Molinism

Originally posted by KellyJay
They like justifying their belief systems here.
Kelly

I'm convinced most educational systems have become so skewed we are now setting loose hundreds of educated fools into society every day. Imparting knowledge to a fool is like giving a monkey a cigarette lighter and showing him how to use it.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yes, KJ, I read what you wrote. I even read it very carefully. And now I have read what you say here and in your next post very carefully too. Absolutely none of it addresses my question. I'll ask the question again. Please try to address it this time.

Again, let's suppose that you freely do A2 in circumstances C2. Please note it says that you FR r girl do proceed from human free will. So wouldn't this be problematic for the Molinist?

"Now, if A2 is something like your helping an old lady with her grocery bags, then good for you and the Molinist God to both be responsible for such a good deed. But if A2 is something like your forcibly raping a neighbor girl, then shame on both you and the Molinist God for being responsible for that obtaining. In the actual world, things like rape of a neighbor girl do proceed from human free will. So wouldn't this be problematic for the Molinist?"

The walk with God has God leading us into things where we are to forgive
when we are wronged, we are not to get happy when someone who casts
themselves as our enemies has something bad happen to them, we are to
act out of love towards one another, period. So when God leads us this
way instead of that, those who refuse to live Godly loving lives will do what
they will and even do it knowing its wrong and delight in the pain of others
or puff themselves up as if they are above it all.

If God is against such evil actions, and those people who delight in those
type of actions, what do you think will happen to those people when they
come before God's judgment? What do you think will happen to those that
accuse God of crimes? If God's grace will do away with all sins and nothing
will be held against the sinner, what of those that reject that forgiveness
and find themselves instead receiving God's wrath? Will they get any drop
of mercy at all or face full complete fierce wrath of the Almighty for an
endless amount of time?
Kelly

Originally posted by lemon lime
Oh please, get real. This is childish and it's getting old (and moldy). You can't blame RJ for everything. You and some others here act as though everything you say to someone like me is a direct result of your dealings with him. I don't believe anyones behavior here is someone elses fault, so keep this silly feuding to (and among) yourselves please. I wasn't here when this stupid feud started, and I'm not a part of it now.

What the ...?

The reason that a spirituality forum exists on this site is because the other
forums got overwhelmed by people arguing about religious/spiritual/philosophical
issues.

There are forums with different subject areas so that people can have discussions
on those subjects without having to wade through hundreds of threads about topics
they are uninterested in.
So that topics that have minority interest can be pursued without being constantly
pushed off of the first page by the interests of the majority.

And people LIKE RJHinds (implying he is/was not the only one) spamming constant
nuisance threads about ID/creationism Vs evolution are a part of that.


You asked why people get annoyed if you create threads on topics in the wrong
forums. That is the answer.


As for the rest of your post... I really do not know what the slartibartfast you are talking
about.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I'm convinced most educational systems have become so skewed we are now setting loose hundreds of educated fools into society every day. Imparting knowledge to a fool is like giving a monkey a cigarette lighter and showing him how to use it.

Have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect—where people who are relatively less competent/knowledgeable about a subject tend to overestimate their own knowledge/competence, while the more knowledgeable/competent tend to underestimate that? Apparently, some education in logic and critical thinking can alleviate this tendency. Is this what you would advocate to reduce the number of "educated fools"?

Below are some references on the subject—

_________________________________________________

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect:


"The skills needed to produce logically sound arguments, for instance, are the same skills that are necessary to recognize when a logically sound argument has been made. Thus, if people lack the skills to produce correct answers, they are also cursed with an inability to know when their answers, or anyone else's, are right or wrong. They cannot recognize their responses as mistaken, or other people's responses as superior to their own."


And from http://reasonandlogic.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/dunning-kruger/:


“The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit.”


http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolved-primate/201006/when-ignorance-begets-confidence-the-classic-dunning-kruger-effect


http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/overestimate.aspx

Originally posted by vistesd
Have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect—where people who are relatively less competent/knowledgeable about a subject tend to overestimate their own knowledge/competence, while the more knowledgeable/competent tend to underestimate that? Apparently, some education in logic and critical thinking can alleviate this tendency. Is this what you would ad ...[text shortened]... the-classic-dunning-kruger-effect


http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/overestimate.aspx

The Dunning-Kruger effect sounds like a variation of other ways I've seen this idea put, and they all point to a tendency people have to evaluate themselves differently than they evaluate others. It's an egocentric position and a natural one, but a tough one to overcome.

