Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Theists are the ones that play the victim and deflect consequence of choice to imaginary beings. However this addresses none of the points I have raised, think before you post.
If you have some theological argument, discuss Calvinism or Arminianism; its on the menu. I will not respond to twaddle like this again.
Mystic, what you are trying to do is redefine words.
The term "Free Will" is comprised of two distinct words "Free" and "Will".
The definition of "Free" "without cost or obligation"
The definition of "Will" "The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action."
What I'm am say here, is if you deliberately choose a course of action that requires a cost or obligation then it isn't free, and all actions come at a cost, no matter how small, it's called cause and effect.
Now if you choose to create the word "freewilll" then feel free to give it the definition you choose.
Sorry, but I agree with Mystic on this one...Freewill is the freedom to make choices, be they good choices or bad ones...Sometime these choices cost us and other times bring rewards....There are often positive or negative consequences to those choices...Nothing at all to do with cost or obligation. Freewill simply means one can make decisions without interference.
Philosophers who distinguish freedom of action and freedom of will do so because our success in carrying out our ends depends in part on factors wholly beyond our control. Furthermore, there are always external constraints on the range of options we can meaningfully try to undertake. As the presence or absence of these conditions and constraints are not (usually) our responsibility, it is plausible that the central loci of our responsibility are our choices, or “willings.”
I have implied that free willings are but a subset of willings, at least as a conceptual matter. But not every philosopher accepts this. René Descartes, for example, identifies the faculty of will with freedom of choice, “the ability to do or not do something” (Meditation IV), and even goes so far as to declare that “the will is by its nature so free that it can never be constrained” (Passions of the Soul, I, art. 41). In taking this strong polar position on the nature of will, Descartes is reflecting a tradition running through certain late Scholastics (most prominently, Suarez) back to John Duns Scotus. (link)
The wiki
Free will is the ability of agents to make choices unconstrained by certain factors. Factors of historical concern have included metaphysical constraints (such as logical, nomological, or theological determinism), physical constraints (such as chains or imprisonment), social constraints (such as threat of punishment or censure), and mental constraints (such as compulsions or phobias, neurological disorders, or genetic predispositions). The principle of free will has religious, legal, ethical, and scientific implications.[1] For example, in the religious realm, free will implies that individual will and choices can coexist with an omnipotentdivinity. In the law, it affects considerations of punishment and rehabilitation. In ethics, it may hold implications for whether individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. In science, neuroscientific findings regarding free will may suggest different ways of predicting human behaviour.
This important issue has been widely debated throughout history, including not only whether free will exists but even how to define the concept. Historically, the constraint of dominant concern has been determinism of some variety (such as logical, nomological, or theological), so the most prominent common positions are named for the relation they hold to exist between free will and determinism. Those who define free will as freedom from determinism are called incompatibilists, as they hold determinism to be incompatible with free will. The two main incompatibilist positions are metaphysical libertarianism, the claim that determinism is false and thus free will is at least possible; and hard determinism, the claim that determinism is true and thus free will is not possible. Hard incompatibilism posits that indeterminism is also incompatible with free will, and thus either way free will is not possible.
As always, our friend Mystic comes across as if he has all the answers accuses moi of strawmen yet lo and behold lookee here, some other great minds have the same POV as I do.
As you can see if you bother to look at the links, the aspect of free will does indeed cover a huge base of philosophical possibilities.
Furthermore, there are always external constraints on the range of options we can meaningfully try to undertake.
Whenever we acknowledge external constraints exist and few people with disagree with that, the vague definition we often hear espoused becomes a little more complex and the free will becomes less free.
Since we are not the first to debate this unresolved issue, it stands to reason, we shall not get consensus here.
In the aspect of freedom of choice, we do have that but we can only make choices on those options on the menu as I have already indicated.
For me freewill suggests the idea of free agency and other than simple stuff like brushing your teeth or succumbing to bodily requirements like the need to eat or drink and what these solids or liquids may be, there is a modicum of free agency here. Or are there? In an isolation this is dead on but the Guy in the USA and the guy in an African village will have two very disparate menus. Even the will of the body to defecate or urinate, you will to override this for whatever reason will in the end be overridden by that which is determined by bodily constraints. We all know when you have the runs or are nauseas, the body's defence mechanism will override your puny hold it back will each and every time.
