NOGO

DRFseven

Given that memory is definitely physical and is located in the brain, if you need memory to make a decision then the will must be based on something which you previously placed in memory plus, of course, information obtained through the senses.

However, there may be many possibilities in already memory. The question is how do you make that choice? Obviously emotion has a lot to do with the way we decide. It is not just logic. In fact, I doubt that many people ever use logic in their decisions.

You had a bad night and did not sleep well. This may affect your decisions.

You were just chewed to bits by a friend and now he wants a favour. Right, of course I am going to do that for you, Jack?

Free will is in fact the "I" within us.
Who is that?
It is our genes/body and the cumulative knowledge and experiences stored in our memory.

Of course believers think that there is more. Something unphysical, but I doubt that they can make a case for it.

DRFseven

Of course, but this does not really address what most people believe about free will, which is that thinking has some other way of occuring that is free from experiencial associations. People often think that, somehow, if they might have chosen differently, that proves their decisions were free of prior causation. But what does "might have" mean in this context? It means that, according to their experience, alternatives were presented, but that one of them was perceived as more appropriate (again, according to their own reasoning) than the others. Without benefit of experience, none of the choices would have been possible.

St. Robert

Hell is not a threat. It is a consequence for possessing sin.

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: St. Robert ]</p>

NOGO

Well, I am glad that we got that straighten out. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

ManM

NOGO,
Science progresses by proving previous science to be wrong. I'm just surprised that anyone can really think we have it right this time. Actually, science can never know if it really has anything right. It is only pragmatic in nature. Meanwhile, the probabilistic nature of a coin landing on heads has been demonstrated by experiment. We know better now and if we were bored we could design an experiment and predict the outcome of a flip with high accuracy. At some point in the future it might come to be that we know why the quantum probabilities are what they are. I agree there is no going back. But at least I recognize that we still might move forward.

You sure do have a strange view of history. If you are going to be consistent, I suppose you will also claim that the separation between church and state oppresses people. Not everyone believes that is constitutional you know. How dare we oppose them and force them not to preach in schools? Also, it is not the case that you need a better explanation in order to know someone is wrong. Back in Constantine's time there was not any separation of Church and state. Any religion, be it the pre-Constantine religion of Rome or Christianity, would have been imposed. Do not blame Christianity for that.

You also claim that the "right to think" somehow justifies your interpretation of the bible. Yet in your thinking, you assume that the bible defines Christianity. Not only that, but you assume that your literal interpretation of the bible defines Christianity. Sure you can assume those things, but the "right to think" does not make you correct. Most importantly, I will not grant you the assumption that the bible defines Christianity. In fact, I'm curious as to why you think your interpretation of the bible is sufficient to define Christianity. I rest my understanding on the authority of the people like St. John Chrysostom. They in turn rested their understanding on what was taught to them, and so forth back down to Jesus. This is my justification. Now how do you justify your assumption that the bible defines Christianity?

NOGO

Sheer nonesense. Quantum Mechanism and relativity certainly disagree with Newtonian physics. But making a statement like this without qualifying it is deceitful. Newtonian physics got us to the moon and will do so again. Newtonian physics is still being used and will continue to be used because it gives us an understanding of the world which is verifiable and true. We predict solar and lunar eclipses, send probes to mars and other planets, design airplanes, buildings etc. Newtonian physics is the achiement of hundreds of talented people who worked hard at understanding the world we live in. Contrast that with the millions of religious sheepish followers who produced exactly nothing. Contrast that to 1000 years of church domination where interest in anything but God was looked upon as heresy and a threat.

"science can never know if it really has anything right"

Nonesense. Science is the only human endeavor which is verified against reality. Notice that despite the many differences between the world nations they ALL teach Newtonian physics. Christians can only dream about such cohesion. Just think of it this way the Catholic church claims to have the absolute truth. It forced this truth down people throats for 1000 years. The net result is that there no more agreement today than there was back in 400 AD.

You come back to the coin. Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with flipping coins. The first indications that Newtonian mechanics would not work in the subatomic world is the fact that electrons do not orbit the nucleous as the moon orbits the earth. An electron cannot occupy any orbit it wants. Orbits hare fixed. This has to do with the nature of the electon or the nature of anything that small. An electron can be modelled as a wave. As such only some orbits are possible becasue (if you like) the wavelength has to fit in that orbit.

