The Judas Debate and Free Will

For those who are not aware of the Judas Debate, here's the basic gist of it:

The last quarter of all fourth Gospels start with the betrayal of Jesus by one of his disciples, Judas, who sold him to the Pharisees, the Jewish religious leaders operating under the authority of the Roman Empire at the time, who were afraid of Jesus' influence. The rest should be what everyone else knows: Jesus was tried by Pontius Pilate, who found him innocent, but still handed him over for crucifixion due to overwhelming public pressure by the Jews. Here are a few things we know about the betrayal:

• The Gospel makes it clear that Judas' betrayal was preordained not only by the prophecies, but also by Jesus, who said to Judas outright that Judas would betray Jesus.
• The prophecies also note that Jesus would die of betrayal, so he may be crucified and be resurrected.

This then begs the question of whether or not Judas had free will in this matter. It was, after all, completely necessary for Jesus to be betrayed and die so he would be resurrected. Therefore, it was completely necessary that one of his disciples had to be a traitor; if it wasn't Judas, it must've been someone else. If it was preordained, however, it cannot be free will, as the decision was forced upon Judas. His free will did not come into it, for if he did not betray Jesus, the prophecies would not have been fulfilled.

Some have argued that God did not force Judas to betray Jesus, but placed a a factor beside Jesus that God knew would result in Jesus' betrayal. I refute this argument by then stating that, in this case, God would have been deliberately creating a human that would betray Jesus, and this his "free will" would've been severely limited by the only options God gave him. As God created every human being, he would've been the first being to acknowledge Judas' impossibility in the matter of choice.

This link should explain things better than I can.

That, in an essence, the topic of the debate. I don't have a particularly strong opinion about either side of the argument, actually, but I would like to know the views of others on this subject. ^_^;

Within a Christian framework, the Judas issue - and others like it - can be addressed by differentiating between Thelema ("Gods' Revealed Will") and Boulema ("God's Ultimate Plan).

As omnipotence by definition allows God to achieve the same final result in any given circumstance*, the ultimate plan transcends humanity and will proceed "on track" regardless of the existence or application of free will on a lower level: no choice or lack of choice on Judas' part could have foiled The Lord's will for Christ. Conversely, man relates to God entirely in terms of his his revealed will: we either join-with-Christ-and-are-saved- or separate-ourselves-from-Christ-and-our-damned on Thelemic terms, and it is on these terms that Judas was judged, and found wanting.

In practice, we can understand that Christ would have scapegoated the world in every possible reality, while only being betrayed by Judas in a subset of those counterfactuals. The local correlation between the two acts is thus happenstance and the betrayal need not be viewed differently from any other willful and sinful act.

Stepping outside Christian predispositions, the question is moot: "free will" is ultimately an empty phrase, with no definition to merit its uncanny connotations.

*where not limited by concerns over divine nature, authority, and logical consistency viz. The Problem of Evil

here we have the problem of free will in a determinist Universe. PIE alluded to it, but I will explain it a bit further. We assume that God is both omnipotent (all-powerful, capable of doing anything) and omniscient (all-knowing, having knowledge of everything past and future). We also assume it was God that created the Universe.

now, everything that happens is caused by something else, correct? Nothing can happen without a cause. Determinism says that everything that occurs in the Universe is simply one long chain of cause and effect. Everything that happens is an effect, caused by something before it, all the way back to the initial state of the Universe. It is determined, or predetermined, before it happens. Since God created the Universe, he is the one who decided the initial state. Because he knows everything, he knew exactly how the Universe would turn out and how it would end as soon as he made it. Since he is all powerful, he could have made it any way he wanted to.

so, if God created the Universe, he therefore directly causes everything that happens. He knew Judas would betray Jesus because that is how he set it up from the beginning of the Universe. Being all-knowing, he knew it would turn out that way. Being all-powerful, he could have set it up to turn out differently.

