Talk:Free will in antiquity

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Theology / Arminianism Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by theology work group. This article is supported by WikiProject Arminianism (assessed as Low-importance). Philosophy: Metaphysics / Ancient Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Metaphysics Ancient philosophy

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 May 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

Wiki standards do not permit the deletion of reputable, cited, and peer-reviewed scholarship in the way that user Telikalive has been doing to this page. Highly credentialed Oxford Professors have published that free will is not to be found in the New Testament, but was introduced through the Greek philosophers to the early church fathers.

To wit,

Michael Frede, who was Chair of the History of Philosophy department at Oxford University, the absolute most respected scholar on the topic of this Wiki page, and who had no religious axe to grind, soberly indicated that "freedom and free will cannot be found in either the Septuagint or the New Testament and must have come to the Christians mainly from Stoicism." https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2011/2011.10.24/

Another Oxford world-renowned Professor concurred. “The term ‘free will’ is not biblical, but derives from Stoicism. It was introduced into Western Christianity by the second-century theologian Tertullian.” (Alister McGrath, Christian Theology, 351.)

The world's strongest living scholar on the topic is Oxford Professor, Susanne Bobzien. Bobzien has made it clear in her writings that indeterminist free will wasn't a part of Christianity until introduced by Alexander of Aphrodisias to Origen @200AD. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236799966_A_Free_Will_Origins_of_the_Notion_in_Ancient_Thought_review

Susanne Bobzien's book on the topic leaves no question that the Christian church fathers developed their conceptions of free will from the Greeks: Stoics and Platonists. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Determinism_Freedom_and_Moral_Responsibi/JxUuEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0

The fact that wiki editor Telikalive does not approve of Susanne Bobzien is no ground for his deletions of her research. If this continues, it seems appropriate to initiate a dispute and perhaps sanctions against Telikalive.

Though Susanne Bobzien's highly respected scholarship has been included in this page, Telikalive has repeatedly deleted it for no other reason than it interferes with his bias. This is a clear violation of Wiki standards.

On what grounds may an editor simply erase Susanne Bobzien's scholarship showing that Origen drew his view of free will from Alexander of Aphrodisias? Dr. Bobzien is a highly respected Oxford Professor and a leading expert on this topic. The erasure of her research seems to be a clear indication of editor bias.

@

WP:THREAD

. Based on the history of the page, you undid my modification the 2022-12-02T01:40:02‎ writing "I've addressed this in the talk page and you are not even willing to discuss it.", when your message on the talk page is dated 2022-12-01T00:16:42‎ and finished at 2022-12-02T03:19:00‎. Considering you gave me literally no time to answer, do you think this is an acceptable behavior?

I have then 2 requests:

• Sign your post
  WP:THREAD
  , and if possible notify me as I'm doing right now.
• Stop appealing to the scholarship of the people you quote, since this is certainly not what I question. What I question is the fact that you are simply using their writings out of context of this article. The title of this article is "free will in antiquity", not "free will in the scriptures". Thus your point has to be contextualized accordingly, which you didn't do.

Do you understand my 2 requests ? Please answer me, and then let discuss. ---Telikalive (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I posted to the talk page when I undid the revision, and you reversed my edit without any explanation or discussion in the talk section. Nothing you have posted until now mentioned anything at all about your deletion of Dr. Bobzien's research on this topic.

"Antiquity" is defined as "ancient times" (those before the middle ages) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antiquity

Hebrew scriptures, Christian scriptures, Christianity, etc. are all significant and central products of antiquity and very relevant to this page. This is common knowledge, and it's hard to believe that someone with the erudition to edit this page would not know this simple fact. For example, a mainstream classic historian, Dr. William Douglas Morrison, author of The Jews Under Roman Rule (NY: Putnam, 1893) wrote, "the contents of the New Testament are a product of antiquity." More such obvious scholarly statements can be provided if necessary.

As a an important voice in antiquity, the New Testament's perspective (or lack thereof) of Freewill should be no more left out of this discussion than the Hebrew perspective (which is included).

