Free Will

[Dan]

I do not maintain that I am a mini God.  I do maintain that there is an aspect to myself and all people that is supernatural and not necessarily subject to the laws of physics.  I am a duelist and I speculate that my soul operates by different rules than my physical body.  It will certainly survive this life and pass into the next.  I concede that this is not a testable hypothesis.  But the strictly testable aspects of our lives are not adequate to meet our psychological or even physical needs.  In fact most of what we believe about the behavior of others in our lives is taken on an assertion on their part, perhaps qualified by past behavior or a recommendation from a reliable source, but taken without testable proof non the less.  That is foundation of my attitude towards the Church and the Word, and both attest to the existence of a supernatural soul.  What research and reasoning I have done tends to re-enforce my belief, but ultimately it comes recommended by reliable sources.     

Edited June 27, 2021 by Dan

[romansh]

56 minutes ago, Dan said:

I do maintain that there is an aspect to myself and all people that is supernatural and not necessarily subject to the laws of physics. 

So it is the alleged "supernatural" bit that is subject to sin? As it is difficult to ascribe morality to atoms that are just going about doing their thing.

But it would appear that the alleged non materialistic aspects are affected by the universe and in turn can affect the universe. So in what way are these alleged non materialistic aspects independent of cause and effect?

[Dan]

An excellent question.  If all we are is just atoms banging into each other then you are right,  concepts like right and wrong have no meaning.  The classic question to the materialist, "whence come your notions of human rights"?  But if we are complex biological machinery for the housing and outworking of the will of a soul then concepts like personal injury and sin become meaningful.  I do not know where the boundaries between the supernatural and the natural are in a human.  The supernatural part of us is certainly the part that rebelled against God and got us into this mess in the first place, but I expect the results of our rebellion were pretty thoroughgoing and that our biology inclines us towards abusive behavior every bit as much as our current soul does.  I guess I take that the position that the soul is not independent of cause and effect, but that the causes and effects that it is subject to are not part of the natural order.  It is not only man that has a supernatural aspect, there are other beings and agents that operate almost exclusively in that realm.  God is not the only one, but he is the omnipotent one.

[Kellerman]

1 hour ago, romansh said:

So it is the alleged "supernatural" bit that is subject to sin? As it is difficult to ascribe morality to atoms that are just going about doing their thing.

But it would appear that the alleged non materialistic aspects are affected by the universe and in turn can affect the universe. So in what way are these alleged non materialistic aspects independent of cause and effect?

Also, why would someone reduce physics to being just knowable science?

There's so much that's astounding when it comes to what we know about physics, and what we know is already mind blowing. 

To reduce that seems disingenuous. 

One person can stand in as much awe and philosophical stupor of physics as someone else does of God or whatever. 

Dan's take on physics seems reductive. 

 

 

[romansh]

16 minutes ago, Dan said:

If all we are is just atoms banging into each other then you are right,  concepts like right and wrong have no meaning.

Exactly

17 minutes ago, Dan said:

The classic question to the materialist, "whence come your notions of human rights"?

While I am convinced the concept or notion of human rights exists, they must be illusory ... much in the same way I have the concept my kitchen chair is red. I (we) tend to conflate something appearing to have a colour and something being coloured.

20 minutes ago, Dan said:

But if we are complex biological machinery for the housing and outworking of the will of a soul then concepts like personal injury and sin become meaningful.  I do not know where the boundaries between the supernatural and the natural are in a human.  The supernatural part of us is certainly the part that rebelled against God and got us into this mess in the first place, but I expect the results of our rebellion were pretty thoroughgoing and that our biology inclines us towards abusive behavior every bit as much as our current soul does.

Good you accept that your alleged god created the supernatural sinfulness. 

22 minutes ago, Dan said:

  I guess I take that the position that the soul is not independent of cause and effect, but that the causes and effects that it is subject to are not part of the natural order.

So supernatural responds to cause and effect and interacts with the universe. Fair enough. Is there any part of this supernatural that is independent of cause and effect? And if so, how do you know? 

25 minutes ago, Dan said:

It is not only man that has a supernatural aspect, there are other beings and agents that operate almost exclusively in that realm.  God is not the only one, but he is the omnipotent one.

