Free Will (Continued from Game Action thread)

Hmm, I'm not sure how much time i have here, but i'll go as long as "the man" allows...

I'll give my stance first:

skeptical agnosticism. i don't believe in God or disbieve in God. i merely think the use of an anthropomorphic infinite and omnipotent being is unwarranted and unprovable. i have read many arguments for the existence of God, and all have major problems. conversely, i have not read any convincing proofs of the non-existence of God (one being unprovable doesn't mean the other is true). 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 (i can elaborate if anyone is interested)

back to some questions about religion. these are some standard problems:
(1) what is evil? why is there evil? is there evil or just lack of good?
(2) i suppose we should get some theories of how God interacts with the world on the table. so how does god interact with the world?
(3)if my will is controlled by God's (assumption, maybe unwarranted), how can my actions be punishable or rewardable?

i'll save further questions for response...

 

Plato:

1st, let me say that i agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence in the other forum...

2ndly, i believe it was either twain or shakespeare (terrible that i can't remember who) that said that nothing is inherently good or evil. thinking makes it so.

in other words, no situation is, in and of itself, bad or good. it is only when relating the event to other events in your life that allows you to perceive it as being one way or the other. a slight shift in perspective can make an action "good" or "bad"

(2) i suppose we should get some theories of how God interacts with the world on the table. so how does god interact with the world?

good question. i guess it depends on whether you mean directly or indirectly.

(3)if my will is controlled by God's (assumption, maybe unwarranted), how can my actions be punishable or rewardable?

ya see, i don't believe your will is inherently controlled by God. i believe He has given free choice. just as it, according to many religious people, is your choice whether or not to be saved. however, i personally believe that your will is just that - your will. you have the ability to follow whatever pathway you desire. however, with each pathway comes tests (knee injuries, etc.). i think it is your reaction to these tests for which you are rewarded or punished.

why is there evil?

how can one appreciate positive w/o negative?


[This message has been edited by verse (edited December 09, 1999).]

 

For the atheistic science types,
If the big bang had been a small fraction of a degree cooler or hotter (and we know it was pretty toasty anyway), solar systems would not have formed. Does this present a philosophical problem for you, or do you find comfort in the 'infinite universes' hypothesis. Does this provide food-for-thought for you agnostics?

 

Plato,

If it's tangible proof you're looking for, you know as well I do that you're unlikely to find it. No one can "take you to see the Wizard". Someday we all will, hopefully and finally put these important questions to rest. It was fun reading and somewhat understanding where you're coming from. Thought provoking questions like yours are the footsteps down the path to answers.

...and when you find them (tangible ones I might add) let us all know!

 

I have problems with organized religion in general. I'm not saying that I don't believe in a greater "force", I just have questions about about humankind's interpretation of "It".

I agree with Plato that religion on the most part is a human creation; an answer to things that have no answers.

I grew up in a tiny East Texas town and had to attend a Southern Baptist church until I was old enough to recognize the hypocracy that surrounds small town religion.

I am one who follows my heart. I understand good and evil. I believe "the golden rule" sums it all up pretty nicely. I question the validity of many religious views and the "writings" that support all of these religions.

Most of the sorrow in this world is due to humans who judge and kill others because of their beliefs. I cannot see how this is God's will. No one religion is correct, in my opinion.

Every religion has a bible; a book of morals and stories and rules. Every religion is unique. They all believe in a higher power of some sort but they all have different rules, morals and stories.

All of these books and stories were written by HUMANS in ancient times. These stories are told, retold and passed down from generation to generation.

Who is right? No one? Every one? Does it really matter?

To this day we have ancient writings that we can't decipher, and these writings are more recent than those of most religions. Scholars are still trying to decipher the writings of Nostrodamus. It's easy, in hindsight, to say "This is what he meant." My point is that the bible is no different. We all know how stories change when passed from one person to another. Why is the various bibles taken so literal?

We are all one people yet we segregate according to religious beliefs and skin color.