Dr. Bobzien is an antiquities scholar and her research on Free Will in the time of Origen and Alexander of Aphrodisias are highly relevant to the topic of Free Will in the early Christian Church. There is no justification for deleting her opinion regarding the transmission of Free Will from the Greeks to Origen. That is highly pertinent, legitimate, and relevant to the discussion. To delete it because you do not like her conclusion is a pure violation of Wiki standards. To delete it on the grounds that scripture has nothing to do with antiquity is entirely bogus as Bobzien doesn't even discuss scripture, and scripture is a central element of antiquity.

It appears evident that you have your own theological axe to grind here and you don't want readers to be exposed to the totality of scholarship on the topic, particularly any that does not confirm your bias. That's really a violation of Wiki standards. Hilltoppers (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Hilltoppers: Thank you for your answer, so let start discussing. The first point which I believe is necessary to be mentioned and agreed deals with the belief of the Stoics:

The stoics are known to be the first to believe in compatibilism. As Ricardo Salles put it "It is agreed by most scholars that the Stoics were compatibilists regarding the relation between responsibility and determinism [...] But the Stoics also depart from the libertarian or "anti-determinist" [...] Unlike the libertarian, who agrees on the incompatibility alleged by the hard-determinist, but preserves responsibility by rejecting necessitation, the Stoics preserve both responsibility and necessitation."^[1] In other words the Stoics :

• Were opposed to the
  Libertarian free will
• Believed in a "free will" which does not come into conflict with determinism. In other words they believed in a "determined" free will.^[2]

Sources

• Salles, Ricardo (2001). "Compatibilism: Stoic and modern". Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie. 83 (1): 1–23.
• Podgorski, Daniel (October 16, 2015). "Free Will Twice Defined: On the Linguistic Conflict of Compatibilism and Incompatibilism". The Gemsbok. Retrieved March 7, 2016.

Notes and references

Do we agree on that first input ? ---Telikalive (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem conceding that many Stoic philosophers were compatibilists. My objection is the impression that this page gives that the early Christian fathers gleaned their doctrines of "free will" from the New Testament. The consensus of scholars are abundantly clear that that was not true. The Fathers drew their doctrines of free will from the pagans--that is the consistent conclusion of the world's leading scholars and it would be misleading and irresponsible to leave that fact off this page. Frede and McGrath concur that the Stoics were the source from which the Fathers echoed "free will." Bobzien dilates more carefully on Alexander of Aphrodisias as the source that influenced Origen to articulate libertarian free will (and was the very first to do so). These publications cannot be deleted on the grounds that you do not like their conclusions. Wiki editors are not authorities themselves, but rather must cite reputable secondary sources which other editors are not permitted to delete unless the source is found to be unreliable. Hilltoppers (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Hilltoppers: Here is now my point : the Father condemned any form of theological determinism related to foreordained actions or elections (Stoic, Manichean, Gnostic) as already sourced in the article. Even Mcgraph mention it when he describes the Fathers belief about determinism (e.g. "thus Justin Martyr [c. AD 100- c. AD 165] rejects the idea that all human actions are foreordained on the grounds that this eliminates human accountability." etc..)

1. This imply that the fathers presupposed libertarian free-will whether they used the term "free will" or not.

2. And if they developed the concept of libertarian free-will by influence of the Stoics, these is certainly not the free-will that the Stoic believed in (a deterministic one) but the free will they don't believed in (a non-deterministic one).

So the idea is not that I don't like the conclusion of your sources, but they way it is integrated in the chapter in consideration of the points 1 and 2 that are already sourced. ---Telikalive (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"as already sourced in the article."

The source is allegedly Ken Wilson's dissertation on Augustine, and I'm not questioning that it is published as cited. But the consensus of purely academic secular scholars emphatically state otherwise (Frede, Bobzien, Karamanolis, et al). Frede is abundantly clear that Justin Martyr's use of free will was borrowed from Platonism and Stoicism:

"We have to ask ourselves where the Christians got this notion, whether and how they adapted it in certain ways so as to fit their Christian beliefs, and whether those beliefs even allowed them to find or see a radically new way of understanding human beings, human freedom, and the will. The answer to the first question seems relatively easy. The Christians got their notion of a free will from Platonism and, most of all, from Stoicism."

