I'm confused. If God really loved us He wouldn't allow us to do anything outside of His will? And if God really loved us He'd allow us to do anything outside of His will without consequences? Which is it?
Well I'm not really saying how it is. I'm questioning how it is. Of the two though I would be much more of a fan of the former. It seems like better parenting to me.
As far as God's inability to make me happy--I think it's more St. Augustine and other apologists who fail to make me happy. They argue that free will is the highest good, and that evil was introduced as the only way to free will. If there's other ways to get free will (as we've both agreed there are) then obviously you can have free will without evil.
If free will can exist without evil, then the existance of evil can't be to preserve free will. It must exist for another reason. So then we come to the big question. Why the tree? Why the serpent? Why allow evil into the world.
A clarification here, by the way. A lot of people confuse the terms evil and misfortune. An earthquake that kills 50 thousand people isn't evil--there's no malevolent intent behind the act--it's just a tragedy. Tectonic plates have no alignment. I don't need tragedy explained (well okay, miracles do call for some discussion of why tragedy is allowed...but not because they're "evil"). When I say evil, what I mean is moral evil. Why does it exist?
I'm reading Guns, Germs and Steel right now. Highly recommended.
That one's been on my list of "To Read" for a while now. Eventually I'll get to it. :D
What if God wanted man to have knowledge and wisdom? Maybe God knows that sapience is lame if one is not willing to question authority (even if one eventually comes back to that auhtority). He sets up a situation wherein man cannot acquire wisdom without questioning the biggest authority, God's own. Lucifer - the enlightener - is not the villain of this piece but the agent provaceteur. Thus the so-called Fall is all part of God's plan to create intelligent people.
That's actually very close to a conversation I had this morning in fact, discussing this very thread. The biggest downside to your argument is this: If it's true, God sometimes gives commandments he intends us to break.
There are a whole mess of christians (most of them...probably) who would look narrowly on an interpretation that suggests God doesn't give us commandments that we follow them, but that in fact with some of his commandments it's -important- we break them. "Thou shalt not eat of it" becomes a trick to get us to eat of it.
The argument, as it was raised to me, was that God gave two commandments that were in opposition. Adam and Eve did not presumably "know" each other biblically in the Garden, and were fundamentally unused to ideas like nakedness. The argument goes that they could not therefore "multiply and replenish" until they were first mortal. So you can't "not eat the fruit" and "multiply and replenish". According to this interpretation, the paradox was intentional--to prompt Adam and Eve toward thinking for themselves. They were left to puzzle through it until eventually they decided wisdom and disobedience was better than innocence and disobedience.
Makes you wonder. Are we in a similar situation today. If we aren't just in another stage of development. If our God's commandments today don't force a paradox to lead us toward enlightenment. Perhaps "love one another" and "touch not the unclean thing" are the tumblers to the lock of our Eden.
That raises the question though--if we break this commandment does success mean transition to an even MORE grim and blasted place even further from the presence of God? Are the paradise-ness and closeness to God the training wheels of reality? As we progress further does the cosmology become harsher to account for our new knowledge?
Interesting...
Kahoolin threw out the thought that the Hebrews were Polytheistic. This thought comes from the social Darwinism theory (which I had to research a bit last night, so if I get this wrong, please forgive me and correct me). As near as I can figure out, the idea of a monotheistic culture is a very advanced concept for people to get and it really wasn't prevalent until the 1400s as I understand it. The idea is that it was pretty much impossible for an ancient people to grasp the idea of one god. As far as the Hebrews were concerned, they were not a nation of people until well after Abraham. I have not found any evidence or proof that they were polytheistic but at "worst case" rather Henotheistic. Regardless, it was implied that it was impossible for them to conceive of certain concepts.
Hmm. I didn't mean social Dwarwinism exactly - I don't think the idea of one god is any more advanced than the idea of many gods, and I certainly don't think that the ancient Israelistes couldn't have concieved of it because they weren't "up to that stage yet" culturally. Well, I sort of did - What I was saying was that it just so happened that all of the cultures around the Israelites, including those they originally split from, were poly or henotheistic, so naturally that is how they orginally conceived of their deities. Even in Genesis Elohim ("Gods") is plural. If they believed from the beginning that no other gods but Yahweh existed, then why did they fear those other gods so? Surely they would have simply said "none of those other gods are real" as the later muslims and christians did. I think the golden calf incident is a clear example of the Israelites in a transitional period between polytheism and henotheism. They are changing from "many gods are real and when we celebrate we thank them all" to "many gods are real but Yahweh will not count us as his children if we honour other gods in any way." Moses' reaction clearly illustrates the new henotheistic state of affairs.
