canonism PRIEST'S MIND, Book Three: The Question of Free Will

[rep2k 3192]

 

[x]

𝕻𝖗𝖎𝖊𝖘𝖙'𝖘 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖉

Book Three

 

☩  The Question of Free Will  ☩ 

A Thesis on Analysis of Determinism; False and True Understanding of Indeterminism

 

 

Authored by Fr. Witmar Barclay

 

 

---

 

I. AUTHOR'S NOTE

 

Like in two previous editions, let it be noted that the following thesis is a subordinate part of a collection of theses entitled Priest's Mind. The ideas, concepts, and terminology presented in this thesis are based solely on the author's perception and are not intended to contradict the Holy Scripture of the Church of the Canon. Rather, they are meant to serve as a resource for discussions and studies, where applicable.

 

II. INTRODUCTION

 

We already know that a man is responsible for his actions only when he is free to perform them. But does he truly possess that spiritual freedom—the freedom of will—which is assumed here? Recently, a teaching called determinism has spread widely among humanity. As I travel increasingly from place to place, especially to more populated areas, I have encountered followers of this teaching who deny the existence of free will in man. They claim that, in every individual action, a man is driven solely by external causes. This deeply intrigued me.

 

III. RHETORIC OF (IN)DETERMINISM

 

 

According to their teaching, a person always acts under the influence of motives and impulses that are beyond their control and, most often, obeys the strongest of these motives. I became personally convinced of the certainty of their claims when I heard a young gentleman of considerable standing say: "It only seems to us that we act freely; that is self-deception."

Later, I encountered another group of young men defending this rhetoric. They illustrated their argument with the example of a thrown stone. They claimed that if the stone could think and speak, it would say that it flies and falls where it wished. But in reality, the stone flies only because someone threw it.

We will return to this example later. For now, let us consider the following: the teaching that opposes determinism and acknowledges human free will is called indeterminism. This teaching is accepted by us in the Church of the Canon. However, it is important to recognize that there are extreme indeterminists whose views are one-sided and false. They argue that man’s freedom is his complete power to do whatever he desires. According to their interpretation, freedom is pure arbitrariness—the unchecked ability to act on any whim or impulse.

Throughout history, such a distorted concept of freedom has been exploited by pagan peoples, who used it to ensnare and deceive the unfortunate northern tribes. But, of course, this is not true freedom; it is a perversion of it. True freedom is not absolute or unconditional. Only Almighty God possesses such supreme creative freedom.

Unlike false indeterminism, true indeterminism teaches something quite different. It acknowledges that a person is undoubtedly influenced by external motives and impulses of various kinds. These include factors such as environment, living conditions, political circumstances, education, and cultural development—all of which shape the traits of one’s moral character.

 

IV. WHAT CONCERNS US

 

 

Indeterminists agree with determinists that various external motives and influences often act strongly upon a person. However, there is a fundamental difference between these two perspectives. Determinists argue that a person always acts in a certain way solely under the influence of the strongest motive and therefore has no freedom. In contrast, indeterminists claim that a person is always free to choose among these motives. The chosen motive may not necessarily be the strongest; in fact, a person may even favor a motive that others might consider obviously unfavorable.

A prime example of this is the self-sacrifice of martyrs, who, to their pagan torturers, appeared as madmen consciously destroying themselves. From the perspective of indeterminism, human freedom is not an unconditional creative freedom but rather the freedom of choice—the freedom of will to decide whether to act in one way or another. The Canonist Church accepts this interpretation of human freedom as taught by indeterminism.

Applying this concept to morality, particularly to the struggle between good and evil or virtue and sin, Canonist teaching holds that human freedom is the ability to choose between good and evil.

Now, let us revisit the earlier example of the falling stone. We have established that humans possess free will—the ability to choose how to act. Those who compared human behavior to the flight of a stone claimed that the two were analogous. However, this analogy fails because it assumes that the stone has freedom of choice—to fly or not to fly, to fall or not to fall. But a stone lacks such freedom, rendering the comparison entirely unconvincing.

 

V. DETERMINISTIC LOOPHOLES

 

The inconsistency of determinism, which denies free will, becomes evident in the following points.

First, no determinist applies their teachings to practical life, and the reason for this is clear. If life were viewed strictly from a deterministic perspective, no one could justifiably be punished—not a lazy student for their idleness, nor a thief for stealing, nor a murderer for killing. This is because, under determinism, none of these individuals acted freely; they would be seen merely as slaves mindlessly carrying out actions dictated by external motives beyond their control. Such a perspective leads to an absurd but entirely logical conclusion under determinism. Naturally, no sane person would accept this outcome.

Second, the existence of free will is demonstrated by the universal human experience of repentance, a feeling known to all from personal experience. What is this feeling of repentance based on? It arises from the realization that the individual could have acted differently. A repentant person reflects on the moment they committed their wrongful deed, mourns their sin, and recognizes that they had the choice to do good instead of evil. Such repentance would be impossible if a person lacked free will and was merely a helpless slave to external influences. Without free will, there would be no responsibility for one’s actions.

 

VI. CONCLUSION

 

The Canonist Church's acceptance of true indeterminism underscores the belief in free will as the foundation of moral accountability, repentance, and the struggle between good and evil. This freedom is not absolute but is the ability to choose between paths, making us responsible for our actions and their consequences. We, as Canonists, recognize man as morally free, capable of controlling his own will and actions, and, therefore, accountable for them before the Truth of God. Such freedom is the greatest gift bestowed upon man by God, who does not demand mechanical obedience but rather a freely given, filial obedience rooted in love.