I read a blog called One Cosmos and I find it very interesting. I do not agree with all that he writes in fact I do not agree with probably half of what he writes. But, he raised an interesting point in his writing today.
"The problem isn't that man is unfree, assuming that he is not living in literal slavery or attending a politically correct university. Rather, the problem is that man's freedom is not absolute but finite; it is constrained, for example, by death. As is the case with truth, our freedom is inexplicable in the absence of an absolute freedom that we can never possess, but which we can know about.
The question is -- and this is a question God must "ask himself" -- how can I overcome man's "no" without denying him the precious gift of freedom that I have granted him? You could say -- so to speak, of course -- that this is the question God must have pondered before coming up with the idea of the Incarnation."
I found the above paragraph very interesting because I am not sure that we have free will. I think we think we have free will and in some cases we may believe that we have free will or feel that we know we have free will. But, I wonder does that really matter one way or the other if we have Free Will or not? We are going to live our lives. We are going to get up each morning, or afternoon, depending upon your lifestyle, and go about our day. Then at the end of our lives we die. It is like Bob mentions above. Our Free Will is finite because we ultimately are all going to die. So I wonder then does the mind set that death is inevitable free us up to just live.
Or does that drive us to move towards some level of belief system so that we can try to fight against the inevitably of death. So, that we can feel that as long as we are a believer we have eternal life. So, then death is not to be feared because we have eternal life to look forward to.
I submit that we will always have eternal life to look forward to. If you are a believer either we die and go to Heaven or if you are not a believer we die and go to Hell but it seems to me that either way we have eternal life. Or, we die and that is it there is nothing left. We are worm food! If we then die and are worm food then truly death does not matter because we have no idea that we are worm food because we are just that worm food. Then there is no existence for us beyond death. So death does not matter one way or the other, death is not to be feared.
DEATH JUST IS! It is not good or bad it is not right or wrong it just exists it sits there waiting for us to arrive. So, chew on that for awhile.
Monday, May 18, 2009
We have Free WIll! We have Free Will?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
So, to summarize, "free will" is a moot point because we all die. Our lives are limited and constrained by the inevitability of physical death and, because no one has proven that there is an intact mental or "spiritual" continuance after the fact, whether there is an afterlife (i.e. heaven, hell, reincarnation, continued essence, ghost, etc.) or not should not influence how we live prior to death. The concept of "free will" is only used an excuse by those who wish to be "in control" of their lives. The reverse, the "pre-determined", is also used as by people who need something to blame when they feel like victims to their circumstances. Perhaps those who have "hope in the future of heaven" and people who "fear the depths of hell" are just adding to the constraints that death places on us. Why should should we be enslaved by the "fear of hell" or other "wrong doing" rules? Why should we be indentured to "good works" and "living right"? The concepts of "life after death", in any form, negate the freedom of will anyway. I think that, while the concept of free will could be perpetually discussed, dismissing people's personal beliefs in the "hereafter" can be detrimental to their ability to "just live" as you put it. Some people cannot function, in even remedial capacity, without some sort of hope or belief in their "life after death" (however true or false it may be). If people want to believe in free will, or alternatively in determinism, to get them through the living, processing, working chapters of their lives...let them. Free will may be a moot point, but, without it hovering around as an active concept, perhaps "just living" doesn't matter either.
" very interesting because I am not sure that we have free will."
;-)
" very interesting "
" because "
"I "
"am not "
"s "
"u "
"r "
"e "
"that we have "
"free will "
Unknowingly self refutating seven times over, that is some serious humor. I know we've been over this before so I won't bother trying to explain it again... besides if you've got to explain the joke... still... it's been a while since I've laughed that hard, and I really needed that today, thanks Lance!
Hmmm... a little more snark on that bank shot than I intended... didn't intend it though... sorry... tough to shake off lately (no not politics, new job).
(But it really is funny.)
“If you are a believer either we die and go to Heaven or if you are not a believer we die and go to Hell but it seems to me that either way we have eternal life. Or, we die and that is it there is nothing left. We are worm food!”
We are not given that knowledge… and it struck me sometime back, that not knowing either way, or at least not knowing in the same way in which we know that arranging the atoms of hydrogen and oxygen in the necessary amounts, gives you water, makes it imperative for us to examine, judge and choose how we will live our lives, here and now. Having atomic knowledge of what happens when the lights go out, would deprive us of the necessity of choosing from within our own judgment.