I think Lady Aurora's description of the more bizarre laws being taboos against other tribes' religious practices is pretty accurate. There doesn't have to be a shellfish god for people to eat shellfish in a religious capacity. Dietary taboos are and were not restricted to Judaism. For example I read somewhere that the no meat and dairy thing is a strengthening of the law in Leviticus against boiling a kid in it's mother's milk. Who would do that? Well at one of the Canaanite festivals once a year a goat kid was killed, cooked in it's mother's milk and eaten as part of a ritual.
But I in no way think that polytheism is a more primitive idea than monotheism. I just think that the cultures of the west happen to have evolved to become monotheistic. They just as easily could not have.
Also, is there any evidence that the cultures co-existent with the Israelites did not practice things like crop-rotation? I find it hard to believe from the way cultures generally interact that the Israelites had all this sectret technology and healthy ways of living that no-one around them had. It just seems that people often assume that because the Bible is the main remaining cultural document of the time that the Israelites were unique in their social laws, and then use this as a justification of the truth of the bible.
Makes you wonder. Are we in a similar situation today. If we aren't just in another stage of development. If our God's commandments today don't force a paradox to lead us toward enlightenment. Perhaps "love one another" and "touch not the unclean thing" are the tumblers to the lock of our Eden.
That raises the question though--if we break this commandment does success mean transition to an even MORE grim and blasted place even further from the presence of God? Are the paradise-ness and closeness to God the training wheels of reality? As we progress further does the cosmology become harsher to account for our new knowledge?
Interesting...
That is a very intersting thought. I am pretty much of the opinion (and have been for a few years now) that if God is real, He wants us to not believe in Him.
EDIT: I should rephrase, if God is real He wants me to behave as if He is not real. If He is real and omnipotent etc then I'm sure He has different plans for different people :)
I just wanted to put out a question for discussion given the posts on polytheism.
Is modern Christianity polytheistic?
If there is a God and a Devil does that constitute - two divine beings and thus a form of polytheism?
Then add angels & demons (even saints are prayed to) - if they are independant personalities with the abiltiy to respond to prayer/wishes/whims/ and are responsible for different spheres do they count as gods (not to be confused with "THE GOD").
Another question is if christianity is truly monotheistic, God is omnipotent and there is/are devil/demons then their power comes from God and is dependant on him. How does that reconcile with the faith?
I have my own beliefs on both these scores but I am curious to see what comments/opinions/beliefs are out there.
My take would be that conventional christianity tries its best to be monotheistic, but it's a collosal undertaking requiring a lot of spin.
The devil thing isn't as hard as it would look. He's powerful in mortal terms, but isn't ascribed nearly the kind of power that God has, and is in fact nothing more than a rogue servitor. The angels are likewise servitors, though increasingly pagan religion has taken to angel worship. I'm not sure how this gets reconciled, but people do it.
The real sticky stuff is the Trinity. It's explained in all sorts of ways--and frankly is meant to be confusing since it's supposed to be impossible for a mortal mind to understand. The upshot is that Christ, God and Holy Ghost are all manifestations of a single God, that they are his three forms if you will. This is perhaps the closest Christianity comes to polytheism, so they tend to treat this very carefully. There are instances where Jesus and God talk for example. These are generally explained as the internal dialogue of an infinite being. If these three are taken as separate beings however, as a few religions contend, then yeah Christianity would have a small tight pantheon.
Saints are a bit tricky too. They're humans, but have the ability to recieve prayers on behalf of God for those whose needs fit their particular office. This isn't quite God status, but the Saints are the recipients of prayer, which brings them awfully close. The Virgin Mary comes even closer--having been attributed herself with supernatural purity of soul to have been able to concieve a son without the stain of Original Sin. She serves, from what I understand, in a functionary position much higher than even Saints and has personally manifested before the righteous and worked great miracles. She might pass for a godlike figure--though of course she isn't called anything of the sort by those who revere her religiously.
So yeah, short answer--it tries to be, but every so often something slips through.
well; there are two kinds of prayer; prayer is not worship. The prayer to saints is just a fancy word for talking or communication, I would ask any of my brothers or sisters or any of the faithful to pray for me to our Lord same as I ask my patron saint and any saints who were greatly concerned about the topic in question to pray for me to our Lord.
The other type of prayer is an internal tool for learning about oneself, this type of prayer is for man, not for God, but is a tool to evaluate your heart guided by the Spirit and correct your behavior, learn and grow.
I have found that there exists a great deal of confusion that leads to missunderstanding and missrepresentation about some very basic issues; the idea of prayer or the infinitive "to pray" being one primary topic. Try not to get lost in the ritual or trappings or showmanship that can be displayed by poeple who may or may not be praying.
I have heard people many times say "you pray to saints" but what they mean is you worship saints; and that is clearly untrue.
I have heard people many times say "you pray to saints" but what they mean is you worship saints; and that is clearly untrue.
I appreciate the distinction - I would remind you though that you are (I assume) an educated, sophisticated, 1st world individual.
I wonder though if those distinctions exist for the vast numbers of illiterate poor - or if for those individuals - prayer to saints is actually worship as you describe it.
I had a candid conversation with a Hindu friend of mine recently about religion and I asked him about polytheism in his faith - was there a single divine force - or multiple gods. His reply was that for the well informed, at some level it all converged in one greater divine - for the less educated (largely rural folk) it was a true polytheism.
It has been suggested that transition between polytheism and monotheism goes both ways. Religion can start as polytheistic where one god is started to be viewed as more important than others and slowly the others are faded to status of little importance or denied outright, resulting to monotheism (example: Judaism). Then this monotheistic god starts to get hang-arounds whose status rises higher and higher, sometimes resulting to true polytheism, sometimes sort of polytheism lite (example: Christianity in general with concept of Trinity, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches with saints). Then this new polytheistic tradition can go on back to monotheistic (rejection of Trinity by Islam, rejection of saints by Protestants) and again back (some forms of Islam). It's a wheel.
Judaism was in the beginning a polytheistic religion, there is evidence of that in some books of the Bible (typically the older ones) where it is made clear that people of Israel should not worship any other god than Jahweh even if existence of those gods is not denied. True monotheism grows in slowly, so other parts of Bible deny existence of other gods outright. Satan is typically portrayed as servant of God.
|
If free will can exist without evil, then the existance of evil can't be to preserve free will. It must exist for another reason. So then we come to the big question. Why the tree? Why the serpent? Why allow evil into the world.
I wanted to do my best to address the question of "free will". (I will try and address the polytheistic question later if I have time.)
You were/are suggesting that if God allowed a whole bunch of "good" choices and no "bad" choices that it would still be considered "free will".
Let's ask a slightly different question -- Who's will is it?
If you are forced to act and react to situations within the bounderies of God's will, is it really your will at all. It seems to me that you are simply operating within God's will. It just seems like you may have "free choice" but your "will" is still God's. I think that in order to truly have free will, there needs to be at least one "option" that is outside of the divine creator's will. If it isn't even possible to choose something contrary to someone else's will, is it truly your will?
I don't know if free will is the highest "good" or not. That may be a debate for later.
Let me know if this makes sense or not (or whether or not you agree).
I had a candid conversation with a Hindu friend of mine recently about religion and I asked him about polytheism in his faith - was there a single divine force - or multiple gods. His reply was that for the well informed, at some level it all converged in one greater divine - for the less educated (largely rural folk) it was a true polytheism.
I guess the question is, can you rightly judge something by the misrepresentations of those who practice it without understanding them. Sure there are people who practice Catholicism or Hinduism without understanding the complexities of it (or often as not as a way to covertly practice much older beliefs that really aren't the same thing).
Wouldn't that be the same as saying that D&D is satan worship, because some kind decides to whip out the goat and black candles during a session? Or that it's about ritual murder when some guy kills his friend with a longsword? Let's not misinterpret splinter practices for the practices of the whole.
Let's ask a slightly different question -- Who's will is it? Let me know if this makes sense or not (or whether or not you agree).
I guess it depends on what you want to get out of free will. If you're looking for autonomy, then really all you need are a set of choices that do two things really--that are as likely to be chosen as any other, and that in the choosing they effect the chooser somehow.
