Free Will (Continued from Game Action thread)

This thread is a little personal for me. I had a bad time with religion. Hence, I have changed my stance to where I believe what Jesus said. He said "God is inside us. Not outside."

So, when I am in pain, I pray. When I am in sorrow, I pray. When I am in need, I pray. When I am in trouble, I pray. If I am confused, I pray.

Does that mean that God answers each and everytime I pray? No. Does that mean He is not around? No. To me, it means that He hears me, but its up to Him to answer. Each and everytime I wanted to turn my back on myself or humanity in general, there was something that happened to ME that cannot be explained. Luck? I don't know. But luck is when you guess the right 6 numbers in the lotto and not when you crash into a tree at 60mph, with no seatbelts around you and you only suffer a busted lip. He might not help help me now when I want a Mercedes for my birthday, but for the couple of times that I thought there was no way out for me or my family, somehow, someway, I/we made it out.

I let my guidance come from my conscious which I believe is led by my constant belief that God is in everyone and He can lead you if you just listen to Him inside you. Everything won't be golden. But I would rather starve and have inner peace, then to have Him answer me with riches and wealth and have me crying inside.

We should all just let our conscious guide us. You don't need to read the Bible to know that everyone is evil and at the same time, everyone is good. Don't you think evil things alot? No matter how good you are, you have evil inside you. What about that time when you just wanted to punch someone in the mouth when they told you that if it wasn't for Jordan retiring, the Rockets would be ringless? But did you punch them? No. Why? Because your conscious tells you not to. And that, my friend, is God speaking to you.

------------------
Live Rocketball. Breathe Rocketball. Die with Rocketball.




[This message has been edited by Almu (edited December 12, 1999).]

 

I still don't see a practical answer to my original question: If God intervenes in the world (which I don't think He does), then how do you explain why innocent people who pray to him for help nevertheless starve and are slaughtered by the millions?

Thacabbage answers that those people are rewarded in the afterlife. This answer may be true, but it is completely unverifiable. I could just as easily assert that only Rockets fans go to Heaven, and all Jazz fans go to Hell. You could reply that my belief must be false because God is by definition good, and it would be evil to send all Jazz fans to hell. But then I would offer this reply in turn: Every religion that claims that its adherents go to Heaven and that those who rejects its teachings go to Hell is just as irrational. My argument for this point is that no truly just and loving God would condemn to eternal suffering a person who lived a just and loving life but did not acknowledge God's existence. In my opinion, no deity who so categorically defies the human understanding of goodness and mercy -- and we have no other ultimate basis on which to make this fundamental decision -- is worth worshipping.

Furthermore, there is an empirical argument against the afterlife as a rationale for God's apparent toleration of evil. Historically, theories of an afterlife have been offered by religions, and embraced by suffering people, to justify oppression. Religions taught poor people that their suffering in this life would be rewarded in the next. Slaves told themselves and each other that they would finally get justice and happiness in the afterlife. The result of these stories -- which in my opinion was intended by the religions that promulgated them -- was that slaves and poor people endured their lot in life and did not rebel. Thus, justice in this world was delayed or denied in the name of justice in the next. This observation does not prove that theories of the afterlife are false. But it ought to cast well-founded suspicion on them.

 

"My argument for this point is that no truly just and loving God would condemn to eternal suffering a person who lived a just and loving life but did not acknowledge God's existence. In my opinion, no deity who so categorically defies the human understanding of goodness and mercy -- and we have no other ultimate basis on which to make this fundamental decision -- is worth worshipping."

Will- that was one of my biggest beefs with religion a few years ago. Reading some of Dante's stuff really turned me off because people were condemned to horrible punishments for rather petty "sins." God basically comes off as a jealous and bitter hypocrite who unjustly punishes imperfect people.

Of course <U>The Inferno</U> is a work of fiction, but there is still the whole issue of an ancient higher caste possibly creating religion to keep the workers/slaves/untouchables in submission. I don't particularly believe this theory because, like Almu, just way too many turnarounds happen in my life to be a coincidence.

As for not answering the prayers of the millions of starving people, I've got to go with Cabbage on this one. The people that are praying are going to get their due in the afterlife. True, it can't be proven, but isn't having blind faith the point of most religions?

