The Conservative Cave
Interests => Religious Discussions => Topic started by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on June 16, 2010, 03:05:07 PM
-
When I look at many "atheists" I don't see atheist as much as I see anti-theist. I see people who have some pet vice they refuse to part with and then they fabricate rationalizations as to why God shouldn’t be allowed to exist, i.e. evolution or suffering. To me the first is immaterial and the second is hypocritical.
It was the Bertrand Russells and Havelock Ellises of the world that convinced me of this theory. They loved to fornicate and lead riotous lives but they also seemed determined to make war against God as a means of excusing their behavior or at least skirt accountability. Such things always struck me as…
…cowardly.
I recall the passage where God speaks to Job from the whirlwind saying, “Would you annul my judgments so that you may be justified?â€
If the possibility of God is permitted for argument’s sake then that verse seems to trump all other arguments. If you want to lead a riotous life just admit it and carry on. If there is a God and you are to be held in account then claiming you authored a dozen books as to why God couldn’t possibly exist isn’t going to change your fate one iota. You will not be able to say, “I just didn’t think there was enough evidence to prove you existed†because the reply will be, “No, you just wanted to sodomize your colleague’s 13-year old daughter because you thought she was hot.â€
In short, they have enough willpower to sodomize 13-year old girls but not enough willpower to admit they don’t care how much it debases that girl from her created purpose. Selfish willpower cannot hide behind the lack of willpower inherent in such cowardice.
Now, I have always thought Nietzsche was on to something when he wrote Will to Power but I think being the first of his sort his work was pre-pubescent and under-developed. There is no need to declare God as being dead. On the contrary the ideal of God—with God being the ideal—comports very well with Nietzschean thought.
In philosophical circles there is what is known as Buridan’s ass. It is a fictitious mule that happens to find itself equidistant between two equally appealing piles of hay and because there is no factor to make it move toward one pile or the other it remains where it is, nothing happens and the mule starves unless some act of will imposes itself on the mule. This parable is used to describe the state of being and non-being. If the weight between being and non-being were equal that which was before the universe would move in neither direction and hence, never come into being. The only thing that could bring the universe into being would be an act of will.
God is, if nothing else a being of Will. He is, after all the great self-declared, “I am†a statement that should send shuddering shivers down the spine of any true Nietzschean.
From there we know the Being of Ultimate Will willed the universe into existence and He created in His image beings of will and set them amid a garden. In that garden He tested their will. When they failed it was because they sought to be as God themselves acting solely in accord of their own will. When man’s redemption is provided for he is instructed to remedy this failing by praying, “thy will be done†and so too was the final acquiescence, “If it be possible let this cup pass from me, but not my will but rather yours.†And an act of will it was to accept the torturer’s cross when a legion of angels were but an utterance away.
But it is deeper than this.
Unless I miss my mark the Nazarene was the one in whom all powers of creation were invested. The opening verses of John’s gospel say that nothing was made that was not made by Him. The helpless child that passed from the womb of an adolescent Jewess was the same being that cast a hundred-billion galaxies from His fingertips.
And yet He hung in bloody ribbon upon a stake, dead from pericardial tamponade.
If the power upon which all creation came to be was lying dead, where would life triumph?
In the will.
A will so powerful it can be more than simply eternal from beyond all time, it can resurrect itself within temporal boundaries from non-existent lifelessness.
Well-played, sir. Well-played.
The only fault-line I can find between Nietzsche and the Bible is that one might be jealous of God but jealousy is a petty emotion for those invested in themselves.
I consider myself a Nietzschean because I do want I do without apologies. I do not flee towards awkward theories of pan-spermia or hopeful monsters to allow myself to pretend God could never exist and I don’t wring my hands over theodicy because it is absurd to think my sense of moral outrage could condemn He who bestowed upon me my sense of moral outrage. I do what I do because that is my will. It seems foolish to apologize for it because if I was prone to regret it I wouldn’t do it in the first place.
But, just as I exert my will I look at the story of the Bible and find myself fascinated by it and its exertions of will even though by its own measures I could in no way consider myself one of its adherents.
DISCLAIMER: No 13-year old girls were sodomized in the authoring of this post.
-
How do you define yourself (if at all) religiously and/or spiritually?
-
How do you define yourself (if at all) religiously and/or spiritually?
As I hinted, the Bible fascinates me. I read the text and the subtext leaps out at me.
