 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > free will - what is it | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 1/30/2003 6:58 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hmmm....
Since we are deviating from what was a more acedemic discussion held with some degree of hope for "relative" objectivity, let me try to refocus the conversation by bringing up internal ( to this issue) role of the subjective/objective distinction:
RD, consider this: is a cause necessarily objective in nature or subjective?
My guess is that you will say that it must be objective if it is to impact reality. But consider, reality is not truly and purely objective. Particularly if we consider its own cause. The subjective decision ("Sovereign pleasure") on God's part in deciding to make it. Right?
I am going somewhere with this, so bear with me.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 1/30/2003 7:10 AM (GMT -6) | | BTW: RD, I am encouraged to here that some of the affirmations of the TULIP doctrines offends your sense of fairness. I think that is healthy. But regardless, let me say, I agree with your intuitions on the universality of God's grace. As Romans 5 makes clear, the gift is not like the trespass, it is far more encompassing and effective. Though all have sinned and warranted death, Christ has redeemed all. And then some. Whatever that means. But what is clear here is that God's grace far outruns our sin.
Does this mean that universalists have it right? If so, why the hell and judgment language? No, I think the biblical perspective is that we are able to resist God's grace. Why? I don't know. But God does. It seems God was willing to take that sort of risk.
RD, I agree with you 100% that if humans came up with the idea of our having freedom and putting ourselves over against God's will that would be the most blasphemous of notions. But what do we do when God tells us that this is so? Do we reject this so that we can have lesser more animal-like view of ourselves as a way of helping God seperate us from God? It is God who gives us this ability to resist, God who tests us to see what we will do, God who empowers us to be able to obey, God who offers grace so that we can move beyond our condemnation, etc. The whole of the Christian life is one of gratitude to God for all these things. But we run the risk of insulting the work of God's hands if we demote ourselves in ways that prevent us from taking fully seriously the consequences of our choices and actions. God seems to take these things quite seriously and hold us responsible for them.
Sorry, I am beginning to ramble. Please do me the favor of picking up wherever you think we begin to lose each other. Let's start there and see where it takes us.
Blessings.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/30/2003 7:33 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm confused by this: "My guess is that you will say that it must be objective if it is to impact reality. But consider, reality is not truly and purely objective. Particularly if we consider its own cause. The subjective decision ("Sovereign pleasure") on God's part in deciding to make it. Right?"
I'd say causes are objective. Reality is objective. Again we need to make sure we're on the same page as far as definitions, b/c I define "objective" as measurable, "subjective" as unmeasurable. By that definition, any idea is subjective. "Sovereign pleasure" is subjective in that it is God's idea, that is not measurable physically. However, reality - I'd say it is objective b/c it is created and is measurable. That is if we define reality as the universe and laws of physics- reality as being measured by the scientific method.
This is why I think that compatibilism offers some measure of satisfaction. b/c within the bounds that GOd has created, he allows us to think that we have free choice. That we act of our own volition in the sense that no one is holding a gun to our head. (But what about the fact of the threat of hell? Is that a gun? ) I operate in that way. even though i don't hold to libertarianism, I don't think that I can't decide to have a hamburger. I just don't think about what caused me to make that choice, b/c obviously our society can't function w/ overanalysis of this sort!
Well I must go for now- maybe will come back tonite or tomorrow but I have a lot of work to do-
Thanks for your comments- !
| | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 1/30/2003 9:29 AM (GMT -6) | | RD,
For some interesting reading have a look at this thread...
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=130
sorry I didn't make it linkable.
peace and love, don
---
"No Rules, just Right" Outback Steakhouse | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 1/30/2003 11:19 AM (GMT -6) | | RD: This is why I think that compatibilism offers some measure of satisfaction. b/c within the bounds that GOd has created, he allows us to think that we have free choice.
Doc: this is SATISFYING? it sounds like a grand illusion. If you found out that you were actually being exhaustively controlled by the FBI who implanted a nueron-controlling microchip in your brain, one so sophisticated that it could control your every thought while yet making you THINK you were free (since that too is just a thought), would you say, "well, thanks for at least letting me THINK I was free?"
I don't get this.
Blessings
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/30/2003 11:46 AM (GMT -6) | | | I give up. You guys act like I'm the only one who's ever thought of or believed in compatibilism. I'm not. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/30/2003 12:30 PM (GMT -6) | | RD: I give up. You guys act like I'm the only one who's ever thought of or believed in compatibilism. I'm not.