I get it ... to be able to hold onto a more literal belief in your Bible parsimony becomes complicated pretty quickly.

2 hours ago, Dan said:

I do not maintain that I am a mini God. 

And yet you claim properties that are typically attributed to a god.

[romansh]

2 minutes ago, Kellerman said:

Also, why would someone reduce physics to being just knowable science?

There's so much that's astounding when it comes to what we know about physics, and what we know is already mind blowing. 

To reduce that seems disingenuous. 

One person can stand in as much awe and philosophical stupor of physics as someone else does of God or whatever. 

Dan's take on physics seems reductive. 

I think I agree with what you are saying here. Sure there is much we don't know or understand. In fact as we learn and understand how this universe ticks [or might tick] in its various aspects, what we don't understand grows exponentially. This where I find awe.
Einstein:
The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.

[Kellerman]

6 minutes ago, romansh said:

I think I agree with what you are saying here. Sure there is much we don't know or understand. In fact as we learn and understand how this universe ticks [or might tick] in its various aspects, what we don't understand grows exponentially. This where I find awe.
Einstein:
The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.

Precisely. 

Science is by definition the exploration of the unknown, not the collection and storage of facts, which is really a pop culture version of science. 

If someone writes off the magnitude of importance of science in large philosophical questions, then that person hasn't studied enough science to really understand it. 

Science is all about what we don't and can't yet understand. That's the entire point. Period. 

We study the things we've figured out already not to *know* things, but to have a foundational capacity to try and learn unknown things. 

Science was where I learned to think philosophically because it's all about thinking beyond to what you can't understand. 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Kellerman

[romansh]

6 minutes ago, Kellerman said:

If someone writes off the magnitude of importance of science in large philosophical questions, then that person hasn't studied enough science to really understand it.

Again I think I agree. For me philosophy and science are in the same box. Science uses the philosophical tools of induction and deduction, and always has one eye on epistemology, and without reference to reality, philosophy is blind.

For me, the free will debate is a scientific one not a metaphysical one. Though I have to admit it does reduce to semantics at times.

[Dan]

26 minutes ago, Kellerman said:

Precisely. 

Science is by definition the exploration of the unknown, not the collection and storage of facts, which is really a pop culture version of science. 

If someone writes off the magnitude of importance of science in large philosophical questions, then that person hasn't studied enough science to really understand it. 

Science is all about what we don't and can't yet understand. That's the entire point. Period. 

We study the things we've figured out already not to *know* things, but to have a foundational capacity to try and learn unknown things. 

Science was where I learned to think philosophically because it's all about thinking beyond to what you can't understand. 

I do not write off the magnitude of importance of science in large philosophical questions.  By it's own admission science can only inform us about the testable.  Is it such a great intellectual leap to acknowledge that much of what makes our existence significant is untestable? Either with current or projected instrumentation?  I assert and I assert strongly that much of what is joyful and comforting about the universe is unknowable by the scientific method.  Has it ever occurred to you that the apparent indifference in your attitudes towards some of the bigger questions posed on this board is rooted in a dispair of ever knowing the answers by the techniques that you have restricted yourself to acknowledging?  I don't write that to hurt but to prod.  Christ came to meet our needs on every level, physical, intellectual and spiritual.  If you are primarily a man of intellect then engage him on that level and just see if he doesn't wind up filling your entire being, every aspect, with his satisfying and sustaining person.

[Kellerman]

24 minutes ago, Dan said:

I do not write off the magnitude of importance of science in large philosophical questions.  By it's own admission science can only inform us about the testable.  Is it such a great intellectual leap to acknowledge that much of what makes our existence significant is untestable? Either with current or projected instrumentation?  I assert and I assert strongly that much of what is joyful and comforting about the universe is unknowable by the scientific method.  Has it ever occurred to you that the apparent indifference in your attitudes towards some of the bigger questions posed on this board is rooted in a dispair of ever knowing the answers by the techniques that you have restricted yourself to acknowledging?  I don't write that to hurt but to prod.  Christ came to meet our needs on every level, physical, intellectual and spiritual.  If you are primarily a man of intellect then engage him on that level and just see if he doesn't wind up filling your entire being, every aspect, with his satisfying and sustaining person.

