# Is there a God? I'm still not sure, Cecil. **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [August 4, 2012, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-god-im-still-not-sure-cecil/630399 "2012-08-04T05:51:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-god-im-still-not-sure-cecil/630399/21 "2012-08-14T16:26:16Z")
> [@Legault](#): > > Original sin, i.e. that mankind’s ancient predecessors chose, of their own free will, to flee from God and His presence, and that their offspring are, consequently, in a fallen state. But how could a moral decision made by non-morally aware beings be binding? The story itself says that Adam and Eve did not understand right and wrong - that was the “benefit” of the fruit they ate. They couldn’t understand the consequences of the act they took, yet they are judged as if they could. And we, in turn, are judged, as if we could have stopped it. > [@](#): > > I don’t know what part of > > _I may or may not be an atheist- still in the decision making process, as I have been for the past ten years-_ > > implies that I am some self-avowed atheist. Not sure what you were reading that gave you this impression. You said “I may or may not be an atheist” - that suggests that being an atheist is a possibility. I am merely pointing out that nothing else you have said leaves that possibility open. I’m simply answering the question for you with a “not”. > [@](#): > > We’ll go with a loose definition for now; try something like “transcending the rational, causal nature of the physical world.” In other words, the universe of Spinoza ultimately isn’t rational or explainable through natural processes, but rather has a mystical quality and point of origin. Thank you for the answer. > [@](#): > > As a matter of fact, no, the bolded part does not follow. You’ve missed the syllogism. The bolded part isn’t a consequence of the prior arguments, it is a second argument. To formalize: 1. If absolute morality must come from God, then we petty humans must not be able to judge God. 2. We petty humans do judge God. 3. Absolute morality cannot come from God. > [@](#): > > If God is an omniscient and transcendent moral agent, and he provides us with a moral edict, then we are in no way justified in questioning his morality. Our intuitions may or may not agree with all such edicts, but that simply circles around to the question I posed above: namely, why should our petty human intuitions take precedent over transcendent divinity? Basically what you are saying is that morality comes from God, therefore God defines what is moral. Therefore, God could tell us to sacrifice our firstborn or rape our mothers or kick kittens or whatever and that would be moral, because God told us to. That is certainly a position that can be taken, but it is not particularly comfortable. Also, if it is only moral because it is God’s will, then why should be praise God for being moral? > [@](#): > > For the time being, I’ll start by pointing to the bolded and pose the same question again: that you’re suggesting, without compelling reason, our feeble human intuitions should take precedent over God’s will. Well, from an atheist’s perspective, I have a very compelling reason. My moral intuitions actually exist, whereas this God thing is a load of fiction. But that certainly doesn’t fall within the confines of the argument. > [@](#): > > The more obvious answer, which you’ve apparently missed, is that we’re simply not using our moral faculties correctly. It’s also possible that because our moral faculties are so limited, only a small fraction of edicts will be fully comprehensible to us, the rest dimmed and vague. We’re stuck with the moral abilities we have. If morality is something with which we are supposed to reason, and thus be able to make informed and sensible judgements, then it must be based upon reason, not whimsy. Ergo, it must be, at least theoretically, explainable. “Because I said so” is the exact opposite of a rational basis. If God is the source of absolute morality, then our sense of morality becomes a hindrance to our actually being moral. > [@](#): > > No one said this. To quote myself again, \*Absolute morality can come **only from** a transcendent creator. \*In other words, the presence of a higher power is a necessary condition for there to be absolute morality. This suggests nothing about the presence of such an absolute moral framework to the universe. Okay, fair enough. > [@](#): > > One, the story of Adam & Eve is an allegory, and a complex one at that. Two, this doesn’t actually address free will itself, but rather the allegorical story behind man’s fall. What you should instead be looking at are a few basic assumptions in Christian theology, namely that > > a) mankind _has_ fallen (whether or not you approve of the origin story is irrelevant), I understand that is an _assumption_ of Christian theology. However, there’s no evidence that we are _fallen_. There’s no evidence there was ever a perfection that we were removed from, by the will of our ancestors or otherwise. All we have to go on is this allegory. So either that allegory is there to tell us something, or it is useless. If it is there to tell us something, then we can look at what it tells us and evaluate it. > [@](#): > > b) God has bestowed his creation with free will, which circumvents the **problem of evil** (which is what I was discussing in the first place). And yet it doesn’t. It just replaces one inexplicable contradiction with another. > [@Legault](#): > > People on this site are almost exclusively atheist, That is a falsehood. Certainly, there is a large percentage of atheists here, but there are also a fair number of Christians, Jews, and a reasonable assortment of other believers. Call it an exaggeration. ---
