T
tonyrey
Guest
Can you explain how it would be possible to be less free than we are? The only way I can think of seems to be by giving all of us a low IQ. Would you opt for that?
- Status
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
It depends on what kind of “deontological” (rule-set based) system you happen to use. There are many different ones. On the other hand what is beneficial to a biological system is not subject to debate. It is given by studying biology and its derivative branches.
But my point was that if something is “biologically” bad, then it cannot be “deontologically” good as long a rational “rule-set” is employed. What kind of a rule-set could assert something “good”, if it is to the detriment of the living organism?
Fine. Use “secular” or “rational”.
There is no willingness stipulated in the mere “desire”. It could be, of course, but not necessarily so. And besides, up until the desire is actually carried out, one can change the action, abandon it. To desire to kill someone, even if one is willing to do it, and plans to do it, is not the same as actually acting upon that desire. The word “killer” or “adulterer” and not applicable until the act is actually committed.
The trouble is that the concept of a “soul” carries no informational value to me. You could simply create an answer of “khadq eourjczn z, chufj lscvv nhb sl” and assert that you gave a meaningful answer.
If you wish to use the “soul” as an argument, then you are obliged to give a proper definition of a “soul” AND an epistemological method which can be used to find out if a “being” HAS a soul or not. You know, some kind of a “soul-o-meter”, which you can point at an entity, and which will show if that entity has a soul, or not, and if has one, then what kind of a soul it is.I would like to understand the Christian position. This is a philosophy sub-forum so I would prefer to stick to secular (aka rational) arguments.
B
Bradski
Guest
It always bemuses me the constant attempt to defend the indefensible.
Of course drowning innocent children is evil. Why not simply admit that rather than these pretzel-like attempts to explain it away. Why tie yourself into knots? Read this and tell me why it isn’t the most blazingly obvious answer:
'No, God did not drown anyone, whatever it says in Genesis. The story is there because at some point there was a flood and people drowned. Happens all the time. But someone at the time thought it would be a good idea to say that the people died because they had fallen away from God so He brought on the flood.
That’s what they might have believed back in the day. They were ignorant. They were told: behave yourself or you will be punished - just like those who were drowned.
It’s a moronic argument, no less so than claiming now that earthquakes or AIDS are sent by God to punish evil people. But parts of the bible were written by people who thought like that. So it’s not true. Neither is it an allegory. Nor is it meant to be interpreted theologically.
It is actually a lie. Written as a threat to try to convince people at the time to follow God. If you think that lies and threats, either genuine or metaphorical or allegorical are a good way to bring people to God and are an integral part of Christianity, then say so’.
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
The solution is much simpler and much more elegant than that. I bet you could come up with a better solution, if only you tried. If you can’t, read on.
Can you imagine Pope Francis grabbing two electrodes and affixing them to the genitals of a criminal just to see how loud he will scream? I cannot, because the Pope is a GOOD person. Good persons do not have the DESIRE to torture others. They do not WANT to torture others. And these kinds of people are the overwhelming majority. They might not be as pious as the Pope, but they would be horrified if they were given the opportunity to perform such acts and they would REFUSE.
There is no EXTERNAL limitation to their freedom to perform such acts, because they have an INTERNAL force to stop them. Internal decency, or kindness, whatever you want to call it.
The number of people who are sociopaths and psychopaths is miniscule. So the simple method is to create only GOOD people, with an internal moral sense who are unwilling to torture or kill or rape others. No need to install external “police force” to stop them. They can have as high IQ as you wish. Actually, the higher, the better.
Now if this “omnipotent” God of yours is unwilling or unable to limit the creation to such people, then there is a secondary, albeit inferior solution to the problem. Arrange some external method, which will prevent the sociopaths from carrying out their acts, and leaves them “frustrated”. “Darn, I am unable to rape that purty little girl, too? How unlucky I am that a policeman always comes when I wish to kidnap a kid?” This method would limit the “free will” of the criminals to be put into practice. There are some people, who say that “free will” is a given as long as one is “free” to “will” something, it is not necessary that the “will” can be acted upon.