But if a God really doesn't exist, if there really is no other purpose to the random chemical reaction known as life than instinctive survival, who cares? All it does is prove to a certain extent that Social Darwinism is correct and that civilization (for the most part) is a waste. It's not like 60-70 years of praying, hoping, and being good seem all that long compared to an eternity of nothingness.

It sure would make morality seem like a horrible waste of conciousness.

[This message has been edited by AntiSonic (edited December 12, 1999).]

 

Will,

Didn't even know that was the original question! But, since you asked it...

That seems to be an age old question by agnostics and atheists: if God cares, why do good people suffer?

You could use the laws of karma - whatever you do bad in this life or any other comes back to you.

You could say that God allows it because of some grand design that we don't fully understand.

I tend to like the Buddhist philosophy embodied in what they call "The Four Noble Truths." It helps to know that Buddhists believe that God is not an entity, but rather a state of conciousness. The Truths are:

1. Life is suffering.
This is something we just can't avoid and yet do everything possible to avoid it.

2. Life is suffering because of attachment.
We spend our whole lives striving for things. We worry over what might happen or regret what has. We are attached to the outcome of everything (this is really important for us sports fans!). Essentially, this attachment to things, people and the like is what causes all suffering.

3. Everyone CAN BE free from this suffering.
Suffering is avoidable. This is important because it is important to understand that, while it exists, it is not the way things have to be.

4. Living correctly and ending attachment can end suffering.
This leads to the Buddhist practice called "The Eight-Fold Path to Enlightenment" that includes things like "right action, right speech, etc." This is the moral and ethical framework for living according to Buddhist tradition.

What I find so comforting about the Four Noble Truths is the fact that we can OWN our misery, our destiny and our suffering. By taking responsibility for what we say and do, what we think and feel in every moment through disciplining our thoughts, we can remove suffering and pain from our lives and the lives of others.

In essesnce, it is this passive action (changing ourselves in an effort to change the world) that ultimately relieves suffering. By doing so, we honor ourselves and the God we worship.

There is a saying Robert Schuler has: If it is to be, it is up to me (ironically, that is the name of Matress Mac's thoroughbred racing horse too!). To me, that is the real challenge. Instead of blaming others or waiting for a God to rescue us, it is our repsonsibility to rescue ourselves.

Easier said than done, but worth the effort.

 

"If it is to be, it is up to me."

Jeff, that quote is absolutely perfect and completes the circle of this thread. This thread evolved (or was created, take your pick) from a thread in the Rockets forum called "Everything does NOT happen for a reason." I intended that statement to be a contradiction of Barkley's comments at his press conference after the Philadelphia game, at which he suggested that his season-ending injury was a message from God to retire because his career was meant to end in Philadelphia. I was arguing that Barkley's retirement as a result of this injury was not "meant to be," that God does not intervene in our lives that way, and that if we make such decisions (in this case, to retire), we should make them for our own reasons (including ethical reasons derived from our understanding of God's teachings) and take responsibility for them.

Several of you have replied that some things are indeed "meant to be." While I still reject the idea that God intervenes to change the course of history -- which would imply that God is responsible for all the evil He fails to prevent -- there is a way to reconcile fate and free will. That way is to accept that God exists in space-time (the three dimensions of space plus a fourth dimension, time) -- and sees the whole course of history as though the line of time were spread across space in front of him. So God knew Barkley was going to retire after the Philly game -- or, to put it more precisely, from God's perspective, He knows that Barkley "retired" after the Philly game. But from the perspective of us lowly humans who must live our lives in three dimensions, we didn't know "yet" whether Barkley was going to retire. Neither did Barkley. In the 3-D universe, Barkley has free will. In the 4-D universe, history is complete, and Barkley has "already" exercised his will.

If we apply this theory to moral decisions, we get the maxim Jeff quoted: "If it is to be, it is up to me." In other words, "if it is to be" in God's 4-D universe, "it is up to me" in our 3-D universe. Suppose you're at the beach and you see a little girl get swallowed up by a wave. You're the only person close enough to reach her, but the waves are so big that you, too, might drown. Are you going to rescue her? God "knows" what will happen. He knows what "is to be." But the catch is that you, living in 3-D, CANNOT know what "is to be." You don't know the future. All you know is that if she is to survive, you must rescue her. If it is to be, it is up to you.