You don't know me and haven't read my posts. Otherwise you would know that your categorization of my beliefs are way off. 

Feel free to challenge me or question me, but get your facts in order before concluding what I believe. 

To be clear, I'm considering becoming a Christian minister. 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Kellerman

[romansh]

48 minutes ago, Dan said:

By it's own admission science can only inform us about the testable. 

If it is not testable it may as well not be there. Also when you say something is not testable do you mean we don't know how to test it?

50 minutes ago, Dan said:

I assert and I assert strongly that much of what is joyful and comforting about the universe is unknowable by the scientific method.

You do a lot of asserting my friend. Again is it simply that you don't know how we might come to understand? Dopamine, seems like a good place to start.

And if you are referring to Biblical myths perhaps you could provide some refences to free will in the Bible. And here I don't mean references to choice.

[PaulS]

15 hours ago, Dan said:

Come now, even the atheist acknowledges that he or she is capable of thoughts or actions that are harmful to him or her self or others.  It doesn't take a religious authority to convince us that there is something amiss in our makeup that could be improved upon, hence the variety the mental health councilors and self help programs.  Christianity just acknowledges what an individual is going to be forced to admit eventually anyway, our wills are not powerful enough to significantly improve upon what we are.  This condition of man coupled with the love of an almighty God is what motivated Christ's ministry.  He uses the church to confirm the bad news about what we are, something the intellectually honest about us already suspected anyway, but then assures us, trust me, believe in my work, and I will carry you through this life and into another one where you will not be held accountable for what you were, but will be given new natures that are no longer capable of self or other hurt and will delight in my presence and the presence of each other.  The Church that stays true to this message will be used of God to comfort and transform even the vilest of sinners.

Of course we are capable, that is self evident, but it is religion that takes more of an interest in thoughts rather than others.  Homosexuality being the prime example for the past almost 2000 years of bigotry from Christians.  A gay person can't "think" themselves out of being who they are, but that has been precisely Christianity's argument.  They have said gays have free will and can choose not to be gay.  We know that is a nonsense.  So where is free will when it comes to sexual orientation?  And if you don't have free will for that, why do you think you have free will for religious choices, etc etc?

Again, it seems to me that the 'free will' argument is just religion's way of condemning those who don't exercise what said religion says is the 'right' will.

There are no 'thought' police outside of religion, only 'actions' are policed.  Of course humans are capable of thoughts or action capable of harm, that is self-evident, but it is religion only that tells us what thoughts are right and what thoughts are wrong.  Society outside of religion offers no punishments for thoughts, only actions.  Only Christianity (and some other religions) celebrates punishment for thoughts, in fact traditional Christianity says you are born thinking wrong in the first place.

[Dan]

If it's not testable, it may as well not be there.  Hmm..  What about the past?  What about the future?  Strictly speaking, neither are testable in the present, and yet both weight heavily on how we conduct ourselves.  We put a lot of trust in our memories and artifacts from the past as indicators of what took place but we have no real proof that they are accurate.  We have even less evidence of an approaching future, but we all set aside a significant chunk of our resources in anticipation of it.

 

 

 

 

[Kellerman]

Dan, you seem to have something you really want to say, but in all of your fervent posts, I can't really figure out what it is. 

I think a lot of us are getting distracted in your very argumentative and combative approach, but really, not much is actually being discussed.

I'm genuinely curious what you are feeling driven to express, and I don't want to just keep arguing with you over essentially nothing. 

As you can see, Rom has an inexhaustible capacity to argue minutiae on his own terms (which I actually say with affection), so if you keep at it like this, chances are you'll just burn out and be left feeling unheard. 

You have something you obviously want to communicate. What is it? What is the central thrust of what you feel compelled to say?

Take a break from arguing and asserting for a minute and share what it is that you want to share. I'm genuinely curious what's behind all this vim and vigor. 

