+
/ Subject > Re: Some Defects in Russell's Teaching /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy and /
/ alt.philosophy and alt.religion.apologetics / 7oct02 /
.
>> textman previously wrote: <snipsome>
>> I've got a swelling itching pain pounding in my brain! ...
>> But it's NOT because I'm unable to conceive of alternatives.
>> Rather, it's because I can conceive of too many.
.
> On 6oct Chad L ([email protected]) replied:
> then your god is not the god of the old and/or new testament?
> you'll have to expand on that, please
.
textman say: My God is the God of Jesus Christ; which is to
say the Universal Father/Creator. Having said that, I should
immediately add that what we don't know about God vastly
exceeds what we do know.
.
>>> In short, if god were wrong; you wouldn't want to be right.
.
>> Uh, I guess not. Can I now assume that it's been established
>> that God is wrong about something?
.
> We haven't gotten that far yet, really. First we must
> presuppose that there is a god, and that this god is some-
> thing similar to how you have imagined it to be. What do you
> suppose this God to be like in your experience (mediate or
> immediate).
.
What believers suppose God to be like is based on the idea
that the Son reveals the true nature of God the Father. In
other words, we see God in and through Jesus. Now this is not
at all the same thing as the claim that the man called Jesus
Christ was and is the divine Son of God, who is thus "of one
substance with the Father"; a notion that "is contrary to
reason" (Lessing). But those who uphold this unbiblical dogma
do so because it sounds good, and they tend to misunderstand
its meaning and implications, and so project these foreign
ideas into the scriptures (where they most certainly do NOT
belong). When Jesus calls himself the 'Son of Man', he is not
asserting his essential identity with God, but on the contrary
is asserting his essential identity with humanity. This is just
one example of how theology corrupts and distorts history.
.
>> <snipsome> We cannot conceive what the world's history would
>> have been like had Alexander died at the age of six from a
>> snake-bite.
.
> Yes, hind sight is 20/20. I'm not saying that randomness and
> indeterminiteness is not the case. It could very well be
> that lots of things occur randomly (so I believe). Random
> meaning: "Free [of cause]".
.
I too agree that things occur randomly, but this does not
necessarily imply that they are free of causes. Even random
events have causal factors imbedded within them. 'Random'
simply means that we don't know enough about the world to
explain every event by reference to the law of causality.
.
> However, "will" is another animal all together. Will is
> cause. It is not free of cause, or reason, or rationality.
> Even if you don't know why you "will" a thing, there are
> reasons that have caused you to do so.
.
An irrational act is by definition a willful action that
is free of reasons (ie. a motivating conceptual element),
although not necessarily free of all causes. We shouldn't
confuse reasons with causes. Reasons are immaterial motivating
factors; not sufficient in themselves to "cause" some action.
.
> So if will is caused, and freedom is free of causation, then
> how can you have free-will? Free-will (like hot-ice) is
> meaningless and literally non-sense (it doesn't make sense).
.
If one accepts your idea that will is always impelled by
causal factors, then of course free-will is nonsense. But the
idea behind free-will is that although we are indeed subject
to many causal factors (whether we are aware of them or not),
we are yet able choose whether we will allow this or that drive
or cause to manifest itself through action. 4X: If I am trying
to quit smoking cigarettes, I have two contrary wills active
within me at the same time: the will to smoke, and the will
to not smoke. By an act of free choice I decide which will
actually manifests itself in overt behavior.
.
> Many folks want to put free-will in the category of "self-
> determination" (believe me, I was one of them for many
> years). But self determination, when further examined is no
> more than a complex mix of random and determined events.
.
It APPEARS to be no more than a complex mix, but it is
impossible to establish it beyond all reasonable doubt.
.
> Granted, people understandably get upset because they think,
> 'hey, wait a minute! I'm more than a robot or puppet! I've
> got a soul!' Which would be all fine and wonderful if people
> knew what it was like to be a puppet or a robot as complex
> as themselves. Perhaps they have "souls" too? nobody knows;
> so it seems as if its best not to question warm fuzzy
> beliefs that seem harmless to hold on a daily basis.
.
It is the philosopher's business to question everything;
even warm and fuzzy beliefs that seem harmless.
.
>>> <snip> for the benefit of the audience - as you
>>> appeal ad populum to their beliefs and prejudices
.
>> I do. I do!
.
>>> in order to avoid your own burden of proof (and attempt
>>> to make me feel guilty for challenging you, all at the
>>> same time). <snipsome>
.
>> I'm not sure how I'm avoiding this "burden of proof"
>> thingy you mentioned,
.