so, in a determinist Universe, or in a Universe created by an all-knowing and all-powerful God, there is no free will. Judas did not have any free will, only the perception of free will. An illusion, if you will. Every decision he made, including his decision to betray Jesus, was the only possible decision he could make, based on the internal design of his brain and the effects of the environmental conditions around him, all effects caused, indirectly, by the initial state of the Universe as designed and built by God. This is true of every person.

free will, you see, would contradict God's omniscience. God knew Judas would betray Jesus, or he would not have been omniscient. If Judas could have chosen not to betray Jesus, how could God know what Judas would do before he did it? If free will actually existed, then nothing about Judas's decision could be known until it happened, not even by God. God could, at the very most, know the consequences of every decision Judas (or you, or me, or anyone) could make, but he could not possibly know which decision, exactly, he would take until he took it. Therefore, God can not be omniscient, or we can not have free will.

this also leads, as PIE alludes to again, to the Problem of Evil. God cannot possibly be omnibenevolent (all-good, wanting the best for everyone and not capable or willing to do any evil) or really benevolent at all if he is directly responsible for all the evil and bad things that happen in the world, despite his ability (his all-powerful ability) to prevent it before it happens and his foreknowledge (his all-knowing foreknowledge) about what will happen.

incidentally, even in a Universe without God, free will is still meaningless and is nothing more than an illusion based on our limited perceptions of the workings of the Universe. If the Universe was suddenly reset to its initial condition, or a duplicate Universe was made with the same blueprints, everything would happen in exactly the same way, including every decision every person makes. Everything is determined.

Getting out of the cosmic stuff and into more comfortable territory (for me at least) I would like to express my opinion. It might come across as a bit... for lack of a better word, stupid, but whatever.

I'm sure that you're familiar with the Gnostic Gospels. Well in one Gospel (I forget which) Judas knew all along that he would betray Jesus. It was a plan created by Jesus so that he could die betrayed, resurrect, and fulfill the prophecies, etc. Whether free will had anything to do with this, I don't know. I'm simply asserting my belief that Judas did not betray Jesus because he was greedy or evil. He did it because his teacher and best friend told him to.

I find a really nice parallel with this situation in contemporary literature. In the Harry Potter series, Snape kills Dumbledore. In the final book it was revealed that it was planned that Snape would kill Dumbledore, whether he wanted to or not.

(If you think the spoiler tags are unnecessary feel free to remove them.)

Aw, I always felt bad for Judas. I think that if God made him "betray" Jesus, then we shouldn't think badly of him. But if Judas did it on his own, then Christians should praise the f***ing h*** out of Judas! Without Judas, Christianity wouldn't exist. Jesus never would have been a sacrifice, his whole purpose would have been almost meaningless. You know what I mean? And besides, if you were sitting at dinner with this guy you knew as the Messiah, who can see the future and work miracles, and he told you in front of everyone that you would betray him and sell his location to the pharisees, how would you react? It almost seems like a command, that Jesus was saying, "the time is now, go." If I were Judas I would be freaking out in my head "Am I really going to do that? when am I going to do that?! I don't want to, but am I supposed to?! Woah, there are the pharisees! Am I supposed to do this now? Is this what he meant?!" Then I'd probably go ahead with it to get it off my back. Judas also threw the money back because he felt so bad.

Another thing I hate is how some people hate Jewish people because they "murdered Jesus." They are morons if they don't believe Jesus and most of the people he associated with were Jewish. And that without Jesus's death, their stupid religion wouldn't exist, and it was essential to their Gods ultimate plan, that he himself supposedly devised. AND it was the Romans who actually killed him! So they are hating on the Jews when it was their own people that did the thing they hate the Jews for... So retarded...

Originally Posted by Advodei

Getting out of the cosmic stuff and into more comfortable territory (for me at least) I would like to express my opinion. It might come across as a bit... for lack of a better word, stupid, but whatever.

