NOGO

The problem is that we have not defined free will.
My guess is that it can't be defined.
We all have a feeling that we can chose. But I doubt that we can make completely free choices. Free from what?

Free from the world that surrounds us?
Let's say I need to chose the color of my next car. Can anybody claim not be influenced by
a) friends
b) adds
c) experiences (stored in memory)
d) genes

The only way that you can claim no influence from any of the above is that you are down to two colors and they are the same to you. It then becomes a random choice which can be accounted for by quantum mechanics. This is the only choice which can really be said to be free from influence.

Now let us say that your brain is processing through all the information a), b), c) and d). There is enough randomness in the processing that the answer cannot be said to have a precise cause.

In other words if you go back in time and the brain repeats the processing it can come up with a different answer.

Most often, however, a specific factor will over-rule and make a choice for you. For example your father always drove one type of car and your were very close to him and this slants your choice. Then this one fact is strong enough to frown all randomness. This is not free will. It is a specific influence.

So I put it to what is free will?
Perhaps if you give an example.

NOGO

Wow! You and I are 180 degrees apart on this one.

The Jews compiled the OT but I bet that you don't look to them for interpretation.

Let's take an example.
Christians believe that mankind fell in Genesis and that God promised a saviour.
Jews have never had such an interpretation.
Since they compiled it they should know.
So Christians are wrong.

Since Jesus never mentioned that He was the saviour to undo Adam's sin then I tend to believe that it was make up after his death.

There is another point to be made here.
Around 400 AD there were many sects and many beliefs about Jesus. The church obliterated all of them. What we have is the surviving interpretation. I do not believe that might makes right. Those who were persecuted started persecuting others as soon as they had the chance. Under these circumstances the truth was lost not gained as you claim. Perhaps a lot of texts which differed from the official view were burnt along with the people who held them. We will never know the complete truth because religious madmen destroyed all that they did not like.

Freedom of speach. Freedom of assembly. Freedom to think. Confiscation of personal property.

You can search all of Roman or Greek law and you wont find any law which outlaws belief. This edict is an instrument of persecution which introduced into Europe the crazed hounds of religious wars, unknown either in Greece or Rome.

Christians were persecuted but not for their beliefs, they were persecuted as a political threat. Paul himself claimed that he preached in Rome without any problem around 62 AD. There was no law against belief.

This edict is a crime against humanity. This is how the Catholic church appropriated the truth - by force. Humanity had to wait over a 1000 years before the right to think was rediscovered.

You now are trying to tell me that I should not think for myself and still be slave to these people and what they have done!

No thanks!

[ May 27, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

ManM

NOGO,
Science has a great track record of being wrong, so you can understand my skepticism. The ancient philosophical problem of the criterion throws it all up for grabs anyway. Keep in mind that there still is a conflict between quantum and general relativity. Something is going to have to change, and who knows where the pendulum will find itself between determinism and probability. This is one of those cases where my engineering background conflicts with my philosophical background. My resolution is pragmatic in nature. The predictions of quantum are good, and so we use it. However, I am not willing to grant that we finally have come to "The Truth" about nature.

Moving along, we all interpret the bible using a tradition. You are interpreting based on a tradition of taking everything at face value. Saint Isaac the Syrian wrote, "Very often many things are said by the Holy Scriptures and in it many names are used not in a literal sense..." I am using a different tradition than you. What makes you so sure that your literal interpretation was intended? I may use authority as a justification, but you have nothing but your own personal ideas.

ex-preacher,
Since we are making closing statements, I will try to make this brief.

Morality
If God made the future known to me, and I saw that killing innocent children was actually the lesser of two evils, then I feel I would be bound to do so. However, this is only a case if I know the future 100%. Anything less and I have no right to act in a utilitarian manner. Given that I am never 100% sure of the future, I do not foresee me taking any such actions. I will simply continue to try and love.