This was the first indication that the billard ball view of Newtonian physics would not work for subatomic particles. The problem here is not that we cannot locate the exact position of the electron and that some day we will The problem is that the electron does NOT HAVE a specific exact position at a specific time. It is much more complex than that.

What you are saying is that some day we will understand more and we will come back to the billiard ball view of the world where cause and effect are not disputed.

What you need to do is to get information. Words are just that words until someone verifies it through experiement.

Wrong on both counts.
There is no reason, that I can think of, that one group of people should impose their religious views on others. There are confessional schools all over the place. These schools teach their creed all they want. Why should one group claim the right to teach their creed in public schools to people who do not belong to that creed. I see no logic in your statement.

Paul preached Christianity in Rome. Within the Roman empire there was all sorts of creeds. No Roman law prevented people from believing whatever they wanted to believe. Christians were a special lot. Even minor differences withing their own ranks were suppressed with an iron fist.
Rome in the time of Jesus was a republic with citizen who had rights. This can be seen when Paul was arrested. Based on Jewish law he would have been stoned to death. The Roman centurion arrested him and was going to beat him for distubing the peace. Paul told him that he was a Roman citizen. Paul was immediately released.

This is in your NT, ManM. Paul had a legal right to be a Christian in all of the Roman empire except in Israel where he would have been stoned to death for suggesting that a mere human was God.

Not all Christians believed that Jesus was God. This issue was settled with the Nicaea Council 32? AD. After that anyone suggesting that Jesus was not God were persecuted and murdered.

Needless to say that this very issue has not been settled and is disputed even today.

You not only have not answered my point from the previous posts but don't seem to understand my position at all.
You assume many things as well.
You assume that Jesus actually existed.
You assume that Jesus started Christianity.
You assume that Jesus was God.
You assume that there was a single link back to Jesus and that the Catholic church has it.

I don't believe that Jesus started Christianity and I don't believe that Jesus even existed. But I don't want to get sidetracked so let's deal with the last item only.

Jesus was born, lived and died.
His followers went out and preached what they heard.
At some point in time somebody wrote a gospel, then another etc.
There were many such books written. The ones that did not make it in the canon were destroyed. People who used them or simply had them in their possession were murdered. Archaeologists have found some of these books which we now call the Gnostic gospels. How many more are still in the ground to be discovered? How many more have been destroyed by the zealots and are lost forever?

At some point in time some people decided to put some "order" in all this. I call it appropriating Christianity. You have another word for it I'm sure. They chose what they believed was the "real" Christianity and made the canon. You put all your faith in these people. I don't. To me their view was one of many. It was no more true than many of the other points of view at the time.

The arian schism is but one example where believing Christians could not agree on fundamental views such as Jesus' divinity.

The "real" Christianity was so unclear that these people had to force their view on everybody else. You claim that this tradition came from Jesus himself then why was it so hard to get it accepted by all. Constantine assembled bishops to discuss issues. When all was done and a decision had been taken he then conficated property of those who had lost and started persecuting anybody who held these view thereafter.

As I said before contrast YOUR ABSOLUTE TRUTH which has to be imposed by force to Newtonian physics which is taught in all countries of the world today.

Looking at all this you want me to believe that those bishops which held views contrary to what became the official view did not get their views from Jesus. This is obvious to you but it was certainly not obvious to anyone at the time otherwise the correct view would have been enforced without discussion. You have no way of proving that the view which survived came from Jesus and that other views did not.. Let me put as you would. I do not grant you that the surviving view in its integrity came for Jesus and other views did not.

The purpose of the exercise of creating a canon was to stifle opposition. It is also the arguement that you bring forth today.
Essentially you say this. The NT does not define Christianity. Therefore do not bother to read the NT and critize.
The real Christianity was not defined by the people who wrote the books of the NT.
The real Christianity was not defined by the people who wrote other books about Jesus which did not make it into the NT.
The real Christianity was defined the people who chose the books of the NT and stifled the rest.

1000 years later there was a rebellion agaist this gagging and Protestantism was born
Today there is still no concensus but you want to hold the world on what bishops decided around 400 AD as the real Chrisitanity. In other words you want to maintain the gag order.

"You also claim that the "right to think" somehow justifies your interpretation of the bible."
My right to think means that I will read the Bibke and ask questions. I will decide what I want to believe based on how good the answers are. I have asked you to justify the addtion of an unstated condition to John 6:65 and got no answer. I reserve the right to draw the appropriate conclusions not only for myself but also the right to tell others of what I think. I do grant you the right to think differently and also tell others.