But as I already pointed out, we have sufficient freedom if we are allowed to kiss and hug our kids either once or twice, depending on our mood, if we are free to choose sushi over steak, or a red tie over a blue one… to be “free” it is NOT necessary to have the freedom to hack a kid into mincemeat with a machete. That kind of “freedom” is excessive, it is unnecessary and it is just harmful.
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
It is amazing how many people think like that… and guess what, there is something to it. If someone has a good life here and now, if they are satisfied with their life, then Christianity - with its emphasis on the “afterlife” - has nothing to offer for them. For the downtrodden, for the sick, the poor, the mistreated ones there is a “hope” that there will be a retribution in the “hereafter”, that the injustices will be rectified, that the criminals will be punished and the righteous ones will be rewarded. And this belief - no matter how irrational it might be - will give them a hopeful anticipation, a hope that things are not as bad as they are… that there will be a compensation. It will make this life much more bearable.
F
Frankenfurter
Guest
But the Freedom that God has given to all creation, is the ability to take part in creation itself.
ALL of creation has been given this ‘free will’ to contribute to creation as it unfolds.
Creation is unfinished, and we (and to a lesser extent the animals, etc.) are PART of the process of creation itself.
Your concept of Free Will and God etc seems to be at an early level. That is fine you are still learning.
YOU have the ability to contribute to creation itself. Your contributions will alter creation FOREVER.
Regarding why God allows for bad people, many sociopaths are found to come from a long line of abusers and sociopaths. WE create these people, not God. This is the awesome consequence of Free Will that God has given us - to alter creation itself for the better or the worse for all of eternity. God does not just look at the individual (the way that some protestants think he does). God is judging us as a whole, or in families, and groups etc. because we are highly interdependent.
That is the meaning of the story of Adam and Eve, and the floods etc too. Please do not interpret these in a grade-school fashion, just looking at how the bad God punished people in a mean way, It goes far deeper than that. The message is that WE are part of creation itself. That is what Free Will is about.
Peace to you on your journey.
ALL of creation has been given this ‘free will’ to contribute to creation as it unfolds.
Creation is unfinished, and we (and to a lesser extent the animals, etc.) are PART of the process of creation itself.
Your concept of Free Will and God etc seems to be at an early level. That is fine you are still learning.
YOU have the ability to contribute to creation itself. Your contributions will alter creation FOREVER.
Regarding why God allows for bad people, many sociopaths are found to come from a long line of abusers and sociopaths. WE create these people, not God. This is the awesome consequence of Free Will that God has given us - to alter creation itself for the better or the worse for all of eternity. God does not just look at the individual (the way that some protestants think he does). God is judging us as a whole, or in families, and groups etc. because we are highly interdependent.
That is the meaning of the story of Adam and Eve, and the floods etc too. Please do not interpret these in a grade-school fashion, just looking at how the bad God punished people in a mean way, It goes far deeper than that. The message is that WE are part of creation itself. That is what Free Will is about.
Peace to you on your journey.
B
Bradski
Guest
Hell, Frank, you are so close to the truth.
You are no more and no less than a small part of creation. A little bit of the universe that is self aware. Treat it for what it is. In the grand scheme of things, a miracle. But not in the sense that it is unnatural. It is entirely natural. It’s just that you are aware of it. Be thankful for it.
But don’t overestimate your ability to change things, however. Whatever you do will be lost in the churn and foam of existence. You will not be remembered. Two or three generations from now you will fade from memory. Your achievements will count for nothing. Literally nothing. In nothing more than a few decades time it will be as if you never existed.
So…make the most of it, Frank. This is your one shot. Your one time in this slice of eternity. This is your time in the spotlight. Make someone happy. Do a good deed. Bring up a child. Enjoy fine wine and the love of a good woman. Because you only have this one shot. Don’t waste it.