If somehow there's more requirement on free will than that--that somehow there's an equal opportunity notion where all ideas, no matter how abhorrent, have to get the same play then that seems like an extra requirement beyond free will. It certainly doesn't seem like a healthy idea to encourage your beloved creations to choose evil as freely as good if you're then looking to punish them eternally for it.
well; there are two kinds of prayer;
I'd say there are three (or four depending on how you slice it) kinds of prayer:
1) Honorifics. The 'our god is great' speil.
2) Wishes. Praying for God to do stuff for you. This doesn't work; like I said before, God doesn't micromanage.
3) Catharsis/Affirmations. Here's the meat of it. Meditation, introspection, getting in touch with your spirit, whatever you want to call it, the true purpose of prayer is to find your morality, so that you can act on it. God helps those who help themselves.
Satan is typically portrayed as servant of God.
I prefer the Satan of Judaism. Not a fallen angel, but the loyal opposition. Created by God specifically to play devil's advocate. Because all authority needs to be questioned in order to keep it honest, even if it is always right.
...that {the choices} are as likely to be chosen as any other...
Well my thought is that if a creation is given a choice, but so weighted that it's very much more likely that one will be chosen over the other, then the choice is made by environmental pressures more than by volition.
An example. If I offer you $100 bucks or a punch in the gut. Few would ever take the punch in the gut. It doesn't make sense to. For there to be free will, the choices have to be balanced, or else it's more about following the path of least resistance rather than making meaningful choices. Otherwise everyone makes the same decisions and turns out about the same.
That make sense?
This I cannot say with any accuracy that of anyone elses understanding or belief system within the Church, only what is taught in our current catechetical instruction and my own belief; and, your assumptions of me are indeed correct.
I have heard people many times say "you pray to saints" but what they mean is you worship saints; and that is clearly untrue.I appreciate the distinction - I would remind you though that you are (I assume) an educated, sophisticated, 1st world individual.
I wonder though if those distinctions exist for the vast numbers of illiterate poor - or if for those individuals - prayer to saints is actually worship as you describe it.
I had a candid conversation with a Hindu friend of mine recently about religion and I asked him about polytheism in his faith - was there a single divine force - or multiple gods. His reply was that for the well informed, at some level it all converged in one greater divine - for the less educated (largely rural folk) it was a true polytheism.
|
|
That make sense?
Kind of. I am still struggling with where you are coming from. I don't feel that many/most decisions are necessarily balanced. People seem to break the law all the time that appears to me as though they would have chosen the punch to the gut.
The decision in question was kind of like "Do it with God or Do it without God". Some might argue that it is "balanced". I'm not sure how I would stand on it -- I never thought about it as if free will was all about having "balanced" choices. I guess that is why we make decisions like "the lesser of two evils" or something like that. We "weigh" the options and choose the one that makes the most sense to us -- I don't feel that they are or should be balanced to begin with.
There is no imperative that any choice of free will be balanced. Choices are based entirely on perspective; if you are good; you will percieve good choices; if evil than evil choices; if you ride the fence; then mabye you will see some of each.
How do you measure Good; this is where my friends and I get into a sticky place. I measure all Good against God for to me only He is Good. Others think differently. Some would argue that we cannot know God so we cannot know Good. Some would argue there is no God so there is no Good; Some would argue that God is everywhere and in everything so everything is Good; we just dont understand God so we don't understand Good.
Is there any action that is always Good; always Evil? how much does intent matter or is it only outcome. It is the search for these answers that matters as your answer will probably be different from what you may have said ten years ago; and be different still ten years from now as it is all based on perspective.
Am really bummed that my free will post was obliterated by the Piazo Black Hole.
Is there any action that is always Good; always Evil?My wife refuses to play "Scruples" with me as all my answers are "depends".
I see you've read "Beyond Milton and Bradley."
"Every time I think I'm out, they drrrag me back in!"
On the subject of free will (sigh), Grimcleaver, I think you'll find your version of it in heaven. There, there will only be choices within God's will without sin or corruption and yet each individual will *be* a distinct individual.