It is this aspect of free agency which falls within the definition that theists espouse when they infer we choose not to accept god and damn ourselves to their mythical hell. This leads off with the assumption god is in fact real and that the two options of heaven or hell are the only two choices available.
When probed further on what one should do after completion of catechism or saying the sinner's prayer, theoretically that should be all there has to take place. We then get a bucket list of things to do and the condition of salvation varies between grace and works and the whole picture remains as clear as mud. Belief becomes dependant on faith or faith becomes dependant on belief or you must first believe and then get the gift of faith and the magic decoder ring that will them explain away all the inconsistencies and conflicts that are there in plain black and white.
It is for this reason why people's belief in god is made up and does not follow any set pattern that any literate person can understand. This god then becomes the extension of their own ego and/or personality.
The same bible suggests child like acceptance and also suggests putting away childlike things. It also suggests one should not tempt the lord your god and elsewhere it says it is ok to reason together. The bible states all scripture is good for edification, divinely inspired in some place and elsewhere indicates false prophets should be put to death yet false prophesies and false so called fulfilment of prophesies exist.
This is hardly a work of any omnimax god. It looks more like the works of incompetent and illiterate people that really did not think the implications through. It is this not thinking the implications true where the theological concept of free will falls flat.
Jesus allegedly states no man can come to the father unless the father draws him. That verse alone suggests that he determines who will be "saved" or not. Elsewhere it is stated that one need only believe and be baptised, other places baptism is not necessary and other places it states you need the gifts of the holy spirit particularly the speaking in tongues. Then it goes on to to state that love is more important than gifts.
If we did not have the ramblings of whoever scribed Paul's twaddle, the confusion would be less. The four gospels do not harmonise and so on.
When we critique the foundational document, theists deflect and say they do not worship the book yet in any discussion, they will invariably cite said book to support their position.
This brings us back to the book where if anyone dismisses it or ties to add to it they bring upon themselves a curse. How much freedom of choice do you really have when the basic instructions before leaving earth is so contradictory?
Freedom from all of these man made doctrines is precisely where I am. This freedom from is also seen as freedom from sin or something else.
With such a confusing menu, it is no wonder that there are so many variances and interpretations. If one had freewill to choose into religion, you certainly lose that once you make made the choice. Now you follow the rules and become an obedient drone. One then hears that people are convicted by the Hsu to do or say something and that again suggests you surrender whatever freewill you may have had.
The religious only demonic possession also indicates that whatever freewill you may have had, also subject to whatever external influence that may choose to override your freewill and thus control your actions.
The more you examine it, the more ridiculous it all appears.
In the end, there really seems to be no freewill involved at all. Making a choice to follow any of this seems totally illogical. These are not my claims, it is what is written.
Claims are made that once you buy into the twaddle, you need to disassociate with those that have not or those that like me who have dissed the faith, except when you are instructed to go spread the word. Darkness and light cannot coexist except when they can.
It really is no wonder why theists suffer from cognitive dissonance, there is so much conflicting ideas and taught from an early age, this tends to become acceptable behaviour throughout life that they cannot even see this unnatural condition. Even as an 8yo, I could not equate a loving god with the concept of hell. Now I understand no such place exists and the only evidence is badly tranlated holy texts.
People plead context yet so many do take the bible as literal. This is born out by polls that show 50% of Americans still believe in biblical creation as fact. With that in mind, it is no wonder that so many posit freewill w o thinking what they are saying. The culture has created folk that assume there are only two choices. Few even consider the validy of said choices as they have been indoctrinated that this is "normal ".
For all intents and purposes, my life so far has seemed very orchestrated.
Perhaps a better term is "un-chosen".
I did not choose to exist. I did not choose my parents or country of birth. I did not even choose the planet, the universe / reality. The whole setup was, from my perspective, predetermined.
I did not have any choice in my primary and secondary schools or teachers and my choices of post-secondary education were constrained by economics and various other factors. They were even constrained by my own interests and proclivities and strengths and weaknesses, none of which I had a say in. I did not choose to be introverted, 5 feet 11 inches tall, male, heterosexual.