Tom: Gina, a comment and a question. Comment: Don't give up!  Question: How have we acted like you're the only one who has ever believed in compatibilism? People have offered answers to your questions, explanations of their own views, and objections to compatibilism. How does any of this suggest that they think you're the the only one who has ever believed in compatibilism? I don't get it. But even more importantly, let's agree that you're not the only one who has ever believed in compatibilism. What does this fact have to do with the discussion? Doc asked a good question. What do you find satisfying about believing that though your thoughts and decisions are exhaustively controlled by God you still get to think you're free? Don't give up. Just help us understand why you find this so satisfying.
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/30/2003 2:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc said: "If you found out that you were actually being exhaustively controlled by the FBI who implanted a nueron-controlling microchip in your brain"
Here's a few comments:
1. I don't think the analogy works b/c I TRUST GOd, I really don't trust the FBI (not after Waco...:) ) That's probably why I don't feel that uncomfortable. I was saying that compatibilism offers SOME level of satisfaction - in that, like I'VE said, we don't have a gun held to our head.
2. But anyway, it doesn't matter whether I'm satisfied or not. Something is either true or not true, and if I don't like the truth, that really is inconsequential.
3. Here's a truth- there exists on this planet millions of people who were born into complete and utter misery, will live a short life of pain and hunger, and will die, most, going into an afterlife separated from God. That bothers me. That is not satisfactory. But it is the truth. It's reality. I wish it were not so. I love animals- I am a complete cat freak- I am upset very much by the fact that there is so much suffering in the animal kingdom. That there are so many animals abandoned by their owners and left to die. I want to adopt them all. Now, GOd in His sovereign will allows (or causes, ultimately) this to go on. I don't know why. I don't think it's fair. But it still does.
4. I've conceded that there are problems with - for the sake of this thread i'm using the word determinism. That it doesn't solve the problem of evil other than saying it is a mystery. But I do not think that human libertarianism solves the problem of evil either, for all the reasons I've argued. I don't know how libertarianism accounts for natural evil. I haven't even started discussing that one. LIbertarianism cannot account for the fact that the universe is contingent - was created by God in his sovereign will. If God had not created there would not be evil. So how does libertarianism get around the fact that God started it all, so ultimately, we could say God is to blame for the mess on the planet. Either with free will or not, God is the first cause.
5. A completely free willed act is itself a cause and not an effect- it is beyond the law of causality. Libertarians assert that the human will is outside of causation. It must be supernatural.
6. I see the libertarian argument boiling down to: How can anyone do wrong (sin) if God is calling all the shots? So there's the idea that God gave us the power to choose autonomously- BUT only by choosing the way of God can we attain the grace of salvation. So really- some choice this is. B/c there is only one correct choice. Essentially, do things GOd's way or burn in hell for eternity. Is that really a choice? If it is, I don't see that it is meaningful. (I'm talking about traditional, conservative Christianity here- if we start saying there is no hell, obviously the analysis would be somewhat different.)
7. The things that make me uncomfortable in paragraph 2 - either it is as I said, that God allows or ordains those evil things, or it is that God allows or ordains human freedom such that humans are able to do those evil things. (setting aside natural evil). I don't see how human freedom is any more of a satisfactory answer.
8. We haven't touched much on original sin - but if that doctrine is believed- basically each human "inherits" the sinful nature through Adam's fall. As Luther said, "The Bondage of the Will." So really, we are starting with the FBI chip in us anyway. The chip that makes us have no choice but to act within our nature, to sin. Ayn Rand made some really snide remarks about this. Saying, we're born with the cards stacked against us. How can we be blamed for the sin we choose to do? So in other words, here we are again. Either we are in the causal chain of determinism that God started and ordained, or we are born with a free will, but that will has the cards stacked against us, so we basically can only choose to sin anyhow.
9. I by no means am saying that determinism is the truth!! I have thought about this stuff for years. I've done lots of reading, both secular and religious authors, Biblical research, etc. I just believe that the preponderonce of the evidence points toward determinism. Notice, I did not say- beyond a reasonable doubt! I am the first to admit I don't know much about this. I am no expert.
10. One more thing: free will claims that mental activity is possible without physical cause- a response is possible without a stimulus- the nerve impulses come into being from nothing. I don't see this. Where is the evidence that an individual human somehow stimulates a response in his or her own brain? Think about it. It's hard to comprehend- but say you try to initiate nerve impulses in your brain . What is the "you" that has initiated your brain?
11. Causality is necessary for the will to have any way to function. Without causation there could be no paths of action from which to choose, nothing in the world would follow a course of action, intention would be impossible, one could not predict anything and therefore planning would be useless. Take a look at nature - habitat, for example. For the survival of an organism, certain structural cpnditions must be there- and they need to respond to their habitat by reacting to those conditions. A silly example - a shark. If you keep a baby shark in a fish tank, it won't grow. It'll adjust to its habitat.