Arguably it might have been fine if humans had never had the option of evil and could always only operate within God's will, but not from God's perspective. God loves people and could easily allow people to love him because they wouldn't know any different (kind of the way that abused children still "love" their wickedly hurtful parents just because it's the only family they know). But God Himself had no way of knowing whether people would truly love him and choose to obey Him if they were given other options. I don't personally see where the choice to act outside of God's will is equal to the choice to act within it. The choice between "right" and "wrong" doesn't have to be equal, nor, IMO, has it ever really been. But only after showing that if given the option of believing/trusting God or not we would chose to believe do we receive God's reward. If there wasn't a reward/punishment system for obeying/disobeying God, then He would have no authority whatsoever and not deserving of anyone's respect.
On the Satan issue. I believe he is a fallen angel and not truly God's enemy but man's. God could squash him without effort but Satan's supernatural powers can easily overwhelm a mere mortal. Of course, if we are protected by the Holy Spirit then Satan & his demons don't have any "real" power over us. This doesn't necessarily mean believers don't sometimes fall victim to his deceit (the Power is within us, we just don't always use it effectively).
If there wasn't a reward/punishment system for obeying/disobeying God, then He would have no authority whatsoever and not deserving of anyone's respect.
I respectfully, but very, very strongly disagree. He doesn't need to lord it over us and punish us for every slight disobedience to a convoluted and morally meaningless set of codes (no shellfish?) in order to be worthy of our respect. Having created the universe, and us (continuing to posit the existence of a God, of course) should be enough to warrant some respect, I think. I'd respect Him a lot more, in fact, if he didn't "micromanage," and allowed us to actually USE the ability to think that He have us, instead of being forced to shut off our brains and mindlessly obey some book.
What is free-will? The way I see it, free-will is our perception of chao-determinism, in the same way solid matter is our perception of galaxies of fundamental particles. Even though free-will does not exist objectively, for us it's as unavoidable as a galaxy of fundamental particles to the head. Or in other words: you have to believe in free-will, there's no other choice.
What is free-will? The way I see it, free-will is our perception of chao-determinism, in the same way solid matter is our perception of galaxies of fundamental particles. Even though free-will does not exist objectively, for us it's as unavoidable as a galaxy of fundamental particles to the head. Or in other words: you have to believe in free-will, there's no other choice.
Wondering: is there some evidence for this view, or is it an attempt to reconcile physics with scripture, or just a random idea?
Wondering: is there some evidence for this view, or is it an attempt to reconcile physics with scripture, or just a random idea?
Many (perhaps even most) philosophers do not believe that free will is possible. The idea, while nice, just doesn't stand up to critical analysis, especially when you throw God into the mix. Most of the people who think about this sort of stuff for a living admit determinism to at least some extent (sounds funny - partial determinism!)
Hill Giant's idea is pretty common - it's prety close to what I think too. Things can't be other than the way they are, but things are only the way they are because we intuitively feel that we have control over our choices. It's a big problem, because most people like the idea that we aren't predestined. Most philosophers I have talked to are of the opinion that free will is an illusion, but that doesn't make it any less real to us. Most of them started out trying to prove free will was possible and just couldn't, so they reverted to the weaker position.
I just wanted to put out a question for discussion given the posts on polytheism.
Is modern Christianity polytheistic?
I think the bible demonstrates that Christianity tolerates polytheism:
1. "You shall have no other gods before me." Exodus 20:3
Doesn't this imply the existence of more than one god?
2. "Among the gods there is none like you, O lord; no deeds can compare with yours" Psalm 86:8
Is this not implying a comparison of God's deeds (!) to other gods?
3. "I will bring judgment on all gods of Egypt" Exodus 12:2
Another reference to multiple gods in the bible.
Wondering: is there some evidence for this view, or is it an attempt to reconcile physics with scripture, or just a random idea?
There are three ways cause and effect can work:
Determinism: Cause A resultes in effect A1
Stochasticism: Cause A results in effect A1, A2, or A3 determined at random
Volition: Cause A results in effect A1, A2, or A3 determined by choice, a process which is less predictable than determinism, but more predictable that stochasticism.
Now, obviously, most physical effects are deterministic (Newtonian). However, some effects appear to be random or chosen. The question is are they? Here's where chaos comes in. In a simple deterministic system, cause A --> effect A1, cause B --> effect B1, etc. However, if you take them all together causes A, B, C does not result in effects A1, B1, C1. The processes interfere with each other and what you get instead is effects A2, B2, C2. If one is just looking at cause A, and you get effect A2 instead of A1, it's easy to mistake the result for randomness or choice instead of chaotic (complex) determinism.