I'm sure that you're familiar with the Gnostic Gospels. Well in one Gospel (I forget which) Judas knew all along that he would betray Jesus. It was a plan created by Jesus so that he could die betrayed, resurrect, and fulfill the prophecies, etc. Whether free will had anything to do with this, I don't know. I'm simply asserting my belief that Judas did not betray Jesus because he was greedy or evil. He did it because his teacher and best friend told him to.

I find a really nice parallel with this situation in contemporary literature. In the Harry Potter series, Snape kills Dumbledore. In the final book it was revealed that it was planned that Snape would kill Dumbledore, whether he wanted to or not.

(If you think the spoiler tags are unnecessary feel free to remove them.)

That is an excellent observation. On another interesting note, the Gospel of Judas even seems to depict Jesus privately criticizing Peter to Judas.

Those you have seen receiving the offerings at the altar — that is who you are. That is the God you serve, and you are those twelve men you have seen. The cattle you saw brought for sacrifice are the many people you lead astray before that altar. (. . .) will stand and make use of my name in this way, and generations of the pious will remain loyal to Him.

as we all know, the Catholic Church teaches that They are the only legitimate church because Jesus supposedly told Peter that he would lead the other disciples after Jesus' death. Given the church's lengthy history of editing the bible and burning anything that disagreed with them, It could be very possible that the gospels were later edited to remove anything that might delegitimize Peter's status as founder of the church. If the gospel of Judas is correct, then it is saying that peter will make uses of Jesus' name to lead many astray, and who would want to follow a church whose holy book says the founder wasn't such a great guy? It seems natural that the church would later want to make Judas look bad so the common people would disregard anything he might have had to say. /conspiracy theory.

coming from a bit of an existentialist point of view, it seems to me that not everyone can truly have free will.

* From a humanistic perspective: A Man rises up in the world and becomes his own being: in other words, he rises above his intellectual, sociological, and economic environment and then has true free will in his actions. Decisions effect those surrounding himself, are justified by the opinions by the wisdom of dead culture, and he is fed by reaping what he can from the seeds he sows.

* from a deterministic viewpoint: the linguistic construct of "should" versus "could" are a bit misleading and make people think that they magically have this thing called "free will" when in fact your will is only as free as the time one has invested in one's decisions. Now this gets into interesting things concerning Time Philosophy in which I'm not well versed at all, so I won't go any further in that direction at the moment.

*from a metaphysical viewpoint: it seems silly to try and attribute a human construct such as free will to a metaphysical being that may or may not be observable or even identifiable by mere mortals. If we dare claim the existence of a creator entity responsible for the totality of all existence (somehow including himself in that picture) that also happens to have such a humanistic thing called "intent" then his will would probably not be free, but rather--it would merely exist--and the universe as it exists would be a perfect reflection of his will. Concerning a benevolent versus omniscient creator: I don't think the two are mutually exclusive and here's why:

If a creator with intent is capable of relating to every single human creature with restricted free-will of sorts while this god's will is free in the sense that he lacks motivation due to the universe being a perfect reflection of his will, then doesn't it logically follow that man is permanently alienated from God, while the exact reverse is perhaps not true? If a God's actions are not restricted then one doesn't have a will at all and thus lacks motivation, thus he would merely exist.

I frankly don't see how predicting the future robs those who's future you predict of free will. They still choose to do something, its just that the predictor already knows what they will choose.

Originally Posted by Hell Hawk

I frankly don't see how predicting the future robs those who's future you predict of free will. They still choose to do something, its just that the predictor already knows what they will choose.

Which means that their decision has been made for them already.

Originally Posted by John

Which means that their decision has been made for them already.

No, they still make the decision themselves. They are still willingly choosing an option. Seeing the future outcome tells us what will happen, but the choice ultimately is determined by the subject rather than the seer.