12. Free will theory can be argued to be a form of a view of human divinity by asserting that our mind/spirit is a FIRST cause, capable of responses without stimuli- can generate something from nothing. I've argued that God is the first cause. Atheist argue that naturalism -Big bang or whatever, is the first cause.
Sorry this is s o long!!! | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/30/2003 2:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Oh, one more thing- for Doc:
"one so sophisticated that it could control your every thought while yet making you THINK you were free (since that too is just a thought), would you say, "well, thanks for at least letting me THINK I was free?" "
How would I find out if it was controlling my every thought? I would, I guess, be ignorantly blissful. :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 1/30/2003 3:50 PM (GMT -6) | | RD: I've conceded that there are problems with - for the sake of this thread i'm using the word determinism. That it doesn't solve the problem of evil other than saying it is a mystery. But I do not think that human libertarianism solves the problem of evil either, for all the reasons I've argued. I don't know how libertarianism accounts for natural evil. I haven't even started discussing that one. Libertarianism cannot account for the fact that the universe is contingent - was created by God in his sovereign will. If God had not created there would not be evil. So how does libertarianism get around the fact that God started it all, so ultimately, we could say God is to blame for the mess on the planet. Either with free will or not, God is the first cause.
Alan: I think you're right, RD, that libertarianism doesn't "solve" the problem of evil, but wouldn't you agree that it goes a good distance toward a solution? Determinism seems to imply that God is directly responsible for all evil. Libertarianism implies that at least some of this evil cannot be pinned on God as the ultimate cause. (Sure, God allows evil things to happen, but there's a significant dirrence between that and causing evil things to happen.) Thus, libertarianism fares better than determinism in the face of evil, even if, by itself, it is not adequate to solve the problem.
RD: I see the libertarian argument boiling down to: How can anyone do wrong (sin) if God is calling all the shots? So there's the idea that God gave us the power to choose autonomously- BUT only by choosing the way of God can we attain the grace of salvation. So really- some choice this is. B/c there is only one correct choice. Essentially, do things God's way or burn in hell for eternity. Is that really a choice? If it is, I don't see that it is meaningful.
Alan: How does having only one correct choice when it comes to salvation render the choice not meaningful? Isn't the seriousness of the consequences enough to make it meaningful? I think you mischaracterize the choice situation by saying it's either God's way or hell. Hell is not a threat by God to coerce our choosing, but the natural and inevitable outcome of abandoning God and his love.
RD: We haven't touched much on original sin - but if that doctrine is believed- basically each human "inherits" the sinful nature through Adam's fall. As Luther said, "The Bondage of the Will." So really, we are starting with the FBI chip in us anyway. The chip that makes us have no choice but to act within our nature, to sin. ... So in other words, here we are again. Either we are in the causal chain of determinism that God started and ordained, or we are born with a free will, but that will has the cards stacked against us, so we basically can only choose to sin anyhow.
Alan: While all Christians believe in original sin, there are some ways of understanding the doctrine. First, we might think of original sin as meaning that we have an inherited propensity to sin, a propensity that can in principle be resisted, but is in practice impossible to resist indefinitely (at least not without God's help). Second, we might think that this propensity to sin is so strong that we cannot even in principle not sin, but along with this we might suppose that God gives some measure of grace to all people that empowers them so they can in principle resist this inherited propensity.
RD: One more thing: free will claims that mental activity is possible without physical cause- a response is possible without a stimulus- the nerve impulses come into being from nothing. I don't see this. Where is the evidence that an individual human somehow stimulates a response in his or her own brain? Think about it. It's hard to comprehend- but say you try to initiate nerve impulses in your brain. What is the "you" that has initiated your brain?
Alan: There is good reason to think that mental activity is not equivalent to or even necessarily supervenient upon brain activity--case studies on near-death experience show this (Cf. Moreland and Habermas, "Beyond Death: Exploring the Evidence for Immortality). Also, why can't there be non-physical stimuli for thought? God's Spirit can communicate to a person directly without going through physical stimuli. How mind-brain interaction works is a difficult question, but it's not as though we've got to get two entirely different "parts"--one physical, one non-physical--to interact. Rather, we are psycho-physical unities. The "parts" exist only by abstraction.
RD: Causality is necessary for the will to have any way to function. Without causation there could be no paths of action from which to choose, nothing in the world would follow a course of action, intention would be impossible, one could not predict anything and therefore planning would be useless.
Alan: Point granted. But how does it bear on the issue of free will vs. determinism?