Take a die roll, for example. The process is entirely newtonian in nature: what side ends face up is determined by the energy and spin of the roll, the nature of the die, the nature of the rolling surface, even the nature of the atmosphere. Fortunately for us, it's impossible to be aware of all the factors, much less predict what effect they will have, so the die roll is in practice random.
The way I see it, if chao-determinism can explain a seemingly random effect, why would it not apply to free-will, which (as this thread has demonstrated) is somewhere between determinism and stochasticism? (Or to put it another way, I've yet to see a situation that could only be random or choice.)
As I mentioned before though, fatalism is not pessimism. The future is impossible to predict with any certainty, and half the fun of life is seeing what comes next. I also don't buy determinism as an excuse for bad behaviour. Free-will exists for humans as much solid objects (or random dice rolls, or electronic funds). Just because something is illusory, doesn't make it any less real (so to speak).
Now, obviously, most physical effects are deterministic (Newtonian). However, some effects appear to be random or chosen. The question is are they? Here's where chaos comes in...
I look into a bowl of hard candies, of many different flavors. I like cherry, but failing to find one (Cause A) I reach for an orange one, but change my mind and grab a lemon one instead. I like orange and lemon both. I made a free choice, that could easily have gone the other way, but it's not random. It's determined by my choice.
Now, you could argue that minute electrical imbalances in my brain that I'm not aware of MADE my pick the way I did, but I'd say if there are a theoretically infinite number of causes and a limitless field of effects, then free will and chance for all intents and purposes DO exist, because there's no way to quantify enough to get down to them.
Just because something is illusory, doesn't make it any less real (so to speak).
Aha! That appears to be the point of my last post, just more succinctly put.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I look into a bowl of hard candies, of many different flavors. I like cherry, but failing to find one (Cause A) I reach for an orange one, but change my mind and grab a lemon one instead. I like orange and lemon both. I made a free choice, that could easily have gone the other way, but it's not random. It's determined by my choice.
(Bold is my emphasis.)
The question then becomes, what made you change your mind? Was it purely whimsy? Did you just change your mind for no other reason than you did? Or did you decide you "wanted" a lemon instead of orange? If so, what makes a person want to eat something? Chemical changes in the mouth/tastebuds? Changes in your gastro-intestinal tract (telling you that you need more of the citric acid found in lemons than in oranges - if there is a difference)?
Is it possible that "freewill" as we describe it may be no more than the conscious reaction to unconscious physical needs?
Just throwing an idea out there for discussion.
Greg
The question then becomes, what made you change your mind? Was it purely whimsy? Did you just change your mind for no other reason than you did? Or did you decide you "wanted" a lemon instead of orange? If so, what makes a person want to eat something? Chemical changes in the mouth/tastebuds? Changes in your gastro-intestinal tract (telling you that you need more of the citric acid found in lemons than in oranges - if there is a difference)?
Is it possible that "freewill" as we describe it may be no more than the conscious reaction to unconscious physical needs?
Just throwing an idea out there for discussion.
Greg
See 2nd paragraph. Maybe I just "felt" like it. Maybe I wanted an orange one and was feeling masochistic. Whatever. But certainly I fail to see that the Hand of Destiny has any part in it, no matter what the underlying cause... or if it does, it's far too diffuse to be used to make predictions, and hence may as well not exist.
See 2nd paragraph. Maybe I just "felt" like it. Maybe I wanted an orange one and was feeling masochistic. Whatever.
This is where I think you may be glossing over something quite important. You just 'felt' like it. What does that mean? Really? Do we know enough about how the brain works, it's chemical balance, and the electrical impulses to say that "I felt like it" is as fundamental as we can get?
I don't believe so. I think that when we as humans say we "feel" like doing something, it's a lot deeper than that. There are bio-eletrical and chemical reactions going on in our body and a very minute level.
There is so much more to learn about the human body and mind that I don't think we can just lump all human reaction into the basket we call "the soul" and think that its all said and done.
How many centuries ago was what we now call clinical depression thought to be evil spirits inhabiting our bodies? Now we know it can be due to a chemical imbalance which can be successfully treated with medication. That's due to an increased understanding of the human body/mind and how it works. And we aren't even half-way done in understanding it.
