ex-preacher

How does God create freedom? He created the indivdual with certain needs, desires, propensities. He created the world and everything in it. He knows the exact reaction every individual will have based on the characteristics he gave them and the people and situations they will encounter. He still is the cause and everything that happens is the effect. Suppose I created a computer program and even gave it "freedom" to change its own course. Yet I also know everything that the computer will do based on its programming and the environment it will encounter. Does it truly have free will? Since free will is incompatible with an omniscient God, you must give up free will or an omniscient God. Incidentally, there is a new field of theology known as "open theology" which attacks the notion of God's omnipotence as contrary to free will.

I happen to accept free will, but what is your proof that determinism is "too far removed from human experience"?

I don't even know what irrational chemical reactions are (please don't tell me), so I can't address that question.

I will freely admit that this is a difficult area. I do not feel qualified to explain the naturalistic argument for free will, but I have read it (although I don't remember where). Perhaps a new thread just on this subject would be appropriate if you choose.

ex-preacher

And now, I will give my understanding of a basis for morality. I would agree with your definition of morality as the proper relation between persons. Naturally, I don’t rely on any supposed relationship between the various members of the three-in-one godhead.

So what can provide a basis for morality? Reason and experience. The foundation for all morality is the idea of treating others as we wish to be treated. Jesus’ famous formulation of the “Golden Rule” was preceded and mirrored in other traditions, including earlier Rabbis, Greek philosophy, Confucianism, Buddhism and native American spirituality. Reason and experience have taught us that we are happiest and most fulfilled both as individuals and as a society when as many people as possible are happy and free from suffering. We also use reason to guide us when we must make exceptions the the rule. The trinity model provides no help when we are confronted with people who would do great harm to us or others. Since the members of the trinity are in perfect agreement all the time, I fail to see how that provides any guidance whatsoever for complicated human interactions, unless the principle is: always agree with everyone.

I completely reject your suggestion that morality is based on power. In fact, I would say that often those who are powerful immorally oppress the powerless. Might doesn’t make right, but often right must use might. Hitler’s power didn’t make him right, but it did compel an even more powerful response from those who were right – the Allied nations. Slavery was based completely on power, but it wasn’t right and it required a Civil War to abolish it. If a bully throws a handicapped child out of her wheelchair, is the bully right? Of course not.

A related area is our form of government. The only type of government endorsed by both Testaments of the Bible is a hereditary monarchy. The example of the trinity gets us nowhere since presumably the three godparts don’t have disagreements. I am convinced that democracy is the best form of government. The way we humans discovered this was through the use of reason and experience.

Religion in general and the Bible in specific is a poor source for morality since the instructions provided are usually either vague or contradictory. Furthermore, divine command theory is based ultimately on God’s power to punish or reward – the lowest type of morality. The highest type of morality is to do the right thing even when you know you might be punished.

Morality: doing the right thing no matter what you're told.
Religion: doing what you're told no matter what the right thing is.

ex-preacher

Regarding the political nature of the councils. First, I should admit that it has been a long time since I studied church history. I had excellent teachers - Everett Ferguson, editor of the "Encyclopedia of the Early Church," and Michael White, now at the University of Texas – but it has been almost 20 years. I tried to dig up my old notes and textbooks, but found myself leaning on a rather elementary source – Encarta – to uncover these basic facts. If you question these facts, I'll be glad to dig up more authoritative sources.

When I use the word “political” I do not mean the state’s power exercised over the church, although that clearly happened at certain points. I mean “the total complex of relations between men in society” often “characterized by shrewdness in managing, contriving and dealing” (from Webster’s – “political” and "politic" ) . The church’s bishops, popes, and patriarchs were every bit as political as the emperors in gaining and exercising power. Ambrose, Athanasius, and Augustine were intensely political creatures.