"The Model T may be any colour, so long as it's black."

to finish the thoughts of my last post:

complexity versus singularity does not disprove the existence of the idea of a god creator, it merely makes us reconsider the notion of humanism versus divine beginning, continental philosophy versus individualism, i could keep going on and making up dichotomies of things...etc.....

in short: how we relate to our environment both as a collective whole and as individuals

if one could perceive time through the perspective of a ray of light: time would stand still for that person, would it not? (please correct me if I'm wrong.)

Originally Posted by Hell Hawk

No, they still make the decision themselves. They are still willingly choosing an option. Seeing the future outcome tells us what will happen, but the choice ultimately is determined by the subject rather than the seer.

if someone knows their decision already before they make it, they don't have the free will to make any other decision. They don't have the free will to change their mind and do something else instead.

Originally Posted by Cow Lad

coming from a bit of an existentialist point of view, it seems to me that not everyone can truly have free will....

Start with simple semantics: if "free will" is an empty term - a ball of confusing connotations without a core definition - then no anthropic re-frame, appeal to science, or holy invocation can possibly be illuminating.

To deserve its connotations, what should "free will" look like?
To be free, a "choice" must be unnecessary: present in some, but not all possible futures of a given moment. It therefore must violate the principle of sufficient reason.
To be willed, the action must be in the ultimate control of some mechanism (to be simple and concise, we won't care whether the mechanism is intelligent or has experience). It therefore must obey the principle of sufficient reason.

We can easily conclude that there is no non-contradictory definition of free will and comfortably adjourn for some lunch.

And realizing that we can't "experience time" from the perspective of a ray of light is what led Einstein to Relativity in the first place. The mathematical limit for time dilation as v->c is interpretable as an observation of "stopped time" for the relative mover though, yes.

Originally Posted by Lysis

if someone knows their decision already before they make it, they don't have the free will to make any other decision. They don't have the free will to change their mind and do something else instead.

Are we talking about the chooser seeing the future, or an outside person seeing the choosers future?

If an outside person sees the future while the chooser does not, then the chooser still has free will.

Also, if the choose knows his own future, he also still has free will. If he sees his future and sees the outcome of a choice, he can then choose differently in the present (there are like 200 timetravel movies with that theme).

Originally Posted by Hell Hawk

Also, if the choose knows his own future, he also still has free will. If he sees his future and sees the outcome of a choice, he can then choose differently in the present (there are like 200 timetravel movies with that theme).

Save that the chooser knows what choice will be made. He cannot change it.

If I foresee that I will die tomorrow, with 100% certainty, in a freak car accident at a certain time and place, then it must, by definition occur. I will be at that place at that time and will die by that method.

I could, tonight, fly as far away from that place as it is currently possible to get. Yet if I had foreseen the future as it must be then it wouldn't matter, I'd still end up in that place at the right time and would die there.


It's no different if someone else sees it. Let me put it this way: God is omniscient. He knows that Bob will, in a year's time, die in a bungie jumping accident. He decides to tell Bob about this. Bob, however, cannot change his fate. It does not matter what he does because God, who knows everything already knows with 100% certainty when he will die.

As such, Bob has no free will. There is no set of circumstances, actions, or decisions that could ever occur that would end with him alive in two years time.


Of course, I don't think we have free will because I'm, essentially, a determinist. In essence, what happens in the next second is based entirely on what is happening in this second, yes? So, an apple hitting the ground in the next second must have been falling during this second. Likewise, everything in the previous second depends on what was happening in the second before that, and so on back to the beginning of time.

As such, If we turned back the clock and then let time resume normally from 100 years ago things would, inevitably, end up exactly as they are now.

Further, the workings of the human brain are all chemical reactions based on what chemicals were present an instant ago.

Still, while there is no free will, it's not much of an issue. We seem to have gotten on fine without it for millions of years, after all.

Originally Posted by mmmmm_PIE

Start with simple semantics: if "free will" is an empty term - a ball of confusing connotations without a core definition - then no anthropic re-frame, appeal to science, or holy invocation can possibly be illuminating.