**Author:** ![PaterDeus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ba0ec/32.png) [@PaterDeus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PaterDeus)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-god-im-still-not-sure-cecil/630399/22 "2012-08-14T17:26:31Z")
My take from Cecil’s column(s) is that he is merely classifying existential causation of which is an undefined or unknown phenomena as “God”. That’s not to say this phenomena has any collective sentience, as he even admits that defining it as a “being” would be granting too much, but for the sake of argument (which was purpose of the columns and this thread to begin with) let’s assume that it is indeed a being. One that we’ll refer to as “God” to keep the same frame of reference as the topic at hand. Now, for those who posit that this being must be responsible for the “evils” of this world, there are some basic assumptions that must be made for such a claim to be true. Mainly, that being must have limitless benevolence, omnipotence, AND omniscience to be truly accountable for all that occurs in this world, which include the aforementioned evils of disease, death, suffering, etc. If such a being does not have ALL THREE of those attributes, then that being surely can not be responsible for all events as they transpire. In other words, said being must have limitless knowledge, power, and kindness for it to have “allowed” any evil things to occur. If one does not believe such a being to have all three attributes, then that being can not responsible for our world’s evil acts (relatively speaking). Such thinking may lead one to assume that the being has the power and kindness to prevent such acts, but not knowledge of all of them as they occur. Likewise, they may assume that the being has the knowledge and kindness, but not the power to prevent them, or conversely, it has the knowledge and power, but not kindness. Being ignorant of the details of the many religions and commonly held beliefs of the world, I can not say whether most of those beliefs characterize all three to a being usually referred to as “God.” Perhaps those who are more knowledgeable on the subject can elaborate. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-god-im-still-not-sure-cecil/630399/23 "2012-08-14T18:03:13Z")
> [@Legault](#): > > Most of your post is extremely confusing to me Then your reading skills need improvement. I suspect, though, that you understand well enough you are getting the worst of this argument, and your claim to be confused is evasive. > [@Legault](#): > > (you seem to just be either repeating yourself, Such as? > [@Legault](#): > > ignoring what I typed, Such as? > [@Legault](#): > > refusing to look over evidence Such as? > [@Legault](#): > > and links, Your only link was a video. You know reading text takes a fraction of the time that listening to it takes, right? I am not going to take the time to watch a video of commentary, which, if it is worthwhile, must be available in writing. > [@Legault](#): > > or other such things Such as? > [@Legault](#): > > and this is a good example of what I mean. In no way does this address the point I was making. I’d appreciate it if you could read more carefully before responding next time, but I’ll do my best to try and cover as much as I can make sense of here. Here are both sides of that part of our dialogue, yours and mine: (post9) > [@Legault](#): > > …but I will say that many people, especially in analytic philosophy, feel satisfied in reducing the issue to “I don’t like dealing with metaphysical questions.” Which is disingenuous to say the least. (post12) > [@colonial](#): > > Key to Einstein’s thinking from an atheist’s point of view is that > God takes no part in the lives of human beings, does not judge > them after death, and is not even aware of their existence. It should not take too much effort to glean that “Key” = “most fundamental” =”metaphysical”. Thus I was suggesting that Einstein and Spinoza’s metaphysical view of an unthreatening God might be an attractive second choice to many atheists. I could then have asked you to explain why you thought this metaphysical view was deficient, but I expected you to do so without being cued, and I certainly did not expect you to affect bafflement. > [@colonial](#): > > The second commandment is simply an extension of original sin, a core teaching of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Nonsense. There is a theological dichotomy between original sin and actual sin, and the sins proscribed by the Ten commandments are actual ones. > [@Legault](#): > > Like most atheists I’ve talked to in the past, you seem content on drawing scripture out of context Oh, here we go with “context”— a word hardly ever used in debate, except by those who are getting the worst of it, as an evasive tactic and a sort of defensive incantation. Here is the full text of the Second Commandment: _“You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments.”