[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
Mortal:
Mortal:
that the only reason you gave free will is because of your belief that trying to oppose Nature, we are in the very process of doing so,
with free will, people will tend to hurt each other and themselves acting according to the laws of nature! Don t you see, that the so-
less than without free will. called laws of nature are nothing more than a description of how
God:
God:
God: Bravo! That is by far the best reason you have yet given! I can in fact you and other beings do act. They are merely a description of
God:
God:
assure you that had I chosen to give free will that would have been how you act, not a prescription of how you should act, not a power
my very reason for so choosing. or force which compels or determines your acts. To be valid a law of
Mortal:
Mortal:
Mortal: What! You mean to say you did not choose to give us free nature must take into account how in fact you do act, or, if you like,
Mortal:
Mortal:
will? how you choose to act.
God: Mortal:
God: Mortal:
God: My dear fellow, I could no more choose to give you free will Mortal:
God: Mortal: So you really claim that I am incapable of determining to act
God: Mortal:
than I could choose to make an equilateral triangle equiangular in against natural laws?
God:
the first place, but having chosen to make one, I would then have no God:
God: It is interesting that you have twice now used the phrase de-
God:
God:
choice but to make it equiangular. termined to act instead of chosen to act. This identification is
Mortal: quite common. Often one uses the statement I am determined to
Mortal:
Mortal: I thought you could do anything!
Mortal:
Mortal:
God:
God:
God: Only things which are logically impossible. As St. Thomas do this synonymously with I have chosen to do this. This very
God:
God:
said, It is a sin to regard the fact that God cannot do the impossible, psychological identification should reveal that determinism and choice
as a limitation on His powers. I agree, except that in place of using are much closer than they might appear. Of course, you might well
his word sin I would use the term error. say that the doctrine of free will says that it is you who are doing the
Mortal: determining, whereas the doctrine of determinism appears to say
Mortal:
Mortal: Anyhow, I am still puzzled by your implication that you did
Mortal:
Mortal:
not choose to give me free will. that your acts are determined by something apparently outside you.
God: But the confusion is largely caused by your bifurcation of reality into
God:
God: Well, it s high time I inform you that the entire discussion
God:
God:
from the very beginning has been based on one monstrous fallacy! the you and the not you. Really now, just where do you leave off
We have been talking purely on a moral level you originally com- and the rest of the universe begin? Or where does the rest of the
plained that I gave you free will, and raised the whole question as to universe leave off and you begin? Once you can see the so-called
whether I should have. It never once occurred to you that I had you and the so-called nature as a continuous whole, then you
absolutely no choice in the matter. can never again be bothered by such questions as whether it is you
Mortal: who are controlling nature or nature who is controlling you. Thus
Mortal:
Mortal: I am still in the dark!
Mortal:
Mortal:
God: the muddle of free will versus determinism will vanish. If I may use
God:
God: Absolutely! Because you are only able to look at it through the
God:
God:
eyes of a moralist. The more fundamental metaphysical aspects of a crude analogy, imagine two bodies moving toward each other by
the question you never even considered. virtue of gravitational attraction. Each body, if sentient, might won-
Mortal: der whether it is he or the other fellow who is exerting the force. In
Mortal:
Mortal: I still do not see what you are driving at.
Mortal:
Mortal:
God:
God:
God: Before you requested me to remove your free will, shouldn t a way it is both, in a way it is neither. It is best to say that it is both,
God:
God:
your first question have been whether as a matter of fact you do have in a way it is neither. It is best to say that the configuration of the two
free will? is crucial.
Mortal: Mortal:
Mortal: Mortal:
Mortal: That I simply took for granted. Mortal: You said a short while ago that our whole discussion was
Mortal: Mortal:
Mortal: Mortal:
God: based on a monstrous fallacy. You still have not told me what this
God:
God: But why should you?
God:
God:
Mortal: fallacy is.
Mortal:
Mortal: I don t know. Do I have free will?
Mortal:
Mortal:
God: God:
God: God:
God: Yes. God: Why the idea that I could possibly have created you without
God: God:
God: God:
Mortal:
Mortal:
Mortal: Then why did you say, I shouldn t have taken it for granted? free will! You acted as if this were a genuine possibility, and won-
Mortal:
Mortal:
God:
God:
God: Because you shouldn t. Just because something happens to be dered why I did not choose it! It never occurred to you that a sentient
God:
God:
true, it does not follow that it should be taken for granted. being without free will is no more conceivable than a physical object
Mortal:
Mortal:
Mortal: Anyway, it is reassuring to know that my natural intuition which exerts no gravitational attraction. (There is, incidentally, more
Mortal:
Mortal:
283
analogy than you realize between a physical object exerting gravita-
Some Christian Thoughts
tional attraction and a sentient being exerting free will!) Can you
honestly even imagine a conscious being without free will? What on
earth could it be like? I think that one thing in your life that has so
John Shea Mystery: An unauthorized biography of
misled you is your having been told that I gave man the gift of free
God, pg. 26.
will. As if I first created man, and then as an afterthought endowed
The following passage starts the Dutch Catechism:
him with the extra property of free will. Maybe you think I have
In A.D. 627 the monk Paulinus visited King Edwin in northern
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]