The human (and messy) nature, rather than divine origin, of the councils is seen in the fact that one council would often overrule the findings of an earlier council. For instance, the Council at Chalcedon in 451 (fourth ecumenical council) met to consider the writings of the Greek theologians Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and Ebas of Edessa. These writings, known as the Three Chapters, were approved. However the fifth ecumenical council (Constantinople, 553) condemned the Three Chapters and anathematized their authors (Source: Encarta). Did God change his mind? Was the fifth council more “led by God” than the fourth council? Should the fifth council take precedence since it was more recent? Or the fourth council, since it was closer to the apostles?

Another good example of political power and the reversibility of council decisions is seen in the controversy over icons. Here is the article in full from Encarta.

----------------

Iconoclasm (Greek eikon, “image”; klaein, “to break” ) , any movement against the religious use of images, especially the one that disturbed the Byzantine Empire in the 8th and 9th centuries.

In 726 and 730 Emperor Leo III, the Isaurian, promulgated a decree forbidding the veneration of images. This decision was condemned by the pope, but the iconoclastic doctrine was rigorously enforced at Constantinople (present-day Istanbul) by Leo and even more by his son and successor Constantine V, who had the worship of images condemned as idolatry at the church council held in the suburban palace of Hieria in 754.

The accession of Empress Irene brought with it a change in policy, and the iconoclasts were condemned in turn at the second Council of Nicaea, in 787. A second period of iconoclasm was inaugurated under imperial auspices in the first half of the 9th century; it ended with the final condemnation of iconoclasm at the Council of Orthodoxy, held in 843 under the patronage of Empress Theodora II.

The most serious argument against iconoclasm formulated by the Syrian theologian and Father of the Church John of Damascus was that it denied one of the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith, the doctrine of the incarnation. According to the defenders of images, Christ's human birth had made possible his representations, which in some sense shared in the divinity of their prototype. The rejection of these images, therefore, automatically carried a repudiation of their cause.

In addition to its theological aspects, the iconoclastic movement seriously affected Byzantine art. Furthermore, the movement weakened the position of the empire by fomenting internal quarrels and splitting with the papacy, which began to abandon its Byzantine allegiance and seek alliance with the Franks.

Despite its victory in the theological sphere, the Eastern church was not successful in its challenge of imperial authority, even with John of Damascus's assertion that the emperor had no right to interfere in matters of faith. Both the introduction of iconoclasm and its condemnation at the councils of 787 and 843 were ultimately the result of imperial rather than ecclesiastical decisions, because the councils met only on imperial orders. Consequently, the authority of the emperor in both the spiritual and the secular spheres, and his control of the church, emerged from the controversy perceptibly strengthened.

---------------

To recap on iconoclasm:
1. icons condemned by Leo III and Constantine V and the Council of 754 (pro-iconoclasm)
2. Empress Irene favored icons as did the Council of 787 (anti-iconoclasm)
3. icons condemned in early 800s (pro-iconoclasm)
4. icons favored by Theodora II in 843 (anti-iconoclasm)

Does this look like the work of God or of men?

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: ex-preacher ]</p>

ex-preacher

bump

ManM

joedad,
Freedom is only called into question if a necessary causal relationship can be established between God's knowledge and our action. Knowing what we will do is not the same as causing us to act.

ex-preacher,
Again I apologize. Life has picked up a bit so I currently don't have the time to write a proper response. But I might be able to make a few quick points.

God creates freedom by creating us in His image. God is free, hence we are free. You are still assuming a determinism that I reject. Computer programs are deterministic and not free. I will not accept the assertion that we are determined by any programming. If we are not free, then yes, there is a problem with an omniscient God. But we are free, hence there is no necessary causal relationship between God's will and our actions. I made my argument for freedom in my last post, but I suppose I was not clear. Remember the "irrational chemical reactions"? If we are determined, then all of our thoughts are simply predictable reactions. On what grounds do we assign value to one reaction over another? How is it that we label 2+2=3 as irrational and 2+2=4 rational? Our minds make that judgment, but that judgment itself is no more than a reaction. This begs the question (On what grounds do we assign value to a reaction?), hence leading to an infinite regress. I see two options left, either our value judgments have no meaning or determinism is incorrect. There may be other options, but I have not been able to think of any.