Most of what I describe above, I was lucky in. I could have been, say, 4 feet 6 inches tall, homosexual, poor family, lousy parents, third world country. All of these things would have placed additional constraints and stresses upon me. But even at that, i was unlucky in other ways. I didn't choose theism, I was basically born into it. At the age of non-quite-six I was taught that I had a "choice" to choose god or burn in hell and I made that "choiceless" choice, even if, in retrospect, it was totally contrived within an imaginary scenario. My late wife did not choose a horrible disease and I did not choose to be widowed.
I could go on and on but the point is within all this I had choices, yes, but all of them constrained or enabled by things completely out of my control.
Freedom in the sense that we denizens of democracy usually mean it, is really just the freedom to be left alone to a greater degree by government -- more choices as to how we earn our living, where we live, what we can call our own and how we can express our opinions without being second-guessed or sanctioned. These are Good Things and Important Things, but there are no guarantees as to outcomes. We can still go broke, have ill health, be mangled or killed in accidents, have addictions, psychoses, neuroses, personality disorders, be disappointed or disillusioned -- all unchosen and undesired.
Some people make a big deal of how we are free in how we respond to things, but even that is a matter of mental (in)flexibility that is largely predetermined, and is influenced by intelligence, abstract thinking abilities as well as how our expectations were set in childhood, again, something that parents, mentors, and authority figures and biochemistry had a disproportionate say in, and also influenced by the luck of the draw of how compliant or self-directed your personality happened to be.
Basically our "freedom" of will or choice are both quite limited, to a handful of practical choices open to us in any given moment, all of which have trade-offs anyway.
I am 56 now and 40 years ago when I was 16, I had plans and expectations of life that in no way resemble my current existence. This becomes more and more apparent the older one gets. When you're 25 or 30 you can rationalize that you're experiencing temporary technical difficulties and speed bumps. But when you're my age and it's all over but the shouting and the trajectory is no longer heading upward, you have to admit that you're not living that 16 year old's life, you're living something else entirely. Subjectively to me it feels like something got mixed up in the records department and I was issued someone else's life.
None of this is the same thing as saying I have no personal responsibility for any of this. I was present for it all and I acted -- sometimes wisely, sometimes not. I had a role to play. But it was a minor role, frankly, not a starring one. That is perhaps to me the most surprising thing about it all. I am still scratching my head about that one. Are we really the primary and most significant actors in our own lives? In practice, is our level of personal control over our own lives, a fluke of perception more than an actual reality? When we look at the "if onlys" in our lives, if we could correct all the moves we now wish we hadn't made, would we simply now be dealing with a different set of disappointments or regrets? How many people do you know who got their lives "right"??
Indeed, I don't know anyone I envy, if I really thing clearly about it. I have a friend for instance that I'm tempted to envy, what with his marriage to the same woman all his life, his adoring and respectful children, his relative wealth -- and then I remind myself that he's saddled with Catholic guilt, has well hidden addiction issues, and is tormented by a sibling who is a sociopath and convicted murderer, which makes him feel like he has to be extra good to make it up to his parents. Would I maybe prefer HIS personal purgatory?
When one is born into a christian family and in a culture where this is the predominant theological worldview, it is inevitable that when confronted with the so called choice, you will invariably choose from the relevant menu. In the case of the US and SA, based solely on the stats that suggest 78% self ID as christian, the chances are very remote that you are going to choose islam or hinduism unless you are part of that subculture.
What you see in both countries is that folk who "choose" religion choose the one their parents belong to. To demonstrate the deterministic angle on this, one has to trace back all of the events leading up to that particular choice. If the pilgrims or early settler left religion behind in Europe where our collective ancestors (settlers) originated from and started up devoid of religion, and assuming it never got a foothold via later migrants, for all intents and purposes, folk would be agnostic wrt xianity, or the adherents would be more like the Amish or Mennonites.