_ Go ahead and try to explain how reference to God’s prejudice against unborn children is taken out of context. > [@Legault](#): > > and sensationalizing the “evils” of the Bible without making substantive arguments. Observation that prejudice against unborn children is an evil requires no supporting argument. It up to God’s advocates to explain why His prejudice is an exception, however… > [@Legault](#): > > Which, in this case, would involve explaining why a meager human intellect has the authority to question the omniscient creator of the universe. …however, there is no coherent explanation, so those apologists can only stipulate that humans should not question God, thus closing off discussion. > [@Legault](#): > > Original sin, i.e. that mankind’s ancient predecessors chose, of their own free will, to flee from God and His presence, and that their offspring are, consequently, in a fallen state. The correct way to express it is that _original sin is sin imputed_ to all people by the disobedience of Adam and Eve. It is not _actual sin resulting from the behavior_ of a descendant. The sin proscribed by the 2nd commandment is a _specific actual sin_, namely Idolatry. > [@Legault](#): > > This applies not just to “children,” but all of mankind. The “children” of the 2nd Commandment are not a figure of speech referring to all mankind. They are two different categories of literal children: (1) the descendants of idolaters and (2) the descendants of the faithful. The 2nd commandment informs us that God treats these two categories of children differently. > [@Legault](#): > > This is where the New Testament comes in and all is forgiven, so I’m not sure what’s so morally offensive about this. This reply raises all kinds of quesions. Does the NT contradict the Second Commandment? How about the other Commandments? Does salvation beckons to those who _never_ obey \*any \*of them? Never mind idolaters, are serial killers eligible for salvation? And in a diffrent vein: how and why could a perfect God could change his mind? And finally, regardless of the asnwers to any of the above, unless suffering is a moral necessity it must be gratuitous. > [@Legault](#): > > Even if it was something much more difficult to justify, this is still a deflection from the central question I outlined above. Even if it’s repulsive to us, why do our meager intuitions matter in light of transcendent divinity? Previously addressed. > [@Legault](#): > > Except that it isn’t, and anyone at all familiar with… well, any Christian theology, really, would tell you that the natural world is not intended to be a paradise. It is fallen just as we are fallen. The material world isn’t supposed to be a Garden of Eden. I reject the premise that the material world should not be a Garden of Eden. However, my argument does not depend of the natural world being so; it depends on the natural world being a source of torment. There would be plenty of challenges in life without such torment. > [@Legault](#): > > Yet again, you are very confused, as my conclusion has nothing to do with “free will coming into play.” Again, this point is symptomatic of a very hasty, poorly-planned response, and I find it rather amusing that you’d give me a freshman-level logical analysis of an argument I didn’t even make. Excuse me, but the question I posed was: “How does free will atone for suffering where will is not a factor, say in the case of 100s million to billions of smallpox victims?” Your answer was a logically circular paragraph insisting that and concluding with: “free will comes into play” with no explanation as to how this “play” constitutes atonement for suffering. And it occurs to me to point out that since children are not capable of exercising adult free will, then another explanation must be provided for them. > [@Legault](#): > > To freshen your memory, your original point was that our free will cannot overcome the physical dangers of the natural world. No, my point was that free will cannot atone for the suffering caused by the natural world where atone means to correct, to compensate, to make right, and suffering is the sensation caused by physical and/or emotional injury. Will and intellect can often “overcome” physical danger as in human endeavor ranging from medical science to taking shelter during a storm. However, will and intellect are still unable to overcome (i.e. cure) many diseases, and not everyone can find a strong enough shelter during every storm. > [@Legault](#): > > This is true. It’s also true, at least in Christian theology, that free will gives us control over our spiritual health, as we are free to make choices regarding moral action. And because spiritual health is most important, the maladies (or “evil,” as you referred to it) of the material world, which we have minimal control over, are eclipsed by our ability to come closer to God and cleanse our spiritual side. Suffering is gratuitous unless necessary for the attainment of spiritual health, and it does not matter if spiritual health is preeminent, or that spiritual health an outcome of the exercise of free will. > [@Legault](#): > > [And it never hurts reminding that our natural state is, in Christianity, a product of “the fall.” It’s not as though the human condition was this way from the beginning.] So 100s of millions of child smallpox victims are an appropriate response to “the fall”? ---