BUT...
...I'm foul-mouthed, ir--if not, sac--religious, I enjoy getting drunk, enjoy chasing whomever I may catch and I think every now and again you have to push your thumbs through somebody's eyes to really get things moving in an acceptable direction.
Apart from that I think I'd make a wonderful Christian.
I don't know if God exists but the "idea" of God is compelling. But all things considered its rather immaterial for me because I don't expect He and I to be seeing much of each other.
-
Denying God is the one unpardonable sin.
-
Denying God is the one unpardonable sin.
I thought the unpardonable sin was blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
If I understand your statement at its face value no atheist could ever be redeemed but many former atheists seem to be laboring under the assumption they're doing OK.
-
As I hinted, the Bible fascinates me. I read the text and the subtext leaps out at me.
BUT...
...I'm foul-mouthed, ir--if not, sac--religious, I enjoy getting drunk, enjoy chasing whomever I may catch and I think every now and again you have to push your thumbs through somebody's eyes to really get things moving in an acceptable direction.
Apart from that I think I'd make a wonderful Christian.
I don't know if God exists but the "idea" of God is compelling. But all things considered its rather immaterial for me because I don't expect He and I to be seeing much of each other.
So agnostic? Maybe labels are a bad thing, I don't know. I know I am Christian, but I also know that trying to shove it down your throat rather than explain why I feel the way I do turns people off and away.
-
I thought the unpardonable sin was blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
If I understand your statement at its face value no atheist could ever be redeemed but many former atheists seem to be laboring under the assumption they're doing OK.
Actually it brings up an interesting discussion. So many good people out there who do good deeds, live a moral life who don't believe Jesus/God is God. They are all hell bound according to the Bible. And I am a Christian. I do believe that one must understand and believe that Jesus is God and that God made it all happen. However, I am not an unthinking, unquestioning Christian. I wonder how someone who can do terrible things all their life and then realize that God is who He is and did and does what he does can be Heaven bound while a Jew or whoever else who has done good all of their life can be hell bound.
I am not a blind faith kinda gal. I question. Doesn't change my stance, but I do question. I am human.
-
Actually it brings up an interesting discussion. So many good people out there who do good deeds, live a moral life who don't believe Jesus/God is God. They are all hell bound according to the Bible. And I am a Christian. I do believe that one must understand and believe that Jesus is God and that God made it all happen. However, I am not an unthinking, unquestioning Christian. I wonder how someone who can do terrible things all their life and then realize that God is who He is and did and does what he does can be Heaven bound while a Jew or whoever else who has done good all of their life can be hell bound.
I am not a blind faith kinda gal. I question. Doesn't change my stance, but I do question. I am human.
Most of God's prophets argued with Him and one of God's better responses was, "Come, let us reason together."
Some people want to be good in spite of God...but spite is not good so their deeds are pointless. By this I mean I have met some I could honestly tell their efforts at being good were partly because they felt it was the right thing to do but a substantial part was to dare God to not grant them a passing grade.
Making broad your phylactery isn't just for Pharisees anymore.
But I can imagine a tribesman untouched by missionaries due simply to time and remoteness, who could look into the sky and see things greater than the stars and he could look at his own life and see that perhaps he was less than what he was meant to be and he knew he needed something more. And when he died he looked into the face of his creator and said, "I don't know your name but you are the one I was looking for."
I can only see God smiling on such a soul.
The epistle to the Jews in Rome admits when they who do not have the law do the things according to the law it is counted to them for righteousness and we know what the two greatest laws are.
This, of course, does not absolve YOU of your evangelical obligations. You may not want to be pushy but if your God is true He is the only cure for the disease that will cost untold millions their lives. I'm sure if you had a cure for AIDS you would be trumpeting such news all over Africa and if they resisted western pharmacology out of tribal superstition you would not blithely shrug your shoulders and walk away.
Remember ma'am, I have a dim view of cowardice. That is not to say you have to be an obnoxious ass like many of the religiously inclined tend to be. Jesus made out marvelously without being an ass but neither was he silent.
Politeness vs unction. Works vs faith. Freewill vs divine will. Called vs self-determined.
Each seemingly opposed yet all working in tandem.
It's almost as if we were being told something.
How can any honest-minded person NOT be fascinated?
-
Most of God's prophets argued with Him and one of God's better responses was, "Come, let us reason together."
Some people want to be good in spite of God...but spite is not good so their deeds are pointless. By this I mean I have met some I could honestly tell their efforts at being good were partly because they felt it was the right thing to do but a substantial part was to dare God to not grant them a passing grade.
Making broad your phylactery isn't just for Pharisees anymore.
But I can imagine a tribesman untouched by missionaries due simply to time and remoteness, who could look into the sky and see things greater than the stars and he could look at his own life and see that perhaps he was less than what he was meant to be and he knew he needed something more. And when he died he looked into the face of his creator and said, "I don't know your name but you are the one I was looking for."
I can only see God smiling on such a soul.
The epistle to the Jews in Rome admits when they who do not have the law do the things according to the law it is counted to them for righteousness and we know what the two greatest laws are.
This, of course, does not absolve YOU of your evangelical obligations. You may not want to be pushy but if your God is true He is the only cure for the disease that will cost untold millions their lives. I'm sure if you had a cure for AIDS you would be trumpeting such news all over Africa and if they resisted western pharmacology out of tribal superstition you would not blithely shrug your shoulders and walk away.
Remember ma'am, I have a dim view of cowardice. That is not to say you have to be an obnoxious ass like many of the religiously inclined tend to be. Jesus made out marvelously without being an ass but neither was he silent.
Politeness vs unction. Works vs faith. Freewill vs divine will. Called vs self-determined.
Each seemingly opposed yet all working in tandem.
It's almost as if we were being told something.
How can any honest-minded person NOT be fascinated?
As far as spreading the gospel, there are ways to go about it and then there are ways to go about it. I have seen far too many Christians try to scare people into believing and shove it down their throats in ways that can turn someone away so fast. So many times I see people focus on Hell, which is a major, but they often leave out or not focus on the love, the kindness, the forgiving, the joy of Christ. To me, that is totally opposite of what I want to convey when I tell people about God. Scaring people into being a "Christian" does not make them one. In fact, I have seen people turn away because of this. The whole "you must come forward in front of the church or crowd to be saved" turns me off. I am proud of my Christianity, but the fear tactics I've seen used serve the wrong point. Of course some of my statements only go for a certain religion as far as my experiences go, but still spreading the word doesn't mean pushing it on someone. That will likely have the opposite effect.
And of course you are fascninated. What about the Bible isn't fascinating? It is historical. It is filled with amazing and crazy events.
-
I thought the unpardonable sin was blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
If I understand your statement at its face value no atheist could ever be redeemed but many former atheists seem to be laboring under the assumption they're doing OK.
Well some will argue the denying God is the knowing but denying. An atheist therefore wouldn't be covered under such a principle. That being said everyone has a shot at redemption right up to the moment of death
-
Well some will argue the denying God is the knowing but denying. An atheist therefore wouldn't be covered under such a principle. That being said everyone has a shot at redemption right up to the moment of death
So what about the thesis: the concept of God should satisfy the Nietzschean ideal of the ultimate will.
-
So what about the thesis: the concept of God should satisfy the Nietzschean ideal of the ultimate will.
Free will, Cause & effect. Reward & punishment. One can no more prove the existence of God than another could prove he doesn't exist. We do all however Have been foretold of the outcome of the 2 schools of thought/beliefs. so yes it does & no it doesn't, one can believe what one will. :uhsure:
-
...one can believe what one will.
Yes, it's WILL that we're discussing.
I'm not asking for proofs or disproofs, I'm asking does the ideal of God find common ground with Nietzsche's discussions of will to power.
-
Yes, it's WILL that we're discussing.
I'm not asking for proofs or disproofs, I'm asking does the ideal of God find common ground with Nietzsche's discussions of will to power.
Iwould say so. Be it will or in other terms Faith.
-
Iwould say so. Be it will or in other terms Faith.
Now recall, God's self-expressed name is "I Am" and that name is the ultimate expression of will. That should be very intriguing for anyone. It seems to beg us to ask which came first: the Person of God or the Will of God.
It would seem to my mind at least that these things are inseparable; the Person cannot be realized without the Will giving it unction but the Will cannot exist without the Person to express it.
With that in mind consider Socrates' inquiry to Euthyphro: is morality just because the gods will it or do the gods will it because it is just?
If the former than morality is capricious and arbitrary and as such it is worthless. If the latter then morality sits above the divine and even the divine is subject to it making gods worthless.
-
The Father , the Son & the Holy Ghost. The Alpha and the Omega. God is Morality
-
I found this at hotair.com. It is from yesterday's "Quote of the Day." As background: author Christopher Hitchens has been diagnosed with cancer--esophageal, IIRC--from which he has barely a 5% chance of seeing the next couple of years. Hitchens is also a homosexual, an atheist and quite given to indulgences of the flesh but he came to be endeared by many conservatives for being a progressive who understood the need to oppose jihadism. His comments here, selected by blogger Allahpundit and emphasized by me, seem to speak to my OP as do the follow-on comments also selected by AllahPundit:
The notorious stage theory of Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, whereby one progresses from denial to rage through bargaining to depression and the eventual bliss of “acceptance,†hasn’t so far had much application in my case. In one way, I suppose, I have been “in denial†for some time, knowingly burning the candle at both ends and finding that it often gives a lovely light. But for precisely that reason, I can’t see myself smiting my brow with shock or hear myself whining about how it’s all so unfair: I have been taunting the Reaper into taking a free scythe in my direction and have now succumbed to something so predictable and banal that it bores even me. Rage would be beside the point for the same reason. Instead, I am badly oppressed by a gnawing sense of waste. I had real plans for my next decade and felt I’d worked hard enough to earn it. Will I really not live to see my children married? To watch the World Trade Center rise again? To read—if not indeed write—the obituaries of elderly villains like Henry Kissinger and Joseph Ratzinger? But I understand this sort of non-thinking for what it is: sentimentality and self-pity. Of course my book hit the best-seller list on the day that I received the grimmest of news bulletins, and for that matter the last flight I took as a healthy-feeling person (to a fine, big audience at the Chicago Book Fair) was the one that made me a million-miler on United Airlines, with a lifetime of free upgrades to look forward to. But irony is my business and I just can’t see any ironies here: would it be less poignant to get cancer on the day that my memoirs were remaindered as a box-office turkey, or that I was bounced from a coach-class flight and left on the tarmac? To the dumb question “Why me?†the cosmos barely bothers to return the reply: Why not?
***
What Hitchens demonstrates here, in his gorgeous prose which is so full of the force of life, is the sort of open-handed willingness which too-often escapes us but is the essence of surrender. Because Hitchens is willing–because he is more opened than closed–it would not surprise me to see him still here to do some of those things he writes of. He may not have ascended Elisabeth Kübler-Ross’s steps to let his curious mind and open heart explore his new vista, but he has double-timed his way to wisdom.
Whether the wisdom will be “made perfect,†in Christ we may never know. Hitchens is a stubborn cuss, and God knows him well, but the rest of us do not. And no one knows what happens in the deepest recesses of the human heart and soul, in those infinitesimal moments wherein we are still half-here and mostly gone.
Hitchens would hate to know that he is giving deeply Christian instruction, here. That confounding Holy Spirit, again; always using the most surprising of tools, to teach.
Links to the original sources can be found here:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/04/quotes-of-the-day-416/
-
As I hinted, the Bible fascinates me. I read the text and the subtext leaps out at me.
BUT...
...I'm foul-mouthed, ir--if not, sac--religious, I enjoy getting drunk, enjoy chasing whomever I may catch and I think every now and again you have to push your thumbs through somebody's eyes to really get things moving in an acceptable direction.
Apart from that I think I'd make a wonderful Christian.
I don't know if God exists but the "idea" of God is compelling. But all things considered its rather immaterial for me because I don't expect He and I to be seeing much of each other.
This biography puts you in some pretty good company, not the least of which would be St. Augustine of Hippo.
-
This biography puts you in some pretty good company, not the least of which would be St. Augustine of Hippo.
I'm a bunny, not a hippo!
-
I wanted to bump this thread because there is more to the original point.
As I've been trying to dicuss willpower here I was reminded that I neglected a central pillar of that dicussion:
love
A quick glance across scripture leads to some interesting points.
Firstly is the first commandment as recited by the Nazarene, "You SHALL love the Lord..." and of course he followed that, unbidden, with its companion, "You SHALL love your neighbor..."
How can someone be commanded to love? Isn't love a feeling? An unction of the endocrine system?
Surely these ancients were ignorant of basic anatomy and physiology when St. Paul wrote, "Love does not seek its own."
St. Paul is merely paraphrasing his master who said, "If you only love those who love you, you have already received your reward."
It seems loving the stranger who has yet to build the rapport or the neighbor who has done you injury is the hard part. If someone does something which leaves you feeling good/satisfied/pleased/bemused then it is easy enough to reflect those positive feelings back on to them. You are merely returning a portion of something they have already provided to you. None of it came from you and odds are you are keeping more than you are giving back. It is akin to saying, "I'm a swell fellow, I gave that man $10" all the while ignoring the fact he's already given you $20. Even if you gave him $25 dollars he still was willing to give more from his own pocket than you from yours.
So what credit is that to you?
Apparently this Nazarene wants you to exert your will in such ways that you act to the benefit of others absent any positive stimuli or reward.
Human activity absent psycho-physiological response, paternal instinct, a full belly or sexual gratification?
In other words: love HAS to be an act of self-determined willpower otherwise it is meaningless.
What would B. F. Skinner* have to say to that!
* - B. F. Skinner has always been one of those sorts I wanted to sit on his chest while slowly cutting his eyes from their sockets because he says I can. He may be absolutely correct in his theories of determinism but that just makes his eyes so much more prettier.
-
Love is not a feeling, an emotion, whatever. Love is an action, a commitment. An couple that has been married for decades can explain that they love each other even when their emotions are the opposite. It is the choice to put your spouse's wants and needs above your own consistently, as much as humanly possible.
"Love your God" does not mean the childish thing we see when people "fall in love," it means the deliberate choice to put God's wishes above your own, every day, every minute. Of course, we never completely succeed in doing this, but we must continue to strive at it as our only way of giving anything back to the One that gave us Life.
So, yes, we are to exert our will to care for others, to do good to them, to pray for them...especially our enemies. But good works without God are worth nothing because they only affect this world. The good we do must reflect Christ to others so it has an effect on the receiver's eternal life.
-
If "acts of will" are not determined, they are essentially meaningless - they have no reasons at all behind them, by logical necessity.
Free-will, in that sense, fails by the problem of present luck - either choices have reasons behind them, or they don't. If choices have reasons behind them, those reasons are the cause. If there are no reasons for a choice, they are random. If choices are random, there can be no moral responsibility for them.
See http://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2011/01/present-luck-and-little-agents.html
BFA (Basically Free Action) = A is a BFA for S at time t, iff (if and only if) the state of the universe prior to t, coupled with the laws of nature for that universe, are also consistent with S’s not A-ing at t. Or in other words, the prior state of the universe does not necessitate S’s performance of A at t, and is equally compatible with S’s not (~) A-ing at t.
(1) Suppose there is an agent, call him Joe, who performs a BFA (call it “Aâ€) at time t.
(2) From the definition of a BFA, the prior state of the universe and the laws of nature were consistent with ~A. (~ means "not")
(3) In other words, there was another possible universe, which had the same prior universe-states and the same laws of nature, in which Joe did not perform A at time t.
(4) Joe’s personality, thoughts, desires, hopes, beliefs, character traits, dispositions etc. are part of the state of the universe prior to t.
(5) So in the two possible universes under consideration, there is nothing in Joe (i.e. in his personality or mind) that is different.
(6) This implies that nothing in Joe accounts for the difference between his performing A in one universe and not performing A in the other universe.
(7) Which is to say: whether A or ~A obtains is strictly a matter of present luck.
-
I guess we should ask God for a 'test universe' just for Wil... :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: Then he could try to figure out if people have free will, or are really just robots (in contrast to his idea that artificial intelligence can produce robots that are equal to humans, with truly free will???) :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
-
I guess we should ask God for a 'test universe' just for Wil... :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: Then he could try to figure out if people have free will, or are really just robots (in contrast to his idea that artificial intelligence can produce robots that are equal to humans, with truly free will???) :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
No MrsSmith, you miss the true dichotomy - its not "robots" or "free will" - its "there are reasons for your choices" (determinism), or "there are no reasons for your choices" (randomness).
In either case, free-will of you think of it, is nowhere to be seen. Its off somewhere in the same realm where square circles reside :)
And actually, for what its worth, that view isnt necessarily incompatible with Christianity.. as Cavlinists are determinists, and basically agree with the above dichotomy.
-
If "acts of will" are not determined, they are essentially meaningless - they have no reasons at all behind them, by logical necessity.
Free-will, in that sense, fails by the problem of present luck - either choices have reasons behind them, or they don't. If choices have reasons behind them, those reasons are the cause. If there are no reasons for a choice, they are random. If choices are random, there can be no moral responsibility for them...
Are you asserting that all people, given the exact same predicate set of factors for a given event at a given time will all--without variance--make the same judgment?
Or does the theory attempt to become lost in the sauce; i.e. different personal upbringing, different economic factors, a butterfly flapping its wings in the Congo instead of SE Asia?
-
No MrsSmith, you miss the true dichotomy - its not "robots" or "free will" - its "there are reasons for your choices" (determinism), or "there are no reasons for your choices" (randomness).
In either case, free-will of you think of it, is nowhere to be seen. Its off somewhere in the same realm where square circles reside :)
And actually, for what its worth, that view isnt necessarily incompatible with Christianity.. as Cavlinists are determinists, and basically agree with the above dichotomy.
There are definitely reasons for my choices, my reasons. I think them through, and then use my free will to choose what I prefer, or what I've decided is most responsible. This is a normal procedure for mature humans, though not often observed in adolescent or other immature humans. I'm sure you'll find this out someday. :-) :-)
-
There are definitely reasons for my choices, my reasons. I think them through, and then use my free will to choose what I prefer, or what I've decided is most responsible.
In other words, you follow your desires.... see premise #4 in the argument I included in this thread:
(4) Joe’s (or MrsSmith's) personality, thoughts, desires, hopes, beliefs, character traits, dispositions etc. are part of the state of the universe prior to t.
Here are the following premises and conclusions, for your convenience:
(5) So in the two possible universes under consideration, there is nothing in Joe (or MrsSmith) (i.e. in his (her) personality or mind) that is different.
(6) This implies that nothing in Joe (MrsSmith) accounts for the difference between his (her) performing A in one universe and not performing A in the other universe.
(7) Which is to say: whether A or ~A obtains is strictly a matter of present luck.
You have failed to address 5, 6 and 7.. so you either must offer some challenges to them, or you must concede that your choices are either causally determined, or a matter of luck.
-
Are you asserting that all people, given the exact same predicate set of factors for a given event at a given time will all--without variance--make the same judgment?
Sort of. I do think what you say above is true. But in the event that it's not... in the event that both A and ~A could obtain given identical prior states of the universe, then what we normally call "choices" are really just matters of luck... and they have absolutely nothing to do with the agent... definitely, not the stuff moral responsibility is made of.
Or does the theory attempt to become lost in the sauce; i.e. different personal upbringing, different economic factors, a butterfly flapping its wings in the Congo instead of SE Asia?
Well, all those things would mean that there are differing prior states of the universe... so there's no reason to think they would cause the same choices.
-
In other words, you follow your desires.... see premise #4 in the argument I included in this thread:
(4) Joe’s (or MrsSmith's) personality, thoughts, desires, hopes, beliefs, character traits, dispositions etc. are part of the state of the universe prior to t.
Here are the following premises and conclusions, for your convenience:
(5) So in the two possible universes under consideration, there is nothing in Joe (or MrsSmith) (i.e. in his (her) personality or mind) that is different.
(6) This implies that nothing in Joe (MrsSmith) accounts for the difference between his (her) performing A in one universe and not performing A in the other universe.
(7) Which is to say: whether A or ~A obtains is strictly a matter of present luck.
You have failed to address 5, 6 and 7.. so you either must offer some challenges to them, or you must concede that your choices are either causally determined, or a matter of luck.
Reading comprehension again, wil. Even the snip you repeated said:
Quote from: MrsSmith on May 17, 2011, 08:41:37 pm
There are definitely reasons for my choices, my reasons. I think them through, and then use my free will to choose what I prefer, or what I've decided is most responsible.
So, no, I do not "follow my desires" in all choices. Sometimes I choose to do what I desire, but most of the time I choose to do what is responsible instead of what I'd really prefer. They are not causally determined or a matter of luck, they are rationally determined. (As you constantly present yourself as a rational thinker, I'm surprised that you evidently act without any rational basis for your actions! Tsk, tsk...) This is how free will works...and why obedience to God is not forced, but rather chosen.
