BLoggins02

I agree. What is this "free will" of which everyone speaks?

Does "free will" simply mean the choice of going left or right? Don't animals also have this characteristic? If so what is the purpose of an animal's free will.

Perhaps we don't actually have free will even in a godless world. Maybe we are reductionistically predetermined to make our decisions based on external influence and subconscious behavior rules that are not apparent to our conscious minds.

Let me ask: if we in actuality did NOT have free will, how would we even know the difference?

David Gould

I think that the universe is reverse deterministic - in othere words, it is possible from anyone state to determine the previous state.

Quantum mechanics seems to suggest some randomness - thus, our actions are not predetermined even if free will does not exist.

I think that free will is an illusion.

'We have to believe in free will. We've got no choice.'

(some french guy whose name escapes me)

Typhon

Before we start on this momentous journey, I'd like further clarification on a few, important points. This is vital as you've left out a lot of critical elements in your casual set up of the problem IMO. If you can not answer these additional questions, then you should wait until you can, before embarking any further in this discussion.

What leads you to think that your god is more interested in character than behavior? Do you take this from the revelations of your sect (i.e. whatever holy scriptures your variant of Christianity holds to be canon), personal communication with this god, or do you base this on some more abstract source? Before we all spend time discussing this proposal of yours, I'd like to see your claim presented and evidence given for its veracity.

Why do you define character as "an internal compass molded through experience, often pain, and yielding self-control and wisdom?" This could be an example of an element of character, assuming you're basing the definition of character itself on something along the lines of definition number four, as found below, or of a specific character, but I would like to know what gives you the authority to define character solely as this? Is this the Christian view of character? Your seem to be building your theory in reverse, creating parts whose sum will add up to your desired outcome, rather than a more open, fair-minded experiment.

char·ac·ter
n.

1. The combination of qualities or features that distinguishes one person, group, or thing from another. See Synonyms at disposition.

2. A distinguishing feature or attribute, as of an individual, group, or category. See Synonyms at quality.

3. Genetics. A structure, function, or attribute determined by a gene or group of genes.

4. Moral or ethical strength.

5. A description of a person's attributes, traits, or abilities.

6. A formal written statement as to competency and dependability, given by an employer to a former employee; a recommendation.

7. Public estimation of someone; reputation: personal attacks that damaged her character.

8. Status or role; capacity: in his character as the father.

9. A notable or well-known person; a personage.

10. A person, especially one who is peculiar or eccentric: a shady character; catcalls from some character in the back row.

11. A person portrayed in an artistic piece, such as a drama or novel.
Characterization in fiction or drama: a script that is weak in plot but strong in character.

12. A mark or symbol used in a writing system.

Character can be defined in a number of ways, and very few people seem to hold to the same definition. A sample of just a few:

<a href="http://www.charactercounts.org/" target="_blank">http://www.charactercounts.org/</a>
<a href="http://www.goodcharacter.com/" target="_blank">http://www.goodcharacter.com/</a>
<a href="http://www.eduscapes.com/42explore/character.htm" target="_blank">http://www.eduscapes.com/42explore/character.htm</a>
<a href="http://keirsey.com/Drummers.html" target="_blank">http://keirsey.com/Drummers.html</a>
<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03584b.htm" target="_blank">http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03584b.htm</a>
As we can see, I think your definition leaves much out. Can you be more clear or are you really tyring to argue for such a truncated and incomplete definition of character?
And what then, is the threat of hell? Compared to a gun hell is a far, far greater threat and liable motivator for conversion, belief, and yes, coercion. It seems then, you argue that for most Christians, god is only concerned with behavior, not ethics or character.

If it is known that to deny god is to be sent to eternal damnation, a fate far worse than death, torture, defilement, rape, and any other crime imaginable by the human mind, what is faith (provided one believes in the reality of hell and damnation for those unsaved) but simple and brutal coercion of the worst possible kind? Please answer this, and show how the threat of hell is not like and actually far more deplorable than holding a gun to your child's head?
This analogy is less appropriate really, and rather nonsensical. Why would a child, with 21 years of experience, regardless of his unflagging obedience to you the progenitor, suddenly be a clean slate or even worse as you suggest, "a pre-moral goon" upon the release of your control. If he had not learned perfect character by then in his dealings with the rest of the world or from your example, he certainly would have learned some, surely enough to keep him from being a moral savage. Here you seem to not so subtly equate character with 100% free-willed obedience to a parent figure. Hardly the definition you first proposed. Of course, what is most often defined as character in Christian circles IS unflagging and unquestioning obedience, so perhaps this is closer to what you intended than you knew.
And you think the formation of character occurs in a behavior-less, cultural, and moral vacuum? There are real and important consequences to character, which is affected by behavior in a culture and among members of a species. Humans are by no means unique in this, though we are perhaps the most visible. I would recommend you do some research among the many excellent papers published by primatologists, behavioralists, and neuroscientists which deal with the clear and on-going biological and evolutionary connection that character, temperament, and behavior play in primates. If you are not of a technical bent, either A Primate's Memoirs by Robert M. Sapolsky, a neuroscientist, or Shirley C. Strum's Almost Human, contain wonderful accounts of their respective fieldwork among baboons, which among other issues, deal with the thorny item of character and behavior in a social/group dependent species.

