But more importantly, try to provide or propose some reasonable solutions to the problems.

[Coldfire]

Free will is not supported in Christian scripture.

On the contrary, there are frequent examples of determinism and predeterminism in the bible rather than any mention of a free will concept.

I can only guess that the reason so many Christians believe in it and believe that it is in the bible is because that is what was told to them; there’s no reason to challenge teachings but every reason to defend them it seems.

So i guess you could say nothing changes.

[PREEST]

Free will is an illusion. We make decisions that are not always at the forefront of consciousness, rather, we just make those decisions and we don't always know why, or why we decided to do A instead of B. I can't explain it as well as I would like so watch this video from Sam Harris, he explains the illusion of free will;

[Crazee]

If Christianity has no free will, then no Christian can ever be frustrated for someone else not being a Christian—because they have no choice.

Similarly, if a non-Christian believes in determinism, then s/he can never be annoyed with someone for being a Christian, since the Christian in question never had a choice in the matter.

[Mithrae]

But ignoring the science-deniers, what sense can a science-accepting Christian make of the core concepts of Christianity in light of no freewill? For example:

1) Jesus atonement for sins by dying on the cross. If people are not genuinely in control of their choices--past, present or future--and thus the sins they make then how is the (alleged) death and resurrection of Jesus redemptive?

2) Believing in God and Jesus gets you into heaven. If people cannot genuinely choose their beliefs but rather come about them by means beyond their personal control then wouldn't entrance into heaven be by pure luck?

I think many of these problems are far easier for liberal Christians to resolve but what about fundamentalists and moderates?

I believe there are other interesting problems that can be examined or need to be reassessed if we lack freewill such as the problem of evil and the problem of non-believers. Feel free to bring up any other problems. But more importantly, try to provide or propose some reasonable solutions to the problems.

It would be all old news to Calvinists - and no doubt other branches of Christian theology. In the bible itself Paul teaches that God's will is so supreme and his grace so sublime that mere humans' weaknesses and sin are of no effect:

• Romans 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.â€� 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
  
  19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?� 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?� 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
  
  22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

See also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism# ... _Calvinism

Obviously for many other Christians a hypothetical disproof of free choice would require a great deal of re-thinking of their beliefs, just as a hypothetical proof of free choice would require re-thinking on many atheists' part. It's a question whose implications extend through the nature and reliability both of our experience and reason; our identity as individuals and interactions as communities; and even to the very nature of reality.

[cnorman18]

From an old post of mine:

Whenever this topic comes up, I feel compelled to ask -

WHOOO CAAARES?

Whether free will is an illusion or not, I still seem to have to decide what to eat for lunch.

Even if the universe is absolutely deterministic, we still seem to be constrained to make decisions - or to think we do, which as a practical matter is precisely the same thing.

When somebody can show me how this question has any more impact on my life than as meaningless abstract theory with absolutely zero practical consequences, I'll think about it. Till then - mmm, I think I'll have a combo burrito and a couple of tacos with a Diet Coke.

Gee, it sure feels like I could have sent out for pizza....

And by the way, how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin?

You guys let me know when I can stop pretending to make decisions and not have to think any more... and while you're at it, explain to me what we're all doing here. If we have no choices about what to do, we have no choices about what to believe either, so what's the point of having these discussions? What's the point of learning anything? What's the point of thinking at all?

Arguing (or assuming, as in the present case) that free will does not exist strikes me as no more provable, verifiable, or objectively true than assuming or arguing that God does exist. Both are, like any thought expressed in words, mental constructs and not actual Reality. The difference is that between the word "pain" and what you actually feel when you hit your thumb with a hammer.

"There is no such thing as free will" is a string of words without a practical, real-world meaning. Rather like "God objectively exists," if one considers it.

Sorry for the interruption. Carry on with your theorizing.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 6:

Arguing (or assuming, as in the present case) that free will does not exist strikes me as no more provable, verifiable, or objectively true than assuming or arguing that God does exist. Both are, like any thought expressed in words, mental constructs and not actual Reality. The difference is that between the word "pain" and what you actually feel when you hit your thumb with a hammer.

"There is no such thing as free will" is a string of words without a practical, real-world meaning. Rather like "God objectively exists," if one considers it.

I think you fail to grasp that some to many theists declare humans "fallen" based on their "free will", and thus worthy of suffering, up to and including at the hands of theists.

But if you speak in terms of how the notion of free will directly impacts my current day to day living, I can't much argue.