The fact that you abide by what was decided around 400 AD does not make you correct either. "Thinking" does allow me to see all the inconsistencies and absurd ideas behind Christianity. You, on the other hand, wish to follow sheepishly what was decided centuries ago and this is also your right.

You forgot to mention that Jesus is God and therefore your point of view comes directly from God.
To me most of what the Catholic church teaches does not stand up to any kind of critical scrutiny.

"I will not grant you" --- I have not asked you for anything.

I have never stated that the Bible defined Christianity. If the Bible defined Christianity there would be a single Christian point of view and a single church. The attempt to achieve this unity failed.

"I rest my understanding on the authority of the people like St. John Chrysostom."
St. John Chrysostom has zero authority with me. His viewpoint and his comments will undergo the same scrutiny as anything else.

What happened is that I quoted John 6:65 and you gave me an interpretation which cannot be justified.

So what are you saying. Drop the bible and read St. John Chrysostom. It is obvious that the makers of the canon got it all wrong. They should have taken St John Chrysostom work and call that the canon.

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

NOGO

Conclusion:
The Church created the canon for a reason.
For them it defined Christianity.
It also defined heresy.
It was a tool to silence people.

I do not buy the idea that these people assembled the NT books so they should know what they mean.

There are many verses which state the same basic concept. This means that the thought was not accidental or an error.

John 6:65
"For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

John 6
37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

John 3
27 John answered and said, "A man can receive nothing unless it has been given him from heaven.

Matthew 13
11 Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted."

... there are more I am sure. The authors of the gospels believed this to the point of stating it several times. Where did they get this idea?

I can see why you and St. john C. do not like what the words say. The explanation given by St. John C. is not one of interpretation it is rather one of modification. He added a condition to the "granting" by the Father.

What matters to me is how do you justify this addition? The rest is whitewash.

ManM

NOGO,
I think I see why we are talking by each other now. We have drastically different philosophical positions. You seem to be espousing some sort of foundationalism. I am more of a conceptualist, and so we won't really get anywhere.

Thank you for proving my point about the pragmatic nature of science. Let me repeat a few of your statements here: "Newtonian physics is still being used and will continue to be used because it gives us an understanding of the world which is verifiable and true." "Quantum mechanics non-deterministic side of the world has been demonstrated through experiment. There is no going back here." So we know for a fact that Newtonian physics is wrong, correct? But we still use it because it works fine in large applications. Newtonian physics isn't true, it is pragmatic. Now, when we move up to quantum, we find a theory that is a better explanation. But if you are going to claim that quantum is "The Truth", you have to assert that there are no other possible theories which can explain our observations. Making a claim like that seems very unreasonable to me. Still we don't throw out quantum because of this. We know it is a useful theory, and so we accept it on pragmatic considerations. We cannot know that our theory is really how the world works. We can just know that our theory is a good predictor of experimental outcomes. Furthermore, the coin analogy is a philosophic point, not scientific. Quantum doesn't prove the world is probabilistic any more than a coin flip does. Quantum is the best we have now, but I am not going to ground a major worldview decision on whatever the current scientific theory might be.

You completely missed my point on the analogy using separation of church and state. Some people claim that this separation was never intended. These people obviously do not get their way. And so they are forced to pay a lot of extra money if they wish their children to not be indoctrinated into naturalism. Do you consider this oppression? If not, then why not? I am guessing that you don't consider it to be oppression because you consider the others to be wrong. It was likewise during the various Christian controversies. And regardless of your beliefs, Rome was not as tolerant as you think. I hope you don't think Nero was a tolerant man. Likewise, I doubt Trajan's comment to Pliny that Christianity was a crime and should be punished demonstrates a religious tolerance. No, the Romans tolerated all sorts of belief, as long as the highest honor was paid to the state and the emperor. Christians refused to do this, and were martyred for their trouble. Persecution for belief was the standard back then, and so we should not be surprised to see that tradition continue after Christianity was adopted.