This is not what happened. Did our forefather flee religious oppression or were they ousted for petty crimes to resettle the new worlds? It seems like it is a bit of both concerning the US, neither as far as SA goes and as far as AUS goes the latter more predominant. Yet in all of these cases, religion was a passenger on those boats as the folk back then, for the most part was accepted as normal.
Therefore when a choice is made, it was predetermined by this historical time line and tradition more than conviction played the biggest role. So new converts by way of offspring was par for the course. Here and there, thinkers rejected this and as you know, you had faux witch hunts in Salem as cultures began to assimilate and dominance brought again by forced coercion.
In SA, for the most part, tradition feeds the new sheep in by way of ancestral legacy. A minority follow the evangelical mindset we find in the US but are not as in your face (public sphere) concerning issues like SSM, abortion and premarital sex. For the most part, these inane teachings are confined to their congregants.
Where I have lived under Brit rule and influence, the more palatable version of the Church of England took precedence and influence in government and schools. Most of the mainstream sects are available here and despite huge doctrinal differences do seem to be able to work together in charitable outreaches. These differences are not up for debate except the fundie woo evangelicals in whose mind everyone else is wrong but them. Even the catholic churches here tend to follow a more liberal mindset and many of them do not have the traditional crucifix backstage and centre. It is not uncommon to find that in small towns like where I live, they share facilities with Anglicans Church of England and so on.
We definitely do NOT have bat crap crazy woos wasting money on billboards, uber fancy buildings or lobbying government.
Ironically, despite clear lines of separation of church and state here, satanism is banned. No one is even allowed to host a web page for them on SA servers.
I perceive that in the US, the issues of freewill and free speech conflate and merge and creates unpalatable opportunities for the like of your WBC loons. Here that type of behaviour falls within the context of hate speech and as such they would be banned. I think the UK has also banned them from their shores.
It really does not matter which way you choose to look at this, in the end all of our choices are limited by external constraints and the idea of free agency does not exist. Ergo we all have limited choice(s), to suggest that they have any attribute of being free by whatever measure you feel exists, is an illusion.
Setting one's mind free of the confusion of cognitive dissonance is the most liberating stance and/or conclusion one can arrive at.
It is only when you realise that you are being manipulated by religious leaders, politicians and industrial leaders, you can see that this is the bare truth. You will not see it until to take a few steps back and see the forest instead of just one tree.
When the book of myths suggest in gaining converts you need to be as wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove, it makes no sense. The same book suggests the serpent is also the most cunning or all creatures (metaphorically speaking of the devil). Which take is correct? Logical, rational thinking people pick up on these inconsistencies. Why base your life on such a confusing document or more precisely, why even bother following its edicts?
When you theists find answers to these, perhaps then you may have some leeway to mutter your freewill adages.
When one is born into a christian family and in a culture where this is the predominant theological worldview, it is inevitable that when confronted with the so called choice, you will invariably choose from the relevant menu. In the case of the US and SA, based solely on the stats that suggest 78% self ID as christian, the chances are very remote that you are going to choose islam or hinduism unless you are part of that subculture.
What you see in both countries is that folk who "choose" religion choose the one their parents belong to. To demonstrate the deterministic angle on this, one has to trace back all of the events leading up to that particular choice. If the pilgrims or early settler left religion behind in Europe where our collective ancestors (settlers) originated from and started up devoid of religion, and assuming it never got a foothold via later migrants, for all intents and purposes, folk would be agnostic wrt xianity, or the adherents would be more like the Amish or Mennonites.
This is not what happened. Did our forefather flee religious oppression or were they ousted for petty crimes to resettle the new worlds? It seems like it is a bit of both concerning the US, neither as far as SA goes and as far as AUS goes the latter more predominant. Yet in all of these cases, religion was a passenger on those boats as the folk back then, for the most part was accepted as normal.
Therefore when a choice is made, it was predetermined by this historical time line and tradition more than conviction played the biggest role. So new converts by way of offspring was par for the course. Here and there, thinkers rejected this and as you know, you had faux witch hunts in Salem as cultures began to assimilate and dominance brought again by forced coercion.
In SA, for the most part, tradition feeds the new sheep in by way of ancestral legacy. A minority follow the evangelical mindset we find in the US but are not as in your face (public sphere) concerning issues like SSM, abortion and premarital sex. For the most part, these inane teachings are confined to their congregants.
