|
Some scholars believe that a will would be free if,
and only if, it were in a state of complete indifference to its possible
choices. In other words, if there were any influences upon a will, the
will would no longer be free. They argue that any influence upon a will
would determine it to a particular choice among its possible
options. It is granted by all that many things influence the human will.
So, if free will were dependent upon having no influences upon it, these scholars
would have made their case that human do not have a free will.
John Gerstner (?-1996)
An example of the denial of free will is found in the
writings of the late professor John Gerstner of Pittsburgh Theological
Seminary. He argued that a will is only free if it is free from any
background influence or compulsion in its choices. Then, he followed by
showing that this is an impossible state of affairs. He concluded that
free will is "just a meaningless statement." In his A
Primer On Free Will, he wrote,
"Spontaneously, without anything forcing me to
make a choice, I did, of myself alone, arbitrarily if you please choose
to pick up this book and read it." At least, that is what 95
percent of the persons who use that term, "free will," mean by
it. They mean their choices are free of any factors in the background
influencing them, let alone compelling them. p.1-2
Now, you see, that sort of thing—choosing
regardless of considerations, or choosing without considerations, or
choosing against considerations, and so on, is precisely what 95 percent
of the people mean when they talk about "free will." p. 5
No, it is not of your own free will. We already have
shown that there is no such thing as a free will. That’s a will-o’-the-wisp.
You never make choices without reasons, not as a responsible or rational
person. p. 11
We have shown that there is no meaning to the concept
of free will. There isn’t any in God, or the angels, or the devils, or
man in heaven or in hell. The concept is just a meaningless statement.
p. 25.1
Anyone familiar with the classic definition of free
will and with the reasoning behind its definition would immediately see
how misdirected Professor Gerstner’s comments were. Historically, free
will has been a term selected to designate the kind of will that is
possessed by a rational being. A non-rational animal lacks an
intellectual mind, and its will is directed by its natural instincts. A
brute animal has a will, but it is not a free will. By contrast, a
rational being has a will whose choices are made in the light of its
rational mind. This kind of will has been historically defined as a free
will, because it can make rational choices that go beyond the programmed
behavior of animal instincts.
For example, a hungry lion looks at a herd of
wildebeest and chooses one that is weak and vulnerable to attack. The
lion does not think about the morality of attacking another animal to
satisfy its needs. It feels no compassion or guilt for the animal it
kills. It acts according to its instinctive nature. Komodo dragons eat
their own young without any moral considerations. By contrast, humans
are morally responsible for their behavior, because they have an
intellectual mind that reflects upon appropriate behavior.
Essentially, Professor Gerstner presented a non-standard definition of free
will and then proceeded to dismantle it. He did not base his views on the
fundamental difference between the will of an animal and the will of a
rational being. So, his assertion that humans don't have free will does
not apply to the traditional understanding of the human will. His
booklet's title is a really misnomer, since it is not 'A Primer On
Free Will' nor is it helpful to students who seek to understand
the topic, as it has been understood through the centuries. This is
unfortunate, because it is vital that Christian students learn the
rationale for traditional views, so they become equipped to engage the
culture and to defend the Christian faith.
There are numerous influences and compulsions upon
human beings. This is readily granted, and it is not a new thought. Free
will has nothing to do with a state of indifference to options. It has
to do with rational thought and the will choosing what the mind deems
best morally. In fact, the human will is the least free when it is in a
state of indifference to a set of choices. By contrast, the
will is most free when a single choice is crystal clear without any
ambiguity.
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes in his Mediations on First Philosophy
wrote that the human will is the most free when reasons of truth and
goodness clearly point the way. Descartes understood that the freedom of the
will did not consist in a state of indifference to options.
4th Mediation
....
Next, when I look more closely at myself and inquire
into the nature of my errors (for these are the only evidence of some
imperfection in me), I notice that they depend on two concurrent causes,
namely on the faculty of the will; that is, they depend on both the
intellect and the will simultaneously.
For in order to be free, there is no need for me to
be capable of moving both ways; on the contrary, the more I incline in
one direction—either because I clearly understand that reasons of
truth and goodness point that way, or because of a divinely produced
disposition of my inmost thoughts—the freer is my choice. Neither
divine grace nor natural knowledge ever diminishes freedom; on the
contrary, they increase and strengthen it. But the indifference I feel
when there is no reason pushing me in one direction rather than another
is the lowest grade of freedom; it is evidence not of any perfection of
freedom, but rather of a defect of knowledge or a kind of negation. For
if I always say clearly what was true and good, I should never have to
deliberate about the right judgement or choice; in that case, although I
should be wholly free, it would be impossible for me ever to be in a
state of indifference.2
Indifference to choice options has nothing to do
with free will. Stones are indifferent to all options, and they feel no
compulsion to do anything. This does not mean they are free. They are in
total bondage to their physical nature. Humans have immaterial minds
that give liberty and freedom to love, worship, and praise God. They can show love and kindness to others. Humans are more than instinctive animals.
They are creatures made in the image and likeness of God.
REFERENCES
June 16, 2001
|