Religion is a lot like fashion; it changes with the times. Christianity is one of the more recents interpretations of God and possibly the most judgemental of them all.

Jah, Buddah, Allah, Jesus, .....etc.

They are all one and the same yet throughout history we kill others in each of thier names. Do you think that's they/he/it had in mind?

Anyway, I hope I didn't rattle any cages out there! Like I said, I am a believer of all things good. I believe in a greater "force". I simply have a hard time with the human interpretation of it.



------------------
SpaceCity of
RocketFuel

 

Plato,

i'll itemize my answers to your questions in a sec, but time forces me, temporarily, to make this response brief.

as for good vs. evil, i believe, as i think you do, that they are truly subjective with the exception of knowledge. knowledge would be the only definite "good". this is the exact principle which i base my life upon - the seeking of knowledge or truth.

those which choose to diagnose events as "good" or "bad" are comparing the events to previous events in their life. those things which benefitted them will often be perceived as "good" and vice-versa. i'm sure you see the fault in this logic.

as for "God", i hold a slightly different perspective than what society does. this is why i said that it would be a disservice to anyone to assume they know who or what i am. simply put (if that's possible ), i do believe in spirits. this is not only going from a "feeling" that i have. this is going from 1st hand experiences. physical, tangible experiences with those spirits.

now, if you asked me about "God", i'd tell you that "He" is spirituality. in other words, i believe that the spirits in which i have felt and seen and believe, are definitely not "of this world". and if, in fact, there is a governing spirit over all of these spirits, then that is "God". by the same token, these spirits have the ability to guide. there are those who will say they are God.

myself....i believe they are not God in the literal sense, since their are both negative and positive spirits. however, those which guide me towards positivity/knowledge, are beneficial to me. i know when i am "going down the right path" in life. and my rewards come when i do these things.

 

Plato, I gather your post in the other thread was making the point that my claim -- "everything does not happen for a reason" -- is compatible with mechanistic determinism but not with teleological determinism. I agree. I think teleological determinism is patently false (with apologies to your namesake), whereas I simply don't WANT to believe that mechanistic determinism is true. I WANT to believe in free will. And I think I can defend that belief practically if not theoretically.

Look at it this way. A bunch of you say that God knows what will happen next. Fine. Next question: Does He ever intervene to change what will happen next, and if so, does He heed our requests (prayers)? You can answer yes or no.

If your answer is yes, then not only do you have to explain why God would let Charles Barkley suffer a career-ending injury last night, you also have to explain why so many innocent people have starved and been slaughtered throughout history despite having prayed to God for help. You have to explain why God did not intervene to save them.

If your answer is no -- and that's my answer -- then your premise that God knows what will happen next is practically irrelevant. It literally makes no difference. What's the next sentence I'm going to type? There, I just decided. There is no measurable difference between a world in which there is no God, and a world in which God "knew" what I was going to type next but did nothing about it. If I had typed a different sentence, you could have said the same thing: God knew what I was going to type. I could just as easily say that the invisible Man in the Moon knew what I was going to type.

The point is, for all practical purposes, what I type next is up to me. I could go out in the street right now and mug an old lady. Or I could give a dollar to a homeless person. No matter which course I take, you'll say afterward that God knew I was going to take that course and not the other. So I might as well act "as though" I have free will, and do the right thing.

What troubles me is when the illusion (as I see it) of God's intervention in the world changes human behavior. Suppose the Rockets are in the final seconds of a tie game during a losing season, and the Rockets shoot and miss, and the other team brings the ball back down court for a final possession, and one of the Rockets thinks to himself, "I guess we're just not meant to win games this year." That illusion of futility can dampen that player's effort on that possession. Likewise, I don't like it when Charles Barkley says "the big fella upstairs" is sending him a message to retire. If Barkley is rationalizing his own decision, I wish he'd leave God out of it and just own up to the decision. But if he really thinks God is sending him a message, then he's making a momentous decision based on a false belief.