“DEATH JUST IS! It is not good or bad it is not right or wrong it just exists…”
Things are what they are. Existence exists. We really do have to judge and choose for ourselves – no matter how much some of us wish to avoid such choices, or regiment such choices out of our power to choose (ah… ahhh… ahhhh-choodeterministsandfundiesandleftists-hooo! Sniff… Excuse me),
“…So, chew on that for awhile.”””
Descartes foolishness aside, It IS, and in perceiving whatit is, I become aware of myself, and within that awareness, I must choose how to act.
It is really not avoidable… but it sure is funny to watch people pretend they have no free will (pretend! Hoot!)… or… or… that they aren’t sure whether or not they dooo!
Oh my… sorry… the giggles beset me again….
:) Ahh the limits of the smilies in that I can't do a rueful smile but I am not sure if I am even using the term correctly.
I am glad I could bring you some laughter Van. Like I said my brain is still a work in progress. I think that where I was trying to go with the piece was that I am not sure if it matters if we have free will or not because we are going to go along in life regardless.
Thanks for commenting though Van. I am always grateful.
““:) Ahh the limits of the smilies in that I can't do a rueful smile but I am not sure if I am even using the term correctly.”
Oh I hear ya… oh but for a nice pub and a pitcher of stout!
“…was that I am not sure if it matters if we have free will or not because we are going to go along in life regardless…”
And of course from my end, that is the central point in all matters!
(refills both glasses, grins and begins to launch into a very long winded point…)
I’ve been pondering this question for a few days, wondering why I can’t seem to form an opinion on it, why it just doesn’t seem to matter to me very much. Part of it is because of the points already mentioned, that we can’t ever really know and when it comes down to it we just have to go ahead and live our lives to the best of our abilities. But there’s more bugging me about it. I think it’s because the question assumes a model of the universe that I don’t really buy into anymore – sort of the chessboard analogy, either with God moving the pieces or the pieces getting to decide for themselves where they want to move. But what if the universe really isn’t like a clock or a chessboard? What if it’s more an interconnected web of relationships between everything that exists, with each part affecting the others and being affected by them, and with God interposing himself/herself/whatever into the mix. An open-ended system pregnant with possibility – indeterminancy if you’re a particle physicist, mystery if you’re spiritual.
The other thing your question made me wonder — why is the free-will question always posed in relation to eternal damnation or punishment, whether we’re in control of being ‘good enough’ to avoid hell or get into heaven? Again I’m drawn back to the complicated web of relationships. All of us were shaped into being to a certain extent by forces beyond our control – whether it’s the genetics we got from our parents to the kind of society we were born into or our neighborhood or the crazy relatives we ended up with etc etc. But at the same time we are a participant in that same network and our own presence and actions shape others as well. We’ve all seen that evil/hate etc tend to beget more of the same, and love/mercy also can foster more of the same, or at least promote the healing and ability to be open to more of the same. I guess I see God more as a participant in this network, with Christ the ultimate example of this underlying reality. I’ll go out on a limb and say I’ve come to think we’ve stripped away a lot of the meaning of Christ’s example, by reducing Jesus’ coming to earth as a mere one-time legal transaction, something that needed to happen to ‘wipe the slate clean’ and ‘bridge the gap between us and God.’ But what if Christ was more than that, what if he was a living example of who God really is, sent to reveal the underlying nature of God as one who is constantly engaging broken humanity, reaching into our web of interconnectedness, healing us and enabling us to choose love/hope/wisdom/mercy. So it wasn’t so much that Jesus was willing to be killed on a cross, it was that he was willing to come live with us at all, where good and evil are constantly rubbing elbows, where each and every one of is made up of our own mixture of darkness and light.
I’m starting to ramble now, and I never did answer the question. And so you’re getting a glimpse of the strange thoughts that knock about inside my head these days…..
Mercy said "...enabling us to choose love/hope/wisdom/mercy..."
Without choice, there can be no love, hope, wisdom or mercy. And choice without the freedom to choose, would be but a mockery of all that is.
Van said "Without choice, there can be no love, hope, wisdom or mercy. And choice without the freedom to choose, would be but a mockery of all that is."