I always feel dirty when criticizing someone's morality, but I think it is necessary. Under your system, we know by experience that we are happiest when human happiness is maximized. Hence we can use reason to maximize human happiness (with the goal being personal happiness?). Hence personal happiness is the foundation of morality? What happens when your personal happiness conflicts with the happiness of others? We usually look at the self-sacrifice of heroes as a highly moral act. Doesn't this cast doubt on the idea that personal happiness is the foundation of morality? By correlating morality to pleasure and pain you do avoid the criticism of it being no more than a power play. However, I think you might have to claim that a noble self-sacrifice is in fact immoral given that personal happiness has been defined as the foundation of good. Now you keep saying that religion is doing what you're told no matter what is right. My religion tells me that love is the foundation of morality. Hence, I am told to love. Can you show me how doing what I am told conflicts with what is right?

Now I read the decrees both for and against the "Three Chapters", and it wasn't as confusing as you make it out to be. The writings were not accepted and rejected for the same reason. They were accepted by the earlier council because they condemned the prominent heresy of the time. However, they were rejected later because in combating the earlier heresy they pushed too far in the other direction. And so through the combined councils the doctrine was stabilized between the two extreme views about Jesus. I find nothing wrong with this. With respect to iconoclasm, let me quote from your post: "The accession of Empress Irene brought with it a change in policy, and the iconoclasts were condemned in turn at the second Council of Nicaea, in 787. A second period of iconoclasm was inaugurated under imperial auspices in the first half of the 9th century; it ended with the final condemnation of iconoclasm at the Council of Orthodoxy, held in 843 under the patronage of Empress Theodora II." It seems as though iconoclasm was the work of Empress Irene and "imperial auspices" while the councils condemned it. I do not wish to become mired in a pointless debate about Church history, so let me re-assert my key claim. The councils (basically democratic in nature) were a good way to preserve Christianity. These councils were populated by men, not pawns of the holy spirit. Given human freedom we should not expect perfection. However, the democratic nature of the Church provided a safeguard against the fallibility of individuals. The "Three Chapters" decision during the 5th council shows the power of that democratic tradition. While rejecting the earlier council's decision about the texts it preserved the earlier council's theology.

Again, I am sorry for the delays between posting.

*Edited for spelling and such.

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: ManM ]</p>

ex-preacher

<strong> I understand. Fortunately for me, I am between semesters currently so I’ve got lots of free time. The only problem in the delays is that it takes me awhile to notice that you have responded.

I think I will respond to your post in three separate posts, one each on free will vs. determinism, morality without God, and the church councils.

First, free will.

<strong> This seems to me to not provide a real solution, but a shortcut to one. You are not dealing with the key problem here – how do you explain away cause-and-effect? To simply say that we are free because God is free just asserts and begs the question. How does God “create freedom”? Are our actions disconnected from cause and effect? Our thoughts and deeds are either rooted in a cause (or set of causes) or they are without cause (random). Please establish two things:

1. that free will exists
2. how free will can be an uncaused cause (I mean in specific instances, not in the general “creation” of free will)

<strong> This again raises the above questions. I would say there is still a problem reconciling an omniscient God with free will. It is not the same as a person being able to predict what might happen. In God’s case, he supposedly [b]knows[/] everything that will happen. And he is not a mere observer, rather he is the one who created everything and intervenes, thus he knows the exact outcome that he is causing every time he creates a person. He created their predispositions, he knows the family and culture he is placing them into, he caused everything, going back to the garden of Eden. He knew exactly what would happen when he placed, or allowed, the wily serpent, a forbidden fruit, and two humans in the same place. He could have created things so that Adam and Eve wouldn’t have fallen, but he chose not to. As the bumper sticker says so eloquently, “Eve was framed.”

<strong> I don’t follow this line of reasoning. We must be on different wavelengths (yours being the higher one). Perhaps others can help me out here. It seems to me that we label 2+2=4 as rational because it has tested so well, whereas 2+2=3 tests rather poorly. It is not simply a value judgment. Numerous prestigious double-blind experiments using apples have consistently shown that 2+2=4.