[ttruscott]

Lately I have engaged in many debates that revolve around the question of whether freewill exists. Its interesting to note that many Christians take the side that freewill does exist while non-theists often take the side that freewill does not exist. I want to forgo the debate of whether freewill exists and look beyond it. For this thread lets assume that freewill does not exist. The goal of this thread is to investigate, brainstorm, and debate about reasonable formulations of Christianity assuming there is no freewill.

For arguments sake let us assume that science has demonstrated a lack of freewill to the same extent that it has demonstrated the theory of gravitation and the theory of evolution. I would guess many Christians would reject the science just as many in the past and present reject science when it comes to heliocentricism, a world wide flood, and evolution. But ignoring the science-deniers, what sense can a science-accepting Christian make of the core concepts of Christianity in light of no freewill? For example:

1) Jesus atonement for sins by dying on the cross. If people are not genuinely in control of their choices--past, present or future--and thus the sins they make then how is the (alleged) death and resurrection of Jesus redemptive?

2) Believing in God and Jesus gets you into heaven. If people cannot genuinely choose their beliefs but rather come about them by means beyond their personal control then wouldn't entrance into heaven be by pure luck?

I think many of these problems are far easier for liberal Christians to resolve but what about fundamentalists and moderates?

I believe there are other interesting problems that can be examined or need to be reassessed if we lack freewill such as the problem of evil and the problem of non-believers. Feel free to bring up any other problems. But more importantly, try to provide or propose some reasonable solutions to the problems.

It was these considerations about our lack of free will which I think is proven, that led me to put my faith in a pre-earth existence where we could make true free will decisions which DO make Christianity and the the Bible a more logical spiritual reality.

I was convinced of Christian reality but it made no sense to me before I understood our pre-conception existence and one of the things that did not make sense was our lack of free will yet still being held accountable.

Now I know how that works...

Peace, Ted

[connermt]

Seems to me that the concept of "free will" within christianity is nothing more than a buzzword used to excuse their god of ultimate responsibility of the current state we're in.
Christianity could exist w/o free will just as it does now. God would simply pick those it wants to make it to heaven.
The biblical god is a very self centered, egocentric deity. It seems to want people to worship it rather than being loving and accepting of them the way they are (which, is the way it ALLOWED them to be - some would even say MADE them to be) and allowing them to get to heaven, based on the popular christian thought.

In the long run, if god does truly exists, free will has zero influence on where we spend our eternity. God has set that up long before we were born. And nothing we can do will change the end result.

[Peter]

From an old post of mine:

Whenever this topic comes up, I feel compelled to ask -

WHOOO CAAARES?

Whether free will is an illusion or not, I still seem to have to decide what to eat for lunch.

Even if the universe is absolutely deterministic, we still seem to be constrained to make decisions - or to think we do, which as a practical matter is precisely the same thing.

When somebody can show me how this question has any more impact on my life than as meaningless abstract theory with absolutely zero practical consequences, I'll think about it. Till then - mmm, I think I'll have a combo burrito and a couple of tacos with a Diet Coke.

Gee, it sure feels like I could have sent out for pizza....

And by the way, how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin?

You guys let me know when I can stop pretending to make decisions and not have to think any more... and while you're at it, explain to me what we're all doing here. If we have no choices about what to do, we have no choices about what to believe either, so what's the point of having these discussions? What's the point of learning anything? What's the point of thinking at all?

Arguing (or assuming, as in the present case) that free will does not exist strikes me as no more provable, verifiable, or objectively true than assuming or arguing that God does exist. Both are, like any thought expressed in words, mental constructs and not actual Reality. The difference is that between the word "pain" and what you actually feel when you hit your thumb with a hammer.

"There is no such thing as free will" is a string of words without a practical, real-world meaning. Rather like "God objectively exists," if one considers it.

Sorry for the interruption. Carry on with your theorizing.

I think you're convolving will and choice. Obviously, we all make choices but "will" entails a much deeper understanding of motivations and consequences than "choice" does. Religious free will is basically a little man whispering absolute truth into your ear which you are free to follow or ignore at your peril. Religious free will is like making your choice but then allowing the little man with absolute truth to change it. It's like being able to will what we choose.

How many times have you made a choice you didn't make? We typically make choices without even knowing why we make the choice we do. I'm going to write a word now, rabbit. Why did I write rabbit? I don't know. It just bubbled up to my conscious. Did I employ religious free will to write rabbit? No.

We can easily convince ourselves that we can make a very considered choice. We weigh all the variables we can. We account for the positives and negatives of a decision but in the end we still don't really understand all the factors that went into it. There is now little man whispering absolute truth that can will what we choose.