As for other documents, I would suggest you check out <a href="http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/." target="_blank">http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/.</a> We do have writings other than those that later were compiled into the bible. Besides, if you found a textbook teaching that Newtonian physics was "The Truth", wouldn't you trash it? What Jesus taught was primarily a historical matter, with philosophic considerations being secondary. If the Christians at the time decided that Jesus did not teach anything about "aerial realms of spirts" like the Gnostics did, then why should we second guess them now? If they decided that denying the divinity of Jesus conflicted with the belief in salvation, then why should we second guess them now? Their reasoning is clear, and I will be glad to discuss any specific theological point you might wish to challenge. Now here is where we are at a misunderstanding. I'm not trying to impose a gag order on anyone. If someone wants to believe in sola scriptura and double predestination, so be it. I simply do not think their belief is justified. If calling someone wrong is oppression, then I dare say you are trying to oppress me, right?

Now I have told you several times now, I am using the authority of the church as my justification. I am relying on St. John Chrysostom. He relied on those who taught him. These in turn relied on those who those who taught them, and so forth. Now, your interpretation of the bible has no authority, nor is it philosophically sound. St. John Chrysostom was not adding a thing with his interpretation of the bible. It is you that has subtracted by your insistence that the bible means exactly what you perceive it to mean, and that your interpretation defines Christianity. I have given you my justification. Now what is your justification for your subtraction?

NOGO

I agree that we have drastically different postions.

Newtonian physics is not wrong. Is is the sum of the work of countless, hard working and talented poeple who have given us an understanding of the world around us. This understanding will never go away. It will never be diminished by better understanding. Newtonian physics cannot be used with subatomic particles. This does not invalidate it's application on the macrospcopic world.

As far as truths are concerned, dare to compare.
Newtonian physics is based on strong evidence, is supported by experiment and is universally accepted and taught.

Give one significant truth from any religion which can compare.

I agree that religious truth have no progmatic side. Your loss.

Let me restate my case lest you missed it. Newtonian physics give an understanding of how the world around us works. It is not just a numbers game which allows us, for example, to predict solar and lunar eclipses. It is an understanding which allows us to relate, for example, sun and moon positions to high and low tides. If this understanding of the world around us is not important to you, fine, but it is important to many other people.

You ask "Classical physics can predict results but is it really how the real world works?"
This is an academic question about as important as ... how many angels fit on the head of a pin?

That last sentence is a gem.
Let me rephrase it to show you what I mean.
"I am not going to ground a major worldview decision on the best and most current knowledge of the world that we have."
If scientists ran experiments which demonstrate that sub-atomic phenomena is not deterministic, your attitude is
"I am going to ignore that because it does not fit with what I want to believe."
What is this major worldview decision? If we get into specific maybe we can resolve this issue with actual examples.

You are right. I complete missed your point. Your point is that science is just another religion and the state should consider it as such. Perhaps you did not dare state it as I have.
I can answer this in two ways.

FIRST
Science started with nothing. It progressively gave us better and better understanding of the world. This understanding allowed us to do all sorts of things. Ultimately all modern technology and our economy is based on the successes of science. Scientific information is valued all over the world. Nations spend millions every year on scientific research. Nobody will throw away scientific information because it was discovered in Russia. Unlike religion scientific truths are open to criticism. Science is based on logic, evidence and a proven methodology. As I said before there is concensus with science which religious groups can only dream about.

Christianity on the other hand is based on inspired truths (myths as far as I am concerned). After 300 years there were so many versions of this inspired truth that it became necessary to suppress by force all views except one. After one thousand years of the gag order the church fell apart and since then a multitude of Christian groups have appeared and are ever growing in number. Criticism within each group is discouraged if not suppressed. No concensus among these groups appears anywhere in sight. And of course they all claim to be the only group with the "real" truth.

There is no comparison between religion and science. This is why I missed your point.

SECOND
For the sake of arguement let's say that science is another religion. The state should then treat all religions equally. Right?

Scenario I
Give equal time and emphasis to science, each of the major Christian groups, each group of judaism, each group of Islam, each Buddhist group, each Hindu group etc.
I think that you would have a rebellion on your hands. I think that the last thing any of these religious groups would want is for their children to have a look at how their parent's mythology compares with other myths.
The next consequence would be a collapse of our economy. Children would come out of school knowing all about myths and nothing of value to any potential employer.