Michael Frede, A Free Will: Origins of the Notion in Ancient Thought (University of California, 2011), chapter 7/

https://www.tomblackson.com/Ancient_topic_2/free_will.pdf

Stoic "free will" is NOT libertarian or indeterminist free will; it is compatibilism. Bobzien is abundantly clear that Alexander of Aphrodisias was the FIRST to articulate a doctrine of "indeterminist free will"(https://www.google.com/books/edition/Determinism_Freedom_and_Moral_Responsibi/JxUuEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0); that Origen derived this teaching from Alexander of Aphrodisias is demonstrated here: https://journals.openedition.org/philosant/807 Frede concurs that Origen's "free will" was NOT derived from his religion, but from the Greeks.

You are making the claim that Justin Martyr, etc. argued for "libertarian/indeterminist" free will, which is flatly contradicted by the Oxford professors' scholarship. You are not an expert so you cannot argue an "implication" from McGrath's quote. McGrath does NOT say that Justin Martyr argued for libertarian free will. You need scholarly citations for a wiki page, especially since the scholars cited say otherwise.

Perhaps Ken Wilson asserts something to that effect in his dissertation, but at best, then, the page should present a dispute rather than just Wilson's view. Further, Wilson is much more likely to have a confirmation bias as he is not a secular researcher. Rather, Wilson teaches at a fundamentalist Christian Seminary with an explicitly anti-Augustinian mission statement. Wilson has a bias and a dog in the fight. Frede & Bobzien are secular Oxford University professors without a dog in the fight.

Here is the consensus of the leading scholars: Origen was the first Christian to make a case for libertarian free will, and he derived that argument from the Greek philosopher, Alexander of Aphrodisias, NOT from the New Testament. Hilltoppers (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Hilltoppers: Again, you don't understand me, I'm fine that the term "free will" comes form whatever source, and NOT the New Testament, the point is not here.

Consider MacGraph sentence already cited above : "thus Justin Martyr [c. AD 100- c. AD 165] rejects the idea that all human actions are foreordained on the grounds that this eliminates human accountability". I don't say that Mcgraph argue for libertarian free will. I say that McGraph describes the obvious non-deterministic nature of the thought of the Fathers. Then :

1. 1. Do you recognize that a plain rejection of determinism implies a rejection of compatibilism ?
2. 2. Do you recognize that a rejection of compatibilism implies a rejection of the Stoic definition of free will (As presented above) ?

I think this implies that :

1. 3. The term "free will" used by the Fathers may have come from the Stoics or others Greek origin.
2. 4. The notion of "free will" presupposed by the Fathers was non-deterministic. (for various reasons, one of the most obvious is because they thought that regenerate believers can commit apostasy, idea which opposes nearly all kind of theological determinism of the 3 first centuries -please read this article)
3. 5. The formal use of "free will" by the fathers, as libertarian free will was firstly done by Origen, in response to specific theological determinism views of his days ("Gnostic Christians", "astral determinist").^[1]

This is what I'm pleading for in the chapter of this article : a differentiation between the A. origin of the word "free will" (Stoic, or else) from the B. non-deterministic thought of the Fathers, its C. its first formalisation as libertarian free-will by Origen. So which of my points are you disagreeing with ?

Sources

• Mansfeld, J. (2012). Will and Free Will in Antiquity : A Discussion of Michael Frede. Vol. 42. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy.
  doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199644384.003.0009
  .

---Telikalive (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, I have absolutely no qualms with the fact that Origen articulated a doctrine of libertarian free will. That is the consensus among the scholars. I have seen no reputable sources, however, that say that Origen was following anyone other than Alexander of Aphrodisias in this regard. Alexander is identified in the literature as the FIRST person to articulate libertarian free will.