> what I mean by that is the notion that 'he who asserts it
> must prove (support) it'. If in an assertion it is pre-
> supposed that: christ is god, or that we have souls, or that
> free-will is the case, then that presupposition must be
> supported (in the least) in order for it to be taken
> seriously. (unless one has a proclivity towards blindly
> following anyone who puts shiny objects in front of them).
.
Right. But as to the question of free-will: this is assumed
to be the case by the majority of humanity, such that it is
the contrary assertion of no free-will that requires support.
In other words, the burden of proof is on you, not on me.
.
> You find that most informal logical fallacies are centered
> around an illegal shift of burden of proof. i.e., if one
> were to appeal to the people as a kind of substitute for
> supporting their assertions. i.e., "pulling a fast one".
.
So then you're the one who's pulling a fast one, eh?
.
>> so I can't really answer to that, but I do know that I would
>> never want to make anyone feel guilty for "challenging" me!
>> I like it when people (even unbelievers such as yourself)
>> keep me on my toes, and alert to all possible errors gained
>> en route. It's all part of the learning process.
.
> what a rare-bird you are.
.
Not at all your average prophet-bear! :D
.
> I wish more church leaders were like you.
.
They would rock the churches to their very foundations!
.
>>> p.s. the great thing about the bible is that it tells
>>> you what to do, and what you should be doing.
.
>> I agree :)
.
>>> But it doesn't tellya how to do it,
.
>> Sure it does. The bulk of the Torah is chiefly about the
>> specific details involved in actually doing what the Lord
>> of Hosts demandeth.
.
> Close, but not quite what I mean. there is an element of
> motivation, and an element of what actually causes one to
> do what they do.
.
Oh yeah?
.
>> Most of the other scriptures also deal with this thorny
>> problem of HOW in one way or another; hence the Sermon on
>> the Mount is deliberately set forth as a re-enactment of
>> the giving of the Torah/Law.
.
> yeah, jesus gives great examples, and leads by example, good
> stuff, the sermon on the mount. unfortunately he is ill-
> equiped to deal with HOW exactly people are supposed to go
> about doing what he does. notice, hardly anybody does it. the
> easy answer to that is 'well, He was perfect'. or 'well, the
> devil prevents people from acting rightly'. whatever. these
> reasons are very very superficial.
.
And very misleading ones at that.
.
> at any rate, the all-knowing should have forseen that people
> wouldn't instantly be able to follow the examples of jesus,
> so why send him? o crap, there's a whole other can'o worms -
> the senseless symbolism of "sacrifice". boy'o boy, can't talk
> about one subject without going off into a tangent of some
> other interrelated subject.
.
That's theology for you!
.
>> The point is that all things are possible through faith,
>> hope, and love.
.
> well, that is a point I would not dispute. But perhaps I
> would add to it: "... all things [that are possible] are
> possible through faith, hope, and love."
.
I have no objections to your modification. :)
.
> And then, my friend, we get into what exactly those words
> mean, 'love', 'hope', 'faith'.
.
Oh, let's not go there! Instead let us assert the necessary
distinction between the religion of Jesus (which is pragmatic
and basically rational), and the religion about Jesus (ie.
Christianity, which is essentially irrational, mysterious,
sacramental, and theological in the worst sense of the term).
.
>> <snip> You have to know the scriptures in order to
>> use them well.
.
> and the history of when they were written, etc. (just like
> in philosophy and anything else).
.
I agree.
.
>>> or how you ought to go about doing it.
.
>> With a song in your heart, and a spring in your step! :D
.
>> <snip> P.S. Don't debate. Investigate!
.
> I agree with your post script to an extent. The extent
> is that sometimes a sprinkling of debate helps one to
> investigate. But like you say, its not at all about who's
> right or who's wrong, or who's won and who's lost. For me it
> is about the better argument. I believe that some arguments
> are better than others, and that philosophy can help sort
> that out. It can help you find the best argument.
.
Absolutely right. Philosophy is also useful in a more general
way, inasmuch as it helps to expand and clarify your mind, and
thus to expand the possibilities of human being and becoming.
.
> I have been conditioned to choose the best argument, and
> often I find that the best argument is not the one I had
> uncritically adopted.
.
So you will exercise your reason in the comparison of two
contrasting arguments, and thus arrive at a sober judgment of
which is (objectively) the better of the two. Well and good!
Now explain to me how such a judgment can be arrived at
through purely mechanistic or materialistic cause and effect?
.
- the almost immaterial one - textman ;;>
x
+
More Stuff On the Impossibility of Free-Will
.
/ Subject > Re: Some Defects in Russell's Teaching /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ and alt.religion.apologetics and alt.philosophy /
/ Forum > TheologyOnline: Philosophy ~ Religion / 11oct02 /
.
>> textman previously wrote: <snipsome> My God is the God of
>> Jesus Christ; which is to say the Universal Father/Creator.
>> Having said that, I should immediately add that what we
>> don't know about God vastly exceeds what we do know. <snip>
.
> On 8oct Chad L ([email protected]) replied:
> Interesting reply; it hints at what you're about to
> say below. But my question at this point is:
> What exactly DO we know (about God)?
.
textman answers: We know that God is spirit and love.
.
> And how exactly are we able to know it?
.
Through the revelation given in the Anointed One: The Word
made flesh; according to the testimony of the scriptures.
.
>> When Jesus calls himself the 'Son of Man', he is not
>> asserting his essential identity with God, but on the
>> contrary is asserting his essential identity with humanity.
>> This is just one example of how theology corrupts and
>> distorts history.
.
> Now this I find very interesting. I understand that
> different sects believe different things.
.
Different theological assumptions result in different readings
of the scriptures, and thus different conclusions as to what is
relevant and essential. 4X: The pressing problem of authority
has led Fundies to emphasize the authority of the scriptures to
such an extreme that they fall at once into bibliolatry (a term
first coined by Lessing; according my sources).
.
> Like you said, one group may believe that Jesus was a divine
> extension of God, i.e., the "avatar" of God. Others, such as
> yourself, believe that Jesus truly was but a man, like any
> other man, except that God had revealed part of himself to
> Jesus, which was reflected in Jesus's actions.
.
Not just in his actions, but also in his teachings, and even
in his person. This is important to understand, because both
his words and actions arose from out of his being/personality.
.
> I notice that you use "Lessing" as a source for your view
> of what Jesus was.
.
Not at all. My view of Jesus is formed by the Word; which
is to say, by my own particular reading of the scriptures.
.
> Are there any links to that, or books or things? i.e., could
> you expand on that source? because I'd like to get my hands
> on it. ;)
.
I got that quote from a book entitled 'Lessing's Theological
Writings' by Henry Chadwick, Stanford University Press, 1956.
I'm still in the process of reading this book (ie. I'm in the
Introduction by Henry), so at the moment I'm still unfamiliar
with Lessing's writings directly, and thus can't say that I
know much about his thinking. But from what I gather so far,
he is even more radical in his views than I am!
.
> The main reason I'm interested, is not because, I want to be
> a Christian; rather, I'd like a particular side of my family
> to be better "christians".
.
Lessing will only confuse the issue I'm sure; as he seems
to be somewhat confused himself on a few points. As a matter
of fact, he is much closer to your way of thinking than to
mine. :D ... For example, Lessing also denies free-will:
.
"What do we lose if we are denied freedom? Something (if it
is anything at all) which we do not need; which we do not need
either for our activity here or for our salvation hereafter.
Something the possession of which must make us far more
disturbed and anxious than the feeling of its opposite can ever
make us. Compulsion and necessity, in accordance with which the
idea produces the best effect, are much more welcome to me then
a bleak power of being able under similar circumstances to act
sometimes in one way, sometimes in another. I thank the Creator
that I am under necessity; that the best must be. If even
within these limitations I still make so many slips, what
would happen if I were left entirely to myself? left to a
blind force which operates according to no law, and does not
less subject me to chance because this chance plays its game
within me?"
.
> Isn't that ironic? A non-christian wanting christians to
> be better christians? lol.
.
Hey, we need all the help we can get!
.
>> I too agree that things occur randomly, but this does not
>> necessarily imply that they are free of causes. Even random
>> events have causal factors imbedded within them. 'Random'
>> simply means that we don't know enough about the world to
>> explain every event by reference to the law of causality.
.
> Yes, that's how a lot of people look at it. And to an extent
> so do I. However, I'm not certain that a random event
> necessarily has cause imbedded within it. And I'm definitely
> not certain that (in SOME cases) there actually exists an
> explanation to found for an event in reference to causality.
> Of course I have my reasons. ...
.
Chaos theory? :)
.
>>> However, "will" is another animal all together. Will is
>>> cause. It is not free of cause, or reason, or rationality.
>>> Even if you don't know why you "will" a thing, there are
>>> reasons that have caused you to do so.
.
>> An irrational act is by definition a willful action that
>> is free of reasons (ie. a motivating conceptual element),
.
> There are reasons why I don't like that definition. To be
> more fair, I would think an act "irrational" only if a 2nd
> or 3rd party cannot determine any (good) reasons for "crazy
> mary's" actions. However, if crazy Mary were left to her own
> devices, I doubt she'd think a single action she performs is
> "irrational". i.e., irrationality is not an object truth;
> rather, it's a subjective label for unexplainable behavior.
.
I know what you mean. A self-destructive action (eg. suicide)
is manifestly irrational to most people who don't know all the
particulars involved, but to that individual it is a perfectly
rational solution to an otherwise unsolvable problem.
.
>> although not necessarily free of all causes. We shouldn't
>> confuse reasons with causes. Reasons are immaterial
>> motivating factors; not sufficient in themselves to
>> "cause" some action.
.
> You're right. We're kinda throwing around terms here without
> agreeing on their meaning before hand. Since we have
> different histories with such terms, what we mean may be
> slightly different.
.
Just so. In the early church this sort of confusion about
what this or that loaded term actually meant led to much
needless controversy, and even bloodshed. 4X: Does 'essence'
mean the same thing as 'substance'? One theologian will prefer
to use the former word, another the latter, but both are
basically thinking the same thing! How confusing is that?
.
> Personally, I could sufficiently talk about this whole
> subject without even mentioning the word "reason". But I
> use it in an attempt to bridge the gap between our learning
> histories. Now that I think about it - I use it in 2
> different ways: (1) thoughts that justify action. And (2)
> the explanation for why and how an action can or did occur.
> (note, its good to keep in mind that when ever I use the word
> "action", that I'm never excluding thoughts or feelings)
.
Right. Thoughts, perceptions, and feelings are just as
intentional as overt (ie. observable) acts.
.
> Like you're saying, I think, we wouldn't want to mix up
> the explanation (2) with the actual cause. fair enough.
.
This is good. It seems to me that one of the chief benefits
of twentieth-century philosophy is that it has forced all
manner of thinkers (not just philosophers) to exercise some
more care in the use of the words they choose as vehicles
for their ideas. I'm all for that. Loose lips sink ships! :(
.
>> <snip> But the idea behind free-will is that although we are
>> indeed subject to many causal factors (whether we are aware
>> of them or not), we are yet able choose whether we will
>> allow this or that drive or cause to manifest itself through
>> action. 4X: If I am trying to quit smoking cigarettes, I
>> have two contrary wills active within me at the same time:
>> the will to smoke, and the will to not smoke. By an act of
>> free choice I decide which will actually manifests itself
>> in overt behavior.
.
> I agree that we may choose our actions.
.
Does this not imply that a modicum of free will must be a real
possibility on some obscure and indefinite level of being?!?
.
> But no longer do I stop there. Many people will not analyze
> it further, because if they allow themselves to stop there,
> then they won't risk losing their main support for free-will.
.
I should think that their main support for free-will stems
largely (if not entirely) from their mundane experiences of
choice, direction, intention, etc, as these many and various
subjective realities flow (more or less naturally) within the
context of daily life.
.
> And so I'm curious to see how you'll react to the question
> of, "Why (or how, or what) do we choose one action over
> another?"
.
Well, that's the thing. There's no easy or single answer
to these questions. It all depends on the individual and his
or her particular circumstances. One businessman will choose
one action over another (eg. buy or sell?) on the basis of
maximizing profits, while another businessman (in a similar
situation) will do something else from out of the same motive.
Which one is acting freely? Which one is merely reacting to
an external stimulus as his conditioning has determined? ...
.
So many people act almost entirely out of their own emotions;
and since they have no real control over these chaotic and
constantly fluctuating emotional states, these people are all
but entirely devoid of free-will because they are essentially
the slaves of their emotions (which while subconsciously
intended, are nevertheless little more than habitual reactions
to external conditions). If I were thinking from your stance,
I would very quickly present such people as the best evidence
that free-will is merely an illusion!
.
Thus it would appear that the possibility of choosing among
alternatives cannot by itself constitute evidence for free-
will. If we make a choice out of habit or expectation, then
this action must be, in some sense, determined by something
other than the person acting. It may well be the case that
most of our actions (both individually and collectively) are
not truly free in the strictest sense of the word. If this is
so, then free-will must be something (a power?; a capacity?;
an ability?) that transcends both habit and irrationality. Let
us say, therefore, that will is not enough, that will requires
the addition of a sharp awareness of all possibilities and
alternatives simply in order to create the necessary foundation
for the actualization of free-will. So now you have the will
and the mind in place; and with the addition of reason (not
necessarily barren logic, or even enlightened self-interest)
the engine turns over and begins to generate free-will which
is manifested and/or actualized through concrete actions that
are fundamentally rational in nature. For freedom IS reason
(in the sense that they cannot appear apart from each other
because 'freedom' as such cannot emerge out of irrationality,
just as 'reason' cannot spring forth out of chaos).
.
- one who offers substance *&* essence - textman ;>
x
Goto More Defects