I would like to get some reactions on a personal level (OK, intellectual of you like as well) about what it means that God created us with free will and the capacity to reject God? Did God blow it or was there some genius in this act of creation, assuming of course that you buy the whole creation thing? Kirk
Originally posted by jgvaccaroBut Jake, the physical world is not a deterministic system, it is a probabilistic system. The tenets of quantum mechanics state that the paths of electrons and protons in orbiting and spinning respectively cannot be determined perfectly, only stochastically - i.e., we are only correct to a certain probability when making predictions about the behaviour of fundamental particles. If these systems are probabilistic, how then can the behaviour of larger physical systems be deterministic?
Well-- how does a materialist maintain the idea of the human individual as anything more than an arbitrary construct? If we accept that the physical world is a deterministic system, do we then assert that the human brain is an exception to that system? If it is an exception, why? If it's not, than what can we possibly mean when we refer to "humans" or "individuals" or "us"?
Originally posted by kyngjEven if the world isn't deterministic, free will is mysterious. The argument given in the thread on free will shows this. If some event occurs without being directly brought about by previous causal forces, then the event is random (though stochastically analyzable, pace Q.M.). Ranodm events are beyond our control, because we could only control them by exerting causal forces. So even if the probabilistic nature of the micro-level iterates to the macro-level, it doesn't alleviate the worries Jake raised.
But Jake, the physical world is [b]not a deterministic system, it is a probabilistic system. The tenets of quantum mechanics state that the paths of electrons and protons in orbiting and spinning respectively cannot be determined perfectly, only stochastically - i.e., we are only correct to a certain probability when making predictions about the be ...[text shortened]... ems are probabilistic, how then can the behaviour of larger physical systems be deterministic? [/b]
Fair enough, Joe-- but no one argues that the weather has free will, even though no one is able to predict it with perfect precision. Why should we grant special status to the human brain? The only possible justifications I see for conferring a unique quality of free will on human agents are religious, not scientific or rational ones.
Bennett-- I will try to be a little clearer. We keep using the first person pronouns when talking about free will: "our" actions, the things "we" do. In doing so, we ascribe certain events to the agency of individual persons.
But in a materialist system, how can an individual person be anything more than a convenient fiction? What differentiates a single brain-body system from the larger mechanism of which it is a part (i.e. the physical universe)?
Simply talking about ourselves as if we were integral, autonomous beings doesn't make us so. It's very common for us to talk about things that aren't people as if they were: "France decided to veto the resolution", "AOL merged with Time Warner". But in doing so, we aren't suggesting that France or AOL are individual beings with free will-- instead they are abstract institutions whose actions represent a collective.
It seems to me that ultimately, in a materialist's universe, a "person" can only be seen as an entity like a country or a corporation-- a label of convenience, an abstract concept, which in this case stands for the sum of the physical processes which take place inside a certain brain-body system. In such a universe, it makes no more sense to talk about the free will of an individual person than it does to talk about the free will of a corporation, or a country, or for that matter the free will of the weather.
I am stepping out on a limb here and for this argument to have any meaning it must be conceded that the universe unravels in an orderly fashion and that we as humans are contained within the universe. Then
Free Will and/or Determinism have no meaning because:
1 - The universe progresses in orderly ( I say quantum) steps and depends on nothing (especially from it's component parts) to progress. (the time arrow)
2 - As components, we humans and most animals have what we refer to as a mind. A mind is a device that accepts input from the universe, stores datum, thus enabling memory. It also has an aspect that allows "foresight" or a vision of what we might do. This is probably a function of memory manipulation! which if true is quite remarkable.
3 - Any mind which has capacity for memory, perception of "now" and a vision of some "future" can take action.
4 - Action replaces what has been called "Free Will" and "Determinism" by caviat. To act is an action of mind.
4 - The argument that "Every action is either caused or uncaused" fails in the light of a mind taking an action. All things are "caused" by the unfolding of the universe. The mistake is to place the mind outside of the universe and it's unfolding. Therefore free will and determinism are not vaild concepts because the required dictum ( caused or uncaused) is an obsurdity.
I offer as proof my dog, Zabu.
When an unleashed dog arrives at my front porch she demonstrates her mind, ie, she perceives that dog. She can take any action she wants or she can take no action. The universe is happy, and doesn't split into multi-verses to satisfy her ego. It just keeps on truckin. But she can 1 - Run to front door and bark. 2- Run to front window and bark. 3 - Run into garage and bark. 4 - Run into back yard and go either left or right to bark. (corner lot) 5 - She can watch me eat another mouth full of steak and do nothing, knowing she will get the last couple of bites. The point is that she has a mind and can take action or not, as her mind guides her. If she is an elitist and puts herself outside of the universe, she can claim that any action creates an entire new branch. If she is a dog, then she is part of the universe and it takes no notice of her actions. I am quite satisfied to be her equal, because I usually get first dibs on the steak.