**Author:** ![Powers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Powers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Powers)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-god-im-still-not-sure-cecil/630399/24 "2012-08-16T15:32:05Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > I disagree: if the actions we take in the future are as certain to an outside observer as the actions we take in the past are to us, then we have as much capacity to change the future course of our actions as we have to change actions we have taken in the past. You are injecting cause and effect into a context where time has no meaning. We may no longer have the ability to change events that occurred in the past, but we did at the time. We had free will at that moment; the knowledge of that event (whether by ourselves or by an outside observer) does not invalidate that we had free will over that choice. Powers &8^] ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-god-im-still-not-sure-cecil/630399/25 "2012-08-16T18:57:49Z")
Ask a novelist whether his characters have free will. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-god-im-still-not-sure-cecil/630399/26 "2012-08-16T21:44:59Z")
Going back over this for some more, you repeatedly ask the question > [@](#): > > Why should our petty human intuitions take precedent over transcendent divinity? Another problem with transcendent divinity defining morality is the method of transmission. If morality is only what that divinity declares, then we humans have no guide as to how to determine morality, except to refer to a list as recorded by somebody else in the past, who may or may not have got it all straight. We’re not allowed to use our own moral sense, because you are explicitly telling us that it may be incomplete or inaccurate, and that the divinity knows better. But if that divinity does not express it directly to me in an unambiguous manner, I am relying on the method of transmission to be as accurate as the source. Ergo, whoever heard it in the first place, wrote it down, interpreted it, translated it, etc. Each step in the process is a chance for someone to mangle the original. And I have no acceptable way to evaluate most of those steps. I have to trust that there wasn’t any errors in that process, ever. Internal inconsistencies, changes over time, conflicts between written instructions and moral teachings, etc are all things I must ignore, because my moral sense is more questionable than words on paper. > [@](#): > > One, the story of Adam & Eve is an allegory, and a complex one at that. Two, this doesn’t actually address free will itself, but rather the allegorical story behind man’s fall. Attempting to be fair to you, I tried to reevaluate this. Let me try this differently. Let us assume that the story of Adam and Eve is a fiction intended to convey a sense of our place. We are left with some concepts and word choices that do not have a very good definition. In that context, what does it mean for humans to be “fallen”? What is “original sin”, and why does it apply to us? It seems to me if you are going to discount the Genesis story as an allegory, then you are going to have to spend a lot more effort in justifying the underlying premise of Christianity that you are using as your assumptions. Mankind and fallen? How? When? In what manner? What does that mean? The whole concept is gibberish. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-god-im-still-not-sure-cecil/630399/27 "2012-08-17T04:47:36Z")
> [@Legault](#): > > I may or may not be an atheist- still in the decision making process, as I have been for the past ten years- but I hold no prejudice when I say that the Great Cecil’s column on the existence of God left me deeply wanting. Well, to be specific, it was the _second_ column I had the most issue with, the first being a satisfactory (if admittedly oversimplified) primer to the introduction of the _Theologica_. > > Allow me to ramble for a second. The basic problem arises when he attempts to posit things like “energy” and “11-dimension reality” as candidates for First Mover. This is, immediately and on its face, absurd. One of the more basic tenets of Scholastic ontology is … Greeting Legault and welcome to the Straight Dope! I’m afraid I can’t follow your argument. Here’s my understanding: 1. Cecil sez that Thomas Aquinas, a noted theologian, posited a prime mover. 2. Cecil interprets the First Cause in a scientific, possibly contemporaneous context. 3. You say that theologians place God outside of time. **Cecil’s God and the other One** But #3 is irrelevant. Cecil is just saying that a first cause exists, therefore God[C] exists. And that this proof establishes a very narrow version of God. Now you say, “God[2] chooses to constrain himself within a rational mode of being, understandable in large part by man… he is also transcendent of material reality”. Fine. But what’s the evidence that this second version of God exists? He may. But that’s a separate argument about whether God[C] exists. Personally I figure that if a logical proof of God[2] existed, we would have worked it out already. But I accept the existence of God[C] and am agnostic on God[2], pending a better understanding of consciousness and mathematical ontology. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-god-im-still-not-sure-cecil/630399/28 "2012-08-17T08:27:43Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Mankind and fallen? I always enjoy it when someone proposes the fall to resolve theodicy and in the same breath adopts the teleological argument… > [@Powers](#): > > You are injecting cause and effect into a context where time has no meaning. I’ve had almost exactly the same argument before: God exists out of time, observing all time within an instant, so God has no effect on our own choices any more than our observations of our past violate or free will. John W. Kennedy hit on the rejoinder above, which is that God observes all temporal events as someone in our universe observes a storyboard: however apparent the choices to the characters on the storyboard, the panels never change. It also brings to mind a tangential paradox to do with time being a property of the universe: if I wait an infinite amount of time to give you an apple, will you ever receive an apple? I forget the name of the paradox, if it has an official one. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-god-im-still-not-sure-cecil/630399/29 "2012-08-17T13:35:14Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > It also brings to mind a tangential paradox to do with time being a property of the universe: if I wait an infinite amount of time to give you an apple, will you ever receive an apple? I forget the name of the paradox, if it has an official one. I suspect that time has to be a property of the universe. But why is your paradox a paradox, and how does it illuminate the issue? The simple answer to your question is, “At no time will you give me the apple.” You stated the proposition in a form that isn’t contradictory. If you had said “I wait an inifinite amount of time and then give you an apple,” that would have been contradictory. Not that infinite series of events can’t happen! Zeno’s paradox is the obvious example: the hare catches up with where the tortoise was, an infinite number of times, and THEN passes it. Even if space is continuous rather than quantized, this isn’t impossible because the rate of events increases to infinity at the moment the hare catches up with the tortoise. But is there a higher order of time, in which we could exist, where an infinity of time could elapse and THEN something happen? I think that wouldn’t be “time” but would be something else, so the simple answer is the one I gave. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-god-im-still-not-sure-cecil/630399/30 "2012-08-17T14:23:01Z")
> [@Legault](#): > > But our free will, says the Christian, means that where we don’t have control over health of the body, we have control over health of the soul. This is an idea which goes all the way back to Socrates and the _Gorgias_, where he makes clear it’s better to suffer injustice than do it. Why? Because spiritual health takes precedence over material health in the Platonic tradition. That’s where free will comes into play. Aha, so the answer is, suffering isn’t evil, and God gets a pass on all that suffering because it just isn’t important. OK, thanks for clearing that up! 😉 Note that the free-will argument also requires that we ignore the suffering of animals. Kant would buy that, but I don’t. > [@](#): > > -Absolute morality can come only from a transcendent creator. We may have moral intuitions about things, but it would seem exceedingly arrogant to me to prioritize our own moral judgments over those of a father God One might even argue, as Sartre does in “The Flies”, that we are forced to choose our own moral code, even if there is a creator. Yes, we risk peril if our choice disagrees with that of the creator, but it’s still our inescapable duty to choose. Your statement here is, “If the Creator posited a moral code, then it’s absolute.” But, what if we disagree? God wins by default? According to whom, God? What if the Creator were actually a rather nasty fellow who enjoyed sufferering? Are we forced to agree with Him? BTW, note that our “moral sense” could be an artifact of evolution, and shouldn’t be confused with “morality”, which is a code we choose to live by, which may or may not agree with our moral sense. One’s moral sense might lead one to believe it’s OK to kill one’s lover’s lover, but one’s morality might contradict that. > [@John W. Kennedy](#): > > Ask a novelist whether his characters have free will. They’ll tell you that they have a mind of their own. Was that your point? I think we should stipulate free will here, for the purposes of discussion. Even if it does exist, it doesn’t provide Christianity with a get-out-of-jail-free card. IMHO, the free will question is even more complicated than the original one. ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-god-im-still-not-sure-cecil/630399/31 "2012-08-17T18:31:34Z")