<a href="http://www.asp.org/" target="_blank">http://www.asp.org/</a>

<a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/" target="_blank">http://www.nature.com/nature/</a>

<a href="http://www.semcoop.com/categories/scitech/article.asp?review=osapolskybaboon.txt" target="_blank">http://www.semcoop.com/categories/scitech/article.asp?review=osapolskybaboon.txt</a>

<a href="http://www.press.uchicago.edu/News/0202strumprs.html" target="_blank">http://www.press.uchicago.edu/News/0202strumprs.html</a>

Aside from this, you also need to define these "moral laws" obedience to which you claim, I think somewhat presumptuously, as being the basis for good behavior. How does character reflect obedience to "moral laws?" If behavior is merely fear of punishment, then what is character? Does one with great character, but no taught knowledge of these nebulous "moral laws" instinctively do "the right thing?" And, considering that in the course of "experience" which is by your own definition (as incomplete as it may be), defines and creates character, could anyone exposed and accepting of the theology you espouse, namely the threat of Christian hell and damnation, possibly separate what is done out of a true desire to do good, and a desire (just as honest in actuality) to do good to escape punishment or censure? These two vines would seem impossibly intertwined in the course of an average human's growth and lifetime, and they themselves hard pressed to know which reason they REALLY choose obedience to these murky "moral laws." Considering the simple and salient psychological fact that everyone wants to think of themselves as being a good member of their cultural/identity group, and tend to think better of themselves than the reverse, even those who in reality practice obedience to the "moral laws" out of fear of damnation, may themselves be self-deluded into thinking they do so out of character-based righteousness.

Now those are all hurdles you need to clear before we can even BEGIN to talk about the impact or non-impact of free-will upon the equation.

.T.

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

Pomp

luvluv,

Yes God does prefer A to B, wouldn't you in your children?

Personally? No, I don't see where it makes a difference. Perhaps you could explain why it would make a difference to Yahweh?

Typhon,

If no one else has said this yet, welcome to II. Pardon my inquisitiveness, but did I see you identify yourself as a Christian in another thread or am I thinking of someone else?

MadMordigan

Yes God does prefer A to B, wouldn't you in your children?

How would I know the difference? Why would I care?

Echo

LuvLUv,

You say:

I agree with Typhon that the first order of business is explaining to us how you came to the conclusion that God prefers A to B. I don't think it's enough to assert that God prefers A to B simply because *you* also prefer A to B. I could turn around and say that I perfer B to A and therefore God must be likewise, for no other reason than because *I* prefer it that way. For example, I could say that Hell simply cannot exist because *I* would never create such a place, or allow it to exist, or allow any of my creation to go there even if they desired to. And if this is the way I prefer things, then God must also prefer things this way.

tronvillain

Then there's the question of whether or not you have any basis for preferring A to B other than intuitive notions about freedom.

DRFseven

That's a great saying, luvluv; "Free will is a costly thing." Mind if I take it?

When you say "it [free will] implies an absence of outside influence...", you are perfectly right; it does imply that. Which is why "free will" is a ludicrous concept, since ALL our opinions depend upon personal experience.

Jamie_L

Character in children: at any given age, a child has a certain "character" - a set of beliefs, attitudes, moral/ethical strengths and weaknesses. Some of this character is in their nature, some is from external influences, but a lot is created by parents as part of the upbrining process. Whether you create that exact personality state by years of upbringing or instaneously by magic, you've still got the same state. I don't see that one is less valuable than the other.

What luvluv appears to be suggesting is that god values character that people create for themselves, rather than a character created for them. But, as mentioned, our early character is largely created for us by our parents. Later, it is shaped by experience, and somewhat by our own desires and intentions.

But, if we take the position that God created everything, and that God knows everything, he's responsible for everything that helps shape our character - from our nature to our parents to the outside influences. Even if God sets up the world and lets it run, if he's omnipotent, he KNOWS how we will turn out. If he does nothing to prevent some of us from developing bad character due to everything he created, how are we responsible?

Jamie

Typhon

OT:

Salutations Pompous Bastard!

