but freedom seems to be (at least) closely related to lack of constraint Do you mean constraint as in determinism, or as in coercion, or as in pressure from a conflicting value/drive/appetite in an individual's make-up? They have to be distinguished, otherwise "But I really really wanted to" would be a valid defence in law.
How would you go about evaluating how much freedom someone has in a given situation? I think - tentatively - I would say all decisions not actually forced by determinism are equally free, but not equally easy. Someone coerced by a gun to their head is still totally free to make either decision (if not, there would be no martyrs); it's just that we don't blame them (legally or morally) if they make the self-preserving decision, because we recognise that the alternative would have been extremely difficult and perhaps pointless.
As for ease versus difficulty of choosing God: yes, there are two separate issues that pull opposite ways. ...One might hope that these problems cancel out somehow, but it doesn't seem to me that they do.... we aren't any better off for being mistreated by God in two "opposite" ways, namely (1) being required to do certain things on pain of eternal torment and (2) not being told about #1. OK, I see what you mean. Fair point. About "being required to do certain things on pain of eternal torment", I'd like to repeat some comments I made to someone else on this thread: "It's not punishment for not believing, it's punishment for our sins. Your comment sounds as though the default is heaven and then God goes round finding all the non-believers and chucking them out, whereas the default is hell and then God goes round finding the believers and rescuing them because they've accepted his gift of salvation. It's like saying medical science kills people who refuse to take their medication, when actually medical science saves people who do take their medication (not 100% of the time, but it's only an analogy)."
I'll try to address the "not being told" bit on the other branch of the thread.
no subject
Do you mean constraint as in determinism, or as in coercion, or as in pressure from a conflicting value/drive/appetite in an individual's make-up? They have to be distinguished, otherwise "But I really really wanted to" would be a valid defence in law.
How would you go about evaluating how much freedom someone has in a given situation?
I think - tentatively - I would say all decisions not actually forced by determinism are equally free, but not equally easy. Someone coerced by a gun to their head is still totally free to make either decision (if not, there would be no martyrs); it's just that we don't blame them (legally or morally) if they make the self-preserving decision, because we recognise that the alternative would have been extremely difficult and perhaps pointless.
As for ease versus difficulty of choosing God: yes, there are two separate issues that pull opposite ways. ...One might hope that these problems cancel out somehow, but it doesn't seem to me that they do.... we aren't any better off for being mistreated by God in two "opposite" ways, namely (1) being required to do certain things on pain of eternal torment and (2) not being told about #1.
OK, I see what you mean. Fair point.
About "being required to do certain things on pain of eternal torment", I'd like to repeat some comments I made to someone else on this thread:
"It's not punishment for not believing, it's punishment for our sins. Your comment sounds as though the default is heaven and then God goes round finding all the non-believers and chucking them out, whereas the default is hell and then God goes round finding the believers and rescuing them because they've accepted his gift of salvation. It's like saying medical science kills people who refuse to take their medication, when actually medical science saves people who do take their medication (not 100% of the time, but it's only an analogy)."
I'll try to address the "not being told" bit on the other branch of the thread.