To re-state my question earlier, can you prove that free will exists? Like you, I certainly want it to exist, but I also want the sun to revolve around the earth, as that seems to fit my personal observations and desire. Is it entirely rational for you to cling to theism simply because you can’t understand how something you want to exist can exist apart from theism (especially when you find naturalism otherwise consistently with reality)?

As I have stated before, it seems that the question of free will v. determinism goes far beyond the question of theism vs. atheism. For thousands of years, free will has been a controversial issue in philosophy, theology and psychology. I do not claim to be an expert, but the reading & research I have done so far convinces me that this question has yet to be satisfactorily resolved. Free will has the advantage of fitting our desires, common sense, and the whole basis of ethics. Determinism seem to win hands down when it comes to pure philosophy and science.

You have asked me for a naturalistic argument for free will. I haven’t found a solid one yet. Some have argued that quantum mechanics provides for free will, but actually it just shows randomness, not true free will. Here’s something I turned up (from my favorite quickie source – Encarta, under an interesting article on “Free Will&#8221 ; ) .


“Psychologists have found it difficult to explain free will; their method of scientific causality predicates determinism. The rational philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries, who were, in a sense, psychologists, attempted to state mechanistic laws that would include mental phenomena as they did physical phenomena, such as gravity; free will, being anarchistic by definition, could not be patterned into law. In the 20th century, certain psychologists—including the Americans Rollo May, Gordon Allport, and Abraham Maslow and especially the advocates of existentialism—have recognized the element of spontaneity in the human mind that is admitted to lie outside any possible scientific law. This spontaneity can be interpreted to be free will, or at least a measure of self-determination that people feel themselves to possess and by which they make moral judgments.”


I feel like a real amateur in philosophy in general and on free will vs. determinism in particular. If anyone out there can help us out, please feel free to step in.

[ May 23, 2002: Message edited by: ex-preacher ]</p>

ex-preacher

Now, on to morality.

<strong> And that’s what sets you apart from the average theist around here. You may have discovered that one of our pet peeves is when theists assume that non-believers are immoral, amoral, or if moral, that we have no rational basis for our morality.

<strong> I would basically agree so far. I would add reason to experience.

<strong> Excellent question. I think the key point here is that you must distinguish between personal happiness and personal safety. Put another way, you must distinguish between psychic happiness and physical comfort. I find my greatest happiness when those I love are happy, even if that means I must make personal sacrifices. If an intruder entered my home and I knew that I could save my wife and 3 children at the cost of losing my own life, I would do it without hesitation. In my opinion, this would be the complete end of my existence and thus any chance at future happiness, but I would do it because my last thought would be intense satisfaction at having saved the people I love the most. Conversely, if I saved myself and let my family be killed, I would be the most miserable person imaginable for the rest of my life. By the way, I would have killed to save them even when I was a Christian, in spite of Jesus’ teaching to “turn the other cheek” and “not resist an evildoer.” I’m sure I could have found some theological justification if I tried hard enough.

I have the same rationale for being willing to sacrifice my life for my neighbor, community, or nation, although I would need to be convinced that the loss of my life (and loss of a husband and father to my family) was worth the benefit that might be gained. Thus, I would have probably volunteered to fight in World War II, but might have evaded the draft for Vietnam. Incidentally, IMO, an honest interpretation of Jesus’ teachings requires absolute pacifism. That was the consistently position of the early church fathers until Christianity became the state religion. After Constantine’s conversion, members of the army were required to be Christian. Quite a change! Augustine then formulated the “just war” theology to cover for this incredible turnabout.

Let me give a true-life example. About 9 years ago, a good friend and member of the church where I ministered developed leukemia. Our church held a bone marrow drive where hundreds, including me, registered in the “bone marrow bank.” Unfortunately, in spite of 2 bone marrow donations (the match was from another state), excellent care, and repeated prayers, including an anointing with oil and prayer by elders, Steve died, leaving behind a widow and three kids.

