So yeah, as I have been saying for a while now.
Not sure why you think randomness is free will.
Do you really think that car accident was divine intervention?
Jesus taught with his life as well as his words. Creating a scene in the temple wasn’t exactly following the teachings of the Christ. Jesus was a human being in part and wasn’t always “Christ-like” himself. How can you expect a Christian to be “Christ-like” when they are fully human and don’t have the advantage of being part Divine.
And you are mistaken about Presbyterians. There are different denominations that are part of the Presbyterian fellowship.. Some may still promote the idea of predestination, but I doubt that many buy into it except for the phsyical laws.
Many also find that they can learn about the Divine in other ways than reading the Bible.
And I confess to cherry-picking the Bible. Somehow it makes sense to believe what makes sense, ya know?
True, Jesus was a bit of a hypocrite himself.
Besides the miracles I don’t think Jesus of the gospels did anything regular people could not do.
Well I was just going off what wikipedia said about Presbyterians and how they basically follow Calvinist doctrines. However after talking to the professor and reading more about them I can’t really find much that Presbyterians stand for today. They sound like unitarians.
Like what?
So you agree that much of the Bible does not make sense? Does that include the miracles stories? How about the divinity of Jesus? Believing the Bible is divine?
Read them yet?
Sorry, no. Life keeps getting in the way. It may be a few days before I can get back to this.
Notice the causality at work? All you have to do is observe and think about it.
Hello Professor, just checking to see if you had read those Voltaire passages yet and/or if you had come to any conclusions regarding if people have free will or not. I noticed you have been very active in the “game room” and “cafe society” the past few days so you must have some spare time.
Or maybe you’re analysis was shifting you towards an uncomfortable conclusion, and maybe you rather not think about it anymore? Would that not be evidence of a sort of lifestyle eisegesis, or cherry picking more than just Bible verses, maybe cognitive dissonance is a better descriptor? I don’t mean to press, but you said you were going to get back to this, and I think you might be on the verge of a breakthrough. I would just hate you to waste your entire life promoting a myth.
Thanks for your concern. My forays into the Game Room, etc. don’t take any real thought or research, and are the one fun diversion I have in my life. My job responsibilities have changed, requiring more of my attention than before during the day, and my wife (having had surgery in February) is now recovered enough that she wants to start doing more with me in the evenings. And a friend of 40 years died, which means I’ve been talking with other old friends who’ve come to town the last few days. To do this conversation with you justice, I need to research my facts, and read up on the centuries-long debate, if only so I don’t re-invent the wheel, and that will take time I haven’t had this week.
I think you are making too much of it. The Voltaire excerpts are maybe only 10 pages long and easy reading.
Also a lot of this is experience based. As I alluded before you might look at all the events and your decisions in the past week and try to determine if any of them weren’t resultant from prior causes.
I do understand what a lack of free will does to your theology. It makes the Christian god evil, and I’m sure you don’t like that. So I imagine you would prefer to postpone such conclusions indefinitely and reading centuries-long debates I imagine is a good way to postpone.
I’ve enjoyed Voltaire since I read “Candide” in college. The man had great literary gifts with satire, and excelled at holding up ideas to ridicule. So, in “Destiny” we learn from him that everything that has happened had to happen that way, and for more information see “Liberty”. There he initially defers to John Locke, then gives an example in the form of a Socratic dialogue.
My Philosophy teacher at Indiana University loved Socratic dialogues: he referred to them as carefully planned conversations between a teacher and a chump. Of course the teacher will ridicule his student’s beliefs when contrary, and of course the student will be at a loss to counter his teacher. In the conversation in “Liberty”, for example, if the chump had answered Voltaire’s question: “Why do you love her”, with “I love her because I love her, she is my soulmate, and all my being yearns for her,” then the resulting line of discourse would have been firmly derailed.
So, back to Locke: your turn to do some reading:
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/free_will.html
Now, as to my experiences of the last week: the answer is Yes, I can find an example not resulting from a previous cause. Le Ministre de l’au fe is hosting a Poetry contest, and I have entered. The creative process of coming up with a poem (which, admittedly, isn’t that good a poem) is a classic example of finding artistic inspiration within oneself, and not from a causal source.
Thirdly, even if I were to grant determinism, it would not necessarily follow that God is evil.