Though you are correct that I have not responded to your imaginary second universe in which an imaginary MrsSmith may choose to read more often and do less work. I guess you can imagine that universe in any way you choose, since it exists only in your head. (You may feel free to imagine that MrsSmith as hugely fat, also, because if I were not responsible and rational, I would certainly be munching chocolate and other sweets while I read.) In the real universe, things don't work according to your suppositions. That's what happens when the one supposing just happens not to be God. Sorry!
As it is, God sets the standard for the real universe, and He grants us all the ability to make our own choices...and we retain the moral responsibility for those choices even if we imagine a universe in which we chose differently. I will grant that philosophers have been trying forever to find some way to complicate that fact in order to excuse their own moral failings, but they are also not in charge of the universe and cannot grant themselves forgiveness by imagining that God built this place with loopholes the way the government built the tax code. Terribly sorry! But you know, reality is rational, so there is just no escaping the fact that we own our actions and choices. :-)
-
Sort of. I do think what you say above is true. But in the event that it's not... in the event that both A and ~A could obtain given identical prior states of the universe, then what we normally call "choices" are really just matters of luck... and they have absolutely nothing to do with the agent... definitely, not the stuff moral responsibility is made of.
Suppose there were twin sisters of equal religious temperament who both married around the same age to men of equal status and each had the same number of children of roughly the same ages and both discovered after a decade of marriage their respective husbands were involved in adulterous affairs. One sister immediately sought divorce while the other went to counseling with her husband.
-
Reading comprehension again, wil. Even the snip you repeated said:
So, no, I do not "follow my desires" in all choices. Sometimes I choose to do what I desire, but most of the time I choose to do what is responsible instead of what I'd really prefer. They are not causally determined or a matter of luck, they are rationally determined.
Well, lets put aside for a moment the fact that the desire to do what is responsible, over what would be most pleasurable to you in the moment, is, in fact, a desire also... my reading comprehension is just fine. You need to actually pay attention to the argument, because you just agreed with with, without realizing it, and while trying hard not too (heh) - here's premise (4) (for a third time):
(4) Joe’s (or MrsSmith's) personality, thoughts, desires, hopes, beliefs, character traits, dispositions etc. are part of the state of the universe prior to t.
You've stated that your choices are determined by rational deliberation, which means that your choices are determined by prior states of the universe.
Though you are correct that I have not responded to your imaginary second universe in which an imaginary MrsSmith may choose to read more often and do less work. I guess you can imagine that universe in any way you choose, since it exists only in your head. (You may feel free to imagine that MrsSmith as hugely fat, also, because if I were not responsible and rational, I would certainly be munching chocolate and other sweets while I read.) In the real universe, things don't work according to your suppositions. That's what happens when the one supposing just happens not to be God. Sorry!
Oh goodness. You actually need to use the concept of "possible worlds" in order to even describe what "free will" is, in the sense that you mean. Part and parcel of "free will" is that one could have chosen differently (A or ~A). Poking fun at the concept of "possible worlds" leaves you with no conceptual ground to even define the term you are trying to defend....
-
Suppose there were twin sisters of equal religious temperament who both married around the same age to men of equal status and each had the same number of children of roughly the same ages and both discovered after a decade of marriage their respective husbands were involved in adulterous affairs. One sister immediately sought divorce while the other went to counseling with her husband.
Well, I would say their differing choices were the results of minor differences in prior conditions, even though many other prior conditions were very similar.
-
Well, lets put aside for a moment the fact that the desire to do what is responsible, over what would be most pleasurable to you in the moment, is, in fact, a desire also... my reading comprehension is just fine. You need to actually pay attention to the argument, because you just agreed with with, without realizing it, and while trying hard not too (heh) - here's premise (4) (for a third time):
(4) Joe’s (or MrsSmith's) personality, thoughts, desires, hopes, beliefs, character traits, dispositions etc. are part of the state of the universe prior to t.
You've stated that your choices are determined by rational deliberation, which means that your choices are determined by prior states of the universe.
Oh goodness. You actually need to use the concept of "possible worlds" in order to even describe what "free will" is, in the sense that you mean. Part and parcel of "free will" is that one could have chosen differently (A or ~A). Poking fun at the concept of "possible worlds" leaves you with no conceptual ground to even define the term you are trying to defend....
Yes, of course, I must have an imaginary universe in which the "Other MrsSmith" makes the opposite of my every choice before my choices are my own responsibility. If I don't imagine this imaginary universe, then I am a robot with no choice in anything. Right. :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: Well, thanks for the imaginary explanation, but I think I'll just stay in reality, ok?