Where I have lived under Brit rule and influence, the more palatable version of the Church of England took precedence and influence in government and schools. Most of the mainstream sects are available here and despite huge doctrinal differences do seem to be able to work together in charitable outreaches. These differences are not up for debate except the fundie woo evangelicals in whose mind everyone else is wrong but them. Even the catholic churches here tend to follow a more liberal mindset and many of them do not have the traditional crucifix backstage and centre. It is not uncommon to find that in small towns like where I live, they share facilities with Anglicans Church of England and so on.
We definitely do NOT have bat crap crazy woos wasting money on billboards, uber fancy buildings or lobbying government.
Ironically, despite clear lines of separation of church and state here, satanism is banned. No one is even allowed to host a web page for them on SA servers.
I perceive that in the US, the issues of freewill and free speech conflate and merge and creates unpalatable opportunities for the like of your WBC loons. Here that type of behaviour falls within the context of hate speech and as such they would be banned. I think the UK has also banned them from their shores.
It really does not matter which way you choose to look at this, in the end all of our choices are limited by external constraints and the idea of free agency does not exist. Ergo we all have limited choice(s), to suggest that they have any attribute of being free by whatever measure you feel exists, is an illusion.
Setting one's mind free of the confusion of cognitive dissonance is the most liberating stance and/or conclusion one can arrive at.
It is only when you realise that you are being manipulated by religious leaders, politicians and industrial leaders, you can see that this is the bare truth. You will not see it until to take a few steps back and see the forest instead of just one tree.
When the book of myths suggest in gaining converts you need to be as wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove, it makes no sense. The same book suggests the serpent is also the most cunning or all creatures (metaphorically speaking of the devil). Which take is correct? Logical, rational thinking people pick up on these inconsistencies. Why base your life on such a confusing document or more precisely, why even bother following its edicts?
When you theists find answers to these, perhaps then you may have some leeway to mutter your freewill adages.
An individual could be born into an imbalanced un-informed unstable religious family. It could be too far to the right or too far to the left.
There is no point in building a foundation with something which not only has no merit but cannot stand up to anything at all.
Last edited by macpherson; 10-31-2013 at 03:41 AM..
I am 56 now and 40 years ago when I was 16, I had plans and expectations of life that in no way resemble my current existence. This becomes more and more apparent the older one gets. When you're 25 or 30 you can rationalize that you're experiencing temporary technical difficulties and speed bumps. But when you're my age and it's all over but the shouting and the trajectory is no longer heading upward, you have to admit that you're not living that 16 year old's life, you're living something else entirely. Subjectively to me it feels like something got mixed up in the records department and I was issued someone else's life.
An ocean apart , similar age (55 moi) and similar experiences, exact same POV. Perhaps you are my long lost twin
I snipped it a tad as this was the commonality that stood out wrt me. Elsewhere I have shared the best placed plans of mice and men did not pan out for me as expected or envisioned.
My father encouraged me into a trade with his frame of reference coming out of the depression and that tradesmen could always find work. I was leaning more in the academic direction and had I followed that gut instinct, financially I would have been in a better position the way panned out. Back then this was tradition for the lads to get a trade or degree, the latter requiring more yeas at HS and inversely, the lasses were by way of their curriculum in the all girls schools being groomed for motherhood and wifely servitude. As our age of consent (another negation of free will) was 16, it was not uncommon for the lasses to be married and pregnant at age 17-18 and two in the litter before they turned 21. Those traditions may have robbed us of some fine minds had they had the opportunity to do their A levels and go onto university.
These traditions were for the most part driven by the religious beliefs and teachings and that was the 70s, not the 50s. The societal norms of the day pretty much determined our careers and futures.
In SA, most girls matriculated as we do not really have early exit exams except for those with learning disabilities and as such destined to work with their hands in menial jobs or if the girl got preggers. We have come a way since then and pregger girls can stay on, have the baby and come back to school. These instances are thankfully in the minority.
It really surprises me no end that folk your side of the pond have issues in these areas. This would be more of the mindset I would expect from countries north of us.