But there we are. What on Earth is the use of arguing that God’s foreknowledge is incompatible with human free will, when we know that human authors are in the same position here as God _(si parva licet componere magnis)_? ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-god-im-still-not-sure-cecil/630399/32 "2012-08-17T20:54:02Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > BTW, note that our “moral sense” could be an artifact of evolution, and shouldn’t be confused with “morality”, which is a code we choose to live by, which may or may not agree with our moral sense. One’s moral sense might lead one to believe it’s OK to kill one’s lover’s lover, but one’s morality might contradict that. Thank you for this observation and distinction. That is a useful insight. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-god-im-still-not-sure-cecil/630399/33 "2012-08-18T00:05:06Z")
(reply #25) > [@John\_W.Kennedy](#): > > Ask a novelist whether his characters have free will. (reply #31) > [@John\_W.Kennedy](#): > > But there we are. What on Earth is the use of arguing that God’s foreknowledge is incompatible with human free will, when we know that human authors are in the same position here as God (_si parva licet componere magnis_) [viz: if one may compare small things with great (Virgil)] Oh, this is a real lulu of an argument: Premise God is to Shakespeare as Shakespeare is to The Duke of Gloucester. Conclusion Therefore human beings possess free will. Would you think it was funny if I suggested that the Duke of Gloucester might in reply focus on a different aspect of the ways of God to man?: _As flies to wanton boys are we to God,_ _He kills us for His sport_. Seriously, though, Shakespeare dictated his characters’ every thought, word and deed, so if, repeat if, the premise above is true then its consequence must be the opposite of the conclusion above, namely, that human beings do _not_ possess free will. I am all in favor of free will, and I loathe determinism because of determinism’s extinguishing effect on human initiative and human responsibility. I just don’t like the idea of having to depend on obtaining free will from some entity who would seem to me sure to embody the attributes of Gloucester’s wanton boys. I mean, free will or no free will, what difference does it make if either way you are going to get your wings yanked off? ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-god-im-still-not-sure-cecil/630399/34 "2012-08-18T01:21:38Z")
I agree, Colonial. I was a determinist (or nondeterminist, which is the same thing but allowing randomness) until about the time I read Hoffsteader’s Goedel Escher and Bach, which talks about “strange loops”, plus more thought experiments about AI. I think that it just might be possible to actually have free will despite a deterministic (or nondeterminsitic, but still mechanistic) implementation. I think it’s one of those issues where we may be getting the wrong answer because we’re asking the wrong question. But this is beside the topic, and I think that topic is still arguable even if free will is stipulated. I don’t really care whether I have free will or where I got it, I just prefer to live assuming that I have it. I also hope Glouster is wrong, despite the evidence. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-god-im-still-not-sure-cecil/630399/35 "2012-08-18T08:57:00Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > The simple answer to your question is, “At no time will you give me the apple.” Sorry, the paradox refers to a created universe. I suppose I was a little vague. As for the free will question, it negates the concept of an intercessory, effable God which can be deduced from their natural effects on the world and manumitted to in order to receive Earthly favours. Forgot to mention that. If God intercedes capriciously, we resort to the trilemma. ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-god-im-still-not-sure-cecil/630399/36 "2012-08-18T23:48:24Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > (reply #25) > > (reply #31) > > Oh, this is a real lulu of an argument: > > Premise God is to Shakespeare as Shakespeare is to The Duke of Gloucester. > Conclusion Therefore human beings possess free will. That isn’t my argument. I say only that the foreknowledge of God and the free will of Man cannot be simply dismissed as obviously mutually exclusive; it’s not obvious at all. > [@](#): > > Would you think it was funny if I suggested that the Duke of Gloucester might > in reply focus on a different aspect of the ways of God to man?: > > _As flies to wanton boys are we to God,_ > _He kills us for His sport_. That’s _Earl_ of Gloucester, and the quotation is: _As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods. They kill us for their sport._ (I happen to have played the role in two separate productions.) _King Lear_ is set in prehistoric, and therefore pre-Christian times, and, although Shakespeare rarely pays attention to questions of anachronism (a sensitivity that did not arise until the 18th century), he does generally remember the difference between Christians and pagans. > [@](#): > > _Seriously, though, Shakespeare dictated his characters’ every thought, word and > deed,_ Nice to know you are so expert in Shakespeare’s working methods. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-god-im-still-not-sure-cecil/630399/37 "2012-08-19T15:19:59Z")
