Wyz_sub10

In this thread:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=001427" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=001427</a>

...a few of us discussed the issue of the value of free will (not as an absolute, but as something given by the Christian god, bearing in mind the consequences of an "evil" life).

I do not wish to re-hash this topic here (the other thread is still open, should people wish to comment).

Rather, I am wondering about the compatibility of free will and obedience.

Mnay theists on this board have stated that free will exists, in part, because god does not want "mindless robots."

Yet, consider the Tree of Life - god told them not to touch, but did not give reason why. His commandment was supposedly enough, and Adam and Eve were expected not to question, but to simply obey.

If god does not want mindles robots, and has therefore given humanity free will, then why should one *ever* be expected to obey without question or challenge?

Isn't blind obedience without challenge part of being a "mindless robot"? Doesn't the very existence of free will imply intrinsic direction - a course in opposition to extrinsic direction?

Butters

O.K. Wyz, I'm going to move this here.

Jamie_L

This brings up one of my musings: Why did Adam and Eve choose to disobey God?

Assuming they have free will:

Adam and Eve had to make a decision based on a cost-benefit analysis. Did the benefits of disobeying God outweight the costs of disobedience.

However, as mentioned in the OP, Adam and Eve did not have enough information to make this assessment. They had no idea what the benefits of eating from the Tree were. So how did they conclude it was more desirable to eat from it than obey God?

There seem to be two options:
1) They were duped by the serpent into believing the benefits outweighed the costs. However, if this is true, should they be held accountable? They had no other information to compare the serpent's story to. Are they guilty of freely choosing disobedience when they were choosing based on erroneous information? Apparently they did not have the proper information or critical thinking skills to evaluate the serpent's claims. Is this their fault?
2) They had some internal sensation that seemed more beneficial than the potential costs. That internal sensation may have been curiosity or a sense of rebellion. Either way, however, this internal sensation was not the creation of Adam and Eve. They did not construct their personalities.

Their free will seems to have been completely short-circuited by the initial conditions. Clearly, God did not expect them to make informed choices, because he provided no information. He expected blind obedience. And yet, he seems not to have given Adam and Eve the tools to be obedient.

Jamie

Wyz_sub10

This is a great point. I would really like to hear a theist reply to this one. If sin did not exist until they ate the apple, they could not have sinned in doing so.

However, so I do not get ahead of things, what is the interpretation of the root or sin? The tree, the snake, the apple, the woman or free will?

Jamie_L

The most relevant definition of sin I've heard is "Sin = going against God's will." By this definition, even though sin had not happened prior to this, the act of disobeying God was, by definition, sinful.

However, this does not get to the heart of the question "Why did they sin?"

Jamie

ManM

Wyz_sub10,
Mindless robots do not challenge their superiors. It does not follow that anyone who chooses not to challenge their superiors is a mindless robot. A free being has the ability to oppose God. Opposing God is not a prerequisite for freedom. There is no conflict between freedom and obedience.

Jamie_L,
This makes absolutely no sense. What "free will" was short-circuited by the initial conditions? What did Adam and Eve have the freedom to do that was short-circuited by the initial conditions?

Jamie_L

Admittedly, my arguement was poorly worded, and possibly poorly conceived. But let me offer an analogy:

A 30-year-old man approaches a 6-year-old girl and tries to convince her to have sex with him. He is charming and persuasive, and eventually convinces the girl that it's not a bad idea at all, in fact, it's a good idea. The girl agrees.

Has the girl made a free choice? I would say no, in the sense that she did not have the information or the intellectual/emotional maturity to evaluate the choice. Effectively, the choice was made for her.

Now, back to Adam and Eve. They did not have enough information (and arguably, the emotional maturity - after all, they did not have any of the Knowledge of Good and Evil yet) to evaluate the choice. Perhaps it is wrong for me to frame this as an attack on their free will. One does make a free choice even when one chooses based on poor information.

However, if they have poor information, and some internal leaning to disobey God, then there is a question as to whether they made a free chioce. And if they didn't have a leaning to disobey God, why did they choose to disobey God when they had no good reason to?

I still would ask of a theist who supports the Adam and Eve story (even if only as a metaphor): Why did Adam and Eve choose to disobey God? What benefit did they perceive that outweighed the cost of disobeying God? I think it is difficult to come up with an answer to that question that doesn't lay the blame on God - or at least render the ensuing punishment unjust.

Jamie

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Jamie_L ]</p>

Jamie_L

I just had a strange little thought:

What God intended to happen in the Garden of Eden was for Adam and Eve to obey, perhaps obey willingly, but to obey nevertheless. If they had, they would have had no knowledge of good and evil.

Some defenses of the free will defense have argued that God must have a certain level of suffering to achieve some greater good. Others have argued it is not suffering that should be used to measure the "goodness" of our world, but virtue. That in the absense of certain evils, certain goods (virtues) cannot obtain.

Yet, if the original plan had succeeded, there would have been no suffering. If the original plan had succeeded, there would have been no evils to bring about the argued goods and virtues. Heck, Adam and Eve would have had no knowledge of GOOD if they hadn't eaten from the tree.

Seems like God wasn't so concerned about those greater goods when he set up the Garden.

Which is slightly off topic, but since so few others are responding, and I've always had a liking for Adam and Eve arguments...

Jamie

ManM

Jamie_L,
I think you missed the drive of my question.

What is the choice free from if it is to be considered a free choice? Would it be free from coercion? Free from ignorance? I would like to establish a common understanding of the situation before addressing your other questions.

Wyz_sub10

Ah, it has been a while since we have shared a discussion! Once again, a pleasure.

You are correct in that choosing not to challenge superiors does not make one a robot...from the perspective of the individual.

*But* the issue I am challenging is that god does not want 'robots'. God's perspective is different than Adam and Eve's in this example.

God fully expects them to comply with his direction. Therefore, whether they consider this choice (to challenge) or not is irrelevant - so long as, in the end, they obey the command.

You might argue that god is fine with the challenge because it allows them to consider why, in the end, they obey.

But this question cannot be answered by Adam and Eve through the contemplation of challenge because they are not given the reason why, and once they learn through 'trial and error' (eating the fruit), it is too late.

As an example, I leave a young child alone with cookies and tell him not to eat any. Now, all I want is for him to comply. If he does, his outcome will be indiscernable from 'robotic behaviour'.

Maybe I *want* him to challenge me (but still obey in the end), because I feel that through comtemplation he will understand that the cookies will make him sick or spoil his dinner. But if I *know* that he could never come to this understanding, then I have no reason to welcome his challenge or contemplation.

In the end, from god's perspective, he wanted Adam and Even simply to obey his command. From his perspective, he desired robotic compliance with no challenge from their free will.