Enjoy reading your thoughtful comments. God bless.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 1/30/2003 5:28 PM (GMT -6) | | I hesitate to jump in here, because there are already too many conversations being had at once, but I'll just interject this:
RD said: quote:
Libertarianism cannot account for the fact that the universe is contingent - was created by God in his sovereign will. If God had not created there would not be evil. So how does libertarianism get around the fact that God started it all, so ultimately, we could say God is to blame for the mess on the planet. Either with free will or not, God is the first cause.
I understand where you're coming from here because I asked the same question myself when deliberating over open theism. Why is God any less unfair just because we say he doesn't meticulously orchestrate and predestine every evil act that is ever committed? He still created the world knowing that evil was possible, right? Doesn't that still make him unfair and horrible?
I believe now that the answer is a resounding NO. There is a significant difference between:
(A) saying that God specifically intended before the world began for young boys to be raped, slaughtered and eaten by Jeffrey Dahmer, e.g.; and
(B) that God voluntarily relinquished a piece of his control over his creation by giving us free will (so that a choice to love him would be real and not meaninglessly robotic), knowing that there was a risk that evil could possibly come about.
In my opinion, Gina, (A) is substantially more difficult to deal with than (B). As someone who looks forward to having children, I can identify with (B). Like God's decision in (B), we know (or at least should know) that there is significant risk involved in having children. We decide to accept the risk and bring children into the world because we judge that love is worth the risk. If we truly believed that bringing life into the world wasn't worth the risk of pain, we would never have children. In fact, as Doc argues in "God of the Possible", if we were consistent in our belief that life isn't worth the risk, we would be compelled to commit suicide. Every day that we choose not to commit suicide we are manifesting our fundamental conviction that life IS worth it, despite all the pain we may experience. And if we decide daily that the risk of life and love is worth the risk of pain, how can we question God's decision to create such a world? See Boyd, God of the Possible, p. 136.
So, yes, as Alan stated earlier, open theism does not provide us with complete satisfaction regarding the problem of evil, but in my opinion, it is far more satisfying--to both the mind and the heart--than determinism.
Sure glad you're here. 
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 1/31/2003 12:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Deu 3:24 O Lord GOD, thou hast begun to shew thy servant thy greatness, and thy mighty hand: for what God [is there] in heaven or in earth, that can do according to thy works, and according to thy might?
Mat 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/31/2003 1:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Tim, I think that it is appropriate to pick the best verse possible. Don't you? And that means picking them for a reason. (which I'll assume that you have.) But then it is ALSO appropriate to let those here in on WHY you post the verse you do.
Is it general comment on the discussion? Say so -- explain briefly.
Is it an example that points to one position -- even if not a possition discussed by one of the sides discussing right above your post? Say so, or explain briefly.
Is it a presentation of an overlooked view? Say so. Or follow up your verse with a leading question.
Thanks.
Al
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 1/31/2003 2:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for hanging in there ReasonDoubt. When this board is at its best, its strictly about IDEAS, not persons. I'd encourage you (and A Theist, and whoever) to never take ANYTHING "personally." Now, a few brief responses to your last two posts.
RD 1. I don't think the analogy works b/c I TRUST GOd, I really don't trust the FBI (not after Waco...:) )
Doc: Then again, you were "wired" to trust God (or not, I suppose). If the FBI wired you to do so, you'd trust THEM.
RD 2. But anyway, it doesn't matter whether I'm satisfied or not. Something is either true or not true, and if I don't like the truth, that really is inconsequential.
Doc: True. I was expressing my bewilderment over the fact that you claimed you DID find this idea "somewhat satisfying."
RD 3. Here's a truth- there exists on this planet millions of people who were born into complete and utter misery, will live a short life of pain and hunger, and will die, most, going into an afterlife separated from God....That there are so many animals abandoned by their owners and left to die. I want to adopt them all. Now, GOd in His sovereign will allows (or causes, ultimately) this to go on. I don't know why. I don't think it's fair. But it still does.
Doc: If I assumed God allowed -- or caused -- each and every specific evil thing for a specific reason, I'd certainly share your bewilderment. My claim is that granting that humans and angels have free will is the only move that gets you out of this otherwise impossible philosophical quagmire.
RD 4. . I don't know how libertarianism accounts for natural evil. I haven't even started discussing that one.
Doc: Angels have free will too. Plus humans have lost much of their "power to exercise dominion" because of the fall.
RD: LIbertarianism cannot account for the fact that the universe is contingent - was created by God in his sovereign will.
Doc: I'm afraid I'm not tracking with you here. How does THIS follow?