To deserve its connotations, what should "free will" look like?
To be free, a "choice" must be unnecessary: present in some, but not all possible futures of a given moment. It therefore must violate the principle of sufficient reason.
To be willed, the action must be in the ultimate control of some mechanism (to be simple and concise, we won't care whether the mechanism is intelligent or has experience). It therefore must obey the principle of sufficient reason.

We can easily conclude that there is no non-contradictory definition of free will and comfortably adjourn for some lunch.

I agree. Free Will does not exist as defined. Not on an individual basis, anyway - perhaps the universe as a whole could be considered to have free will as it is its own cause, but I don't want to get into the whole "Universe as God" argument with you again... not for now, anyway.

Originally Posted by Hell Hawk

Are we talking about the chooser seeing the future, or an outside person seeing the choosers future?

well either one really, it makes no difference.

If an outside person sees the future while the chooser does not, then the chooser still has free will.

no, he does not. If Person A knows exactly what decision Person B is going to make before he makes it, Person B cannot make any other decision. He cannot do anything except what Person A already knows he is going to do. Therefore, Person B does not have free will.

Also, if the choose knows his own future, he also still has free will. If he sees his future and sees the outcome of a choice, he can then choose differently in the present (there are like 200 timetravel movies with that theme).

if he knows his own future and knows what he is going to do, how can he do anything else? If he knows he is going to do one thing, he cannot do another thing instead. Otherwise, the future that he supposedly saw was false.

if Person A sees that in his future he is going to decide Decision C, he cannot make any other decision. He cannot decide, instead, to make Decision D because that is not what he saw himself doing in the future. If he is able to make Decision D instead of Decision C, the future he thought he saw was not real because in that future he saw himself making Decision C not Decision D.

Originally Posted by John

S
I could, tonight, fly as far away from that place as it is currently possible to get. Yet if I had foreseen the future as it must be then it wouldn't matter, I'd still end up in that place at the right time and would die there.

But see, you didn't see the future as it must be, you saw it as what the current chain of events dictated it would be. If you altered just one link in the chain of events, it would no longer lead to that future. Knowing the future gives you the ability to alter the chain.

Lets say you get struck by lightening on the corner of 5th and Broadway in New York City, as 6:30 PM November 5, 2010. Now, if you get on a plane and at 6:30 PM November 5, 2010 you are in London, you obviously won't get struck by lightening like you are supposed to. Lightening will simply strike the empty space in New York where you were supposed to be standing at 6:30.

As Yoda said "Always in motion the future is." (don't ask me why I'm throwing around Star Wars quotes). If you foresee your death happening a certain way, but you don't follow the chain of events that must take place for you to die at that point, then you won't die in that way. Granted, you could be struck by lightening in London at 6:31, but that would be a different death than what you foresaw.

It's no different if someone else sees it. Let me put it this way: God is omniscient. He knows that Bob will, in a year's time, die in a bungie jumping accident. He decides to tell Bob about this. Bob, however, cannot change his fate. It does not matter what he does because God, who knows everything already knows with 100% certainty when he will die.

Bob can simply never bungee jump again. On the day he is supposed to die from bungee jumping, he can lock himself in his room and sleep. Now if God still wanted him dead, God would have to actively intervene by teleporting Bob from his bed and throwing him off a cliff with a broken bungee cord. If like me you assume there is no God anyway, then Bob cannot possibly die while bungee jumping, because he is not bungee jumping at the moment he is supposed to die.

As such, Bob has no free will. There is no set of circumstances, actions, or decisions that could ever occur that would end with him alive in two years time.

There are hundreds of ways Bob can alter events to avoid dying of bungee jumping in two years. Heck, he could hear about his death, go home, and put a bullet in his head; thereby eliminating the possibility of dying while bungee jumping.