Look, we probably all agree that Barkley is physically finished and should just get the surgery and try to recover so he can play golf and walk around and enjoy the rest of his life. But this illusion of fate -- which too often has real and bad effects -- troubles me.

 

Verse, are you a Christian Scientist? From what I know they believe much along those lines. They strive heavily to attain knowledge.

 

Blastoff - "In my humble opinion, no one can say exactly what our purpose(s) for being is. From scripture, we were put here simply to multiply and fill the earth. Mission accomplished. There could be a broader purpose, a purpose well beyond the earth, the solar system, the universe even. Again, back to spirituality and the spiritual realm."

We were put here to make disciples of all men, that is our job now.




[This message has been edited by CaucasionSensation (edited December 09, 1999).]

 

----> Will

I have so much admiration for your masterful use of the English language......are you a writer?

 

I must agree with Plato on most of his arguments. I am especially glad that he brought up the point of God creating evil (which I notice no one touched).
Plato:
you noted several books, but I saw you missed a few:
Bertrand Russel - Why I am not a Christian
Michael Bakunin - God and the State
Camus - The Absurd
David Hume - Why Does God Let People Suffer?
JS Mill's Autobiography
Just a few with various arguments/refutations.
Anyway, who would have thought - on a basketball site - that people could calmy talk about religion?

 

This is very deep. I didn't have the pleasure of reading the previous thread, but I'll put in my two cents.

I was raised Christian but have gone the opposite direction in the past 7 or 8 years. Actually, now I feel a greater kinship with non-theistic religions like Buddhism and Taoism.

I don't believe in A God (big G) as much as I believe that god is a presence that exists within and without all of us. Even the Bible describes God as "omnipresent" meaning everywhere at once - inside and outside everything.

Also, Jesus said, "If you look for the Kingdom of Heaven in the sky, the birds will find it first. If you look for it in the water, the fish will find it first. For I say unto you, the Kingdom of Heaven is not outside of you but within you." He also said, "Is it not written in your laws that I have said you are all gods?"

These don't sound like the words of a contemporary conservative Christian!

I just think that all the things that are most common among religious beliefs of all kinds - love, justice, a deeper understanding of our place in the world, a life beyond that of form - are the same. Only the way they are interpreted changes and that is due mainly to the sociology of the people under whom it grew and changed.

Just like societal cultures, religious culture offers us a glimpse of what is wonderful and what is horrible. Just as there are fundamentalist Muslims who blow up planes and shoot people in the name of Islam, there are Sufis, the Islamic mystics, who whirl themselves into trance dances and speak of love of all humans regardless of their religion.

Just as those claiming Jesus as their savior blow up abortion clinics, others build houses for the homeless and feed the starving.

The best and worst of all we have to offer as humans is on full display both in secular society and religious convention. It is up to us to see the best in all of it and do what we can to further those ideals.

 

SCH -- Thanks for your kind words. Yes, I am. And I've been very impressed with the quality of writing by many people on this BBS. It's very unusual for a sports fan site. There will always be trolls and trashmouths and illiterate attention hounds here as elsewhere, but there's a healthy supply of regulars here who maintain a level of civility, wit, and intelligent argument that makes Clutchcity.net the best damn fan site on the Web.

I mean, where else can you debate free will and the art of rebounding at the same time?


[This message has been edited by Will (edited December 09, 1999).]

 

From being interested in science, raised a christian, attending one philosophy class (made a C), having a abnormal psychology roommate in school, and being obsessed with what constitutes a genius I currently believe that if there is a creator that he has no relationship to the universe. I also think that my desire to believe in a creator comes from ego or my inability to visualize the universe. Mostly what I think about now is if consiousness could be made up of components like memory, pattern recognition, representation, etc (all the things that AI guys talk about). If that is possible then it seems that there might be a universe without a relationship to its creator, one that could be explained. Currently the existence of a soul poses the question of a seperate physical/spiritual universe.