So as far as I can track back, the external influences were playing the starring roles and I was just an extra or an also featuring.... To be free agents and determine our destinies, we would definitely need to have more control of the influences.
When you look back on your life, for those of you above 40, the important choices your thought you made in life do tend to appear orchestrated, one need not break out in song and say;
Que Sera, Sera,
Whatever will be, will be
The future's not ours, to see
Que Sera, Sera
What will be, will be
There is so much one can still enjoy in life and IMO this is where we come to accept our mortality and accept the outcomes will pretty much be decided by factors outside our control; that and in particular where you live and how affluent you may be to afford life extension meds or treatment.
This again is determined by effectively a random chance.
I think back in the day folk were able to deal with mortality and longevity was indeed seen as a blessing of the gods rather than survival of the fittest. I would be dead now had I not had access to medical science for simple things like malaria, bilharzia, a dislocated hip in a motor cycle accident and my recent high BP issues.
My wife who never smoked, never drank except an swig of beer or a beer shandy on occasion, lived a healthy life, suffered an aneurysm that killed her 2 weeks later at age 51. Inversely, I smoke, I drink on occasion and probably am unfit, yet here I am at 55 going on 56. Doesn't seem fair does it? There was absolutely nothing to predict she was ill and headed for that fatality. No signs of deterioration.
Most folk would say her time had come which is mere platitude and supported by nothing. We do not understand this and then some folk invent afterlives to deal with the loss when in fact even that is not supported by evidence. She only remains in our memories and her sudden departure demonstrates just how fragile this life is - we should make the most of it.
I have worked this back oodles of time and with much whatiffery. It does not change the outcome and based on the prognosis given by experts, I probably would have made the exact same decisions.
She was planning on living a long time and becoming a grandmother was definitely in her future plans. Had she not resisted going to AUS when teh opportunity was there, she may well have been around today - or not.
Confronting this reality is scary for most folks but it does ultimately lead to acceptance of your inevitable fate.
When you look back on your life, for those of you above 40, the important choices your thought you made in life do tend to appear orchestrated, one need not break out in song and say;
Que Sera, Sera,
Whatever will be, will be
The future's not ours, to see
Que Sera, Sera
What will be, will be
There is so much one can still enjoy in life and IMO this is where we come to accept our mortality and accept the outcomes will pretty much be decided by factors outside our control; that and in particular where you live and how affluent you may be to afford life extension meds or treatment.
This again is determined by effectively a random chance.
I think back in the day folk were able to deal with mortality and longevity was indeed seen as a blessing of the gods rather than survival of the fittest. I would be dead now had I not had access to medical science for simple things like malaria, bilharzia, a dislocated hip in a motor cycle accident and my recent high BP issues.
My wife who never smoked, never drank except an swig of beer or a beer shandy on occasion, lived a healthy life, suffered an aneurysm that killed her 2 weeks later at age 51. Inversely, I smoke, I drink on occasion and probably am unfit, yet here I am at 55 going on 56. Doesn't seem fair does it? There was absolutely nothing to predict she was ill and headed for that fatality. No signs of deterioration.
Most folk would say her time had come which is mere platitude and supported by nothing. We do not understand this and then some folk invent afterlives to deal with the loss when in fact even that is not supported by evidence. She only remains in our memories and her sudden departure demonstrates just how fragile this life is - we should make the most of it.
I have worked this back oodles of time and with much whatiffery. It does not change the outcome and based on the prognosis given by experts, I probably would have made the exact same decisions.
She was planning on living a long time and becoming a grandmother was definitely in her future plans. Had she not resisted going to AUS when teh opportunity was there, she may well have been around today - or not.
Confronting this reality is scary for most folks but it does ultimately lead to acceptance of your inevitable fate.
Well, this is a bit off topic from the OP, but I wanted to tell you that I'm so sorry to learn about your wife's passing. But you must know that she's alive! I know you don't believe this, but I wish you would. If you would call her name, I'm sure she would come running to you. Please consider reading this spirit message about the passing of a loved one into the spirit world. Divine Love Writings: Helen Describes the Transition of Passing Into the Spirit World
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
