Livre arbítrio
O livre arbítrio é a capacidade de escolher alternativas futuras. É um termo filosófico que se refere a "um tipo particular de capacidade dos agentes racionais de escolher um curso de ação entre várias alternativas" e está intimamente ligado ao conceito de responsabilidade moral.[1] O livre arbítrio é contrastado pelo determinismo. O determinismo pode ser naturalista ou teísta; com o determinismo naturalista, existe a crença de que fatores puramente genéticos e fisiológicos atuam no homem e, portanto, alega-se que somos produtos de nossos ambientes/circunstâncias, e no determinismo teísta (por exemplo, predestinação) afirma-se que Deus decide de antemão como é a vida de uma pessoa e as suas escolhas serão.[2][3]
A lógica do livre arbítrio tem duas partes principais: a agência que faz a escolha e as alternativas que são escolhidas. Essas duas partes são totalmente diferentes uma da outra, a agência é chamada de espiritual, o que é escolhido é chamado de material. Junto com essas substâncias duais, vêm os modos duplos de se chegar a uma conclusão: subjetividade e objetividade. Você tem que escolher identificar o que está no domínio espiritual, resultando em opiniões (subjetividade). Você tem que medir para descobrir o que está no domínio material, resultando em fatos (objetividade).[4]
Filosoficamente, o livre-arbítrio é a doutrina de que a conduta dos seres humanos expressa uma escolha pessoal e não é simplesmente determinada por forças físicas ou divinas. Este tema é frequentemente discutido nos círculos bíblicos, em argumentos e conceitos científicos para apologética e até mesmo em estudos sobre a própria formação do mundo e de como a vida veio a ser. A escolha do livre-arbítrio tem sido discutida filosoficamente como inconsistente e contrária ao próprio Deus. No entanto, os estudiosos da Bíblia insistem que a escolha do livre arbítrio não apenas existe, mas foi instituída em nós pela graça de Deus. A filosofia não prova nem refuta esse tópico, embora tenha sido debatido por muitos anos. Os filósofos ainda estão tentando descobrir o significado desse tópico e debate. O livre-arbítrio tem sido determinado desta forma: " A capacidade de ter feito o contrário." Agora, exatamente o que isso significa está aberto à interpretação, mas antes de entrar nisso, pense sobre o que exatamente está sendo declarado/debatido. Se um grupo de pessoas se reunisse e perguntasse o que exatamente eles achavam que era o livre-arbítrio, é improvável que eles soubessem por onde começar. O livre-arbítrio é um conceito que todas as pessoas pensam que conhecem até serem solicitadas a dar uma resposta sobre o que é. As pessoas discutem incansavelmente sobre o problema, mas apenas porque não gostam de qualquer que seja a resposta fornecida. Então, qual é o problema com o Livre Arbítrio?
Moralidade
Ver artigo principal: A moralidade é um sistema de conduta preocupado com a distinção entre o bem e o mal ou o certo e o errado (do latim moralitas "maneira, caráter, comportamento adequado"). O sistema de conduta pode ser referido como ética, que é definida como "A ciência do dever humano; o corpo de regras de dever extraídas desta ciência."[5] A palavra está enraizada no antigo termo grego ἦθος, ēthos que significava "caráter moral" ou "natureza".
A visão de mundo criacionista bíblica mantém o conceito de lei natural, ou seja, a moralidade é absoluta, porque o que é moral é estabelecido pela natureza de Deus. Essa moralidade informa o raciocínio do bem e do mal.
Assim, a humanidade, sendo criada à imagem de Deus, tem a lei "escrita em seus corações".
14 Porque, quando os gentios, que não têm lei, fazem naturalmente as coisas que são da lei, não tendo eles lei, para si mesmos são lei;15 Os quais mostram a obra da lei escrita em seus corações, testificando juntamente a sua consciência, e os seus pensamentos, quer acusando-os, quer defendendo-os; Romanos 2:14-15
Ter isso escrito em nossos corações significa que até mesmo ateus podem saber o que é moral.
The distinction highlighted within Christian philosophy when confronted by natural relativistic theories of morality presented by evolution is not necessarily how to know what is moral, called epistemology, as it is written in the heart of humanity. Rather what is approached is why objective moral values and duties exist at all and what a person ought to do about them, which would be considered ontological or metaphysical. Actions are not good or bad because of their effectiveness at permitting reproduction. Rather, they are absolutely and objectively right or wrong.