> [@John W. Kennedy](#): > > That isn’t my argument. I say only that the foreknowledge of God and the free will of Man cannot be simply dismissed as obviously mutually exclusive; it’s not obvious at all. Foreknowledge (as an attribute of determinism) and free will strike me intuitively as mutually exclusive. However, I am aware of the fact that there is no consensus on the issue, and I have not pored over the positions of the different philosophical schools of thought. I do not agree that analogy between God and dramatists is helpful to the so-called compatibilist position, but it would probably be going over the thread hijack edge to get into an involved discussion about that here. > [@John W. Kennedy](#): > > That’s Earl of Gloucester, Thank you for the correction. > [@John W. Kennedy](#): > > and the quotation is: > > _As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods._ > _They kill us for their sport._ I know what the quotation is. I altered it to reflect the monotheistic point of view adopted in this thread. > [@John W. Kennedy](#): > > (I happen to have played the role in two separate productions.) King Lear is set in prehistoric, and therefore pre-Christian times, and, although Shakespeare rarely pays attention to questions of anachronism (a sensitivity that did not arise until the 18th century), he does generally remember the difference between Christians and pagans. The passage unmistakably defames “the Gods”. Ever since I first read it I have wondered if Shakespeare was employing anachronism to disguise feelings the same as mine. > [@colonial](#): > > Seriously, though, Shakespeare dictated his characters’ every thought, word and > deed, > [@John W. Kennedy](#): > > Nice to know you are so expert in Shakespeare’s working methods. I am not sure what you mean by “working methods”, how they might contradict my observation above, and how they support your analogy. All fiction is illusion isn’t it? It seems to me just common sense that no author could possibly view his creation as real in any sense approaching the flesh-and-blood reality of actual, living human beings. ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-god-im-still-not-sure-cecil/630399/38 "2012-08-19T19:44:41Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > The passage unmistakably defames “the Gods”. Ever since I first read it I have wondered > if Shakespeare was employing anachronism to disguise feelings the same as mine. _What_ anachronism? As I said before, the story of Lear is set in the 8th century BC, in pagan times. But even aside from that, here we are in, “As Milton said, ‘Evil, be thou my good,’” territory! The closest thing to a sequel to _Lear_ that Shakespeare ever wrote is _Cymbeline_! > [@](#): > > I am not sure what you mean by “working methods”, how they might contradict > my observation above, and how they support your analogy. All fiction is illusion > isn’t it? It seems to me just common sense that no author could possibly view his > creation as real in any sense approaching the flesh-and-blood reality of actual, > living human beings. And yet many real, practicing authors disagree. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-god-im-still-not-sure-cecil/630399/39 "2012-08-19T20:23:33Z")
> [@John\_W.Kennedy](#): > > What anachronism? As I said before, the story of Lear is set in the 8th century BC, in pagan times. But even aside from that, here we are in, “As Milton said, ‘Evil, be thou my good,’” territory! The closest thing to a sequel to Lear that Shakespeare ever wrote is Cymbeline! Shakespeare might be using Gloucester’s choice of words (“the gods”), appropriate for the play’s historical setting, as a substitute for what would the choice (“God”) of someone wishing to express the same feelings about the Christian deity of a later time. That sounds like a form of anachronism to me. I would be happy to know it if there is another, more appropriate literary term for what I mean. > [@John\_W.Kennedy](#): > > And yet many real, practicing authors disagree. Can you give me some examples with internet citations? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-god-im-still-not-sure-cecil/630399/40 "2012-08-20T02:02:29Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > Can you give me some examples with internet citations? Try googling “characters take on a life of their own” if you’re curious. Here’s one link, but there are many. “The poor novelist constructs his characters, he controls them and makes them speak. The true novelist listens to them and watches them function; he eavesdrops on them even before he knows them. It is only according to what he hears them say that he begins to understand who they are.” ## – André Gide That’s a quote from here: [http://www.timothyhallinan.com/writers.php?id=24&mode=chapter&partid=3](http://www.timothyhallinan.com/writers.php?id=24&mode=chapter&partid=3) I’ve wondered about whether mathematicians create proofs or discover them. Neither option seems especially satisfying. And when you consider fractiles, which go on pretty much infinitely, the creation hypothesis seems impossible. But discovery implies that mathematics exists independently of the human mind. How can that be? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-god-im-still-not-sure-cecil/630399.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-god-im-still-not-sure-cecil/630399.md?page=3)