Scenario II
I am now trying to think like a believer. "I want my children to be thought my beliefs and whatever science which does not interfere with it."
Wow! just think of it Science being subjected by to a vote by parents. BUT that is not fair is it? Science being another religion has rights too. Parents do not vote on the contents of their faith why should they have a right to vote on the content of science. We will need a church of science which will decided what will be thought in schools and it will be all or nothing. Children whose parents decide to have science in their curriculum will get it all and those who prefer religion will get no science.
I can settle for that.
END OF SCENARIOS

Do I consider it oppression that people are thought science?
NO.
Because unlike religion nobody will force you to believe. Science does not coerce you into belief with threats, excommunication and appeals to authority.
Were you oppressed because you learned that the earth is a ball that orbits the sun while the bible says that the earth is flat and the sky is an upside down dome over the flat earth? Ultimately you can say, yes. You may want your children to believe that the earth is flat, true or not. Then the question to ask is, do you have the right to deprive your child of an education? Can a parent decide that his child will not learn to read and write? Can a parent decide that a child will not learn to speak?

Why is imposed religion oppressive?

Before the revolution nationlists were considered outlaws and therefore persecuted. After the revolution loyalists were persecuted. This is politics. This can be called oppression if it goes against democratical priciples. I do admit however that this is not cut and dried. I do believe that there are limits to what you can impose on a person. If you ask me to pledge allegiance to the king and a few month later you ask me to pledge allegiance to the nation I may disagree but ultimately I will have to decide whether I can live in this country or not. I suspect that many loyalists returned to England or fled to Canada.

Roman persecution of Christians was more akin to the above than to religious oppression.
Here is an example of religious oppression. I am sure that you will see the difference.

When you see science being defended this way then you can claim that children that are thought science are being oppressed.

Wow! This is just about as naive as you can have it. I do not mean to offend here but I am astonished.

Who decided that the Gnostics were not Christians?
Who decided that the Gnostics did not get their beliefs from Jesus?
I am certain that the Gnostic thought that they alone carried the real thoughts and teachings of Jesus.

What you are saying is they had to make Jesus divine or else salvation was at risk. Science at its best. Perfect unattached reasoning and logic.
So the divinity of Jesus was not part of the tradition. Many bishops denied it. It was the conflict with salvation which cliched it.

Anybody who appeals to authority and cannot justify his beliefs in anyother way, is trying to impose a gag order.

Ultimately if you had the power you would impose what you consider authoritative on everybody and the gag order would follow.

You must realize though that if another religious group gained political power then they would impose what they consider authoritative on you and the gag order would follow.

With science you are presented with evidence and you have the right to critize as you do.
For this reason I believe that people who rely on authority to justify their beliefs are in fact a danger to democracy and freedom.

You have told me but you have not proven it.
You have not proven that St .John Chrysostom got his knowldge unaltered from Jesus.
If he did then he would have written his own book. Instead he is just commenting the gospels.
In doing so he admits that the gospels are the basis for his faith and have ultimate authority.

What I claim is that the gospels and St. John Chrysostom are not saying the same thing. I do not need any authority to make such a claim. The same way that I do not need any authority to claim that on easter Sunday Matthew's story blatantly contradicts John's story. A simple read of these two versions will convince anyone. You can go on quoting authority all you want these problems will not go away.

If you say that Newtonian physics is wrong because of relativity and quantum mechanics then I can give a similar answer to yours as follow:

I tell you that Newtonian physics is true on the basis of the authority of Sir Isaac Newton. End of discussion.

Sorry, ManM, it does not work that way. This is not the middle ages.

I am not claiming any authority here; you are the one that relies on authority.
You have to prove "authority" if you are going to rely on it. You have not done so.
In fact your case for authority is very weak.

As I stated above right from its birth Christianity diverged into many groups.
One dominant group suppressed all the rest by force.
Your contention is that this dominant group carried the "real" Christianity.
I doubt this very much. In fact I am quite sure that the "real" Christianity was lost.
Today we have some books written by various people and at different times.
We are comparing the Gospels, probably written in the first century, and we have St. John Chrysostom's book written some 200 years later.

Given that divergence started early and continued until the gag order went into effect
then it follows that
there was much more divergence in the time of St. John Chrysostom then there was back in the first century when the gospels were written.

On that basis I can easily justify the word "addition" when it comes to St. John Chrysostom's comments on John 6:65.

You on the other hand need to prove that the idea stated by St. John C. was in existance all the way back in the first century. You also need to explain why neither John nor Matthew bothered to express St. John C.'s version.

[ June 02, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>