Of course, I don't think we have free will because I'm, essentially, a determinist. In essence, what happens in the next second is based entirely on what is happening in this second, yes? So, an apple hitting the ground in the next second must have been falling during this second. Likewise, everything in the previous second depends on what was happening in the second before that, and so on back to the beginning of time.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if your a determinist then you believe everything is determined by a chain of prior occurrences. In that case I don't know how you can't see my point.

In the 1931, Winston Churchill was hit by a taxi, fortunately he survived. Lets imagine the car was going a bit faster that day, and Churchill was killed. One can assume England would have fallen to Nazi Germany without his leadership. Then one can assume that because of England's fall the US is invaded. Then one can assume that Germany is able to beat the United States and win WWII, there by changing the next 70 years of world history.

See how just one alteration in a preset routine can change the entire outcome? Likewise; If you know the outcome of an event, it adds new variables, allowing you to change the outcome.

As such, If we turned back the clock and then let time resume normally from 100 years ago things would, inevitably, end up exactly as they are now.

If you would back the world to 1900 everything would happen the same, proving you keep everything the same. However, if a single alteration in events occurred it will cause other alterations, there by creating whole new events, spreading outward through time. By 2000, the world could be completely different place than we know it.

Going back to our WWII analogy (sorry, its one of my favorite time periods). Lets say the US knew about the Pearl Harbor attack, two years in advance. Because of this knowledge, the US would be better prepared, and casualties would have been far less. Heck, the US would probably do a preemptive strike on Japan, stopping the attack from even taking place.

Further, the workings of the human brain are all chemical reactions based on what chemicals were present an instant ago.

I'm not a biologist, I can't argue with this one. Ask more liberal arts stuff.

Originally Posted by Lysis

if he knows his own future and knows what he is going to do, how can he do anything else? If he knows he is going to do one thing, he cannot do another thing instead. Otherwise, the future that he supposedly saw was false.

The future he saw is neither true nor false. It is simply what is going to happen unless something is altered.

if Person A sees that in his future he is going to decide Decision C, he cannot make any other decision. He cannot decide, instead, to make Decision D because that is not what he saw himself doing in the future. If he is able to make Decision D instead of Decision C, the future he thought he saw was not real because in that future he saw himself making Decision C not Decision D.

Of course he can. He can see that in the future and find he doesn't like Decision C (this is an assumption since your vague analogy doesn't even say what C is; for all we know Decision C could be something awesome, such as "I decide to get laid tonight."). Thus, when it gets time to choose, he can simply say "**** it, I pick D."

See, the prediction he received of him picking C does not take into account that fact that he received the prediction. You can't observe the future without changing it.

Originally Posted by Hell Hawk

Lets say you get struck by lightening on the corner of 5th and Broadway in New York City, as 6:30 PM November 5, 2010. Now, if you get on a plane and at 6:30 PM November 5, 2010 you are in London, you obviously won't get struck by lightening like you are supposed to. Lightening will simply strike the empty space in New York where you were supposed to be standing at 6:30.

But then you didn't see the future.

Bob can simply never bungee jump again. On the day he is supposed to die from bungee jumping, he can lock himself in his room and sleep.

Therefore, god did not foresee the future.

Originally Posted by Hell Hawk

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if your a determinist then you believe everything is determined by a chain of prior occurrences. In that case I don't know how you can't see my point.

In the 1931, Winston Churchill was hit by a taxi, fortunately he survived. Lets imagine the car was going a bit faster that day, and Churchill was killed. One can assume England would have fallen to Nazi Germany without his leadership. Then one can assume that because of England's fall the US is invaded. Then one can assume that Germany is able to beat the United States and win WWII, there by changing the next 70 years of world history.

See how just one alteration in a preset routine can change the entire outcome? Likewise; If you know the outcome of an event, it adds new variables, allowing you to change the outcome.

A determinist sees that you can not simply alter the point at which Churchill is not hit, you must alter the point which causes the point at which Churchill is not hit, and you must alter the point which led to the previous point, and the point before that, and the one before than, and so on and so forth, until the spawn of chronological causality.