Greg
I guess I'm a softliner when it comes to free will. I don't have many requirements for it. What I require is this, and only this. Give the same bowl of candy to a group of people. Have them pick a candy--take as long as you want. Now open your hand. Do the choices look like a diverse range of colors? Does everyone have the same one?
If you get a diverse sample you have free will. People put in identical situations choosing differently. Is it -caused- by something? Oh most certainly. I don't need free will to be without mechanics--I just need it to make people different and not robotic.
Okay robotic is a tricky term--because we are at our base nature robotic. What I mean is, that each person is different in fundamental ways. As long as this exists, there's enough free will for me. Pure free will is a pipe dream that nobody really intended (I hope) in the first place. A world where every choice is entirely random is as locked down and unappealing as one where every choice is rigid and unanimous.
Really though...all of this discussion of free will has a point. It's all about whether we live in a created world or a freely occuring one. Whether creation lives up to the measure of its purpose or not and consequently whether there's direction and intent (and ultimately a God) behind it or not.
PS. I'd pick a lime flavored one.
PS. I'd pick a lime flavored one.
Remember sourballs? The lime ones, for lack of a better adjective, were sublime. The fact that I can't find them anymore is reason enough to assume that God does not exist.
PS. I'd pick a lime flavored one.Remember sourballs? The lime ones, for lack of a better adjective, were sublime. The fact that I can't find them anymore is reason enough to assume that God does not exist.
I'm way more of a chocolate candy person than a fruity candy person. I feel like if I'm going to eat pure sugar I might as well really enjoy it. I just don't enjoy fruit candy as much. I do really love lime though. Granted I prefer fresh lime to the sugary candy flavoring that's made in a lab with no actual lime in it.
I'm way more of a chocolate candy person than a fruity candy person. I feel like if I'm going to eat pure sugar I might as well really enjoy it. I just don't enjoy fruit candy as much.A beautiful example of free will with equal choices! I don't really care for chocolate, but I can eat gummy bears all day long.
I do really love lime though.
I read somewhere that Christopher Walken will walk off a movie set if there's no gofer appointed to bring him lime slices between shoots. Gotta love the guy!
(kind of the way that abused children still "love" their wickedly hurtful parents just because it's the only family they know)
-I'll have to remember that the next time the story of Job pops up in discussion.
But that seems boring right now.
Here is my problem with the idea of a creator. We are toys. Maybe our master loves his toys. Maybe it would be better to never remove us from the package so we will stay in mint condition. Maybe it is worth the risk to take us out of the box. We risk getting damaged but what good is a toy if you can't play with it. But it doesn't matter we are still just toys. God does not need us. He could live without us easily. He could throw us away to make new toys. We have no use other than to provide entertainment. Even if god loves us like a three year old loves a teddy, it is deep and it is wonderful, but it is still a lifeless meaningless toy. Our conciousness compared with God's is about the same as a human vs a barbie doll, or maybe a robo-sapian if you think we are smarter.
God was bored so he made something to do. And maybe he did. But if I'm a toy, I get to choose which toy I'm gonna be. I choose to be Buzz Lightyear. Only I'm not gonna admit I'm a toy. Not even at the end of the movie. I'm not going to freeze every time I think that god is in the room "putting my life into his hands" until he's done with me. I'm going to live my life not hurting others, but if and when I do I'm gonna own up and apologize and not hide behind some ancient fairy tale to excuse me looking down on others. Whether they are gay, muslim, wiccan, or even if they play D&D. If God decides to pick me up off the bedroom floor and whine at me "why don't you play by the rules in the instruction manual?" I'll just tell him if he wanted me to work right he should have built me better.
The belief in the bible kills me. It's out of date. It's too ancient to clearly understand the motives behind it's authors. Believing that no ill means could have been met through manipulating the bibles words is the kind of dangerous naivety that gets people refusing medical treatment because god will pray the tumors away. I could take any damn book in existance and pull out "symbolisms" that explains the morals of my life.
I've been through the rabbit whole. I've had devout beliefs. It was fun for awhile. The uncertainty of not understanding all of it was frightening sometimes. But eventually I woke up. I've never looked back either.
You can debate the morals of Christianity to no end because 1,000,000,000 people can read the same book and come up with different motivations, ethical standards, and ideas on how the world was created.
Atheism though? Who as an argument for that that isn't complete b$@~*&+!?