My point about education wasn't so much a point as it was a joke about the failure of education to do what many people in my generation believed it was able to accomplish. It was believed (and I think still is) to be the key to overcoming the worlds problems. Problems like prejudice and poverty for example, the idea being if knowledge is properly imparted then the worlds ills and evils will somehow all magically go away. But the problem with this is instead of being taught by parents and adults close to the family, we were being taught by people with their own prejudices and ideas and world views. Anyway, I bought into this idea of education as a panacea as well, and started off my college education with the idea of maybe someday becoming a teacher.

Education has become a religion in its own right and is even used as a substitute for parenting. When I left home it didn't long for me to understand that in spite of years of cramming knowledge into my head, I had no idea how to deal with the same real-world everyday mundane problems everyone needs to deal with. My parents assumed the educational system would be able to tell me everything I needed to know about life, and I essentially ended up becoming the educated fool I referred to earlier. I'm not as critical of educated fools who go on rants disguised as intellectual discourse as I might seem to be, because it wasn't all that long ago I was that guy.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe that God does lead us and call us out to do His will. I believe we
are all called out to do His will, but with some of us given the same
conditions they refuse. So does God call all, yes, do all answer, no. Does
this mean that God picked out some over others? I think God is willing and
does want us all to come to Him, but He will not spoil our ...[text shortened]... o its selfish ends. So the good I
do I give God credit, not sure if that is what wanted.
Kelly

Well, if Molinism is correct, then God knows what any conceivable free creature will freely do in any conceivable circumstances and uses this knowledge to inform his creative process in accordance with his divine will. So he already knows whether any particular creature will freely "come to Him". Here you've been making at least a couple claims: one is that it is NOT the case that all creatures freely come to him; and two is that, notwithstanding, God still wills that all creatures freely come to him. But that implies, when conjoined with divine middle knowledge, that God wills something related to creaturely freedom that he knows won't be actualized. But I thought one of the motivations for Molinism is that this should not be the case, since God supposedly has maximally exhaustive knowledge on creaturely freedom and uses that to actualize states of affairs involving creaturely freedom in full accordance with his will. So, I would think what you are talking about either does not apply to Molinism; or else would likely indicate some coherency problem with Molinism. Perhaps we would need a Molinist to clarify this point.

At any rate, this response of yours again seems to have nothing to do with my actual question.

As an aside, I also don't know why you think humans have a deficient nature constituted by selfish ends.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"Now, if A2 is something like your helping an old lady with her grocery bags, then good for you and the Molinist God to both be responsible for such a good deed. But if A2 is something like your forcibly raping a neighbor girl, then shame on both you and the Molinist God for being responsible for that obtaining. In the actual world, things like rape of a ne ...[text shortened]... or face full complete fierce wrath of the Almighty for an
endless amount of time?
Kelly

Sorry, I really don't see how any of this addresses my original question either.

Originally posted by lemon lime
To pursue your idea that God is complicit in (and to hold him responsible for) acts of evil commited by people. Look at your message to KellyJay immediately before asking me what I meant. It clearly shows your motivation for bringing up Molinism in the first place, and what it is you are obviously pursuing here. It is your intent to discredit God by sugge ad them into, instead of essentially telling them what it is you want them to believe.

Yikes. As usual, you're very confused and yet very opinionated. That's typically a rather unfortunate combination, but that appears to be just how you roll. Let me clear up some of your confusion here.

To pursue your idea that God is complicit in (and to hold him responsible for) acts of evil commited by people.

I do not have an idea that God is complicit in and responsible for acts of evil committed by people. After all, I don't think any 'God' exists. I do, however, have an idea that the Molinist account of divine middle knowledge and how it feeds into divine creation implies that the Molinist God, supposing he existed, would be just as responsible for his creatures' free actions as his creatures would be. However, this idea is not principally what prompted this thread. (And if my principal motivation here was simply to argue that point, I would have simply argued that point from the beginning.) As I have told you, despite your ignorant attempts to trivialize the Molinist position, I find the Molinist position to be highly non-trivial on several levels, and I was hoping there might be some Molinists around to discuss them with me. The implication I mentioned above is only one issue I think deserves attention. I am actually more interested in some other ones related to middle knowledge.

The reason why I brought up the implication about divine responsibility with KJ is that, based on our previous discussions, this is the issue toward which I thought KJ would be most responsive. Boy, I guess I was wrong because KJ does not even seem to understand what I am asking him. But at least I know on the basis of my experiences that KJ is a very genuine guy. I'm afraid I cannot say the same of you. And as it turned out, a lot of my energy in this thread has simply been to come to the defense of Molinism from idiotic sweeping charges against it, the bulk of which were made by a person who admittedly knows next to nothing about Molinism in the first place (hint: that's you). Maybe you should focus on getting your own house in order?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Sorry, I really don't see how any of this addresses my original question either.