Types of Will
The philosophical debate over individual free will has developed into two rival schools of thought which are essentially metaphysical determinism and metaphysical libertarianism.[6]
Determinism
Determinism is the view that the past somehow will determine what happens in the future. Events have predetermined every action a person will take before they were even born. There is a physical event that happened in the past that made you act. The concept and status of free will is that of an illusion according to adherents of determinism. According to most contemporary philosophers determinism is, "contingently true" and empirically derived rather than a priori (See: Metaphysics).
| “ | We tend to agree with most contemporary philosophers on these matters (that if determinism is true then it is contingently true, and that whether determinism is true is an empirical matter), but we will not argue for these claims here.[7] | ” |
Determinists believe that no action we make is entirely free. Everything that has happened before and that is happening now is dictated by an unbreakable chain of events. Most Determinists believe in a motion called Reductionism. Reductionism states that "the practice of analyzing and describing a complex phenomenon in terms of phenomena that are held to represent a simpler or more fundamental level, especially when this is said to provide a sufficient explanation." The Physical world is deterministic. When a baseball bat cracks against a baseball, the baseball will fly through the air. Most people think that they are free to choose to hit said baseball or not but that is also deterministic, not liberty. [8] Choosing to hit a baseball or not is a mental state, which is tied to brain states. Brain states are biological states which make the state physical, which has already been said; the physical world is deterministic. Also, from a scientific standpoint, why would we assume that we were free anyway? Why would we determine that we are any different than any other thing in the entire universe? Admittedly, determinists can not pinpoint the exact link between cause, action, temperament, and desire, but they can isolate them. If someone knew enough about the five factors, cause, action, temperament, and desire, they would be able to know enough about what is happening inside the brain to give a physical answer. People can "choose" to behave a certain way, but the choice would still be determined. A person could make a choice to be happy or sad in order to fir their "character" but it would still be determined and not a free option. Any way you choose to act has already been determined by a past event that make up you and who you are or claim to be. [9]
Incompatibilism and Compatibilism
Incompatibilism states that free will and determinism are incompatible categories. Many Christians and therefore creationists are considered incompatibilists. On the other hand compatibilism is the notion of acting freely (i.e. with moral freedom) even if the actions were determined by previous conditions, including conditions a million years ago. Essentially, this view is saying that free will is compatible with determinism.
Libertarian Free Will (Moral Freedom)
In the libertarian view, there is no outside determining factor that is both controlling of, and unrelated to, the will of the person. Within libertarian free will the source of a human act of the will is known as the 'agent'. Therefore the cause of things is agent causation rather than deterministic causation. This is reflective of the nature of God, or of the image of God in which mankind was created. God is a metaphysically libertarian being. That is, His acts are not determined by some previous cause but rather God is acting solely by His own necessary nature. Humanity, while not classified as a necessary being like God, still acts freely, even though there are external influences that could cause particular actions. Ultimately however, the decision itself to act, and the physical movement of the moral or immoral action, are all controlled and based within the rational mind of a human agent exercising libertarian free will.
| “ | Sometimes the agent is said to be a “prime mover unmoved,” meaning one who causes without being caused to do so.[10] | ” |
Arguments Used For and Against
For Free Will
Free Will is a complex subject and as stated before, is widely debated. Though some philosophers doubt the existence of the entity entirely. Sam Harris, a Determinist against the existence of free will says this: "Free will is an illusion." Our wills are simply not of our own making. Thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control. We do not have the freedom we think we have. Free will is actually more than an illusion (or less), in that it cannot be made conceptually coherent. Either our wills are determined by prior causes and we are not responsible for them, or they are the product of chance and we are not responsible for them." [11] Determinists determine that since we are unable to pick our genes, past, and who we are, basically stating that a person is only free if we get to choose those things. No one has proven or will prove that the every-day choices we make are the result of past events and traumas. Obviously, if you were hit by a car you would be more paranoid when checking both ways before crossing the street, but stopping to tie your shoe 6 years ago would not determine you to choose oatmeal over a bagel today. [12] Because that is not what free will is about or what it means. Free will tells us that we have the choice in who we follow, who we let guide our life, and who we choose to respect. Choosing between apple flavored gum and mango flavored gum is not free will and not what God instated in us to have. We cannot choose not to breathe or we die. However, we can choose how we breathe. We can breathe quickly, slowly, staggered or not at all. There are no reasons that motivate certain actions, but that we are free to choose what our mind focuses on.