That isn't a rhetorical question either.
I didn't quite understand your last few sentences about arguments for atheism, SG. Clarify?
I just wanted to put out a question for discussion given the posts on polytheism.
Is modern Christianity polytheistic?
I think the bible demonstrates that Christianity tolerates polytheism:
1. "You shall have no other gods before me." Exodus 20:3
Doesn't this imply the existence of more than one god?2. "Among the gods there is none like you, O lord; no deeds can compare with yours" Psalm 86:8
Is this not implying a comparison of God's deeds (!) to other gods?3. "I will bring judgment on all gods of Egypt" Exodus 12:2
Another reference to multiple gods in the bible.
Well put. No argument here.
Now, you could argue that minute electrical imbalances in my brain that I'm not aware of MADE my pick the way I did, but I'd say if there are a theoretically infinite number of causes and a limitless field of effects, then free will and chance for all intents and purposes DO exist, because there's no way to quantify enough to get down to them.
Ah, but there isn't an infinite number of anything. There may be more than we can count, but that's very different from infinity. I think we're in agreement that the foundation of free-will has little day-to-day impact. But the fact that free-will is subjective and emergent is very important if you want to talk philosophy or physics. Knowing that solid matter is made up of minute particles, fundamental forces, and mostly empty space is of no use to a carpenter, but very important to a nuclear physicist.
I guess I'm a softliner when it comes to free will. I don't have many requirements for it. What I require is this, and only this. Give the same bowl of candy to a group of people. Have them pick a candy--take as long as you want. Now open your hand. Do the choices look like a diverse range of colors? Does everyone have the same one?
So all you want is robots programmed to each choose a different colored candy? Fortunately for you (and I suppose all of us) you don't need free-will to have diversity (yay, complexity!).
So all you want is robots programmed to each choose a different colored candy? Fortunately for you (and I suppose all of us) you don't need free-will to have diversity (yay, complexity!).
Well...kind of. I mean on one hand I can see a randomized candy picker that uses an algorithm to choose a different flavor of candy each time. That really isn't free will so much as the sum of a complex algorithm. I guess what I want has more to do with preference development and the ability to develop an individual identity--the underlying cause behind everyone picking their own flavor of candy.
Then again I consider diversity and complexity to be virtues in their own right. Certainly not the only thing I would want for, but certainly also something I would never want to do without.
If God decides to pick me up off the bedroom floor and whine at me "why don't you play by the rules in the instruction manual?" I'll just tell him if he wanted me to work right he should have built me better.
Print that on a t-shirt for me man! That pretty well sums up my critique of religon. From everything from free will to evolution to my biblical issues. Less me personally--but more with the nature of the universe. If things don't "work right" then the less right they work, the less likely they were created in the first place.
Well...kind of. I mean on one hand I can see a randomized candy picker that uses an algorithm to choose a different flavor of candy each time. That really isn't free will so much as the sum of a complex algorithm. I guess what I want has more to do with preference development and the ability to develop an individual identity--the underlying cause behind everyone picking their own flavor of candy.
Hmm, perhaps that what puts volition in between determinism and stochastacism: change over time? You can't tell what kind of cause/effect you have from one instance. A deterministic effect has the same result every time. The aggregate of several stochastic effects tends towards its ratio. But in cases of choice, the ratio of results changes with time; mood, experience, inspiration (etc) can all skew the results.
Edit: Rereading what I just wrote: How is this different from chaos? It goes back to my assertion that free-will is our perception of chaos. What gives humans free-will and not robots is our complexity. Our ability to rewrite (or have rewritten) our decision-making.
Knowing that solid matter is made up of minute particles, fundamental forces, and mostly empty space is of no use to a carpenter, but very important to a nuclear physicist.
I'm a scientist by trade, but a carpenter-like one. A theory's only value to me is its ability to make meaningful predictions. One the one hand, a lot of speculation about quantum non-free will is fun, but not useful other than that. On the other hand, the assumption of free will, and the acting on that assumption, allows me to avoid certain misfortunes that afflict others who act as if they have no choices in life. Whether I'm destined to avoid an accident and therefore stop at a red light, or whether I avoid the accident BECAUSE I stop at the light, is immaterial; either way, I'll keep stopping at the light.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bite me, you beach ball.
My favorite line is where Kirth says, "Obviously you are an idiot!"
lol