Board index ‹ Jesus

[Book Mitten]

By my experience, yep. Especially in our modern era, we are attracted to big payoffs and quick solutions, and not as motivated by morality. Here's a fun (or frightening) little tidbit (https://www.elitedaily.com/social-news/6-percent-americans-murder-billion-dollars/1346072).

Sorry about the late reply. There will be several posts to follow. In answer to the article, it refers to a specific section of a specific population. Furthermore, I would argue that it is not about "modern" Vs "older" values, but about differing tendencies among different individuals and groups.

Your post seems to be saying, overall, that humans have a certain lack of perfection in their attributes and thus intentions and actions, likely by necessity. (Again, sorry if I'm wrong) Doesn't this detract from free will if it is by necessity? Wouldn't this make punishment in the brimstone sense illegitimate? Humans might have consciousness, which distinguishes them from robots, but that doesn't necessarily mean free will. All of this gives weight to the idea that God would not be detracting from free will by intervening to stop certain atrocities, since he would simply be changing the nature of humans in how they respond to such an intervention, rather than their free will as such.

[jimwalton]

> In answer to the article, it refers to a specific section of a specific population. Furthermore, I would argue that it is not about "modern" Vs "older" values, but about differing tendencies among different individuals and groups.

The article was just an illustration, not an evidence, per se. I'm not really saying anything about older vs. modern values, but more the point that human behavior is predictably self-oriented and all-too-willing to make decisions based on benefit to oneself.

> Your post seems to be saying, overall, that humans have a certain lack of perfection in their attributes and thus intentions and actions

I certainly agree that humans have a lack of perfection, and this necessarily so. Aside from Jesus (whom Christians put in a different category and who is also widely recognized by many people and religions as being in a different category, i.e., enlightened, a prophet from God, etc.), no human who has ever walked the Earth was perfect.

> Doesn't this detract from free will if it is by necessity?

No it doesn't. Free will is necessarily constrained by human limitation. We can't decide to jump over the Atlantic Ocean, to transport ourselves to the surface of Saturn, or to disappear at will. Those are physical realities, of course, but neither can we just decide to never make a mistake, to know everything there is to know in every field of science, or to read minds. Our human nature includes both physical and mental limitations, but that's no reflection on their reality of free will within the human sphere.

> Wouldn't this make punishment in the brimstone sense illegitimate?

First of all, I'm quite positive I've told you that punishment is not "in the brimstone." Secondly, the punishment is not illegitimate, because it is based in our willful wrongs, disobediences, and rebellions. You won't be punished because you didn't do something outside of your capability or because you were human and therefore flawed. Any punishment received will be based on what you did when you knew it was wrong.

> Humans might have consciousness, which distinguishes them from robots, but that doesn't necessarily mean free will.

It's quite impossible that we are just functioning by biological impetus. If that were so, if I wanted to raise my right arm, I could sit here until my biology did that. Instead, I volitionally make my right arm rise. Now, you may argue that my biology is telling my mind to tell my biology to raise my right arm, but then we have an infinite regression. I can't raise my arm until my biology does it, but my biology won't do it until my will tells my biology to do it. By that reasoning either it never moves or we have an infinite series of volitions in every action, which is absurd.

In addition, if my intentions are always brain states, you would also be claiming that I can't will something unless my brain is in a certain specific state. This is most certainly neither logical nor true. I can raise a glass to my lips regardless of any brain or neural state.

From every angle, as I have explained over numerous posts, free will is a necessity of human existence.

• Any being that is self-aware is also self-directed, and any being self-directed has free will.
• Without free will, I am not really thinking, but only sequencing. Reasoning, and even science, are impossible.
• If I am a determinist, I am so not a pure determinist, because I cannot believe it for rational reasons, but only because I was determined to believe it. The only way to believe in determinism for rational reasons is if determinism is false. The whole position is self-defeating.
• Without free will, there is no such thing as the basic human behaviors of love, kindness, forgiveness, and courage. It's all programmed.
• If I have no free will, I am absurd, for my intentional actions are either non-existent or an infinite series.
• If I have no free will, my brain states are the condition of my intentions, and therefore my intentions can never exist outside of particular neural states, which is obviously not true.

We are necessarily creatures of free will.

> All of this gives weight to the idea that God would not be detracting from free will by intervening to stop certain atrocities, since he would simply be changing the nature of humans in how they respond to such an intervention, rather than their free will as such.

Therefore God would be detracting from free will by intervening to stop certain atrocities. Free will is necessary to human existence, and to force humans against their free will is a contradiction in terms.

[Book Mitten]

Before anything else, can I ask if you would agree that there is a difference between will and free will? There can be a case of intention that cannot change the nature of itself, expect by way of a stronger intention, can't that sometimes be the case? (Perhaps not always, but on occasion)

[jimwalton]

It sounds like a fascinating subject, so you'll have to explain. What kind of will can exist where it isn't free? How can one have intention but be determined/set/not free? I'm trying to think it through, but I'm hitting mental obstacles. If the thoughts that come to my mind are biologically determined, how can my subsequent action be called "will"? Isn't it just chemistry? An explanation would help for me to respond in a responsible way.