Against Free Will
" Christianity would be helpless without the idea of Free Will, and Free Will would be helpless without incongruity" -Kedar Joshi. Free will is one of the bedrock claims of Christianity. Spiritually speaking, people have the right to choose their own way based on morals, impulses, and desires. [13] Christianity itself is the choice to freely love, worship, follow, and devote themselves to God. If Free Will does not exist, that would mean our salvation is not up to us. If we can not truly choose Jesus Christ, our salvation rests in his hands, not our own, and we would be helpless and powerless to change our fates. The problem is if the vast majority of people are going to hell, then that means God meant to send them to hell to be tortured for all eternity; which is overwhelmingly cruel. This would also say God is responsible for all evil in humanity. Though most people will say the words " I choose to believe in _____", you can not simply just believe in it. You cannot just out of nowhere believe that alligators are holding the world up by their tails, go ahead and try. You cannot, you would need some form of proof to support such an absurd claim. People can not also choose to love someone. If someone were to picture someone they found physically and emotionally unattractive, simply believing they were deeply in love with them is impossible. Same goes for the belief of God or another chosen deity. Even the "choice" to do good or evil is polluted by certain instincts. A mother could choose to toss her baby into the sea but it goes against the motherly instinct to protect their child. Often times, the "right" choice is the choice common sense points to. The argument that God gave us free will as a gift is unsettling, to say the least. If he had not the world would be in absolute chaos so why is it something to brag about that we have the common sense not to perform heinous deeds? [14]
Biblical interpretation
The biblical doctrine outlined in the book of Genesis, during the creation of the world captures the source of metaphysical libertarianism. The original parents of mankind, Adam and Eve as real historical persons, made the first human choice. This was a choice between the will of God, which they were influenced by since their creation, and their own will influenced by Satan. Both original and separate influences offered distinct choices that humans decide to follow based on the experience filtered through their sensory system which was analyzed by logic within their minds to make the body produce an act of the will. The libertarian free will exercised by Adam and Eve severed the covenant with God by acting outside of His will. This act of free will had the consequence of a generational curse upon the rest of mankind, fundamentally altering life as they (Adam and Eve) knew it because of their sin. This original sin against the will and therefore nature of God physically and spiritually had a sort of epigenetic affect on all of biology, introducing death and the struggle and survival that comes with it.[15]
However logically valid an expression of emptiness may be, that does not mean that such an expression is morally good. In creationist theory the universe starts with a free act, and ends with a final free act. The morality of any individual choice is often portrayed in relation to these choices of original creation and final judgement. In creationism morality is about the spiritual content of the choice, and is focused more on the way in which a choice is made, then on the result of a choice.
Video
This video explains the Free Will problem, why it exists, and why it is challenged.
Referências
- ↑ O'Connor, Timothy (29 de outubro de 2010). "Free Will." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab. Stanford University.
- ↑ Geisler, Norman. "Determinism." The Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (ISBN 0-8010-2151-0).
- ↑ Geisler, Norman (1999). "Free Will." Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Baker Books.
- ↑ William of Ockham, http://www.philosophos.com/philosophical_connections/profile_050.html#ocksec2 , citação: "não podemos ter conhecimento de uma alma imaterial; nem podemos provar sua existência filosoficamente. Em vez disso, devemos confiar na verdade revelada e na fé"
- ↑ Webster 1913 Dictionary editado por Patrick J. Cassidy.
- ↑ Free Will By Wikipedia
- ↑ John W. Carroll and Ned Markosian, An Introduction to Metaphysics (Cambridge University Press 2010), pg. 51
- ↑ McLeod Saul. Saul Mcleod The Great Debate. Web. Published May 2013.
- ↑ Ram. Ram Determinism Vs Free Will '. Web. Last Modified 14, December 2013.
- ↑ John W. Carroll and Ned Markosian, An Introduction to Metaphysics (Cambridge University Press 2010), pg. 71
- ↑ Harris, Sam. Sam Harris The Information Philosopher. Web. Written April, 1967.
- ↑ Krueger, Joachim. Joachim Krueger Five Arguments For Free Will. Web. Posted 11 March, 2018.
- ↑ Cave, Stephen. Stephen Cave Free Will exists and is measurable. Web. Posted 10 June, 2016.
- ↑ Hewett C W M. C W M Hewett The Great Debate. Web. Posted July 2006.
- ↑ Epigenetics Offers New Solution to Some Long-Standing Theological Problems: Inherited Sin, Christ’s Sinlessness, and Generational Curses Can be Explained By Norman L. Geisler, 2010
| ||||||||||||||||||||