RD: If God had not created there would not be evil. So how does libertarianism get around the fact that God started it all,
Doc: The same thing could be said about parents of adult convicts. If the parents hadn't "created" them, they wouldn't have committed their crimes. But noone blames the parents for their children do (at least not insofar as their adult children do what they do FREELY). God made us -- but he made us FREE. Hence the buck stops with US.
RD: so ultimately, we could say God is to blame for the mess on the planet. Either with free will or not, God is the first cause.
Doc: If the "first cause" determines everything, then you're right. But this is precisely what Free Will denies. To be free means you can be the ORIGINATOR of your own actions. This doesn't mean the actions we originate are "uncaused". It just means that antecedent causes are not DETERMINATIVE of our actions.
RD5. A completely free willed act is itself a cause and not an effect- it is beyond the law of causality. Libertarians assert that the human will is outside of causation. It must be supernatural.
Doc: If you define "nature" as "a closed system of cause and effect, where each cause necessitates an effect", then yes, free will is "supernatural." I have no problem with this, except that its an arbitrary use of the word "nature" and "supernature." Why hold to this view of "nature"? Who determined that each cause must have ONE and ONLY ONE effecdt? As Hume pointed out centuries ago, we don't even know what a "cause" is. Its just our word for the regularity by which "y's" follow "x's".
Whatever a person holds to, RD, we all act like we ARE the originators of our own actions. And since action always reflects belief, this shows that we all (including YOU) fundamentally believe that you are the originator of your own actions.
RD 6. I see the libertarian argument boiling down to: How can anyone do wrong (sin) if God is calling all the shots?
Doc: That's certainly ONE good reason to believe in libertarian free will, but its hardly the only one.
RD: some choice this is. B/c there is only one correct choice. Essentially, do things GOd's way or burn in hell for eternity. s that really a choice? If it is, I don't see that it is meaningful.
Doc: All choices have consequences. But we CHOOSE to accept or reject them. The person who chooses to smoke chooses to ignore the health warnings on the box of cigarettes. But if they die of cancer, this doesn't mean they didn't freely choose to smoke. (The difference, however, is that I doubt any lawyer will bother to take a law suit against God during the final judgment). 
RD8. We haven't touched much on original sin - but if that doctrine is believed- basically each human "inherits" the sinful nature through Adam's fall. ...So really, we are starting with the FBI chip in us anyway.
Doc: We "inherit" a fallen nature by virtue of being born as part of a fallen race and into a fallen world. But, I would argue, the nature (unlike the FBI chip) does not necessitate our sin.
RD: Either we are in the causal chain of determinism that God started and ordained, or we are born with a free will, but that will has the cards stacked against us, so we basically can only choose to sin anyhow.
Doc: Yes, in a sense, the cards are 'stacked against us.' But< I would argue, they are NOT "so stacked" that our hand is forced. We are yet responsible for how we choose to "play the cards we are dealt." What is more, if GOD is the one who stacked them this way, there is a problem with the character of God. But if other free agents (human and angelic) stacked them this way, there is no problem with the character of God. The human/angelic community of free agents are woven together by a fabric of moral responsibility where our actions affect each other. Only because of this can we love one another. But because of this we have the power to harm one another. This is the nature our moral responsibility. A pregnant mother who uses crack "stacks the deck" against her unborn child. THIS IS THE MOTHERS RESPONSIBILITY, not God's.
Original sin, in my view, is the total accumulated negative ripple effect of all choices made against God's will. The responsibility for this lands on each agent who contributed to it, not God.
RD 9. I by no means am saying that determinism is the truth!!...I just believe that the preponderonce of the evidence points toward determinism. Notice, I did not say- beyond a reasonable doubt! I am the first to admit I don't know much about this. I am no expert.
Doc: I appreciate your openness and inquisitiveness.
RD: 10. One more thing: free will claims that mental activity is possible without physical cause- a response is possible without a stimulus- the nerve impulses come into being from nothing.
Doc: Mental activity HAS a cause... but its not exhaustively a prior PHYSICAL cause. Do you see that you are working from a materialistic, deterministic framework?
RD: Where is the evidence that an individual human somehow stimulates a response in his or her own brain? Think about it. It's hard to comprehend- but say you try to initiate nerve impulses in your brain . What is the "you" that has initiated your brain?
Doc: Again, I hope you see that you are granting materialistic determinism. Do you not believe that part of YOU survives death? I suspect you do. And whatever you believe this "you" is -- THAT's the "you" I believe initiates brain activity insofar as the brain activity is not determined by antecedent physical causes.
You ask for evidence: you've GOT to read this book by Jeffrey Schwartz, a cognitive psychologist and professor at UCLA, who gives incredible evidence for a transcendent soul in his book MIND AND BRAIN. Its very compelling. He argues that we cannot exhaustively account for the neurological functionings of the brain if we assume (as most neuroscientists assume) that the "mind" can be reduced to the 'brain" (viz. if the brain is an exhaustively closed system of neuronic activity).