Edited June 28, 2021 by Kellerman

[Dan]

Let's all do a little honest self assessment.  Am I being any more argumentative that anyone here?  This board it titled "Debate and Dialog" and that is precisely what I (and everyone else here) am doing.  If you really wanted to hear familiar arguments from sources you already agreed with you would be on another board.  I am here to argue for the reality of the Christian God as presented in the canonical gospels and to attest to joy, peace, and comforts attendant to knowledge of him.  A lot of people think this attitude comes part and parcel with suspending my intellect and adopting a judgmental attitude.  Part of what I do here is to demonstrate that at least for me, neither of these notions is true.  I wrote in another post that for the sake of reaching the lost Christ is prepared to engage them on any level and if demonstrating a capacity for intellectual wrangling on the part of his adherents is what it takes that is what he will do.  If some of what I am arguing here is starting to bite then all I can do is quote the proverbs "faithful are the wounds of a friend".  I am not here to try to force anyone here to be what I am, but to convince them of what (and who) I know.

Edited June 28, 2021 by Dan

[romansh]

2 hours ago, Dan said:

What about the past?

How many picoseconds into the past is not testable? What about archeology and and paleontology? We're testing the past there. When we look at the stars everything is in the past. What about Oklo? That event gives an insight (a test) as to whether the fine structure constant has changed over the 2 billion years. Spoiler alert, no, at least not in experimental error. Our sense of "now" is an agglomeration of events in the brain over the last 2 seconds ... with high speed sports "now" reduces to a few tens of microseconds.

And as an engineer are you truly suggesting your discipline does not test the future?

35 minutes ago, Kellerman said:

As you can see, Rom has an inexhaustible capacity to argue minutiae on his own terms (which I actually say with affection)

[Dan]

Ask yourself, what is the strict scientific definition of a test?  Archeology and Paleontology make informed and intelligent speculations about the past, but by the rigorous standards of the scientific test that's all they are, informed speculation.  When we look at the stars we are looking at light that is reaching us now from the past, so you may have a point that past events from light years away are observable and therefor testable, but it is required that they be far distant for that to be true.  No matter how large the delta of our now is, anything outside of it (and in close range) is no longer observable and therefor no longer testable.  Engineers make projections about the future and design accordingly, but that is not the same as directly observing it.  We are often wrong.  In fact it is standard engineering practice to modify old designs based on data collected in the present.

[romansh]

26 minutes ago, Dan said:

Am I being any more argumentative that anyone here? 

Arguing in the philosophical sense is fine and is part of debate and dialogue so no problem. 

But asserting God gave us supernatural properties like free will and that they are untestable does not score highly on debate and dialogue scale. 

 

[romansh]

3 minutes ago, Dan said:

but that is not the same as directly observing it. 

We never observe anything directly.

So I will ask again (not rhetorical) how many fractions of a second ago does the past start for you? 

But for me archeology and paleontology do meet my strict definition of a test.

[Kellerman]

47 minutes ago, Dan said:

Let's all do a little honest self assessment.  Am I being any more argumentative that anyone here?  This board it titled "Debate and Dialog" and that is precisely what I (and everyone else here) am doing.  If you really wanted to hear familiar arguments from sources you already agreed with you would be on another board.  I am here to argue for the reality of the Christian God as presented in the canonical gospels and to attest to joy, peace, and comforts attendant to knowledge of him.  A lot of people think this attitude comes part and parcel with suspending my intellect and adopting a judgmental attitude.  Part of what I do here is to demonstrate that at least for me, neither of these notions is true.  I wrote in another post that for the sake of reaching the lost Christ is prepared to engage them on any level and if demonstrating a capacity for intellectual wrangling on the part of his adherents is what it takes that is what he will do.  If some of what I am arguing here is starting to bite then all I can do is quote the proverbs "faithful are the wounds of a friend".  I am not here to try to force anyone here to be what I am, but to convince them of what (and who) I know.

This response is argumentative. 

I'm genuinely interested in what's behind what you are trying to say and yet again, you are making assumptions about me and my beliefs. 

I repeat, I'm actually interested in what you have to say. I just can't figure out what on earth it is. 

[romansh]

On 6/27/2021 at 2:47 PM, Kellerman said:

I'm considering becoming a Christian minister. 

Just as an aside ... here is an internet friend of mine. Gus has had a massive influence on me. He has an unusual take on Christianity and has completed his training as a minister. I don't buy into everything, but you may find him interesting. He is on facebook, though he has been quiet the last couple months or so.