Thank you for the welcome. I'm a "long time fan, first time listener of the show." Actually, I've posted here before, long ago in the murky past, under the nick of "Avenzoar." And no, I'm not a Christian, nor have I ever been, though I'm soaked in Christian theology and teachings up to "here," pickled almost.

I was just seeking to set some clear, agreed upon ground rules for this thread. I feel I was overly harsh with luvluv in their previous thread, so I was trying to get the starting definitions spelled out better in this one. It's been many, many years since I bothered to argue with theists, so I'd forgotten how infuriating the duck and hide tactics (either intentional or due to mistakes on both sides about defining the particulars) can be.

.T.

Back On Topic:

Assuming we ever were to get a response from luvluv or anyone else on (1) what proof there is that god or gods prefer character over any other trait, such as obedience or behavior, (2) what defines that said character, and (3) the problem of expressing the free development of the agreed upon character in light of the threat of supernatural punishment (which makes it seem more an issue of coercion), I still don't see why free will is held as a stumbling block for making a more perfect creation that has all this.

Furthermore, I've always taken from my frequent bastings in Christian theology, that what the canon Christian god desires is primarily threefold (excuse the Bible quotes, no doubt you get enough from the theists, but since luvluv disappeared, all I have to go by is the Christian canon):

1. Jealous worship or observance of his godness ("Thou shalt have no other gods before me").

2. Acceptance of human's supposed fallen or sinful state ("But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, And your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He does not hear.").

3. Salvation through the belief in god's self-stated sacrifice as the Christ-figure ("For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.").

Soooooo, where EXACTLY does character even fit in to this equation? I mean, I know it's likely "nice" to have as well, and perhaps it gets you a better seat on the heavenly bus or something, but it definitely doesn't appear to be required by any means, not according to the horse's holy mouth anyway.

Take the fact that for most of the important figures of both the OT and the NT, this god fellow comes right out and puts on quite a show, burning bushes, plagues, personal talks, stone tablets, partings of seas, wrestles with angles, military victories, water into wine, resurrections, etc.. Now this makes it appear that god is able and willing, to pursue vigorous means of demonstrating his visible presence in the world, confirming his godness, pointing out the sinful nature of his supposed creations, and showing off the magic of his sacrifice on earth.

Now, it certainly seems that if god came down, in a blaze of glory, with heavenly trumpets, and a choir and Christ riding shotgun, parted some seas, stopped some wars, healed the sick, and generally sat around explaining or at the least, demonstrating his godly attributes, anyone believing the three points I made above, would be free to get out of hell and all that. They would not have been coerced, or had their free will taken away in the choice, or anything but given the same chance that most of the Biblical characters had to recognize god.

Now perhaps some Christians might argue that this was necessary because there wasn't a big faith to spread the news around, or a church to teach these things, so everyone could take it on "faith." However, this wasn't the case during the late roman times, or during the long expanse of the Middle Ages, where visitations, miracles, and direct revelation, was common, or so it would seem. What, has god gotten lazy or something in our modern age? Can't be bothered to mix it up with locals? Seems odd, especially considering that more than ever, there is serious doubt about the validity of all three of his major claims (godness, existence of sin, and the sacrifice of the Christ figure), and hardly one of his hundreds (actually thousands) of sects agree with each other, and frequently are casting each other into the metaphysical flames, left and right.

So unless character and free will are just another name for confusion and laziness on god's part, it seems ludicrous to try to swindle rational folks with some claptrap that the rules have changed so greatly from when they were first laid down (not a long time ago either, historically speaking). Add to this that if god already KNOWS who is going to buy the song and dance, and who isn't based on the mixed message and muddy water, god clearly isn't giving a fair shake to most of the world.

There is no "removal" of free will if god allowed everyone to personally get the amount of proof that would convince them of his godness, the truth of his sinful nature, and the veracity of the Christ story (and god already knows EXACTLY how much this is, and that it is different for every person). They still have the choice to deny him or accept him. Why anyone would deny, I dunno, but perhaps Satan could come along and offer a competing plan, but then, that would be a bit like betting on a football team made up of first graders against the World Cup team. As pointed out by another poster (in another thread), the blokes in the Apocalypse get this benefit, why the hell do the rest of us get such short shift?

And then, that's the part where I remember, it’s a big fat fairy tale. No one goes to heaven, no one goes to hell, no big pie in the sky for any of us, or at least, not one that ANYONE here can talk about. But regardless, I don't see character making one whit of a difference regardless. I love it when Christians ask me "what if you're wrong, and there IS an afterlife?" I love this, and answer, quite truthfully, "Boy, then YOU guys are really in for a surprise!"

Gods are made, not born.

.T.

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>