Really? Wouldn’t Voltaire have just asked again why he loves her, and why he thinks she’s her soul mate, and why does his being yearn for her? That’s what I would ask, and I think being honest the guy would would come up with reasons that fit neatly into sociobiology. So your comments, was with Harris seem more like a dodge, rather than a real criticism.
Why do you want me to read those? Am I missing something? All this free will talk is not in any way new to me.
You can’t see any reasons why you might like poetry? You can’t see where your creation is based on experiences you have had or read about? You don’t seem to be trying very hard.
A Christian god who punishes people for sins he predestines them to commit isn’t evil?
If the “chump” was a German of the Sturm-and-Strang school, or your sterotypical passionate Italian, the fact that he wants her is all the reason he needs.
Well, you had said you hadn’t read Locke, to whom Voltaire defers. And there’s information in the pages from quantum mechanics that deny the essential causality of being.
The creative afflatus arises from itself. Are you an artistic person yourself?
Nope. You are apply human judgments to something nonhuman.
Based on =/= determined by.
It’s a common red herring, in discussions about free will, to confuse determinism with influence. “Free will” doesn’t mean that the actions we take and the choices we make aren’t influenced by things outside ourselves, just that they aren’t all completely determined by them.
What?
I have Locke’s book and none of those pages seem to be doing much quoting from him. Quantum mechanics gives you free will? I dont think so.
How do you know that?
Somewhat.
OK, so according to human judgement the Christian god is evil. Agree? What do you know about non-human judgement?
So where do you think your influence ends and free will starts?
He wants her because he wants her. There is no further need for explanation.
At the start of Liberty, Voltaire states his dependence on Locke. Why don’t you think quantum mechanics has anymore to do with Determinism vs Free Will than neuroscience?
Because I’ve experienced it myself, and, as a fine art appraiser for over 14 years, I can assure you that the vast majority of artists would agree.
Not agreed: you are oversimplifying the case. As far as non-human judgments, ask a pet owner. The idea of applying good/evil to a nonhuman creature is an anthopromorphic fallacy.
Great, but there are reasons he wants her, whether he feels he needs to explain them or not. Disagree?
Not in my book. At the start of “Liberty” Voltaire talks about guns going off and whether one is free to hear them or not.
Quantum mechanics has not been shown to have anything to do with decision making, and decisions based on rolls of the dice aren’t free.
Agreement matters not.
How am I oversimplifying? You are making he case that your god is like your dog?
- Nope, I would agree that “I will it so” because “I will it so” is a valid philosphical position.
- Since your link wouldn’t work on my computer, I used this one from Hanover College: Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary. It begins with
"EITHER I am very much mistaken, or Locke the definer has very well defined liberty as “power.” I am mistaken again, or Collins, celebrated London magistrate, is the only philosopher who has really sifted this idea, and Clark’s answer to him was merely that of a theologian. But of all that has been written in France on liberty, the following little dialogue seems to me the most clear. "
and then proceeds to the questions about cannon fire. - But Voltaire argues in “Destiny” that the universe existed in the past in a determinist way, and could not have existed otherwise. The evidence in the supplied links shows otherwise.
- You have no idea how hard it is to get artists to agree on anything. Musicians and writers would also agree in the main.
- I am making the case that God is no more to be judged by human standards than the planet Jupiter is to be judged by a daffodil’s: we do not have the facilities to make such a judgment.
Really, you don’t think it more likely that a person wills for a woman because of a reason, like perhaps her being attractive? Do you really think a person wills arbitrarily?
That’s not what your link says. Your link reads as my book and my link said. No mention of Locke.
What evidence shows otherwise? FWIW, I don’t really argue in favor of destiny, but rather against free will.
Most people think they have free will, so I imagine most musicians and writers do too. That does not change the fact that they work within the scope of their biology and experience and imaginations based thereon. What evidence do you have that they can go beyond this?
Most Christians I know like to say their god is good. Using your reasoning, how can they do this?
So, to recap:
- Argument from opposing philosophy: dismissed without consideration
- Argument from supporting philosophy (Locke): dismissed without consideration
- Argument from science: dismissed without consideration
- Argument from the humanities: dismissed without consideration
Nope, don’t think so. There is no point to continuing this discussion. Bye.