[PaulS]

On 6/29/2021 at 7:45 AM, romansh said:

Just as an aside ... here is an internet friend of mine. 

I like what he has to say, Rom.  I look forward to reading more from Gus, but these couple of paragraphs really speak to me:

This is the wacky thing about free will and how it is preached in Abrahamic churches around the world. This preaching gets in the way of us realizing the kingdom of heaven, which is right here and right now everywhere that we look.  It is just that we can’t see it, and the sermons we keep getting keep us in the field of a battle of Good vs Evil, which is the field named sin.

The orthodox church is truly the church of the God in the Garden of Eden.  That God places guardians at the gates and keeps us out in the world.  So, when preaching on free agency and selective salvation, the church we have is really and truly the church of exile and sin.  It keeps the law of the God of Eden, but it is not a Christian church!

The laws of Christ and the laws of Thermodynamics speak the heresy.  They tell us that the will of that God is our will and that those gate guardians are us, it is just that we do not see it.  When each of us internalizes that “I and the father are one,” we find ourselves back in the Garden.  We see the one divine will all around us and can then truly love our enemies and our neighbors as our self.  It turns out that our enemies and our neighbors are our Self.

[Kellerman]

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

I like what he has to say, Rom.  I look forward to reading more from Gus, but these couple of paragraphs really speak to me:

This is the wacky thing about free will and how it is preached in Abrahamic churches around the world. This preaching gets in the way of us realizing the kingdom of heaven, which is right here and right now everywhere that we look.  It is just that we can’t see it, and the sermons we keep getting keep us in the field of a battle of Good vs Evil, which is the field named sin.

The orthodox church is truly the church of the God in the Garden of Eden.  That God places guardians at the gates and keeps us out in the world.  So, when preaching on free agency and selective salvation, the church we have is really and truly the church of exile and sin.  It keeps the law of the God of Eden, but it is not a Christian church!

The laws of Christ and the laws of Thermodynamics speak the heresy.  They tell us that the will of that God is our will and that those gate guardians are us, it is just that we do not see it.  When each of us internalizes that “I and the father are one,” we find ourselves back in the Garden.  We see the one divine will all around us and can then truly love our enemies and our neighbors as our self.  It turns out that our enemies and our neighbors are our Self.

Yep, this is essentially the spiritual basis of the church I belong to. 

[romansh]

16 hours ago, lily.jade said:

it wasn't God's fault, that human's have free will

This is interesting ...  from a scientific point of this does not seem true. From a logical point of view, it certainly does not seem to make sense. Biblically, the Bible is more or less silent on the topic of free will. Though Christian apologists will quote lots of scripture that says we make choices. The topic of free will is not about choices, but our wills certainly affect the choices we do make.  Of course without free will, the Biblical salvation story we are told makes no sense.

To believe in free will we have to deny cause and effect and think of ourselves as a God.

[Ogdin]

Hey y'all.

Josephus wrote the following around 90AD:

Quote

Now for the Pharisees, they say that some actions, but not all, are the work of fate, and some of them are in our own power, and that they are liable to fate, but are not caused by fate. But the sect of the Essenes affirm, that fate governs all things, and that nothing befalls men but what is according to its determination.

Josephus gives about a 60/40 split on Pharisees vs Essene Jews in his day and this is the ONLY cosmological/philosophical difference he mentions between the sects.  The Pharisees are clearly the opponents of Jesus in the New Testament and many writers view Jesus as relating to the Essenes as described by Josephus and as relating to the total determinist community that is witnessed in the dead sea scrolls from the Qumran jewish sect.

A cosmological determinism, rejecting the moral agency of humans, was THE major discussion point in the first century just as it is today in the discourse with science.  Of course, the church seems to have gone entirely into the moral realism camp with free will, but there is a strong historical critical argument around the idea that Jesus was an Essene Jew who took a step from determinism, past the false idea that it means "we are all puppets and nothing we do matters," into the notion "we are all children of God."  This accounts for much of the non-judgment and becomes a lens through which the text can be interpreted.  And not just the new testament, but the older contents of the Torah as reflecting a deterministic philosophy that grounds people in the present moment and attacks ideas of "deserving" and "merit" and "ethics."