RD11. Causality is necessary for the will to have any way to function. Without causation there could be no paths of action from which to choose, nothing in the world would follow a course of action, intention would be impossible, one could not predict anything and therefore planning would be useless.
Doc: Very true. But why assume that either EVERYTHING is causally determined or NOTHING is even causally influenced. For free choice, we need BOTH a) a relatively predictable world of cause and effect AND b) "space to move" within this relatively predictable world. IN other words, we need causation, but not exhaustive meticulous necessitarian causation.
RD12. Free will theory can be argued to be a form of a view of human divinity by asserting that our mind/spirit is a FIRST cause, capable of responses without stimuli- can generate something from nothing. I've argued that God is the first cause. Atheist argue that naturalism -Big bang or whatever, is the first cause.
Doc: If first causes are the total determinative causes (again, why think THAT?), then it makes little difference WHAT the cause is... we are still not free and cannot be morally responsible. If we assume the first cause is determinative, Atheism has an advantage over theism because it doesn't have to (per impossible) reconcile the grotesque evil of the world with a belief in an all loving "first cause." If first causes exhaustively determine all that follows, we can presumable know something about "the character" of the "first cause" from its effects. And on this account... atheism seems more rational.
Blessings RD. Thanks for hanging in there, and for your openness (excuse the pun).
Greg
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/31/2003 6:44 AM (GMT -6) | |
If anyone's interested, this may be long, so bear with me...thanks guys for your comments- very thought provoking. I am going to read the books recommended- have not yet, but am going to .
My responses:
Alan: How does having only one correct choice when it comes to salvation render the choice not meaningful?
B/c this means that the "most important value" cannot be free choice. The most important value is 'following God's path." If free choice was the highest value, then out of the range of choices, at least some must be acceptable. Otherwise, what's the point of having a choice? The ability in and of itself to choose? If the stakes are this high (eternity) I would bet most people would want to be on that correct path, no matter how they got there. They wouldn't argue, hey I'm on the right path, but I want to be able to have choice.
Alan: we might suppose that God gives some measure of grace to all people that empowers them so they can in principle resist this inherited propensity.
Not according to the BIble. The bible is pretty clear that there is no man righteous, no not one. All are wicked and the heart is decetiful and wicked above all things. I'd agree that's a good thought but I don't see how it can be supported in the Bible.
Alan: Also, why can't there be non-physical stimuli for thought? God's Spirit can communicate to a person directly without going through physical stimuli.
But then isn't God's spirit the stimuli? It's almost as though you've conceded my point. God's spirit communicating may not be physical, but it certainly is a cause.
Alan: Point granted. But how does it bear on the issue of free will vs. determinism?
b/c we're in the causal chain. I suppose that if you view the law of causality as simply stating that an entity or human must act according to its nature, then there is nothing in free will that contradicts that law. But if you view the law of causality that the same cause, other things being equal, must have the same effect -- then free will does indeed contradict the law of causality.
I also don't see how you can avoid this without being committed to the view that the same cause, other things equal, can have different effects. But to say that is to say that the same cause, other things equal, can have different attributes -- which is in flat contradiction with the law of identity. So it would seem that, however you state it, the law of causality must at least incorporate the idea that, given a particular cause, a particular effect must occur. So that's what I mean- about predictability and intention, etc.
In short, I do not see how free will can be compatible with the law of
causality, if that law is formulated in terms of the law of identity.
Doc: Angels have free will too. Plus humans have lost much of their "power to exercise dominion" because of the fall.
I don't get this. we've lost much of our power to exercise dominion? We've got nuclear bombs- we can pretty much obliterate the planet. And the angels stuff I really don't know- I really like Plantinga's arguments but his ideas about angels and demons being responsible for natural evil somehow rub me the wrong way. For one thing there's no proof of that, physically, and I don't recall any Biblical support for them having that power. I'll grant that I may be contradicting myself in that I am trying to believe in God rationally, and I know that all the "proofs'' for His existence aren't without problems either. But going further and trying to believe in angels and demons controlling the elements is going pretty far to me.
Doc: The same thing could be said about parents of adult convicts.
I don't buy this analogy of a human parent to God almighty. For one thing we don't even accept the same premise. B/c parents don't "create" their children in the same manner as God created creation. Yes, people can "choose" to have kids, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will get them. There are infertility problems, etc. On the other hand people get pregnant all the time without having made the conscious decision to have a child. And you can't deny that people are produced through a physical reproductive process. A parent cannot 'control' his child even if he wanted to, barring placing a chip in their head...:) I think that's why people are not held acountable when a child goes wrong.