I think that's how Barkley has played basketball his whole career. When the game is on the line, he figures that if his team "is to win," it's up to him. He plays as though he has free will to change the outcome of the game, instead of losing heart and relaxing his effort because he thinks victory is "not meant to be."

What I object to is any theory that distinguishes between fate and free will, between what is "up to me" and what "is to be." If I choose not to save the drowning girl, can God intervene to make me save her? Can He change what is "up to me" (my decision not to save her) to what "is to be" (her survival)? If He can, then you are left to explain why He has so often NOT intervened, why He has allowed so many children to drown while adults stood by and did nothing.

Yes, I should save her. And from my 3-D perspective, God wants me to save her. But from God's 4-D perspective, He already knows whether or not I saved her. That is what is "fated." That is what "is to be." (This is NOT the same thing as what God wants. God does not want people to slaughter each other -- and yet throughout history, they have. God simply knows, from His 4-D perspective, that this slaughter is what happens.)

But in the moral dilemma I've described, I can't use that as a copout. I can't excuse my failure to rescue the girl by saying it "wasn't to be." Because as a 3-D human who couldn't know what "was to be," all I knew was that it was "up to me."

If you accept this theory, then you must accept an important corollary: You cannot sensibly make claims about what is "meant to be" in the future -- and you certainly can't use such claims to justify your decisions. Barkley can't claim that he is fated to retire. I can't claim that I am fated not to save the little girl. Only afterwards can I talk about what was meant to be. At the moment when I see her go under, I must say to myself two things. First, the right thing to do is to swim out and try to save her. And second, if she is fated to survive, my intervention is the only way it can happen. If it is to be, it is up to me.


[This message has been edited by Will (edited December 12, 1999).]

 

Will,

That is why I just narrowed it down to my conscious. Usually, when I am about to make any type of decision, my conscious usually "speaks" to me. And let me tell you that everytime I listen, I HAVE NEVER MADE A BAD DECISION. When I ignore it, its 50/50 at best. That is why I say, GOD is inside of you. Its not in church. Its not in a bottle. Its not floating around like Superman and saving people. God guides your moral conscious.

If the little girl is drowning, I would jump to save her no matter what. Why? Because I know that inside of me I have the strength and belief that I will save her. That is what my conscious would tell me. I believe in that power that is in all of us. And it doesn't hurt that I was on the All-City Swim Team in high school either.



------------------
Live Rocketball. Breathe Rocketball. Die with Rocketball.

 

Will, is that Stephen Hawking? I haven't read his book, but have meant to for quite a while.

Although I know very little about Relativity, that is an explanation that starts to make sense.

Premise of some religions: A soul goes to the afterlife "after" it has passed through the physical world. Based on its life it is rewarded or punished.

Question: If time is perceived completly by the creator then what does the word "after" mean now.

I'm not sure how Albert Einstein fit his belief in god into the Relativity theory. I'll have to read about that, but I don't have time now. No pun intended.

[This message has been edited by Doctor Robert (edited December 13, 1999).]

 

Actually, ya'll are on the right track. I am everywhere and reach all things, even the BBS. But my touch is also most felt on the meta-physical plane--in which you are rarely in tune with. Just for some more background, I am also Texan, and I am a Rockets fan. I also love to tease the Jazz until they can taste it with full flavor, and then rip it away. After all, I do have a sense of humor.

Hey, why is God only a Junior Member, such disrespect. ......and, I make a lot of typos. It is a good thing God has an eraser.



[This message has been edited by God (edited December 13, 1999).]

 

Will,

Here is a joke along the same lines I'm sure you'll appreciate:

A God-fearing man was caught in his home during a bad rainstorm. A few hours into the storm, the flood waters began to rise and a rescue truck showed up to pick him up.

"C'mon!" a rescue worker shouted. "The flood waters are rising and you won't be safe much longer."

The man replied, "I'm not worried. God will save me."

Several more hours later, the flood waters had forced him to abandon his first floor and a rescue boat appeared.

