Full determinism means that there is no free will at all. Full determinism is just another way of saying determinism.
If free will coexist with determinism, that view is called compatibilism, but I don't think you argued for that.
Any followers of Christ as pissed off at other so called "Christians" as I am?
- Thread starter Love_Conquers_All
- Start date
If free will coexist with determinism, that view is called compatibilism, but I don't think you argued for that.
Nope I think compatibilism is wrong too.
Insofar as reason can determine the faculty of desire as such, not only choice but also mere wish can be included under the will. That choice which can be determined by pure reason is called free choice. That which can be determined only by inclination (sensible impulse, stimulus) would be animal choice (arbitrium brutum). Human choice, however, is a choice that can indeed be affected but not determined by impulses, and is therefore of itself (apart from an acquired proficiency of reason) not pure but can still be determined to actions by pure will.
- Immanuel Kant
[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]
Also I was thinking while I was out for a walk just now (in the snow, brrrrr) why is free will taken to be a unit, and why is the 'free' part of it so important?
It's almost as if 'no free will' has come to mean 'no will' and that isn't necessarily the case at all.
To have a free man you must have a man. To have a free will you must have a will. The freedom of the man is not dependent on the man being a man, is it? It is possible for a bound man.
So perhaps instead of 'will' we should say 'agency', because even a bound man can have agency.
Also I was thinking while I was out for a walk just now (in the snow, brrrrr) why is free will taken to be a unit, and why is the 'free' part of it so important?
It's almost as if 'no free will' has come to mean 'no will' and that isn't necessarily the case at all.
To have a free man you must have a man. To have a free will you must have a will. The freedom of the man is not dependent on the man being a man, is it? It is possible for a bound man.
So perhaps instead of 'will' we should say 'agency', because even a bound man can have agency.
It depends on what is meant by punishment.
There are 4 distinct purposes for what is commonly called punishment.
1.) To satiate the ill will that victims have for those who wronged them.
2.) To teach the wrongdoer to be a better person, or at least to refrain from future bad acts for fear of more punishment
3.) To make an example of the wrongdoer so that others are afraid to commit similar bad acts in the future.
4.) To keep those who are likely to offend again away from those who would otherwise become future victims.
The original languages apparently did not use the same terms for all these forms of punishment.
1.
This is ideally done by having the wrongdoer restore whatever was damaged and provide some service to the victims in restitution, so that both parties can go on to have a positive relationship. This is however not always possible. In some cases the wrongdoer may be incapable of helping his victims, and some victims may be vindictive enough that they want be paid in the satisfaction they think they will get from seeing their malefactor suffer.
This is the one most properly called Punishment, as that word comes from the Latin Poena which originally meant "blood-money" (a bribe that a killer or his relatives paid to the relatives of the deceased in order to avoid retribution). The bible apparently never uses the Greek equivalent of this in relation to God, although it does use the term when Paul punishes those who anger him by disrupting a church service.
There is not much that humans could do to provide a benefit which an omnipotent being with something he could not easily get without us.
Augustine and those who followed his school of thought (including most of Catholicism, Martin Luther, John Calvin, etc) had this idea about how even the most minor offense against a being of infinite dignity is infinitely offensive and so all sins deserve infinite punishment as nothing could ever be enough to satisfy God. It seems to me however that it would make at least as much sense to argue that even the greatest sin against such a being could be no more than infinitesimal.
It would not speak well of God's character if he were the vengeful sort. Many of the early church fathers denied that God would ever act like this, and so advocated Universal Reconciliation or Conditional Immortality instead of Eternal Damnation.
2.
This is more properly called chastisement than punishment. The Greek word used in the bible apparently literally means "to increase the value of." This is an act of love, not vengeance. The bible often describes God as chastening in this way.
This can be used to justify punishing/chastising criminals as well as misbehaving children. (Empirical research shows that harsh punishments like spanking, time outs, and yelling tend to be very counterproductive. However, the term chastisement also includes calmly reasoned explanations of why a deed was wrong and how it could be avoided. Such explanations can really help a child's development.)
It can also be used to justify a temporary version of hell as is commonly (not universally) believed in the other Abrahamic religions and was a not uncommon belief in Christianity before Augustine's writings became so popular. Those like Origin believed that some souls (like the devil himself) could endure great suffering for much longer than the word has existed, but that it would inevitably lead eventually to improving the soul's quality so that it is made fit for paradise. Even the most wicked would become saints eventually, and would thank God for causing them what temporarily seemed like harm but which they would come to recognize as the greatest possible kindness.
It could however never possibly be used to justify any form of eternal punishment, where it is impossible for chastisement to reach its goal.
3.
This is the main reason for harsh punishments in this world, particularly those carried out by secular governments. For this to make any sense, however, others must be able to witness the negative consequences. As such, it may make sense for this reason for karmic divine punishments to happen in this life, and maybe even for punishments in the forms of extremely dishonorable deaths or shameful disposals of bodies. It could make sense if we on Earth could actually look somewhere and witness souls of the dead being tortured. It however makes no sense whatsoever for this to justify punishing a soul after death in any way that the living cannot clearly verify. An exception could be made only if we assume that spirits of the dead could witness the suffering and then be reincarnated (perhaps in a new world after this one passes away) with memory of what they saw.
4.
This is the justification for the death penalty or life imprisonment for the most dangerous criminals.
This could also justify keeping sinners them locked away forever unable to interact with those enjoying eternal paradise. It does not justify inflicting any extra suffering. Isolation alone could be so very emotionally painful that annihilation may be a kinder alternative. For those who believe that God is not only the creator but also sustained of all things, then He need not actively destroy anything but merely withdraw his sustaining grace for the unrepentant sinners to painlessly cease to exist.
[MENTION=2648]magister343[/MENTION]
Yes, I understood these before hand.
1.) To satiate the ill will that victims have for those who wronged them.
Victims aren't necessarily innocent. It might be pragmatic to satiate ill will, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is moral to continue the enabling of it.
2.) To teach the wrongdoer to be a better person, or at least to refrain from future bad acts for fear of more punishment
I find that it is unlikely to do the former, and the latter is getting them to stop for the wrong reasons.
3.) To make an example of the wrongdoer so that others are afraid to commit similar bad acts in the future.
While pragmatic, once again I feel that this makes people obedient for the wrong reasons. It doesn't actually change anyone, and may often simply lead to hopes of not getting caught.
4.) To keep those who are likely to offend again away from those who would otherwise become future victims.
This is the best reason I can think of, but I also don't need to call this one punishment.
As for the rest, it's an interesting read.
Yes I think chastisement is different. Like with the child touching fire example given earlier, you want to educate them, not just arbitrarily make them obey your commands. Forcing them to simply obey you makes it just about you and whether they defy you or not, and can end up very ego filled. You don't really want correction just because "I told you so" but rather you want it for their safety and if anything obedience should just be the tool that facilitates correction to that end. This should not really involve punishment because while curiosity can hurt the child, it is not a crime, and to make it a punishment for disobedience misplaces the importance of what you should be doing there.
Yes, I understood these before hand.
1.) To satiate the ill will that victims have for those who wronged them.
Victims aren't necessarily innocent. It might be pragmatic to satiate ill will, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is moral to continue the enabling of it.
2.) To teach the wrongdoer to be a better person, or at least to refrain from future bad acts for fear of more punishment
I find that it is unlikely to do the former, and the latter is getting them to stop for the wrong reasons.
3.) To make an example of the wrongdoer so that others are afraid to commit similar bad acts in the future.
While pragmatic, once again I feel that this makes people obedient for the wrong reasons. It doesn't actually change anyone, and may often simply lead to hopes of not getting caught.
4.) To keep those who are likely to offend again away from those who would otherwise become future victims.
This is the best reason I can think of, but I also don't need to call this one punishment.
As for the rest, it's an interesting read.
Yes I think chastisement is different. Like with the child touching fire example given earlier, you want to educate them, not just arbitrarily make them obey your commands. Forcing them to simply obey you makes it just about you and whether they defy you or not, and can end up very ego filled. You don't really want correction just because "I told you so" but rather you want it for their safety and if anything obedience should just be the tool that facilitates correction to that end. This should not really involve punishment because while curiosity can hurt the child, it is not a crime, and to make it a punishment for disobedience misplaces the importance of what you should be doing there.
Yes, a absence of free will doesn't implies a absence of will. What it implies is a lack of the element of choice, the power to transcend and make a choice.
The question is usually raised like this: Me in replying to you, I did make a chice or not? If I made a choice, it means that chosing otherwise, which is not r
replying to you, would have been a real possibility. So I could freely chose to reply to you or not, and in replying to you, I make a choice, I chose A intead of non A.
But if I have no free will, then I have just will, driven by blind causes. In replying to you, that was the only possibility, and the reality could not had been in another way. Everything was caused for me to will in that way, by purely causual events.
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.
I don't know about you but with me, there are times where no decision is involved. There's other times when I'm definitely thinking about the choice first (this is one of them) do I reply or not, and how?
Other times I just find myself already typing.
Anyway. I find a distinct lack of consideration of the social organism to be present in a lot of discussions about will. So often we're looking at what just one individual does in a vacuum and I don't think that this is how it works, and this is why the definition seems problematic - the approach is short sighted and not holistic enough. For example things like hazing or battered person syndrome are often ignored even though these are very well understood to alter behaviors and the way people think and approach their options.
In other words, maybe you're making a choice. I don't think it's as simple as you making a choice only.
Edit: also I don't know about you but I can write some fairly articulate and complex responses right out of muscle memory and some times it gets to the point where I have to reread my posts to see if I really wrote a certain thing. I can type full paragraphs, get up, walk away and start making a pot of coffee before the implications fully set in. This is literal and no joke.
Last edited:
Yeah. Im advocating the compatibilism view, which basically states that there is a certain degree of determinism, but also there is free will. I think is the best position. So yes, I agree that the problem is much more comples, and can't be reduced. I'll writte more, but I'm on my mobile, so I'll try tomorow to explain why I think compatibilism it seem the best view to me.
................................
Your experiences are interesting. I think I made have experienced somethink similar, but I'm not sure.
For example, recently I had to present and talk about the Nazi holocaust, and its moral and philosophycal implications in a highschool. I prepared hard, and my former history teacher, which was the man of the project, helped me all the work. Most of the ideas which I would had to present were his ideas, so he prepared me. But I remember I was so nervous when the presentation started, that I forgot all my thoughts(at least thats what I thought). So I would had times during the begining of presentations, were I would just keep talking, whithout thinking at what should I say, but funny enough, thinking in a very linear and clear way at other things, for example at counter points and other possible explanations of what were the points I would present. Yet in the same time, I was presenting verbally the points in front of the audience, with no apparent conscious effort. It was like I was a robot while presenting, but consciously thinking clearly at other things.
Looking behind now, I realised that maybe it was just that prepared my points alot. But it was something really interesting and different still.
[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION] Yes it's kind of like your experience I guess. Except I don't really need advanced preparation (though I'm sure it's often things that have been said some way before)
A lot of times when I'm posting I'm alternating solving a Rubik's cube and typing and am kind of going "meh" about both and thinking about neither.
A lot of times when I'm posting I'm alternating solving a Rubik's cube and typing and am kind of going "meh" about both and thinking about neither.
I think its a kind of double tasking.
Its like you perform two actions. One is in the background, going under limited attention and concentration. Its like a powerful inertial flux that keeps going, while the other process has the main attention and concentration. Maybe its a thing of Ni, because Ni identifies patterns.
If the things I say here are sometimes scathing, it’s because those same questions are scathing questions in my own mind. There ARE things in the Bible that contradict themselves...I’m just trying to figure it out with the rest of them in regards to the way Christianity presents it’s face in the modern world. If you look at many many churches today, they clearly contradict the teachings of Jesus...all you have to do is turn on the 700 club and you’ll see them taking political sides, preaching discontent, preaching things with an underlying note of intolerance, telling people to donate to them right after those folks that called in talk about how they cannot pay their bills. It’s very frustrating to me personally. I doubt Jesus would exclude ANYONE because of political, sexual, or any other orientation. Jesus spoke with and comforted the scum of the earth and never spoke down to them.
If it seems at times that I am trying to subvert this thread or any other thread...it is only because those are the questions that I have in my own mind that don’t make sense to me.
Years ago when I studied the Bible, without a computer, it was rare to find someone that knew what was bothering me. Had a friend's grandfather's Funk and Wagnalls Study Books given to me when the preacher passed away. It was many books. It was like concordances with many explanations. I just couldn't wait to look up something that had been bothering me in Romans 8. The page had been cut out. My point is I doubt anyone has all the answers. I learned more than I bargained for, though, just searching for the truth of it all. Many doors and windows were opened, and my eyes were opened.
With all the modern technology and cautious choices, there is no need to ask any more. Martin Luther and Thomas Aquinas: folk like that: spent lifetimes trying to make things easier for us. If you seek, you will find. I kind of like sharing with others rather than seemingly having to take the defensive. See how much of my picture I shared with you? It comes in bits and pieces, and as you search for one thing you will find yourself continually searching as new things come to mind. It is a path, and well worth taking if for the right reasons.
Skarekrow, you at least believe there is a God. Have you read the Bible at least once, all of it? Have you try to understand it? And I'm asking you honestly this.
You say there are contradictions in Bible. I don't think that's true. There are only apparent contradictions. There is not a single intrinsic contradiction in Bible.
There are books written to explain these dificulties, have you tried to read one of them?
You said earlier in this thread that where are the promises that God made to Israel. Do you know that many atheists became christians because of the many fulfilled prophecies in the Bible, and most of them regarding the jews people?
"Give me in two words a reason why the Bible is the Word of God" Napoleon asked his cancelar. He responded:
"Jews, Majesty!"
There are many prophecies in the Bible , and most of them are fullfiled. This should be enough to give anyone to think. Cheers!
I am not trying to put anyone on the defensive. These are the same questions that I have tried to find the answers to and have come to a complete stop. Free-will, no free will? I guess it doesn’t really matter in the long run...but it matters to me...these are the things that gnaw at my mind. These are the things that I think are preventing me from having real faith in something.
I HAVE actually read the Bible LucyJr...and yes, I have tried to understand it.
You say there aren’t contradictions in the Bible...and I say there are definitely contradictions, omissions, and changes...made throughout history.
One could easily argue that and similarities between the history of the Jews and the stories in the Bible firstly aren’t any more accurate than the prophecies of Nostradamus....secondly, easily altered throughout history...as there is clear evidence that the Bible has been altered.
Yes...there are STILL the teachings of Christ there...Yes, there are wonderful parables....Yes, it is a good, honest, and healthy way to live ones life according to...I understand your reasoning on that as we have discussed before.
But being one who seems to have no faith...and that is no faith in anything albeit for a few people in my life, then nothing else....not because I choose that, but that is how my mind seems to be wired.
But I cannot adhere to the idea that the Bible is the perfect word of God knowing the history of the book itself...as much as I may want to.
Men have used it to control others for as long as it has been around...the whole idea and word of “Hell” itself has been obviously and dramatically altered to hold over the heads of the masses.
The word NEVER existed in the Bible.
Not once.
It’s things like that, that just ruin it for me...that cast huge doubt in my mind.
I’ve been told to just blindly have faith and cast my doubts aside...really? Is that what God would want us to do? If so, then we truly DO NOT have free will. We have inquiring, curious minds for a reason...even Jesus had his own doubt about his OWN Father....once in the garden, and again on the cross. I would think God would want a person to constantly question their faith.
“Doubt isn't the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith.” - Paul Tillich
If you look into the Eastern Peshita text or however it's spelled. I think it will help you a lot. Also there is a group who did a transliteration from it called the Aramaic English New Testament.
www.aent.com also for the old testament Find a direct Hebrew to English transliteration. If you go back to as original as possible you will find that there are not any contradictions.
Omissions and changes, all very insignificant, whithout touching any doctrines are made indeed throughout history. Most of them are copists error. There are plausible explanations of each of these difficulties. Have you read N.T. Wright?
As for the contradictions, I don't think there is one in the Bible. And I'm speaking about intrinsic contradiction. For example, God is omnipotent, yet He said He can not lie. Now that's not a contradiction at all. You just have to read the Bible to understand the nature of God.
Have you checked the book of Isaiah? The Dead Sea scroll its dated around 300-100 BC. There are some prophecies that have fulfilled AFTER that period, so you can't say that the Isaiah book had been altered.
The most important prophecy is the worldwide return of the jews to Jerusalem, in Isaiah 43:5-6. This begun around 1900, when the jews begun to gather in their country. During the past 100 years, Jews living as far east as China, as far west as the West Coast of the United States, as far north as Scandinavia, and as far south as South Africa, have moved to Israel, just like the Bible says:
Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth…
In The House of The Dead by Dostoievski if you remember (because I know you mentioned you very much liked the book), there is a jew there who would pray weekly and cry for the return of the jews in Jerusalem, as it was prophecied. I've found the passage in English:
The eve of each Saturday the convicts came from the other barracks to ours, expressly to see Isaiah Fomitch celebrating his Sabbath. He was so vain, so innocently conceited, that this general curiosity flattered him immensely. He covered the table in his little corner[Pg 137] with a pedantic air of importance, opened a book, lighted two candles, muttered some mysterious words, and clothed himself in a kind of chasuble, striped, and with sleeves, which he preserved carefully at the bottom of his trunk. He fastened to his hands leather bracelets, and finally attached to his forehead, by means of a ribbon, a little box, which made it seem as if a horn were starting from his head. He then began to pray. He read in a drawling voice, cried out, spat, and threw himself about with wild and comic gestures. All this was prescribed by the ceremonies of his religion. There was nothing laughable or strange in it, except the airs which Isaiah Fomitch gave himself before us in performing his ceremonies. Then he suddenly covered his head with both hands, and began to read with many sobs. His tears increased, and in his grief he almost lay down upon the book his head with the ark upon it, howling as he did so; but suddenly in the midst of his despondent sobs he burst into a laugh, and recited with a nasal twang a hymn of triumph, as if he were overcome by an excess of happiness.
"Impossible to understand it," the convicts would sometimes say to one another. One day I asked Isaiah Fomitch what these sobs signified, and why he passed so suddenly from despair to triumphant happiness. Isaiah Fomitch was very pleased when I asked him these questions. He explained to me directly that the sobs and tears were provoked by the loss of Jerusalem, and that the law ordered the pious Jew to groan and strike his breast; but at the moment of his most acute grief he was suddenly to remember that a prophecy had foretold the return of the Jews to Jerusalem, and he was then to manifest overflowing joy, to sing, to laugh, and to recite his prayers with an expression of happiness in his voice and on his countenance. This sudden passage from one phase of feeling to another delighted Isaiah Fomitch, and he explained to me this ingenious prescription of his faith with the greatest satisfaction.
He was mocked for his prayers. Little had Dostoievski knew, and the jew too. The book was published in 1861. In 1947, on 29 november, the Israel state was founded. There also many prophecies in Isaiah, some of them about how Israel will deafeat its enemies, and I think you know the history after the foundation of the Israel state.
As for the Nostradamus prophecies, I don't know, the Bible say the Devil can make wonders and prophecy. Anyway, even if Nostradamus have some prophecies fullfiled, I don't think this prophecies can be compared to the accuracy and magnitude of Bible prophecies. But I'll check Nostradamus, because I know little about him and his life.
I appreciate your view on Jesus. But Jesus had claimed that the Scriptures (Old Testament) is the Word of God. He quoted many passages from Old Testament to suport his teachings, and especially the law of Moses. How do you think about that?
Yes, but I think you agree with me that even the pharisees would use the Scriptures to control the people, yet Jesus never said because of that the Scriptures are wrong or fake. In fact, he sayd the exactly opposite, and articulated the importance of correct understanding of Scriptures.
As for the Hell, the word never appear in the Bible, but it appear as a "lake of fire". Jesus talked about that. So I don't know from where you have this idea that 'hell' is a invented concept to control the people.
And I also think you have an emotional problem with Hell, not a intelectual one. There is no intrinsic contradiction between a Loving God yet Just, and a eternal "lake of fire".
I agree with the quote, Skarekrow. But to be in doubt, you first have to believe. When you believe there is faith vs doubt. That's why doubt can be a virtue sometimes, but only if you are a believer.
And yes, I don't agree "to just blindly have faith and cast my doubts aside". Never do that. If you can't believe, then that's it. There is nothing bad about that.
Aside from that, I just want to tell there are other evidences for the Bible, much more powerful. These are the evidences that the apostle Paul was talking about, the conscience and the heart of a man, the inner voice of every man. The teaching on sin. There is sin, and its burden is unbeareble, yet people try to diminished that voice over and over again, until their conscience becomes "seared", as the Bible say. Why there is guilt? Its just a mistake of evolutionary processes, or its there for a reason?
It was not the prophecies that lead me to believe in Bible as the Word of God, nor any other thing, as much it was sin, the teachings on sin, on the evilness of man. After all, that's the essence of Christianity. Jesus Christ came to "lift the sins of the world".
Hope we'll talk more. Cheers!
Belief is not a choice.
It also just came to me in an epiphany that we don't actually have free will. If we have free will then why aren't we perfect?
Riddle me this - If the choice can be clearly rationalized then why in fuckall does anyone ever knowingly do anything suboptimal and contrary?
It also just came to me in an epiphany that we don't actually have free will. If we have free will then why aren't we perfect?
Riddle me this - If the choice can be clearly rationalized then why in fuckall does anyone ever knowingly do anything suboptimal and contrary?
Yep, this is very true in the sense that there is not completely certain anything, so therefore we are compelled to believe. For example, I can't know for 100% sure that me writting now is real, although by reasoning I would come to the conclusion that I have very good reasons to believe that, so I'm compelled to believe it. If I don't have very good reasons to believe that whay me writting now is reality, then I would not believe that, instead I would believe something else, namely that me writting is a ilusion. But that would still be a belief, not something 100% provable.
I've always thinked of it in this way: Reason (or thinking) shows the direction, the most plausible and most probable solution, and then it comes the pass of faith, to actually believe in that line of reasoning. Reason is the direction, faith is the drive, the energy. Doubt would be the lack of gasoline I guess.
Do you mean the element of temptation, or wrong desires that "steals" the power of choice or something like that?
Temptation and conscience both.
I had this epiphany while I was tempted to do a bad thing just minutes ago. It became clear to me that the voice of temptation was not my own.
However it also became clear that the voice of conscience was also not my own. They simply fought each other and conscience won. Nowhere did my own choice get in. I never asked for the temptation and I never asked for the conscience to jump in and save me from it either.