Make it count.
B
Back2Church
Guest
You’re not making any sense. You didn’t ask a secular question. You asked a religious question.
Your original post, once again, was (thread title: “What is the point of free will?”):
So no, this is not a secular discussion.
The existence of the soul is not in question, nor does anyone’s belief or unbelief of the existence of the soul have any bearing on the topic at hand. Your original question is about the point of free will if it can only hurt one’s chances of getting into heaven. The very question implies the presence of souls as a premise.The trouble is that the concept of a “soul” carries no informational value to me. You could simply create an answer of “khadq eourjczn z, chufj lscvv nhb sl” and assert that you gave a meaningful answer.
I realize you don’t believe in souls, and that’s fine. I can respect that. But it is ridiculous to start a discussion on the implications of how free will would affect one’s soul and then reject the use of soul in any answer.
F
fred_conty
Guest
So this is really about suffering that you don’t understand. We have had threads on that subject that are available.
But there seem to be some questions about how the flood could be understood. And that is what I addessed and not about suffering in general.
F
fred_conty
Guest
I think it would help if we see free will as just part and partial of our everyday life and activity. Free will is just the expression of what we choose in every thing we do. It is so common and ordinary that most of us overlook it or feel that it is just what we do and think nothing of it. That is … unless we put it under the microscope.
For example, we choose to:
set our alarm clock to get up
what kind of car we are going to drive
the kind of cereal we eat
the school our kids will go to
make love or not
what to do in life
the size of our family
to hold a grudge or forgive
to open the front door or not
where to go on vacation
whether to smoke or not
where to live
who we want as friends
the church we go to
the pew we sit in
how much time to spend with the family
the color scheme of our home
when to cut the grass
what street/highway to use
the drugstore to use
to exorcise
what to eat and drink
the sport to follow
the books to read
the shows on TV
the pages on the internet
the golf course to play on
our own set of rules
who we like
who to elect
No need to go on … and on … and on …
The point is …free will is us. We are nothing with it. We must always choose. We are walking/talking “choice” machines.
And those bad decisions … are made every day because the choice is there and must be made. Otherwise we are nothing but rocks in a box.
I believe what you are thinking is “I don’t want to go thru life long effort” because it is too hard and I’m not sure I’m going to make it.
I believe one of the psalms says that life is hard and it is hard to keep one’s spirits up for the whole course. And looking back on mine, I would be dishonest if I said I would want to do it again. And if you asked the seniors, they would probably tell you the same thing.
But here is the thing. I always had Jesus/Mary there with me even in my darkest moments to help me. I never felt alone in that sense. And He made it so much more worthwhile and easier for me. Because I always knew his encouragement and forgiveness. And I seriously doubt if I had not had Him with me, today I probably would be in some prison. But He has sustained me just as he will sustain you if you give him the chance. He will not let you down if you just let him do his work in you. So don’t be so frightened … you are not alone.
R
Rohzek
Guest
No, it’s not an error on my part. I’m well aware that the algorithm changes. My point is that it doesn’t matter.
What humans do when they make decisions is actually much more complicated. First off, free will isn’t even totally accessible to consciousness in humans. And if you really wanted to (which I would not do), you could label your robots as having free will too. Still a difference would remain because the robot would have full access to its decision making processes. It would be fully aware of it. Humans, however, are not fully aware of all of their cognitive processes. So the nature of their free wills would be completely different.
Secondly, we don’t make choices based on statistical analysis and probabilities. This sets us apart from robots with the set-up that you presented. Whether or not the algorithm changes is immaterial, because the basic means of decision making remains starkly different. One lacks meaning, while the other is much more complex and often has meaning since it is neither random nor determined.
