-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I like to give straight answers whenever possible, so I'm not sure how to answer this question.
When faced with the situation, some people, like Sam Harris (if I understood his youtube video correctly), adopt the position that free will is an illusion. This allows him to be consistant with a 'physical world only' position.
Others, like myself, say that since we have free will (taking it as a given, because the sensation is so powerful), and given that it can't come from a deterministic universe, it must come from somewhere outside the physics of that universe.
Also, for me, life is much more enjoyable if I view it as a world where we make choices, and are responsible for them. In that way, perhaps I share Leanaix's pragmatism.
When faced with the situation, some people, like Sam Harris (if I understood his youtube video correctly), adopt the position that free will is an illusion. This allows him to be consistant with a 'physical world only' position.
Others, like myself, say that since we have free will (taking it as a given, because the sensation is so powerful), and given that it can't come from a deterministic universe, it must come from somewhere outside the physics of that universe.
Also, for me, life is much more enjoyable if I view it as a world where we make choices, and are responsible for them. In that way, perhaps I share Leanaix's pragmatism.
Uh, I think they had some doubts...
Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
Gen 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
Gen 3:10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
Immediately, they associated shame with nakedness and sex and then hid from God.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Adam wasn't even deceived, he just weakly followed his wife.
Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
Gen 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
Gen 3:10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
Immediately, they associated shame with nakedness and sex and then hid from God.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Adam wasn't even deceived, he just weakly followed his wife.
I meant I couldn't speak for T_Laurich... I don't know about scientific groups, but certainly individual scientists...
Here's one who publishes in refereed journals.
Do we have free will – a physicist’s perspective? |
(I don't think he states the phrase 'free will does not exist', but it's strongly implied in the facts he presents, I'd say... also, in the end, he appeals to chaos theory, which I don't think is a good answer... we can talk about that if you like)
Here's one who publishes in refereed journals.
Do we have free will – a physicist’s perspective? |
(I don't think he states the phrase 'free will does not exist', but it's strongly implied in the facts he presents, I'd say... also, in the end, he appeals to chaos theory, which I don't think is a good answer... we can talk about that if you like)
Think of lightbulbs not as an analogy for the brain, but as an example of how the universe works, the brain included... the bulb doesn't 'decide' to turn on... a previous state (the application of electromotive force to the circuit) determines that it will turn on... open the circuit, the bulb turns off... note that its state is determined by a previous state... look around you at the universe... does anything operate differently? It follows then that the state of your brain is determined by previous states. (AI's work much the same as a bulb with a lot more switches... we can talk about that if you want.)
There is some overlap in the free will part, but Calvinism is associated with much more than that...
Calvinist | Define Calvinist at Dictionary.com
Hunor: most Calvinists embrace the tulips... try putting 'Calvinism' and 'tulip' in your favorite search engine...
Calvinist | Define Calvinist at Dictionary.com
Hunor: most Calvinists embrace the tulips... try putting 'Calvinism' and 'tulip' in your favorite search engine...
But how does it make sense for them to be held responsible for an action they didn't know was wrong? And, if Ty had no concept of right and wrong, how would they have discerned that what he serpent said was not entirely true, just as valid as what God has told them at first? You could compare them to a toddler who was told something by their parent, and then another adult told them something different. They wouldn't discern that one was a better instruction than the other, and certainly not that one was wrong. They couldn't tell right from wrong. Even that comparison allows more knowledge than they had because, if I'm not mistaken, the moral sense that christians believe people are born with were still absent in Adam and Eve. They were even more clueless than the most innocent human baby. It would be like saying a newborn should trust their father when they say not to touch a hit surface. They don't know what hot is. Just like when God told them they would surely do, they had no idea what death was. That hadn't happened yet. It just doesn't make any sense as a literal story. Of course, it makes enough sense as a metaphor. It just has some "plot holes" in that case:
"Pragmatically, I understand that I deal with things as they are and as I observe them."
I'm interested in your ideas about pragmatism. I looked up some definitions, and it turns out I am practially a pragmatist.
We sense we have free will, so we have it. Now, most people sense a spiritual dimension to life. Do we all have the same abilities of spiritual sensation?
I'm sure you've observed people around you who are color blind, or may be yourself. Should a color blind person assume that there are no colors because they can't sense them? Or assume that the majority of people around them are telling the truth, and that there are colors? My color blind brother says if he tries hard, he can sometimes tell colors from the different shades of grey they produce for him. He also put extra effort into memorizing the position of traffic lights, etc.
If a person doesn't sense spiritual things, it makes sense to me that they would consider often that their sensor may not be functioning right... I think this is a pragmatic approach... your thoughts? (or anyone's?)
I'm interested in your ideas about pragmatism. I looked up some definitions, and it turns out I am practially a pragmatist.
We sense we have free will, so we have it. Now, most people sense a spiritual dimension to life. Do we all have the same abilities of spiritual sensation?
I'm sure you've observed people around you who are color blind, or may be yourself. Should a color blind person assume that there are no colors because they can't sense them? Or assume that the majority of people around them are telling the truth, and that there are colors? My color blind brother says if he tries hard, he can sometimes tell colors from the different shades of grey they produce for him. He also put extra effort into memorizing the position of traffic lights, etc.
If a person doesn't sense spiritual things, it makes sense to me that they would consider often that their sensor may not be functioning right... I think this is a pragmatic approach... your thoughts? (or anyone's?)
Whoa there, you are overthinking this...
What did God tell them to do?
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Did they clearly understand it?
Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
So what happened?
Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
She allowed Satan to cast doubt on what God said and they disobeyed the clear teaching of God.
You realize that he has done that ever since, don't you...
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
What did God tell them to do?
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Did they clearly understand it?
Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
So what happened?
Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
She allowed Satan to cast doubt on what God said and they disobeyed the clear teaching of God.
You realize that he has done that ever since, don't you...
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Pragmatism doesn't mean jumping to hasty conclusons. If I were color blind, looking at it pragmatically, firstly, I wouldn't know this until someone told me there was anything different than what I saw. When hey did tell me, it would seem to me to be pretty easy to tell they were tellion the truth because most people would agree that there are 7 different colors in the rainbow, and not just the few that I can discern. Furthermore, instead of just assuming there are no ither colors because I see no other colors, I myslef acknowledge that there are probably even more colors than humans can see, given the fact that there are animals (like the mantis shrimp) who have more cones in their eyes than we have.
An important distintion between the way you portray pragmatism and how I see it is that you don't just asume everything is the way it seems to be. You don't exclude the possibility that there are other colors simpl because you cannot see them. But, you don't assume that there are other colors unless you have a reason to think so. I wouldn't say that I feel that other people have a spiritual sensor and mine doesn't work properly. I wouldn't say that I think there is a spirit at all, because I have no reason to thin kthere is. On the other hand, I don't assume that there is nothing "spiritual" just because I don't think there is. I think of pragmatism as entertaining possibilities and evaluating what is most likely true, instead of having "beliefs" without proper justification.
An important distintion between the way you portray pragmatism and how I see it is that you don't just asume everything is the way it seems to be. You don't exclude the possibility that there are other colors simpl because you cannot see them. But, you don't assume that there are other colors unless you have a reason to think so. I wouldn't say that I feel that other people have a spiritual sensor and mine doesn't work properly. I wouldn't say that I think there is a spirit at all, because I have no reason to thin kthere is. On the other hand, I don't assume that there is nothing "spiritual" just because I don't think there is. I think of pragmatism as entertaining possibilities and evaluating what is most likely true, instead of having "beliefs" without proper justification.
Christians have a tendancy to tell me I am overthinking things when I ask questions about biblical stories and concepts. I don't think that is the case. It is certainly a good thing to look into what I see as issues with a story that many people take as literally true.
Thank you for repeating the story, but that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't make sense that a person who had no concept of right and wrong would understand that it is wrong to think differently than what the first person she spoke with told her to do. There is no way she would have been able to know that doubting is something she shouldn't do. And I would think it would more likely be that a person with no concept of right and wrong, and therefore no way to analyse a moral decision for themself, would doubt the original command. Rather they would simply accept the new statement as just as valid as the first. What thinking process would she have been able to go through that led her to "I don't think it' a good idea to not believe he is telling the truth." They couldn't even concieve of the concept of a lie if they didn't know right from wrong. I would think if you didn't know what a lie was, or understand that it was possible to not tell the truth, there is no way she wouldn't have believed anything anybody told her.
Thank you for repeating the story, but that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't make sense that a person who had no concept of right and wrong would understand that it is wrong to think differently than what the first person she spoke with told her to do. There is no way she would have been able to know that doubting is something she shouldn't do. And I would think it would more likely be that a person with no concept of right and wrong, and therefore no way to analyse a moral decision for themself, would doubt the original command. Rather they would simply accept the new statement as just as valid as the first. What thinking process would she have been able to go through that led her to "I don't think it' a good idea to not believe he is telling the truth." They couldn't even concieve of the concept of a lie if they didn't know right from wrong. I would think if you didn't know what a lie was, or understand that it was possible to not tell the truth, there is no way she wouldn't have believed anything anybody told her.
S
Those are good points and I respect what you're shedding light on. Please understand that I was not debating the morality of it ('right' or 'wrong'). With all due respect, I find the goat analogy a poor representation of the actual issue, all around. This is not about the 'victim's' concept of an idea, it is about choices and their repercussions. The traffic light example is unbiased; it has nothing to do with being moral or indecent and everything to do with action and consequence.
You and I practice right and wrong knowingly, do we not? Wrong is the word we give to something when what is right is betrayed. Wouldn't they need to know what is right to know what is wrong?
Ethics aside, Adam and Eve were given a decree and warned of the consequences should it be disobeyed, and disobeyed it was. I was merely pointing this out to address what seemed to be a misunderstanding of the actual sin in the garden. I hope it didn't come off as contentious.
How did they know what living was? How did they know what disobedience was? How did they know what "if" meant? How did they know they didn't know? You do not need to understand how pain works to be aware that physically beating someone is painful to them, and potentially to the assailant, even if you have never experienced a fight firsthand. My personal interpretation of the story of the garden is that we have the capacity to be egocentric (among other things) by choice, but it is always a choice.
I might add, Leannaix, that your acknowledgement of Adam and Eve's choice out of ignorance is inconsistent with your previous sentiment on there being no free will in the case of foreknowledge. Your thoughts?
You and I practice right and wrong knowingly, do we not? Wrong is the word we give to something when what is right is betrayed. Wouldn't they need to know what is right to know what is wrong?
Ethics aside, Adam and Eve were given a decree and warned of the consequences should it be disobeyed, and disobeyed it was. I was merely pointing this out to address what seemed to be a misunderstanding of the actual sin in the garden. I hope it didn't come off as contentious.
How did they know what living was? How did they know what disobedience was? How did they know what "if" meant? How did they know they didn't know? You do not need to understand how pain works to be aware that physically beating someone is painful to them, and potentially to the assailant, even if you have never experienced a fight firsthand. My personal interpretation of the story of the garden is that we have the capacity to be egocentric (among other things) by choice, but it is always a choice.
I might add, Leannaix, that your acknowledgement of Adam and Eve's choice out of ignorance is inconsistent with your previous sentiment on there being no free will in the case of foreknowledge. Your thoughts?
Last edited:
