Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you already are a member, please log in. If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free, and all viewpoints are welcome.
| View previous topic :: View next topic :: |
OTavern
Joined: 27 Jan 2008
Posts: 413
|
Post: #31  Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:01 am Post subject: |
  |
|
|
| Belinda wrote: |
The rule of law holds that most people are responsible for their actions, and this is good because many people cannot be kept in order for the good of the peaceful majority unless there is a system of worldly rewards , punishments, and imprisonment for public safety.The system implicitly assumes Free Will, but metaphysically and sociologically we can see that Free Will is a strategy for social control. |
I guess I am missing something here. Why does believing in the free will of human beings entail social control? It seems to me that what free will entails is that each individual is responsible and accountable for the actions they visit upon the people and world around them. What does holding people accountable have to do with social control except that it is a natural consequence of the nearly universally held claim that we ought to treat others and the world with due justice and respect?
If you believe that governments do not have a duty to protect the rights of those who might be victimized by others, then whose duty would that be when individuals don't adhere to principles of justice?
As to your counter intuitive claim that "free will" means governments must resort to a system of rewards and punishments to keep their populations in check, I would argue the reverse. Free will is the capacity of individuals to use reason, freed of passions, to determine their own destiny by rational decision making. As such a "freed" will does not require social control.
The only reason social control is necessary is that this very capacity for free will is not exercised by large numbers of individuals because they are "enslaved" to passions, manipulated by social policy, controlled by an economy focused media and driven by herd instinct to believe they ought always satisfy their own desires above all else. This is precisely not a system which fosters the belief in "free will" but one that denigrates and subverts it at every step and therefore must resort to social control to reign-in its over-stimulated population.
Social control tactics do not work on truly "free" individuals, only with those addicted to security, comfort, passions and appetites.
| Belinda wrote: |
| ... I have not changed my mind about the authoritarianism that lies behind belief in creation ex nihilo. I am much more inclined to belief in creation ex deo, which to me is practically indistinguishable from pantheism but is perhaps more acceptable because a personalisation of human potential and hope for the future. |
You have this backwards, but even so, it is a logical fallacy to claim that creation ex nihilo is false because those who promote it are "authoritarian" personalities. The personal characteristics of those holding a belief have nothing to do with the truth of the belief itself.
It is interesting that, in your view, the answer to a "cosmic" metaphysical issue like how the universe came to be, should be based upon current sociological or psychological revelations, as if prognosticating the mental state of humanity will determine how the universe was ordered and founded. Interesting.
It seems to me that how the universe came to be should be answered logically and scientifically, not based upon a psychological assessment of humanity or God.
Built into all "human" endeavours - and I would add, justly so - is the proviso that a being that creates something new ought to have author's rights, and thus authority, over that entity. This applies to ideas, literary works and patentable artifacts. Are you saying this is not just and that inventors, creators and authors should not have this kind of right? Do you find patents and copyrights to be undue authoritarianism? Have you ever created an original work? Do you believe that everyone ought to have equal rights to that work and equal rights to determine use and benefit?
Now apply this kind of author's rights to the universe. If God created the universe ex nihilo should He not have some say in its outcome and management? It seems to me only fair and just that He does. Call me authoritarian if you wish, but I see it as an issue of just rights and due authority, not authoritarianism.
Your claim of authoritarianism seems to boil down to jealousy that you didn't create it first or that others like you, i.e., humans, are not allowed to exercise some kind of squatter's rights over a little chunk of it. Not only that, but you believe this sassy psychological assessment of God as "authoritarian" should constitute proof of how the universe came to be, after the fact.
If you had written a completely original and masterful sociological treatise, should every little dippy with an attitude be allowed to share your credit just because they claim it is authoritarian of you not to share with them? (Please note: I am intentionally being insulting of dippies here for effect. I actually like dippies. I just don't think they should rule the world, that's all.)
Methinks you are allowing your concept of humanitarian "niceness" to overshadow justice and due authority, as if humans should have authority just because you are one and you want your say in running the cosmos and determining the nature of God. Do you really think your sociology training has prepared you for that? (Providing that the coup you are attempting to instigate is successful, of course.)
If you can smile at this post and not spit venom, there is still hope for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 3807
|
| Post: #32 Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| OTavern wrote: |
| Belinda wrote: |
The rule of law holds that most people are responsible for their actions, and this is good because many people cannot be kept in order for the good of the peaceful majority unless there is a system of worldly rewards , punishments, and imprisonment for public safety.The system implicitly assumes Free Will, but metaphysically and sociologically we can see that Free Will is a strategy for social control. |
I guess I am missing something here. Why does believing in the free will of human beings entail social control? It seems to me that what free will entails is that each individual is responsible and accountable for the actions they visit upon the people and world around them. What does holding people accountable have to do with social control except that it is a natural consequence of the nearly universally held claim that we ought to treat others and the world with due justice and respect?
If you believe that governments do not have a duty to protect the rights of those who might be victimized by others, then whose duty would that be when individuals don't adhere to principles of justice?
As to your counter intuitive claim that "free will" means governments must resort to a system of rewards and punishments to keep their populations in check, I would argue the reverse. Free will is the capacity of individuals to use reason, freed of passions, to determine their own destiny by rational decision making. As such a "freed" will does not require social control.
The only reason social control is necessary is that this very capacity for free will is not exercised by large numbers of individuals because they are "enslaved" to passions, manipulated by social policy, controlled by an economy focused media and driven by herd instinct to believe they ought always satisfy their own desires above all else. This is precisely not a system which fosters the belief in "free will" but one that denigrates and subverts it at every step and therefore must resort to social control to reign-in its over-stimulated population.
Social control tactics do not work on truly "free" individuals, only with those addicted to security, comfort, passions and appetites.
| Belinda wrote: |
| ... I have not changed my mind about the authoritarianism that lies behind belief in creation ex nihilo. I am much more inclined to belief in creation ex deo, which to me is practically indistinguishable from pantheism but is perhaps more acceptable because a personalisation of human potential and hope for the future. |
You have this backwards, but even so, it is a logical fallacy to claim that creation ex nihilo is false because those who promote it are "authoritarian" personalities. The personal characteristics of those holding a belief have nothing to do with the truth of the belief itself.
It is interesting that, in your view, the answer to a "cosmic" metaphysical issue like how the universe came to be, should be based upon current sociological or psychological revelations, as if prognosticating the mental state of humanity will determine how the universe was ordered and founded. Interesting.
It seems to me that how the universe came to be should be answered logically and scientifically, not based upon a psychological assessment of humanity or God.
Built into all "human" endeavours - and I would add, justly so - is the proviso that a being that creates something new ought to have author's rights, and thus authority, over that entity. This applies to ideas, literary works and patentable artifacts. Are you saying this is not just and that inventors, creators and authors should not have this kind of right? Do you find patents and copyrights to be undue authoritarianism? Have you ever created an original work? Do you believe that everyone ought to have equal rights to that work and equal rights to determine use and benefit?
Now apply this kind of author's rights to the universe. If God created the universe ex nihilo should He not have some say in its outcome and management? It seems to me only fair and just that He does. Call me authoritarian if you wish, but I see it as an issue of just rights and due authority, not authoritarianism.
Your claim of authoritarianism seems to boil down to jealousy that you didn't create it first or that others like you, i.e., humans, are not allowed to exercise some kind of squatter's rights over a little chunk of it. Not only that, but you believe this sassy psychological assessment of God as "authoritarian" should constitute proof of how the universe came to be, after the fact.
If you had written a completely original and masterful sociological treatise, should every little dippy with an attitude be allowed to share your credit just because they claim it is authoritarian of you not to share with them? (Please note: I am intentionally being insulting of dippies here for effect. I actually like dippies. I just don't think they should rule the world, that's all.)
Methinks you are allowing your concept of humanitarian "niceness" to overshadow justice and due authority, as if humans should have authority just because you are one and you want your say in running the cosmos and determining the nature of God. Do you really think your sociology training has prepared you for that? (Providing that the coup you are attempting to instigate is successful, of course.)
If you can smile at this post and not spit venom, there is still hope for you. |
In reply to OTavern, Free Will is a strategy for social control because it precludes God from the responsibility for people's wrong-doing, and puts the responsibility and the blame squarely on to the individual, who can then be punished by the authorities who, naturally, claim that God wants the punishment to take place because he, God, has established the individual's control over her actions.
What is more probable, that God revealed right and wrong or that humans invented a supernatural source for their ethical system? Obviously I prefer the latter, and OTavern prefers the former.
Creatio ex deo allows for all people of whatever rank to aim for living good lives that can adapt to changing circumstances of e.g. climate, scientific knowledge, increase in both emotional and intellectual intelligence, and political changes as they affect changes of allegiance and the make-up of social groupings.
Creatio ex nihilo is fixed for all time. IMO , not so good.
(OTavern):
| Quote: |
| You have this backwards, but even so, it is a logical fallacy to claim that creation ex nihilo is false because those who promote it are "authoritarian" personalities. The personal characteristics of those holding a belief have nothing to do with the truth of the belief itself. |
I agree that this would be a logical fallacy. However I believe in creatio ex deo not only because creation from the substance and form of God allows the advantages I list in the paragraph above but also because we can never know the truth of metaphysical creation. When we are discussing such a mysterious ineffable event or agent as metaphysical creation we cannot know the answer and so I prefer to 'believe in' , as in' trust in', rather than 'believe in' as in 'it's a fact'.
OTavern:
| Quote: |
| Methinks you are allowing your concept of humanitarian "niceness" to overshadow justice and due authority, as if humans should have authority just because you are one and you want your say in running the cosmos and determining the nature of God. Do you really think your sociology training has prepared you for that? (Providing that the coup you are attempting to instigate is successful, of course.) |
I quite often revert to wishing that there were a loving father who created all and who oversees us in our flounderings, and whom we hope will forgive us in the end. This is when I am feeling especially afraid and discouraged. In the bright morning time when I am well and functioning with all my faculties I am a grown-up who can accept that we are on our own in the universe and it's Okay. All is well and all shall be well, because we want it to be so. Our consciousness is where it's at.
_________________
Socialist
Last edited by Belinda on Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:47 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JPhillips
Joined: 22 Oct 2009
Posts: 207
|
| Post: #33 Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:58 am Post subject: Free Will |
|
|
|
OTavern and Belinda
I would like to point out that free will to choose what is right from wrong comes easier to those of us who are given real freedom of choices.
If you are born and raised in an impoverished, abusive, hateful, anti-social environment, your sense of right and wrong can become seriosly clouded. You may tend to think you have the right to take from others who have somehow cheated you out of your share, for example.
I can reconcile this through my belief in reincarnation and karma. The experience of which I spoke is just one of many on our paths to spiritual enlightenment. Some people can rise above it, others are completely lost and feel utterly hopeless and helpless.
Authority is a fact of life, and society cannot function without it. Still, I think I am finally catching on to Belinda's argurment. If we say authority is given to man by God, and God expects us to punish others for Him, the problem stems from our values regarding right and wrong. If God has already decided eating pork is a sin, because of His absolute authority, how can you question it (obsolete Jewish sin, but for lack of a better example)? Belinda, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't you just saying we need to determine right from wrong from a purely human point of view so we retain the right to question authority that is out of control?
God gave us reason so we can determine what is right or wrong for ourselves. To me, that is what free will is really about. I know smoking in a room of young children is morally wrong but don't expect to find a reference to this in the Bible. Likewise if you believe eating animals is morally wrong, try telling it to many Fundamentalist Christians who will tell you Jesus Christ ate meat. I have thought for many years that somebody needed to update the Ten Commandments. Regardless I doubt that God ever intended to delegatee His authority anybody in order to manipulate and control others.
This is why our Founding Fathers wanted a separation of church and state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 3807
|
| Post: #34 Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Belinda, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't you just saying we need to determine right from wrong from a purely human point of view so we retain the right to question authority that is out of control? |
Yes. And there are even more ramifications of process theology, as distinct from the more widely known creation from nothing. Process theology is creation from God's substance and form ,it's an eternal continuum, it's not creation at a point in time, once and for all, when time began.
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juice
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1919
|
| Post: #35 Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Free Will exists, the IGNORE button proves that.
_________________
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.
An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis
Fight the illusion! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JPhillips
Joined: 22 Oct 2009
Posts: 207
|
| Post: #36 Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Belinda
Is process theology similar to panenthism?
I googled it and I have to admit, some of what I read are ideas that have occurred to me before. It certainly makes God easier to understand in relation to the physical reality of the universe. I am of the mine that there are two ways to thinkg of God. There is the view of a personal God in which He stands apart from His creation, and there is the one in which God is not only the universe, but also is "the mind" of the universe.
I am still open to any points of view that give meaning to life. This is a doctrine that I feel definitely deserves my attention. I know I am here for a reason. I also know me or some form of me will survive my death; even if I lose my personal identify.
Thanks for sharing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OTavern
Joined: 27 Jan 2008
Posts: 413
|
| Post: #37 Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| JPhillips wrote: |
Is process theology similar to panenthism?
|
Process Theology is not a form of pantheism, as Belinda seems to insist. Process theology is the origin of various forms of panentheism. In fact, panentheism is very close to the traditional Christian view of God that affirms both His immanence and transcendence. To deny either one ends up in monism (pantheism and other forms) or deism and beyond to dualism. Traditional Christianity does not deny either the transcendence of God nor His immanence and neither does process theology which is panentheistic. There is not much of a difference between traditional Christian metaphysics and some forms of process theology. Differences seem to be more a matter of emphasis than metaphysics.
However, forms of panentheism that insist God cannot live apart from, i.e., is dependent upon, or must be connected to His creation, definitely break from the traditional Christian view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Simon says...
Joined: 10 Jul 2009
Posts: 623
|
| Post: #38 Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Juice wrote: |
| Free Will exists, the IGNORE button proves that. |
It "prooves" nothing. All that implies is "its true that free will exists because of the clear existence of "choice", and how does choice exist? I choose. And "How" do I choose? I choose by choosing...and how? By..." and round and round you go in a never ending circle, the proponent of this particular kind of free will is doomed to failure by dint of never being able to answer that all important question...HOW? Like I said on the belief vs disbelief thread, any debate about free will is doomed to go round and round in circles unless you actually know what your talking about, i.e. how you define free will. Free will is by its very definition and open concept, there is little or no conformity, everyone seems to have their own unique idea of what it is, and there is no real unifying definition. I think that some conceptualisations of free will exist and others not, some are self evident, and others are darnright contradictory. Some allow for moral responsibility and others not, whilst others are compatible with causal determinism and others not.
Describe free will in a coherent way and I can give you my views on it, but until then any such commenting would be a waste of my time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OTavern
Joined: 27 Jan 2008
Posts: 413
|
| Post: #39 Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Simon says... wrote: |
Describe free will in a coherent way and I can give you my views on it, but until then any such commenting would be a waste of my time. |
So were you compelled or freely chose to engage in an actvity you claim is a waste of your time? Has the earmarks of a strange loop.
Last edited by OTavern on Mon Nov 16, 2009 8:28 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Simon says...
Joined: 10 Jul 2009
Posts: 623
|
| Post: #40 Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| O'Tavern don't be ridiculous, there is no point in my arguing for or with a concept that has yet to be defined in the first place! Compulsion and freedom, in some senses of the word free are compatible. There are two main definitions of freedom, freedom from, and freedom to. I had the freedom to write this as well as the compulsion, the "reason" to write it, I wrote it for a reason and that reason compelled me to write it, and nothing was stopping me ergo I was free to write it. Was I free to not write it? Well if I was, then WHY didn't I? If such a reason exists then its not actually free at all, that reason being the "determining" factor in the outcome, and if no such reason exists, then it was random, randomness is not control, and free will is the ability to "control" your actions, so in terms of free "will" we take the freedom "to" definiton, which is compatible with compulsions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OTavern
Joined: 27 Jan 2008
Posts: 413
|
| Post: #41 Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Simon says... wrote: |
| O'Tavern don't be ridiculous, there is no point in my arguing for or with a concept that has yet to be defined in the first place! Compulsion and freedom, in some senses of the word free are compatible. There are two main definitions of freedom, freedom from, and freedom to. I had the freedom to write this as well as the compulsion, the "reason" to write it, I wrote it for a reason and that reason compelled me to write it, and nothing was stopping me ergo I was free to write it. Was I free to not write it? Well if I was, then WHY didn't I? If such a reason exists then its not actually free at all, that reason being the "determining" factor in the outcome, and if no such reason exists, then it was random, randomness is not control, and free will is the ability to "control" your actions, so in terms of free "will" we take the freedom "to" definiton, which is compatible with compulsions. |
So you were compelled, then? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gearge
Joined: 14 Aug 2009
Posts: 62
Location: Hobart Tasmainia Australia
|
| Post: #42 Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
So given that you have an omniscient god who knows what the future will hold or perhaps you have made the assumption that as we have only one past we also have only one future as predicted by the fundamental nature of cause and effect does this, the existence of only one future, deny us free will?
Perhaps Free Will is simply a process that we go through and during which we make choices that become those choices we were always going to make. The option that we freely choose is simply 'fated to be', yet Free Will exists non-the-less.
_________________
Apologies for the spelling.
I was not - I have been - I am not - I do not mind. - Epicuras
I abhor your views, but I am willing to die to defend your right to express them - Voltaire |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Simon says...
Joined: 10 Jul 2009
Posts: 623
|
| Post: #43 Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| OTavern wrote: |
So you were compelled, then? |
Yes, I was compelled by my desire to write it, and my desire to write it outweighed my desire to not write it, hence I wrote it. Why I desired to write it comes from a large number of reasons, some based on how my personality naturally is genetically, and others based on how it has been shaped via my experiances. They are all "determining" factors, and thus by no means "free from", as in "freedom from influence", because their very nature is reactive, cause and effect etc. They are however very often "free to", as in "the freedom to actually happen". There is a difference between freedom from and freedom to.
Not only did I desire to write this, but also nothing was stopping me, hence I was "free "to" write it". It is that combination of desire and a lack of obsticles that gives us our free will, when something or someone blocks us from our goals, then our free will has then been thwarted, which, is often a moral dilema... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OTavern
Joined: 27 Jan 2008
Posts: 413
|
| Post: #44 Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Simon says... wrote: |
| OTavern wrote: |
So you were compelled, then? |
Yes, I was compelled by my desire to write it, and my desire to write it outweighed my desire to not write it, hence I wrote it. Why I desired to write it comes from a large number of reasons, some based on how my personality naturally is genetically, and others based on how it has been shaped via my experiances. They are all "determining" factors, and thus by no means "free from", as in "freedom from influence", because their very nature is reactive, cause and effect etc. They are however very often "free to", as in "the freedom to actually happen". There is a difference between freedom from and freedom to.
|
In short, you are not free from but you are free to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 3807
|
| Post: #45 Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
#36
| Quote: |
| There is the view of a personal God in which He stands apart from His creation, and there is the one in which God is not only the universe, but also is "the mind" of the universe. |
Thanks JPhillips for the clarity.
OTavern in #37 is also describing the differences and similarities with the more traditional Christian view. I agree, of course that OT's description is correct, and I am glad to be in agreement with both OT and JP thus far, anyway.
Perhaps in view of present problems that affect the whole world, as problems so often do these days, it's better that Christians concentrate their powers more on God as immanent Sustainer rather than his role of Original Creator.
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
