*
I have written quite often about free will on this blog
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=free+will
*
The
reason why people (why I myself) find it hard to grasp this subject is that it is
metaphysical, not scientific; i.e. it is about our assumptions
concerning reality - not about our investigations of reality.
Another
problem is that the metaphysics of free will is that - to be real - the
free will must be an unmoved mover, an uncaused cause.
It must be - so it is!
*
That
places free will outside of science - because science is only concerned
with caused things.
This means that science is necessarily incomplete - since there must BE uncaused causes, or else we have
infinite regress in a-caused-b-caused-c-caused-d forever! - and a situation which nothing could happen (this was pointed-out centuries ago by
Aquinas).
*
But free will conceptualized as an uncaused cause implies that each Man (and maybe other things) is to some extent an uncaused cause - and
this creates difficulties for most philosophies, which are monist - and
refer all causes back to one cause.
The conclusion seems to be that God has free will and is an uncaused cause; but the same also applies to each Man.
How can this be understood?
The
only two rational conclusions I can see; are either
1. To state that God
caused each uncaused cause: i.e. God caused (created) each Man to as an uncaused cause.
Or
2. The theology of pluralism: that God and
also each Man are alike in being uncaused causes, and 'always'-have-been. God and each Man are (at the level of being uncaused causes - although not necessarily as 'persons') basic constituents in the universe.
*
The first is the solution of Aquinas, the second is the solution of Mormon theology. Each solution has advantages and problems - and different implications.
I personally favour the Mormon metaphysics, partly from temperament - but mostly because it solves the problems that are most dominant for me, and I find the consequences congenial; while the Thomist solution seems too obviously paradoxical and leads to problems (such as the problems of pain/ suffering and moral responsibility) further down the line.
But both solutions are viable in some ways, unsatisfactory in others; and both are much preferable to the up-front, in-your-face nihilistic incoherence of denying the reality of free will!
*