One thing that recently made me really question my belief that the universe is explainable is that I met a person with a photographic memory. The guy, one of my professors, in one second was able to recall my entire semester's attendance record... and he never took roll. If you had a laser disc library that stored everything in this guys head it would weigh 2000 pounds. Where does it all go? Somewhere else?

 

Blastoff, I would say that your comparison - the intangible argument is very interesting and the one that I hear most often. My response is that the intangible wind, if you examine it more closely could be captured in a bottle and frozen. Have you ever played with liquid oxygen? Its fun and very tangible. Is it possible that our intangible god is the same way, just more complicated?

Will, I agree free will and rebounding are great topics to mix and I always find something interesting on this board to read. I also enjoy this board's sense of humor.

 

(1) if nothing is inherently good or evil (which i agree with) than what exactly does it mean to be good or evil? you say that it depends on the situation, the perspective of the individual, but by what standard does that perceiver judge X as good or evil? is it happiness? well, ok, but then what does happiness mean? my personal feeling is that good and bad are purely subjective terms. i do however buy into the idea that understanding is good i.e. - the more your intellect comprehends and understands, the better you are (maybe this is something like becoming closer to God, from a religious perspective)

(2) i guess i meant in any way. what in fact does it mean for God to interact directly as distinct from indirectly?

(3) is it wrong to say that upon this stance will is in some way a gift through the grace of God? assuming this what you mean (correct me if i'm wrong), (a) why put us through this test? what is the purpose? a standard answer here would be that this is beyong our comprehension. granted, if this is the defense, then a further question (in fact even if this is not the defense) is (b) how do we know all this stuff about a test and God's grace? is this all attributable to scripture?

(4) so evil is there for us to understand or appreciate good. my question is: why do we need to understand or appreciate good? a world without evil, assuming evil in a way defines good, would be a world of no value judgment. what is wrong with that?

(5) just a little question that is sort of fun to think about: many religious conceptions state that God is omnipotent, omnibeneficent, and infinite. if he is the 2nd, then there are clear problems with evil and its causation. let us assume for now that he is just the first, omnipotent. my question is then, can God do evil? if yes, then it is conceded that God does evil, if no it is conceded that God is not omnipotent.

 

Plato,

If your stance is that we have no tangible proof either way, I'd have to agree with you. However, there are intangibles that lend some credibility to God's existence.

From a physical sense, the wind could be considered intangible. By definition, it is an invisible force. It cannot be seen or touched (unless interacting with the environment around it), but you can feel it.

In like manner, God cannot be seen or touched, but you can feel Him (not necessarily in a physical way, but in the mind or the heart).

Believers in God are believers in spirituality. He isn't limited to physicality like we are (at least, while we're here).

 

(3) is it wrong to say that upon this stance will is in some way a gift through the grace of God? assuming this what you mean (correct me if i'm wrong), (a) why put us through this test? what is the purpose? a standard answer here would be that this is beyong our comprehension. granted, if this is the defense, then a further question (in fact even if this is not the defense) is (b) how do we know all this stuff about a test and God's grace? is this all attributable to scripture?

All intriguing questions!

In my humble opinion, no one can say exactly what our purpose(s) for being is. From scripture, we were put here simply to multiply and fill the earth. Mission accomplished. There could be a broader purpose, a purpose well beyond the earth, the solar system, the universe even. Again, back to spirituality and the spiritual realm.

 

Cohen:
i don't think this problem really hurts the religious people. in fact it may help them - they could say something like because of the slight chance that the universe could have turned out the way it did, it seem unavoidable that we admit of divine intervention.

BlastOff:
i guess this is where our opinions part and we cannot argue. i do not have that "feeling" and you apparently do, there is nothing really to argue about. unless i am having that feeling but do not realize it. my feel is predictably skeptical. does a very ill-defined spiritual "feeling" as the only proof for something so substantial as God even beging to convince me of anything? not at all. but then again, maybe that "feelin" is not so il-defined for some as for others. maybe i will get it some time. part of me would welcome that.