Out of the blue, 2 years ago, I received a phone call from the National Bone Marrow Donor Program (www.marrow.org) telling me that I was a match for someone and asking if I would consider donating. After thinking about it for a couple days and talking to my family, I decided that I would proceed. The cost to me was relatively small – repeated blood donations for tests, a trip to Dallas for the surgery, a few weeks of pain in my lower back. There was a slight risk of complication, and a very slight possibility of death (from adverse reaction to the general anesthesia). The reward was priceless. All I knew was that the recipient was a young adult male with almost no hope of survival without this donation. After 1 year, the bone marrow people, at our mutual consent, released our names to each other. I found out that he was married and lives in Utah (I think he’s even a Mormon!). At Christmas, I received the best present I have ever had – a scrapbook filled with pictures and letters from the recipient and his family. He is in full remission and he and his wife are planning to have kids. I still get chills when I look at it. I told my wife that if our house is on fire and the kids are safely out, the one thing I’m grabbing is that scrapbook (and maybe the cat). You see, this great personal happiness was reached by sacrificing some blood, marrow, and time, not by looking to my physical comfort.


<strong> I’m not sure I follow you. Yes, love is good and usually the right thing as well.

Robert Ingersoll, the “Great Agnostic,” put it this way (I’m quoting from memory):

Happiness is the greatest good.
The time to be happy is now.
The place to be happy is here.
The way to be happy is to make others happy.


What if your religion told you to kill your son or to murder an entire race of people, including the infants, would you do it? What if your religion told you that wives should be in subjection to their husbands, that homosexuals would go to hell, and that slavery was acceptable?

Still to come - more excitement on church councils - are they of men or of God? - stay tuned for results.

ManM

ex-preacher,
Remember, I believe that we were all created in God's image. We have access to morality just as well as the Saints. Now you have used the opposite of happiness in your defense. You would save your family to avoid future pain. I do not wish to get bogged down in semantics, so when I refer to pleasure or pain I am doing so with the understanding of the higher pleasures. And so your foundation of morality now is two fold: pleasure and avoidance of pain. I think it is necessary to state them both because you would choose non-existence over pain. Pleasure does not factor into the scenario. This seems like a workable system to me, even though I would say it is analogous to the Christian being good for fear of hell. If you did not sacrifice, you would be doomed to live with guilt. This would be your hell. And so you act in order to avoid that hell, just like the fundy acts to avoid Dante's Inferno. Fear is often sufficient for morality, so I find nothing wrong with your system.

Happiness is tied to morality. You believe this from experience; I believe it from both experience and theology. We were created in God's image, and so we are naturally happiest when we act according to that nature. Likewise, when we act contrary to our nature we find ourselves in emotional pain. I believe morality can be found in the nature given to us by God, and that makes love the foundation. You believe morality can be found my maximizing happiness and minimizing pain. I would suggest that experience tells us that love achieves this goal better than anything. I think we are both driving at the same point from two different directions, so the morality discussion will probably wind up with us agreeing on some front. As a final point, my religion tells me to love. Nothing more, nothing less. Now what I have to do is try to live up to that demand.

Also, I figure you are just going to point out some shady council dealings, so let me save you the trouble. I am quite aware that the councils were populated by fallible men. I know there were heated debates, persecutions, and all that other crap. That leaves two options. Either the democratic nature of the councils preserved the faith or the faith is lost in history. I'm not sure if this question can ever be definitely answered, and that makes it an object of belief. I find it reasonable to believe that the councils preserved Christianity. Can you demonstrate that my belief is not an option?

Finally, I find it strange that you hold onto your beliefs in naturalism and freedom without knowing how to reconcile the two. I will give you the benefit of the doubt when you say you read something about it, but keep in mind that I haven't. I am being very generous when I grant that naturalism is a consistent system. But personally, I find naturalism problematic. I'm not convinced it is coherent at all, and so it is barely an option for my belief. If you wish to convince me of naturalism, you are going to have to show me a reconciliation between freedom and causality.

ex-preacher

Now, on to the church councils. I suppose you don’t want me to go into the Monophysite or Euthychian controversy of the 5th and 6th centuries which resulted in the permanent split between the Catholic/Orthodox tradition on one side and the Jacobite (or Syrian Orthodox), Coptic, Armenian and Ethiopian Christian churches on the other. Monophysitism was supported by the Council of Ephesus of 449 (called the Robber Synod by those who lost out), semi-tolerated at Council of Chalcedon in 451, and overtly condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 680-681. Things got quite ugly.