But even so, if there was some responsibility on the parent's part that was abrogated, we may hold that person responsible for the child's actions. if a child is raised with a sexually abusive, physically abusive parent, we are not surprised when the kid follows suit. Even though currently our law holds those kids responsible when they continue the cycle with their own kids- that is not true in all cases. Battered women syndrome, brain damage caused by physical abuse, etc. all have some impact on one's legal capacity to commit a crime.
Doc: To be free means you can be the ORIGINATOR of your own actions. This doesn't mean the actions we originate are "uncaused".
Right! The actions we originate ARE caused. That's my point. Everything's either caused or random, EXCEPT for God. When you say YOU can be the originator though, you are not saying your brain, right? You are saying your "essence", "soul"- is the necessary agent?
Doc: Doc: All choices have consequences. But we CHOOSE to accept or reject them. The person who chooses to smoke chooses to ignore the health warnings on the box of cigarettes.
Yes, let's be realistic here about the difference in scope between choosing to smoke and choosing to not follow God. I said - granting that God gives us a choice, he gives us only one right choice. The value of a free society is that we can choose among many options, many government structures, many religious options,e tc. - the value is not in and of the actual deliberative process itself, but rather in the resulting effects. One reason America values freedom is the diversity that results from it. But if only homogeousness (sp?) in fundamental belief is acceptable to God, then diversity is not, and what's the value in freedom.
And, choosing to start smoking may be a free choice- but again that is somewhat determined. Some people will never smoke b/c of their genetic structure, their home life upbringing, etc. Others will because the causes surrounding their decision differ. Of course, once they are a smoker, if the addiction theory has any validity, there is not much choice. And again, currently the stats are that 1 out of 3 smokers will die b/c of it. There is not a direct link to a horrible consequence- which there is when you choose against God.
Doc: A pregnant mother who uses crack "stacks the deck" against her unborn child. THIS IS THE MOTHERS RESPONSIBILITY, not God's.
Let's trace this back here- I've already written above why I don't like this analogy. But granting it- the pregnant mother who uses crack, likely had a mother herself who did crack, or perhaps was born in a slum with not much options other than to do drugs, with no real educational opportunities, without a father, etc. You can't say that that crack addicted mother was not caused by her environment and other factors. yes, we i n America decide that we must hold individuals responsible for their actions, whatever made them decide to do those actions (with some big exceptions, more on that below) - but that is b/c that is the only practicable thing we can do in order to keep our society going and keep people safe.
Doc: THAT's the "you" I believe initiates brain activity insofar as the brain activity is not determined by antecedent physical causes.
This is probably covered in the book you recommended, so I will read that. But this, to my knowledge, has no proof whatsoever- either scientific or biblical. Of course maybe I'm wrong- I'll read the book and see. I don't know what the soul is. I find it incomprehensible. No one's ever been able to prove a "soul" existing outside of its corresponding body. A life however is dead when its brain is dead. Now as far as an afterlife, I believe in a new heaven and a new earth w/ new physical bodies. Not disembodied souls. But again what I believe may be contradictory, so I'l l stop.
Doc: Very true. But why assume that either EVERYTHING is causally determined or NOTHING is even causally influenced.
Give me an example of something that is not! And I mean a real example that can be measured. I've also conceded randomness- everything is either caused or random. But randomness also poses a problem for free will, obviously.
As far as free will being necessary for moral responsibility, that is not necessarily true. I've read determinist authors giving arguments against this . But how do you explain that Adam and Eve must not have been created with free will? They were told not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Before they did, they had no knowledge of good and evil, therefore, how could they be deciding between good and evil? I know youre aware of the scholars who argue that the fall was a good thing precisely b/c without it, we wouldn't have had free will and the ability to actualize our own lives.
FINAL thought- when do you say that our free will kicks in - in order that we may really use it to choose for God? Clearly, a child under a certain age can't choose for God. Neither can someone with an IQ of 55.
What about people who are schizophrenic, manic depressive, psychotic, Alzheimers, or even chronically depressed? People with brain damage? Clearly, these people are NOT held accountable for their actions in our society in most cases. And I'd also say you'd agree that God doesn't hold them responsible either.
So does free will correspond with intelligence and/or proper brain function? If free will is its own separate entity, then every human must have it. And must have it upon birth. And so these people are doomed by God then- b/c they have not chosen for him.
I don't know but I'd say you'd make exceptions in these cases and say that God saves them anyway (but how ? By grace, perhaps? :) ) But that's the point. It is then either that you are saying that some people do not have free will, or that it is something different than free will that is the measuring stick here.