Again, the rescue workers urged him to join them and travel to safety.

Again, he said that God would save him.

Finally, the waters had risen so high that he was driven to his roof. A rescue helicopter appeared from the sky and a worker shouted to him.

"This is your last chance to be rescued!"

The man said, "I'm not worried. God will save me."

Soon after, the man and his house were swallowed up by the surging waters and he drowned.

When he reached heaven, he asked God, "Why didn't you save me? I believed you would! Why would you let this happen?"

God replied, "I did everything I could. I sent you a truck, a boat, a helicopter..."


I wonder if this guy was the basis for Ned Flanders' character!

 

Sorry about that, but I really couldn't resist in a Monty Python/Mel Brooks kind of way, meant no disrespect and hope I don't pay for it in eternity.

I do truly find this thread intriguing and thoughtful. My own path taking is not as strait and directed as I perceive with most others (if I were to take a snap shot around in church or the supermarket or wherever), so it welcoming to hear the thoughts and paths discussed here. In my own view I do believe there is a spiritual world that we have difficulty tuning in to because of the senses we more typically rely on to navigate the physical world. Further, I may be biased (being less apt to tune in to spiritual powers) in that I have lived a scientific and logic based life for the most part, so in my mind this part of myself is very much work in progress (though this may be true for everyone else too). My own perspective has become shaped by humility (at least I work for it, I recognize you need humility in your pursuit of humility) in spiritual matters and the acceptance that the grade scheme can't be tapped into by the rational part of my mind I more frequently exercise.

Couple more points I want to address, it often does bug me when someone takes the perspective that god (or the great spirit of the world or whatever term) willed a team to victory or player to injury. I don't have a problem with it in theory, it is just it is often said or acted in such a context that it belittles more important events as well as others who happen to wearing another shirt color on the court or in the stands. For example, if God is busy messing with things on Earth, one of the last things he would get around to would be creating forces to determine whether Allen Houston's game 5 shot falls in or out of the basket after bouncing up and down on the rim a few times.

-S. Scar

 

RocketScientist:

So your argument is that evil is necessary to act as counterbalance to good so that we may know and apprectiate the difference? My response is twofold:
1. Is it better (in a utilitarian way) for the population to take some good for granted - meaning they might think that not everything is as good as they should, or for the population to truly know evil - murder, rape, genocide, disease, etc. - just so they can have full appreciation? Seems the second is a little dramatic. I have never broken a bone on my body, but nag about minor aches anyway - does that mean I should have both legs broken so I can later appreciate and not be so quick to bemoan my creaks and aches?

2. Disregarding everything I said in 1, the argument of evil as a necessity does not challenge the question of God promoting evil directly and the feasability of that action.

 

i'm gone for a few days and this thread grows like wildfire... impressive.

well, let me just respond to a couple things briefly... rimbaud, thanks for the further cites, all those you mentioned are especially fruitful for this conversation (i personally prefer the russell and hume!)

i suppose i will just grab on to the last argument and go rom there...

rimbaud's 1 & 2:

1: to take this further, assuming God is omnipotent, why would he/she/it choose to use evil in a utilitarian "help you understand good more" way? ockam's razor tells us to pck the easiest solution to a problem when presented with several choices. this way of "showing" good seems a little cumbersome. the typical response here would be that we cannot know God's ways, and we cannot apply our rules to God. granted, given this we get back to faith, something that just cannot be argued about (i think). if we cannot know the reasoning behind God's actions, then how do we know the reasons for God's actions? (using evil to stress good) the answer must be faith (albeit, selective faith), and this is where the argument stops and we just agree to disagree.

2. rimbaud is right, there is still the problem of God creating/promoting evil. how can the omnibenficent have anything to do with evil? this again raises the problem of the consistency between omnibeneficence and omnipotence.

anyway, just a few thoughts. sorry about the time out of the loop

 

Plato:

I was waiting for someone to respond to your last post, but I am impatient...

"if you really push me though on what i think is the most plausible, i would go with a determinist pantheistic theory of infinite and and essential existence"

Please, elaborate...then we can discuss

[This message has been edited by rimbaud (edited December 17, 1999).]