For example, if you ask a robot what the weather is like today, it will answer the question. If it doesn’t, it is based not on disinterest but rather something within the formula that determines it or a random seed. If you ask a human the same question, they may answer it just like the robot because it would be appropriate to circumstances. However, they could feasibly start talking about their favorite kittens. And it would not be random on the human’s part either. They just rather talk about something else.
R
Rohzek
Guest
I should qualify one term in my previous statement. In paragraph #2, by awareness, I mean readily accessible. I don’t mean to imply “self-awareness” in the common sense. A robot just carries out the algorithm, whether it alters it or not. Meanwhile, a human being is much more complicated. Some decisions are made before the consciousness is even aware of them. This means that in everyday life, human free will is the result or is part of some sort of interaction between the unconscious and the consciousness. Still, we have very little idea how this works. Nevertheless, it does imply or suggest some sort of problem known as cognitive closure, which robots simply don’t have because the problem for a robot cannot even begin to be formulated.
F
Frankenfurter
Guest
That is where we differ (that last part). I know chaos theory and fractals, and complex nonlinear models of all sorts of phenomenon running on super computer simulations, etc. Our natural world is highly nonlinear and small changes in initial conditions lead to unpredictable results. Only man-made systems have the quality that you describe.
Therefore I am confident that ALL of my effects, albeit small, have an UNKNOWN result on the outcome of creation. Then there is the part of creation that I know nothing about.
Perhaps you should look into operant conditioning. Many folks, especially those with some depression, have trouble realizing the fact that they can control (operate on) creation (the outside world) and cause it to change. Those folks with low self esteem etc. see their (name removed by moderator)uts to the world as inconsequential and of no intrinsic value.
Us Catholics see this as another work of the evil one - that is to convince people of their low worth.
All of the Catholics on this board have a reason to pray for you, and many will. Do with that what you ‘WIll’ - Get it.I snuck that Will word in there.
B
Bradski
Guest
I’m talking Big Picture here. I obviously have a direct impact on those close to me. Those not so close, not so much. Those who don’t know me, hardly any at all (unless I do something drastic like kill a political leader – something like Prince Ferdinand and the start of World War I). And my impact is greater on some people if we consider the short term. Medium to long term, not so much. Very long term, none at all.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
And, one can pray with good will.
F
Frankenfurter
Guest
That is enough then to answer the OP’s question and concern regarding why our free will includes the ability to also cause harm as well as help for achieving eternal salvation. Please do not derail things into your own agenda.
Dear OP, since you have an impact on those close to you, from a Catholic point of view then, you are part of creation for them (and yourself). That is an awesome responsibility when one realizes that God is giving you this part in creation itself.
This is also the mechanism by which our world is also flawed. The past acts against the will of God are imprinted into our nature itself as creation unfolds.
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
No, it does not. But let it be your way. If you wish to argue based upon some “soul”, then it is your job to give a clear and concise definition of what this “soul” might be, and how can we ascertain if someone or something “has it, or not”.
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
The author of Genesis tells us that the antediluvian people were thoroughly and totally obsessed with nothing other than evil 100% of the time. It is likely they murdered all of their own children, so there were no innocents left for God to drown. The oral traditions surrounding the antediluvian period depict it as a time of wanton violence and chaos. Maybe God drowned them because it was the only way to permanently end the chaos and violence. Many Rabbis have taught that we are spiritually different from the antediluvian people in the sense that we have a moral intuition or conscience. I have many theories about the flood, but I don’t think it is a lie meant to scare people into worshiping God. I think it is meant to show that God will never allow the world to become completely out of control, and will never allow nature to totally destroy us.
J
josh987654321
Guest
One example I believe would be sport, playing by oneself is pretty boring and unfulfilling, same if they were mindless robots, as they are simply doing what you have programmed them to do. Without free will, what is the point? Have you watched the movie I Robot with Will Smith in it? I guess he should have let the robots take over. Viki’s knowledge is undeniable.
I hope this has helped
God Bless
Thank you for reading
Josh
- Status