I'd say you're measuring by brain activity. Youd probably say If someone has the capability to choose b/c their brain is functioning properly and/or they have a requisite level of intelligence, then they are accountable. If not, they are not accountable. This can be extended to animals as well. No one argues they have free will, but is that just b/c they have a level of intelligence such that they can not appear to make a rational choice?
Anyway, again, sorry so long! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 1/31/2003 6:59 AM (GMT -6) | | I can't take the time to respond to all that has been said since I last posted, but I will respond to this one objection from RD:
"As far as free will being necessary for moral responsibility, that is not necessarily true. I've read determinist authors giving arguments against this . But how do you explain that Adam and Eve must not have been created with free will? They were told not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Before they did, they had no knowledge of good and evil, therefore, how could they be deciding between good and evil? I know youre aware of the scholars who argue that the fall was a good thing precisely b/c without it, we wouldn't have had free will and the ability to actualize our own lives."
There is no problem here because the knowledge of good and evil is not necessary to obeying God. In fact, it conflicts with it. Adam and Eve had all they needed in the command: Do not eat of the tree that is in the middle of the garden. (And presumably God helped them identify which one was meant. Hint: its the one with that snake wrapped around the trunk.  )
I still maintain that the primary function of free will is to enable us to understand what it means to love God (and therefore also defining what sin is at the same time, namely, not loving God). It is a question of whether we will resist God's grace toward us or not (the possibility to be in relationship with God is the grace: first in creation, then in redemption). Some of your comments, RD make is sound as if it is not clear how we know what the right choice is, and that seems unfair to you. If we believe in a just God we believe that all will have the opportunity to respond to God in faith (and thereby be reconciled). God will be equally clear with all that all SHALL love God.
Anyway, this should at least answer the problem with Adam and Eve and whether they could obey God without eating of the forbidden tree. Of course, they could, the tree is identified as forbidden.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK
Edited by - ModesofThought on 01/31/2003 12:07:16 PM
Edited by - ModesofThought on 01/31/2003 12:08:43 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/31/2003 7:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Briefly, MOT, "There is no problem here because the knowledge of good and evil is not necessary to obeying God."
OK, but don't you have to be able to know the diff. between good and evil in order to decide one way or the other? Isn't that the free will argument?
I really think your comment fits in nicely with nonlibertarianism.
"If we believe in a just God we believe that all will have the opportunity to respond to God in faith (and thereby be reconciled). "
What's the implications for those who have no capacity to respond?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 1/31/2003 7:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Actually, no. Our knowing good and evil ourselves was never the plan. Our having this knowledge fools us into thinking we can be like God and judge good from evil. This was never our perogative.
Rather, our role is simply to know, love and obey God. Free will comes in at this point. We are able to resist the latter two. We can refrain from loving and obeying God. That is sin.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 1/31/2003 7:14 AM (GMT -6) | | For those who seem to us not to have capacity to respond, I simply trust in the mercy and justice of God. I am confident that God loves them more than I ever could and has a clear and beautiful, God glorifying role for them in the Kingdom. In fact, this has been my experience as well.
Ultimately, however, the implications are not really mine to decide. Of course.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 1/31/2003 7:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Perhaps this last point could be speculated on in this way, their incapacity to respond might correspond to their incapacity to resist God's will and God's grace. In this way, it would be no disadvantage to them. This is something like what I mean by trusting in God's mercy and grace.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/31/2003 7:45 AM (GMT -6) | |
Main Entry: 1mor·al
Pronunciation: 'mor-&l, 'mär-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom
Date: 14th century
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>
Acting moral without knowing what is good and evil? I'll admit i've never heard this one before! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 1/31/2003 7:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Actually, I don't remember saying anything about morality or a general ethic. I am talking simply about obedience to God. These are clearly not identical concepts in my mind. Are they identical in yours?
I guess you could say I have a deontological ethic of obedience to God.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/31/2003 8:00 AM (GMT -6) | | The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
later:
10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."
11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"
If there was not already evil, how could there be a "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"?
Why would there even be a concept, idea of evil in the garden before people had sinned? Obviously there was or else why would there be some fruit that would give them the power to distinguish?
Why did the snake tempt Eve by saying- you will know the diff. between good and evil. You will be like God.
Shouldn't her reply have been - "What is evil? " B/c it did not yet exist, did it?
Anyway, so the single state of being naked before the fall was fine, since they didn't know it. Apparently after the fall, now they are ashamed. This is based on knowledge, right? I mean, God never commanded them to wear clothes and they failed to. What's the shame based on? | | Back to Top | | |
| 92 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:36 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|