Your smoothing over of the sharp disagreements between the fourth and fifth ecumenical councils is reminiscent of the attempts by biblical literalists to explain away contradictions. No spin can change the fact that the Fourth council approved the Three Chapters while the Fifth council not only rejected them, they anathematized their authors.

You keep calling the councils “democratic.” That’s not the first word that comes to mind when I read about the intrigues and the heavy hand of the emperor, pope, patriarchs and key archbishops. Are you under the impression that the ordinary Christians elected these as representatives? Would you also consider the modern way a pope is chosen to be “democratic” since the cardinals select him? If your point is that the councils generally made their decisions based on the will of the majority in attendance, I would largely agree. The problem is that we have no records of the proceedings at some of the councils (such as Nicea) while the records for other councils show imperial interference or biased reporting. The more I learn about the councils, the less I see them as democratic.

One thing is for sure – history is always written by the winners. The Catholic/orthodox tradition “won” from the time they quashed Marcion and the Gnostics until they themselves split up in 1054. This doesn’t make them right. Truth is determined neither by a majority vote of powerful priests nor the will of an absolute emperor. I don’t see the hand of God, but I do see lots of dirty human hands.

Biblical fundamentalists are on shaky ground when they base their faith on the inerrancy of the Bible. Yet, from my perspective, Catholics and Orthodox believers are on even shakier ground if they claim that the perfect providence of God prevailed in the councils.

I’ve always thought it was odd for any modern Christian to look to the church councils for authority rather than the Bible. It would be like a modern American studying Supreme Court decisions from the 1890s to determine the intent of the writers of the Constitution. Why not go back to the source rather than intermediaries? After all, the councils were debating the intent of the Scriptures. We have much more information about the 1st century world than did the bishops in AD 700.

ex-preacher

I don’t get the relevance of this.

<strong> Not necessarily. In the case of my life versus my family’s life, yes. On the other hand, if faced with the alternative of life in prison or death, I would take life in prison.

<strong> Perhaps I was not clear. My primary concern would be to save my family’s life for their sake, not as a manuever to keep myself from living with guilt. I would find great pleasure in saving their lives. Let’s suppose I knew that I would die whether or not I tried to save them. I would definitely try to save them even though that does not “save” me from a lifetime of guilt. Each of us is a complicated creature with a variety of motives. I think all of us act sometimes out of fear or guilt, but hopefully the primary motivator is usually positive, rather than simply avoiding a negative.

<strong> Although you would be hard pressed to find any Scripture that says this. Happiness does not appear to be a big concern in the Bible.

<strong> Agreed.

<strong> Nothing more? If that was the case, both the Bible and the council decisions would be much briefer. I agree that “love your neighbor” is a great ethical foundation and was taught by Jesus, But he also taught many other things – like cut off your hand if it causes you to sin and those who don’t believe him will be sent to hell.

I’m glad that we can agree on the basics of morality. I’m still wondering, though, would you obey God if he told you to do something you thought was wrong? Would you bash an infant against a wall so that it’s head was crushed if God commanded you to?


<strong> The whole free will issue has never been a huge concern for me. I identified about a dozen key areas when I started re-examing my faith, and free will vs. determinism was not one of them. I have always held to free will. I suppose one reason I haven’t pressed it further is that everytime I do, I find more evidence for determinism and less for free will. Thanks to your prodding, maybe I will keep pressing the issue until I find a good resolution. At this stage, I don’t think I have read enough to make a definite decision.

<strong> I’m not sure I can reconcile the two. Why have you decided that if it comes down to freedom or naturalism, you will take freedom? Does your desire to believe what feels good outweigh your desire to know the truth?

I’m waiting for you to do the following:

1. prove that free will exists
2. explain how “God’s gift of free will” undoes the chain of causality
3. prove that omniscience is compatible with free will