Question for those who don't believe there is free will?

Question

If there is no free will, or ability to make our own choices, does that mean there should be no consequence or accountability for our actions?

Good or bad, should heroism, or talant not be positively acknowledge or rewarded? Should criminal behavior not be punished or addressed?

Answer 1

in the hard determinist worldview (where there is no free will, and it is assumed you are talking about atheists when you say 'those'), the judges, audience and jury also don't have free will. Our current set of morals by which we act as a society (who is a hero and who is a bad guy) are also the inevitable result of preceding events.

I'm still undecided, leaning towards compatibilism but I haven't found good grounds yet.

Answer 2

IF there is no free will, then punishment is simply a course of action known as cause/effect. The action results in the consequence, however, if there is no free will, and there is some higher power responsible, then that power has the ability to attone for said punishment. If there IS free will, then all that means is that there is no "watcher". A watcher would be a consciousness that exists outside our temporal state, one that could travel backward in time to see said event in action, thus knowing the consequence. If backward timetravel were ever made possible, then free will would be proven impossible. Personally, I believe in free will, which would negate a "god" because if an all powerful god exists, one who could see the future and past at once (essentially the modern concept of god) there could be no such thing as free will, because free will negates "all knowing". Sorry if all this sounds confusing.

Example:
I hold a glass in my hand, if i let go it falls and breaks, if not it stays in my hand. At that point, I have free will to drop it or hold it... If someone is watching this event on a vcr, they could watch me drop it, and rewind back to the point before i do, knowing the decision. At the instant they witnessed it fall, it negated my free will. Expand this out to the vcr watcher being a being existing outside our temporal state, and you have the essence of free will vs. all knowing. Recourse for that action is societally responsive, or you must believe that we have free will and deserve the recourse, or do not have free will and the recourse was simply fate... there is no necessity to change consequences for actions because that is what they are and noone can choose to change, because there is no free will. Without proof of god, no one can assume there is not free will, and therefore we should not change consequences, because everyone has free will until proven that we do not.

Answer 3

You are assuming that free will applies to a philosophical concept of day-to-day decisions, and this is not what theological free will discussions involve. None of the mainstream Christian beliefs contests the fact that we can make day-to-day decisions. The problem is whether free will extends to the ability to choose God or not. Arminians say that this is possible, but this automatically raises questions that cannot be satisfactorily answered if God is to remain omnipotent.

However, you do raise an interesting point about those that assume that we do not have the ability to make a decision for Christ, i.e. the responsibility that goes with salvation. If God has determined that his own will be saved, then once they are saved, why not just relax and forget about works? But you have to remember that we're not talking about free will anymore the way the Arminians describe it. We are talking about those with a new heart that God has given them, a heart with the Holy Spirit working within, where you are no longer accusing man but rather the Holy Spirit's power within the man to work God's will for God's glory. Romans 8:9 describes Christians as not being "in the flesh but in the spirit", and we are guided in our actions by the Lord, not ourselves. Paul even bolsters this in vs. 8 by saying "those who are in the flesh cannot please God", and I will ascribe this one to the Arminians who believe that it is all up to man, works being a duty that begets responsibility and thus a focus on works, where Calvinists stick with the biblical idea of struggles being overcome by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit within the believer. It's an entirely different focus.

Answer 4

On earth there is free will. But if God is all knowing as professed in the bible, then there cannot be Freewill in terms of Salvation. If God knows ahead of time who will be going to hell, why create them? It would be MUCH more loving to not create them, rather than create them knowing that they will just end up burning anyway right?

In essence God creates people who he knows are going to be spending the afterlife in tremendous pain. Christians will say that he does it to prove a point to the rest of creation. It would be the same as me breeding cats for a show that tortures tabby cats, that shows people why torturing tabby cats is wrong. I know that some of the bred cats will come out as tabbies, but I keep breeding them anyway. If I were to do that, it would be decried as cruel and I would be rightfully outcast and demeaned. Why then accept the same from a deity?

Answer 5

I'm not sure about free will, but I don't think criminals should be "punished" -- they should be rehabilitated.

The United States criminal justice system does almost nothing to deter crime -- at best it limits contact between criminals and the rest of society.

Answer 6

There is no free will it is a consequence of learning. That is why we try to rehabilitate criminals. We are attempting to condition them to behave better.

If there was such a thing as free will it wouldn't make sense to try to rehabilitate criminals. We could just ask them to be nice.

Answer 7

Whenever someone is heroic or displays talent, they thank God. Whenever someone is criminal, they take responsibility.

Seems odd, doesn't it?