|
Post by alwaysalone on Apr 21, 2006 16:58:10 GMT -5
Hello everyone! Obviously I'm new, so I just read this thread today and I have to reply to it. I have to talk about the Bible regarding this though. I believe in free will - that God gave humans free will to do good or to do evil. It's our choice. He of course wants us to choose the good (Deut. 30:19-20) and not the evil. In Genesis God gave Adam and Eve a choice. I realize that some may not read it that way, but He did. He told them not to take of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, lest they die. Then in chapter 3, the serpent talked to Eve and deceived her and she ate the fruit and gave to her husband Adam, and he also ate. They could have chosen NOT to eat the fruit, but they chose TO EAT the fruit. I realize I speak in simplistic terms. I'm not a philosopher nor into philosophy. I like reading the Bible, that is also one of my interests, besides the interests I mentioned in the introduction thread/post. This is just my opinion and now I say "Adieu" Take care
|
|
|
Post by shypoet on Apr 22, 2006 15:26:02 GMT -5
If I may weigh in as an interloper (of sorts):
I recall Dostoevsky's Underground Man and his assertion that, should humanity be stripped of free will in the imposition of scientific determinism, there would still emerge a maverick to lure people back to a 'free existence', which the Underground Man defines in terms of willful self-degradation and frivolity. I had a question: let us presume that free will is a true state and that it entails humankind's efforts, conscious or subconscious, to destroy him/herself. Let us also presume that mental illness is a societal invention-that people with abnormal sensitivity and awareness of themselves are stigmatized and shunted to the corner and therefore develop an intensity of perception or perhaps a series of behaviors that 'normal' people deem significant of mental irregularity. Now, to piece the two presumptions: If man is bound to destroy himself, and if we consider mental illness either as the ultimate form of destruction or a byproduct of intense sensibility, is so-called mental illness a strange assertion of "free will" against a society in which conformity seems to inhibit natural expression, OR is mental illness the end result of free will (i.e. men and women exercise their liberty, or simply act differently, and are destroyed by their attempts not to conform)? Do you think our true mavericks are those who display certain behavioral aberrations and are, for the comfort of the inhibited, are tagged as the sick?
Rather a convoluted question-my apologies.
-Shypoet
|
|
|
Post by zaab on Apr 22, 2006 16:03:23 GMT -5
I think we operate under a paradox. Though there are a multitude of forces, both consciously realized and operating beneath the surface, constraining the choices we make of our own volition, these constraints are the very thing that ultimately makes free will possible. If it weren't for these strictures, and our will was completely unfettered, we'd be faced with an impossible array of choices and would, ironically, be in a state of mental paralysis.
But I think after all the externalities are factored in, we are still left with a number of choices that we pursue or not based on a mental process that is not completely predictable. We have a certain freedom to interpret or misinterpret past events and other external influences to in turn make a decision on what to do. At any one time, depending on the strength of the constraints acting against us, the choice may be narrowed considerably and almost down to one, but in most circumstances and for most people I think there is almost always more than one possibility. People will choose what makes them happy, but for any given person in most situations, there are at least several routes to fulfilling that happiness, and I would argue that most of the time we are not so constrained that we lack the ability to choose among these paths.
|
|
|
Post by respectful on Apr 27, 2006 10:20:08 GMT -5
Yeah
When it comes to free choice, I often think of the story about children who have been born drug addicts due to the parent(s) addiction. Or the twins separated at birth who were brought up in totally different environments. One lost care for their life and indulged in all things without constraint because of the way they were treated, while the other was taught to value their life and work in this world and grew accordingly. There are extenuating circumstances in these cases - this becomes more apparent when it's realized how little choice one has in their life, especially in the formative years.
I was brought up very strictly and so I appreciate my heritage; however that strictness was also excessive in a way which became very damaging to me.
I have often thought that the Gospel ought to be entrusted to Naturopaths for awhile. They sit down with you and work out all the good things you are eating, and then afterwards take care in suggesting the things that you are eating which may be detrimental to you. At least they give you a chance.
metwocents
|
|
|
Post by deadendphilosopher on Apr 27, 2006 17:55:41 GMT -5
alwaysalone: You are of course entitled to your opinion, I just wish you were into philosophy and were willing to analyse what you said as deeply as possible, as it doesn't address the mechanics of choosing. Perhaps someone else with the same view could explain it philosophically? I am very interested in people's religious perspectives.
shypoet: Wow. You have a really big vocabulary, and I don't have time to look all the words I don't know up right now, so I won't pretend to have understood everything you said. However, what I did understand was very interesting. Will you elaborate?
zaab: But do these paths make us equally happy? And if so, how would we choose? It seems to me that if faced with a situation with different but equally appealing chioces, we would choose completely randomly, and does a random choice really qualify as a choice?
respectful: But does one really have any choice in life? I agree with what you said about the naturopaths though. I don't think many people realize how big of an effect food has on the physiology.
|
|
|
Post by respectful on Apr 27, 2006 20:34:19 GMT -5
I guess I was trying to answer "alwaysalone's" post indirectly with the analogy of the child born as a drug addict. In other words moral choice is not genetic, no matter what one's forebearers did or chose. A person say thrown through a window can never be guilty of that event. They may be guilty of negligence by being amongst people they know they shouldn't have, but can never be held guilty for an offence which they had not intended. It's all about intention or ultimate intention. The Gospel is often presented as though we are born guilty, but this is incorrect and cannot be the case. What we have inherited from the first pair is a bodily propensity like the child addict. Before the time of Adam and Eve's downfall, the body had not known the dominion or craving for the lustful side of things. Eve knew in her mind she shouldn't eat that fruit - her bodily sensibilities were appealed to and enlivened, and then she *yielded her reason to her bodily instincts. (this same process is the great struggle of life throughout history) This is vital - "*yielded her reason to her bodily instincts" This gave her body a dominion over her mind for the first time - and having tasted of this it cries for its satisfaction. ...."But does one really have any choice in life?".. I guess I would call it "qualified choice" I started a list on another board about all the things we had no choice about........ Our name place of birth gender color appearance nationality parents early influences food/sustenance - in the early years Maybe you'd like to add to the list
|
|
|
Post by sushiboat on Apr 27, 2006 20:54:08 GMT -5
Eve knew in her mind she shouldn't eat that fruit - her bodily sensibilities were appealed to and enlivened, and then she *yielded her reason to her bodily instincts. (this same process is the great struggle of life throughout history) In this story, would God, given the same opportunity, have made the same choice? No, because it isn't in his nature. If God had made Eve with a different nature, more like himself, then she would have made a different choice. The creator is responsible for the imperfections of his creations.
|
|
|
Post by respectful on Apr 27, 2006 21:29:26 GMT -5
Interesting point, I guess the word detach comes to mind in that mankind needed to be able to make autonomous choice whether to yield to their bodily instincts or not. I really don't see it as a nature thing but clearly external persausives were in play that were deceitful. (Eve could not draw upon any strengths/principles of any heritage - that we have at our disposal)
I think I am leaning more and more the way you suggest, which in my mind does beg an answer, if this is the case. The answer I see is "mercy" in which appeals can ultimately be made to every person that their choices were not free from outside factors.
This appeal could only be made wisely at the right time in the process, so as not to give license to those who would abuse it.
r
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Apr 27, 2006 22:12:32 GMT -5
i think we do have choice - even though we are a product of our upbringing memories and experiences, if we are aware of this we can make choices that contradict everything we know so far.
|
|
|
Post by lowselfesteem on Apr 28, 2006 8:21:28 GMT -5
This is a Physics perspective. Bare with me on this. There's a scientific theory that says all possible outcomes in a situation occur and all but one outcome occurs in a parallel universe. Simply put, this means that if you flip a coin and get a heads then in another universe you will have gotten a tails (it's a bit more complicated than this but you get the picture). This would also be the same for choices made by humans. If you decide to turn left when you leave your house then an alternate 'you' would decide to turn right. So, if you take this to be true then we have no free-will. But that doesn't mean that the future is determined.
|
|
|
Post by Paulinus on Apr 28, 2006 14:10:47 GMT -5
There's a scientific theory that says all possible outcomes in a situation occur and all but one outcome occurs in a parallel universe. Simply put, this means that if you flip a coin and get a heads then in another universe you will have gotten a tails (it's a bit more complicated than this but you get the picture). ooh the Ace Rimmer perspective ;D I wonder if there is an ultra successful Ace Pauly out there in a parallel universe
|
|
|
Post by Stranger on Apr 30, 2006 8:00:57 GMT -5
There's a scientific theory that says all possible outcomes in a situation occur and all but one outcome occurs in a parallel universe. Simply put, this means that if you flip a coin and get a heads then in another universe you will have gotten a tails (it's a bit more complicated than this but you get the picture). Sounds more like a sci-fi theory (yeah, Red Dwarf rocks ), though I guess no scientific theory can disprove it. There was some slashdot discussion the other day that reminded me of this thread.
|
|
|
Post by christfollower on May 1, 2006 8:55:57 GMT -5
I think we all have free will.
Though I am not sure of the alternate or parallel universes. Does make for great schi-fi movies. I used to watch "Sliders" thought it was a fun show. I think we are given choices on a daily basis and how we make those choices affects future outcomes. Last years -best movie of the year - "Crashed" was about this. I like how they tied everything together.
|
|
|
Post by deadendphilosopher on May 3, 2006 14:05:11 GMT -5
i think we do have choice - even though we are a product of our upbringing memories and experiences, if we are aware of this we can make choices that contradict everything we know so far. But becoming aware of this is also a product of our upbringing, memories, and experiences, and whether or not we will choose to contradict everything we know so far is a result of our prior knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by deadendphilosopher on May 3, 2006 14:21:20 GMT -5
This is a Physics perspective. Bare with me on this. There's a scientific theory that says all possible outcomes in a situation occur and all but one outcome occurs in a parallel universe. Simply put, this means that if you flip a coin and get a heads then in another universe you will have gotten a tails (it's a bit more complicated than this but you get the picture). This would also be the same for choices made by humans. If you decide to turn left when you leave your house then an alternate 'you' would decide to turn right. So, if you take this to be true then we have no free-will. But that doesn't mean that the future is determined. I have heard of this before. It's really interesting, but I'm not sure if I completely get it. Is there a different universe for each possible outcome? And why wouldn't that mean the future is determined? Wouldn't it mean everything was destined to happen? Does this theory say if everything happens at once? And what exactly is meant by all possible outcomes? You used the example of flipping a coin and getting heads in one universe, and tails in another, but wouldn't another possibility be for the coin to be destroyed? I mean when you say all possible outcomes do you mean ALL possible outcomes? And what qualifies as possible? I am so fascinated by this kind of thing, please, please, please answer my questions!
|
|