-
Yes, of course, I must have an imaginary universe in which the "Other MrsSmith" makes the opposite of my every choice before my choices are my own responsibility.
Free will, in the sense that you *want* to defend here, and of the sort discussed by the OP, as a fundamental, requires that your choices could be otherwise, and that it must actually possible for you to choose A, over not A, and vice versa. So if there is no possible world where you choices could have been different, then yes - you are determinist, Mrs Smith. Your "choices" are simply what must have been, not acts of free will.
-
Mr Bunny,
Have you ever had the chance to read Mere Christianity?
-
The premise presupposes itself, i.e. that decisions are based solely on material phenomenon ergo material phenomenon are the basis for all decisions.
That's question begging and as such it is an amateur error.
It also hides itself from falsifiability.
In my supposition of the twin sisters and their wayward husbands the goal posts will forever be further removed the more their prior conditions are said to resemble each other until, at last, it will be claimed the flapping of butterfly wings on different continents was indeed the determining factor.
Then there's this:
personality, thoughts, desires, hopes, beliefs, character traits, dispositions etc. are part of the state of the universe prior to t.
The proposition assumes all these things are not acts of will in and of themselves as if they are merely phenomenon of the universe such as the sun flaring at a given moment. Again, reinforcing the question begging aspect of the formulation.
I have literally slapped people making such arguments. I have even kicked one person in the shin hard enough to send him hobbling away.
I wish I could meet you some day. Are you coming to Colorado any time soon?
-
The premise presupposes itself, i.e. that decisions are based solely on material phenomenon ergo material phenomenon are the basis for all decisions.
The argument just claims that decisions, thoughts, beliefs, characteristics of a person, etc are included in prior states of the universe... perhaps those things are immaterial, and perhaps the universe includes immaterial things, or not.. it doesn't matter for the purposes of the argument. One is free to argue against that premise, but that doesnt make it circular. Remember, for the type of will that Nietzsche speaks of, a BFA (basically free action) must be possible. BFA's are a fundamental concept in libertarian/contra-causal/non-deterministic theories of free-will.
BFA (Basically Free Action) = A is a BFA for S at time t, iff (if and only if) the state of the universe prior to t, coupled with the laws of nature for that universe, are also consistent with S’s not A-ing at t. Or in other words, the prior state of the universe does not necessitate S’s performance of A at t, and is equally compatible with S’s not (~) A-ing at t.
BFA's are necessary for libertarian free-will. But since all characteristics and components of a person X are prior states of the universe, then nothing in a person can account for the choices that they make. So they are matters of luck.
It also hides itself from falsifiability.
Well, it is hard to establish that all those those things in premise 4 are actually prior states of the universe that determine one's choices, sure.. though I'm not sure how falsible or non-falsible it is. But the same objection easily applies to belief in supernatural or contra-casual free will, in spades. So if its a problem for me, its a problem for you (and Nietzsche) too.
In my supposition of the twin sisters and their wayward husbands the goal posts will forever be further removed the more their prior conditions are said to resemble each other until, at last, it will be claimed the flapping of butterfly wings on different continents was indeed the determining factor.
So what? Maybe it was flapping wings of a butterfly - the point of the argument remains, that nothing within the twins accounts for their differing choices. Therefore, there choices were a matter of luck.
Then there's this:
The proposition assumes all these things are not acts of will in and of themselves as if they are merely phenomenon of the universe such as the sun flaring at a given moment. Again, reinforcing the question begging aspect of the formulation.
Well, in the case that all these things are not included in prior states of the universe, and could obtain or not obtain, given the same initial conditions of the universe, then the argument easily applies to them as well. So the problem just gets multiplied. All those things, not just will, are a matter of luck, and nothing within the agent accounts for their actual state.
I have literally slapped people making such arguments. I have even kicked one person in the shin hard enough to send him hobbling away.
I wish I could meet you some day. Are you coming to Colorado any time soon?
Heh - well, you should re-think the snarky accusations - I don't think they hold water. And yea, I got to CO frequently, to snowboard, and to visit family - and there's a good chance I'll end up living there, someday... maybe I'll get shin guards first.
-
Heh - well, you should re-think the snarky accusations - I don't think they hold water.
Oh wilbur.
Would someone else mind give junior here a clue-by-4.