But, doesn't that go back to what I said before. That if we life like we have choices or believe that we have choices then it really doesn't matter one way or the other. Our world is constructed in such a way that either free will exists or the illusion of free will exists unless you want to get deep into a logic, theological, philosophical, dogmatic discussion and most people would rather not.
I like to though. :)
Lance, I understand, or hope I do, what you are trying to say with,
"...like we have choices or believe that we have choices then it really doesn't matter one way or the other..."
but in every way that does matter, that is only turning your back on the issue The question requires only a simple recognition of reality and your ability to grasp it. Behaving as if you are unable to, only arms those who need people unable or unwilling to admit and declare what is true and what is false "... All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing ..." and so on.
Nothing and no one can benefit from saying that 'maybe people don't really have free will, and the responsibilities which go with it', except for those who wish to get away with doing what is wrong, without being responsible for their behavior. Harsh perhaps, but true.
The people who feel they need to engage in an in depth "logic, theological, philosophical, dogmatic discussion" in order to say whether or not they have free will, are those who are trying... for some reason I can't fathom... to evade the blatantly obvious fact that they have the free will necessary to try and pretend that they don't have free will. Muddying the waters so that that appear deep. The most obvious reason for doing such a thing is to be able to make assertions that can't readily be backed up, but which can then be easily shielded with a 'only the wisest of authorities can explain - but you can trust me on this'.
Positions where the 'ends justify the means' thrive in such a twilight of evasion.
Oh... I'm trying to avoid getting all long winded this weekend... sorry if this comes off as being too abrupt, but there's a nine year old staring at me, tapping her fingers... gotta go.
Van said- "The people who feel they need to engage in an in depth "logic, theological, philosophical, dogmatic discussion" in order to say whether or not they have free will, are those who are trying... for some reason I can't fathom... to evade the blatantly obvious fact that they have the free will necessary to try and pretend that they don't have free will."
I respectfully disagree on this. I do not feel that I am asking the question to attempt to get out of taking responsibility for my actions. I ask the question because I am trying to understand what the idea of Omniscience means to people and how they can logically look at some of the books verses in the bible and still feel that they have free will. I honestly find it a fascinating question and not one that I ponder as a way to get out of being responsible for my actions. I do what I do because I want to do what I want to do. Or I do it because if I do not do it my parents or family will be upset with me and I would rather that they not be upset with me. But, I don't feel this stops me from considering the issue.
Lance said " I do not feel that I am asking the question to attempt to get out of taking responsibility for my actions."
I know, and I do believe you.
There's a special hubris reserved for 'those who know' which particularly draws the interest of Nemesis... I try to keep that in mind, but am not always successful (btw, the implied inclusion of myself in 'those who know' is not self flattery, it's a rebuff). Because someone may grasp essential principles and see clearly what others do not, they often fail to keep in mind that they may not grasp all the principles and contexts involved. A potentially fatal error.
I have no problem being mindful of this when face to face with people, but there is something about seeing words in black and white... seeing what is being said or left out right there!, which makes it difficult to avoid the assumption of intentionality.
From my own experience, I can clearly recall that the effects of not grasping a key principle, or of unwittingly holding to one which is in error, it quite literally blinds you to what otherwise would be the most blatantly obvious of observations. I can't read what I just wrote without it sounding ... I can't find the right word... preening? Self congratulatory?... not quite it, but will have to do. But despite how it may sound, there really is nothing self congratulatory about saying this, nothing which pats myself on my back for being so smart as to know what others do not, because I know that it has nothing to do with intelligence, and its not as if the principles I'm speaking of are of my invention! Anyway....
"Or I do it because if I do not do it my parents or family will be upset with me and I would rather that they not be upset with me."
You tread over one of those blind spots right there. Whichever reason you do something for, you are still choosing to do it. You may feel your range of available options are reduced, but they are so only because you have chosen to allow your 'parents' opinion to be a factor in your decision making. Even if you had very little range of options for acting available, say if you lived in a absolute totalitarian state with zero room for liberty, that would still not in any way reduce your free will, only your ability to exercise it.
Oh, one more error of mine to correct... she is ten years old, not nine... TEN... for two weeks now. Good thing she doesn't read blogs yet. I'd be toast.
Post a Comment