Free will vs. Naturalism
I don't think freedom can ever be doubted or else we destroy our foundation for doubting freedom. If a system denies freedom it contradicts itself. So out of your options, A and D are the only ones which do not lead to contradictions. D has not been established, so I am left with A. I need not appeal to experience in this matter. However, it is very convincing when logic squares up with experience.

Free will vs. Omniscience
In order to establish a causal link between God's knowledge and our action we must assume determinism. I do not assume determinism so this is not a problem for me. Every challenge you have made is nothing more than the assertion of determinism.

Church Councils
I'm interested in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus did not leave writings, but a tradition. The writings of the apostles do not define that tradition, but instead are a product of it. This tradition was what the apostles spread. Hence when a question arose, the bishops got together to discuss it in the light of the tradition handed down to them. And so I recognize the councils before the east/west split in the Church. I use my judgment in reference to accepting historical claims or theology. I do not use my judgment to define theology. In order to avoid projecting my own thoughts about pacifism and homosexuality onto the bible, I use the tradition preserved by the councils and the Orthodox church for my understanding of Christianity.

Hopefully I've given you a few things to think about, and thank you for the civil discussion.

ex-preacher

Likewise on both counts.

ex-preacher

Here's the definition from Merriam-Webster

Main Entry: free will
Function: noun
Date: 13th century
1 : voluntary choice or decision &lt;I do this of my own free will&gt;
2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

I'm not saying that free will definitely exists. I would like to believe it exists. It's a bit depressing to think that everything we do is either determined by prior causes or is completely random. I'd like to think that when I make a decision about a car, there are many possible choices and even many ways of making the choice.

DRFseven

Which of the two definitions are you going by? By free will, do you simply mean to refer to intent not coerced by another person or persons, or do you, in fact think it is possible that thoughts can be generated sans memory?

ex-preacher

I'm referring to the second meaning. Let me reiterate: I'm not saying it definitely exists, just that I'd like to think it does.

NOGO

Science has a very good track record.
Religion on the other hand has a track record of backing down as science advances. In the 19th century the big talk was about the flat earth.

Here is but one little example.
"Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'" - Martin Luther

There is of course Galileo and the church and many, many more.

Now the big talk is about evolution.

Quantum mechanics non-determinitic side of the world has been demonstrated through experiment. There is no going back here.


"we all interpret the bible using a tradition."
Nonsense. What you are saying is that nothing new has been said about the bible since the RIGHT TO THINK has been re-established. You cannot be more wrong that this. We know today that Matthew and Luke based their Gospel on Mark and a third document they call Q. I doubt that your tradition ever considered such things.

The particular issue that I raised is a case of evidence verse no evidence.

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."

We can all see what the words say.
What evidence do you have to change what the words say to something else.
You (your tradition, St.John C.) have added a condition which does not appear in the text.
How do you justify this addition.

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

NOGO

ManM

You talk about the NT canon. I forget to tell the obvious about this canon. With Constantine's edict it should have been obvious but sometimes it is better to state even the obvious so as to ensure that it is not missed.

If you are going to persecute people for believing falsehoods then you have to tell them what to believe.

So Constantine's edict, the NT canon and its interpretation are elements of the same political device to control and oppress people. They go hand in hand.

Only Stalin's Russia and Mao's China come even close.

DRFseven

[QUOTE]Well, how might a thought be produced independent of memory? I'm not asking this in a hostile tone; I also, in the past, thought that people operated under a system of free will, and, like you, I hoped that it was true. Now that my perception is that free will does not exist (except in the trivial sense involving lack of direct coercion), it's hard for me to mentally backtrack to my previously formulated "truths." Not only this, but it is difficult to remember the feeling of wanting free will to be true, though I know I did.

Using your previous example of choosing a car, try to think how you might come to construct a decision without the stored information you have accumulated regarding colors, values, style, performance, logic and truth. On what basis could an opinion be constructed or even articulated? There is nothing but those (and similar) factors with which to build a thought.