You attribute this to the earlier fathers without reference, only by means of an induction that you have made on your own authority. Whereas the scholars cited have stated somewhat clearly that Justin Martyr, et al, echoed the doctrine of the Stoics, viz., compatibilist free will.

McGrath's statement that Justin rejects foreordination on the grounds of human accountability is not grounds for insisting that Justin must have believed in indeterminism. Compatibilists also believe in human accountability. Hence your claim that McGrath states that the early fathers is not supported either in McGrath's writing or in the facts. As a matter of fact, the sources are clear that the opposite is true and that Origen is the first to articulate libertarian free will. Bobzien is clear on that.

Your argument that the early fathers must have been indeterminists because they believed a person could commit apostasy not only is a non-sequitur, more importantly it is YOUR argument, and Wiki editors should not be posting any of their own unsourced conclusions. That is the Wiki rule.

For me, the most important fact that cannot be left off of this page is the scholarly consensus that the New Testament writers do not use terms like prohairesis eleuthera (free choice) or autexousion (self-determination), which are phrases used by the pagans and the early fathers such as Justin and Origen. The scholars strongly suggest that the early fathers drew these ideas from the Pagans, NOT from the New Testament. And culminating with Pelagius, this pagan trajectory was eventually officially condemned by the church councils leaning on the writings of Augustine, who, on the grounds of I Corinthians 4:7, saw a tremendous need to abandon the non-biblical term "free will" and return to the doctrines of the New Testament.

I am aware that the anti-Augustinian professor, Ken Wilson, has published a study making a case that Augustine was overly influenced by Gnosticism, but Wilson's thesis is not the consensus among scholars. It is worthy to be mentioned on this page, but to present it as the only scholarly interpretation of Augustine is not only unscholarly, but a violation of Wiki standards, and highly biased and partisan. I will do my part to see that such a narrow POV is not allowed. Hilltoppers (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Hilltoppers: It appears not to be a really constructive discussion. Anyway, As I explain in my first post, I'm not against your sources, I'm against the lack of structure in the arguments of the Christian section leading to biased / de-contextualised use of your source. Please remember that this is a talk page, I just presented above the way I want to restructure this Christianity section of this article, no more. ---Telikalive (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And all I am saying is that you cannot just dismiss scholarly, reputable, and published sources in exchange for your own personal reasoning on the subject, disguised as "structure." Hilltoppers (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Hilltoppers: My point is that it is not enough putting sourced content here indiscriminately, as you did, without structuring the chapter, at least with subtitles delineating the different existing ideas and linking these ideas together. Yes, when someone do what you did, it is possible to dismiss the content added even it is a sourced content, in order to indicate that the way it was done brings global confusion to the reader. Right now, anybody can judge that there is an apparent contradiction in this chapter. I stop this discussion here. PS : In order to have constructive discussion on Wikipedia avoid those words like "disguised". ---Telikalive (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The words "global confusion" are as loaded as "disguised." If there is confusion, it springs from the fact that there seemed to be some intent to make this page an advertisement for Dr. Ken Wilson's controversial thesis that Augustine infused Gnosticism into Christianity. It is fine to reference that source, but to represent it as the consensus of scholarship is entirely disingenuous, indeed, false. Wikipedia has strict guidelines prohibiting "bias." Without the voices of scholars like Frede, Bobzien, and McGrath, the page suffers from a clear bias. Hilltoppers (talk) 12:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted a basic clean-up of this page. The entire page read like an essay, which is not surprising since it seems to have been lifted from the Free Will in Antiquity page at www.informationphilosopher.com (apparently though with a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license). The article was full of opinions such as "But Bobzien is wrong to suggest that Epicurus did not see a problem between human freedom and the causal determinism of his fellow atomist Democritus ... this is a straw argument put up by critics of Epicurean philosophy". I've renamed the sub-sections; removed a fair bit of the original research; and moved all the different sub-sections at the bottom of the page describing "Modern Classicists Views" into the relevant upper sections. It might at least read like a coherent encyclopedia article now. Pasicles (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This does not belong here at all without a reference: The