Originally posted by rwingettOK, Rob, let me see if I can help salvage this thread. It seems to me that the existence of God (assuming you buy into it) is experienced on either a transcendent level or on an imminent level. The transcendent level I think is where there is likely a debate about how can an all powerful God allow whatever. The imminent level is highly personal and very individually based upon that person's particular life experience and understanding. You really can't debate the personal as that person's experience is their own. I would also honor the atheist's experience as their own and not necessary to refute or debate. Christians miss so much by having to change people's minds instead of listening to the story behind the words/beliefs. To my Christian friends I would simply say that if the Bible were simply about rules and conversion, it would be a hell of lot shorter. Kirk
Free will, free will, bah! You philosophers have hijacked a perfectly good thread and sent it careening into the black hole of free will vs. determinism again. Now we've entered the black hole from which no argument can ever escape. 😠
Originally posted by rwingettLOL, hardest problem in philosophy. Alright, no more about free will. But I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how a God with the three properties of Omnipotence, Omniscience and Moral Perfection is compatible with the existence of unnecessary evil in the world, given that if all evil is necessary to make this the best of all possible worlds, then the whole concept of sin is fundamentally incoherent. Have at it, let the theodicies abound.
Free will, free will, bah! You philosophers have hijacked a perfectly good thread and sent it careening into the black hole of free will vs. determinism again. Now we've entered the black hole from which no argument can ever escape. 😠
Originally posted by bbarrBennett, perhaps the problem we are having is with expectations. To put God to an impossible standard (omni-everything) is a set-up. Jung, in his Answer to JOb, took on this issue. Jung argued that for Christianity to be monotheistic it was necessary to assume the opposites as being contained in God. That is, both good and evil. This thread has been a wonderful example of the vast spectrum of thoughts and beliefs around doubt and faith. However, what I would suggest is that we are not "called" to have the right or correct thoughts, but rather to be integrated in all facets of life, relationships, intellect, and emotionally. Each one who has participated in this thread I would venture to guess has had dreams that have used images that may be disturbing or confusing or run against our values. Now are these dreams evil? No, they are part of our psyche's capacity to invite healing and integration. Now, to me this is a holy and sacred event. Some will say these are just synapses firing from the chocolate cake I ate before bed. In short, I think JUng's challenge to modern man is to invite them to see God as a unification of opposites. And this in absolute heresy to many. Kirk
LOL, hardest problem in philosophy. Alright, no more about free will. But I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how a God with the three properties of Omnipotence, Omniscience and Moral Perfection is compatible with the existence of unnecessary evil in the world, given that if all evil is necessary to make this the best of all possible worlds, then the whole concept of sin is fundamentally incoherent. Have at it, let the theodicies abound.
Originally posted by kirksey957Well, if in God there is the unification of opposites, then his nature would be ineffable. Perhaps we could have direct experiences of it, or a unification with it, a la some contemplative traditions. Whatever the case, if God's nature is ineffable, then when the devout presume to hold forth on God's nature, they are literally speaking nonsense. In fact, I think this is the case, which is why when I originally posted in this thread I asked Omnislash and others to specify what they took God's properties to be. On this subject few have expressed your point as eloquently as Rumi in the following poem:
Bennett, perhaps the problem we are having is with expectations. To put God to an impossible standard (omni-everything) is a set-up. Jung, in his Answer to JOb, took on this issue. Jung argued that for Christianity to be monotheistic ...[text shortened]... fication of opposites. And this in absolute heresy to many. Kirk
Like This
If anyone asks you
how the perfect satisfaction
of all our sexual wanting
will look, lift your face
and say,
Like this.
When someone mentions the gracefulness
of the night sky, climb up on the roof
and dance and say,
Like this.
If anyone wants to know what "spirit" is,
or what "God’s fragrance" means,
lean your head toward him or her.
Keep your face there close.
Like this.
When someone quotes the old poetic image
about clouds gradually uncovering the moon,
slowly loosen knot by knot the strings
of your robe.
Like this.
If anyone wonders how Jesus raised the dead,
don’t try to explain the miracle.
Kiss me on the lips.
Like this. Like this.
When someone asks what it means
to "die for love," point
here.
If someone asks how tall I am, frown
and measure with your fingers the space
between the creases on your forehead.
This tall.
The soul sometimes leaves the body, then returns.
When someone doesn’t believe that,
walk back into my house.
Like this.
When lovers moan,
they’re telling our story.
Like this.
I am a sky where spirits live.
Stare into this deepening blue,
while the breeze says a secret.
Like this.
When someone asks what there is to do,
light the candle in his hand.
Like this.
How did Joseph’s scent come to Jacob?
Huuuuu.
How did Jacob’s sight return?
Huuuu.
A little wind cleans the eyes.
Like this.
When Shams comes back from Tabriz,
he’ll put just his head around the edge
of the door to surprise us
Like this.
It has occured to me that I may have been going about this the hard way. It has been stated that the "life" of this thread had been removed. You want the human touch? This I can do, and thank you for the opportunity. Everyone please be aware that this is significantly less.......cordial than other statements I have made, but is not intended to attack anyones opinion, put them down, offend them intellectualy or personally, or in any way discourage gentlemanly dialouge. This is the requested human element, so if unmoderated ideas might offend you JUST DON'T READ THE DAMN THING! In other words, I don't want any guff from stateing my opinion bluntly. Do the same if you so like.
There is no such thing as unnecessary evil. I refute the idea for the nonsense it is based upon. I mean sure, you don't have to whack yourself on the head with a stick, but obviously you felt that was necessary now didn't you? Bah! I equally refute the concept that ALL suffering is evil. If a wicked person suffers any form of hardship, is that evil? Hell no. Justice? Quite possibly. Do lemurs "suffer evil" in jumping off a cliff? No, it is WHAT they are. Surely, humans are creatures with counsciousness and as such obviously require more than nature and instinct. Thusly we have (tadah!) free will. Oh yeah, we kind of botched that crap up way back in Genesis (hit ourselves with a stick). Yeah, so now WE are imperfect beings (who hit ourselves with proverbial sticks).
As a creature inherits all that its body is from its parents bodys, thusly do we inherit sin. All suffering and even death is due to our sin (which makes us imperfect), so if you want to cry a river about the suffering of children (which is only human) perhaps you might start your finger pointing at the CAUSE (humans)!
Oh, I know. You say that God can stop this and is "bankrupt" morally because he doesn't. Let me tell you something. If I piss on the toilet seat I don't go shaking my fist at God and blaming him for not holding my peepee in the proper place because he's such a mean guy. It's called justice and responsibility. If I go out and murder twenty women and children, get caught, go to prison, and have to eat crappy food for the rest of my days, I would have too look at my lack of appealing nourishment as a small form of JUSTICE (you know, as in not evil). Further more, the death of those people is MY RESPONSIBILITY. My choice and action is the cause and I am SOLEY accountable morally, not God. Disagree? Perhaps you would have us prosecute all the lawmakers for every crime that was ever committed. Naturally God is perfect. Evil exists because we are not.
If any of you imperfect beings out there insist upon disputing the ways of the singularly perfect being, then that is you choice (ironic as it is due to free will). Demand of God that he alter his plan to fit into your imperfect judgement (synonymous with organized ignorance) if you see fit. I on the other hand will just make my prayers to God asking that he provide the paper towels to wiped the toilet seat, see that the axe murderers get what they deserve, and overall to forgive me for being the idiot I am in the great scheme of things. 😛
The basic argument I hear for why there is suffering in the world is that humans have free will. Fair enough, I won't quarrel with that for the moment.
My question is, has God granted angels free will? If he didn't, then surely the Devil should have been incapable of rebelling against him. If he did, then why didn't he smite the fallen angels, so that they couldn't cause mischief? As it is, it seems some Christians believe that the Devil is the origin of much evil. This is surely not free will if he tricks people into doing what he wants; it's like saying a child has free will when told to do something by a malicious teacher. There are enough temptions in the material world for the human brain; why do you need the Devil as well?
On the matter of inheriting sin, I believe we have a responsibilty to sort out problems caused by our ancestors, and learn from what they did wrong. However I find blaming children for their parents' mistakes profoundly immoral, as it is completely outside their control; this, and the opposite (praising children for their parents' good deeds, equally unjust) is I think the heart of inequality in our society, more so than natural variation. Children of poor parents are put at a disadvantage, and those of rich parents at an advantage, regardless of innate ability, to the point where in some societies, there is little or no difference in intelligence, inherent dilligence or whatever between the haves and have-nots.
We inherit genes, but we do not inherit mind or memories, and we don't inherit body directly. If I lose a leg, will my children all be born with one leg missing?