Oh well.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
Well, if Molinism is correct, then God knows what any conceivable free creature will freely do in any conceivable circumstances and uses this knowledge to inform his creative process in accordance with his divine will. So he already knows whether any particular creature will freely "come to Him". Here you've been making at least a couple claims: one is ...[text shortened]... I also don't know why you think humans have a deficient nature constituted by selfish ends.

If God were completely selfish He could force everyone to do whatever it
was He wanted, but that does defeat the freedom of choice now doesn't it?
If the goal was to give everyone the choice to make and to present them all
with the same type of conditions so everyone is treated the same way, that
not the "forcing of someone's will" would be the goal and that would be in
my opinion any way very messy. Giving anyone a choice requires restraint
upon God, to not undermine the choice.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
Well, if Molinism is correct, then God knows what any conceivable free creature will freely do in any conceivable circumstances and uses this knowledge to inform his creative process in accordance with his divine will. So he already knows whether any particular creature will freely "come to Him". Here you've been making at least a couple claims: one is ...[text shortened]... I also don't know why you think humans have a deficient nature constituted by selfish ends.

"As an aside, I also don't know why you think humans have a deficient nature constituted by selfish ends."

You ever watch the news or read the paper? Look at just how we treat one
another here!
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
Well, if Molinism is correct, then God knows what any conceivable free creature will freely do in any conceivable circumstances and uses this knowledge to inform his creative process in accordance with his divine will. So he already knows whether any particular creature will freely "come to Him". Here you've been making at least a couple claims: one is ...[text shortened]... I also don't know why you think humans have a deficient nature constituted by selfish ends.

"Well, if Molinism is correct, then God knows what any conceivable free creature will freely do in any conceivable circumstances and uses this knowledge to inform his creative process in accordance with his divine will."

I agree with this, but in my OPINION, I believe God is going to have a
judgment day so that we too will see and understand as we see all things
play out.

There are two different things that could happen if I follow you train of
thought.

One, God by His will designs robots to act only as He wants them to which
is not freedom.

Two, God judges and condemns those that have not done anything wrong
yet, because God knows what they are going to do given the chance.

Allowing all things to play out we see evil for what it is completely, which
will make it so much easier to avoid knowing how bad, bad can get, from
the little things we blow off to the big ones. God is after all teaching us as
well as everything else He is doing for us.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If God were completely selfish He could force everyone to do whatever it
was He wanted, but that does defeat the freedom of choice now doesn't it?
If the goal was to give everyone the choice to make and to present them all
with the same type of conditions so everyone is treated the same way, that
not the "forcing of someone's will" would be the goal and ...[text shortened]... sy. Giving anyone a choice requires restraint
upon God, to not undermine the choice.
Kelly

You are not getting this.

LemmonJello is not (unless you are a molinist) talking about YOUR god.

You are constantly arguing about how you believe YOUR god operates.
But YOUR god is not the one under discussion.

Are you capable of thinking about different possible god concepts and
looking at the potential consequence's of such beliefs?



Lets suppose for a moment that we live in a world created by a molinist
Christian god.
AND that we have free will and that that free will is not being impinged
on by this god.

This god, as LemmonJello has said many times, knows (in advance before
creating this world) what any and every person who will ever exist (and
presumably all those that could exist?) will freely choose to do if confronted
with any given situation at any point in their lives.

This god also, with that knowledge, created the world, and the people in it.

Thus this god chooses the people and the situation they are in, and thus chooses
what will happen.


Now bearing in mind that this is not (unless you're a molinist) your god...

Would THIS god, be morally responsible for what happens in this world?

Originally posted by googlefudge
You are not getting this.

LemmonJello is not (unless you are a molinist) talking about YOUR god.

You are constantly arguing about how you believe YOUR god operates.
But YOUR god is not the one under discussion.

Are you capable of thinking about different possible god concepts and
looking at the potential consequence's of such beliefs?



...[text shortened]... olinist) your god...

Would THIS god, be morally responsible for what happens in this world?

Since it is a fake god, you can make him/her be whatever you want.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yikes. As usual, you're very confused and yet very opinionated. That's typically a rather unfortunate combination, but that appears to be just how you roll. Let me clear up some of your confusion here.

To pursue your idea that God is complicit in (and to hold him responsible for) acts of evil commited by people.

I do not have an id st place (hint: that's you). Maybe you should focus on getting your own house in order?

I understand you do not believe in 'God', and this is simply an intellectual exercise for you. But did you really expect KellyJay and others who do believe in God would treat this as nothing more than a simple exercise? If you do not believe in such a thing as a God or gods then what motivates you to talk about anyones belief in God?

I suspect you will continue missing my point... I'll leave you alone so you may continue to enjoy ruminating over things you do not believe exist.