Do humans have a free will?

bellwells

@bellwells said:

OK, I should have read your previous posts before responding. For me, religion is a private and personal reverence for nature and the nature of things. As I said, I believe in God, but I'm not a fanatic about it. I believe in heaven and I believe I will "see" past loved ones there.

I have to admit I'm confused about the beginning of our universe. It's easier for me to believe in the Big Bang theory than it is for me to believe God waved his hand and....voila! This is where I get stuck. My belief in God cannot rectify or explain this dichotomy. I wonder if my belief system is more consistent with that of the Native American Indians.

The eminant 13th century theologian Thomas Aquinas whom many believe is the most important figure in laying the foundation of scientic enquiry in the West have a easy answer for you. He believes that God simply set in motion the chain of event that lead to our reality. He is the prime mover, and do not interfere in our lives. Aquinas believed that truth is known through reason (natural revelation) and faith (supernatural revelation). In the dark ages for Europe it was a beacon of light that inspired others to persue truth through reason. He was condemed for his belief in reason and was excommunicated posthumously. God as a prime mover might be interesting to you as that is not inconsistent with Big Bang, as science as of now have no means to speculate about the conditions before big bang and indeed if there is a 'before' (since time was supposed to have been created at the Big Bang).

In the words of Artie Johnson; verrrry interesting!

Mike Lucey

The BIG BANG! That's an interesting theory, but what MADE the
big bang? Neil Turok's put a theory forward in his presentation
that it was caused by two parallel universes touching!

Now the next question has to be, where did these come from? It
just goes on and on and ...(pun intended) Come to think of it,
I wonder if I really want to know or would be remotely capable
of understanding if confronted with the facts. Maybe they could
not even be explained to humans with our current levels of
comprehension!

Susan, what else can we do with Cornel? Looks like he is
here for the duration. We can always live in hope(s), his
and ours

solo

Please help a poor soul like me, and link me the proof, as Google does not have an answer.

My athiest days are numbered.

sorgesu

Well, I must admit, that whenever Corenl adds one of his god quotes to any topic, I just generally skip over it and go on to the next post. That is what I do with Cornel. I expect this not at all what Cornel wants. I think his agenda must be to add his input in the hopes that he "converts" even one person. I can't think of any other reason for his series of non-sequiters and non-contributing input. Unless he merely likes to "hear his own voice" so to speak. Cornel, I truly don't mean to pick a fight with you. I am sure you are sincere in your beliefs and you are here doing what you believe is right. But for me, you generally interfere with the flow of the discussion and the only way that I am able to cope with it, without getting angry, is to merely totally ignore that you posted. I wouldn't be surprised if that is usually the case with everyone else. But sometimes, I guess, you just get too irritating. Couldn't you just drop it and keep it to yourself? Believe whatever you like but don't force it on the rest of us. ... and contribute in some meaningful way to a conversation that is on topic?

cornel

Susan,
Please, re-read my posts! They were on the topic.

My points were (a concise extract):

Whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved, not free.
God knows everything about us. He knows what is the best way to obtain the real freedom.
Humans have relative truth. We have to know the absolute truth, and that Truth will set us free.
I asked if “the free will” is part of “the soul” or of “the spirit”, but no answer…
I presented that the soul is different than the spirit, and animals have no spirit.
I mentioned that atheists cannot explain part of “the soul” and “the entire spirit” .
The nonspiritual person is not able to understand God's works because they are spiritually discerned."
Our will is the result of how we are “wired”, spiritual or nonspiritual.
Be careful, there are philosophers and speculant scientists! See to them that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy!
Physical processes are based on spirituals, not vice-versa! The ‘spiritual world’ determines the ‘material world’.
Do not nullify the Word of God for the sake of your tradition!
Miscellaneous, based on others questions.

Cornel

cornel

Pete wrote:
"What on earth are you talking about? Since when is it proven? who proved it? where is this proof?"

There were written tons of serious and laborious books demonstrating that the Bible is indeed the Word of Living God. Besides that, on Internet, using search machine, is very easy to find titles, articles, comments, etc.
Initially, I started from the premise that all of you are already documented about those elementary things. I was wrong, because majority of you had no time and interest for that.

On the other side, The Scripture is autoexplicative, and you can find the True only by reading and re-reading The Word of God. Who has no a hard copy of it, can find The Bible online.
There aren’t excuses from anybody that he/she had no access to enough information.

Considering above ‘points’, I will not be involved in all ABCs!

boofredlay

Pete, thanks for answering my question a few pages back. I've been playing daddy all weekend

Even though this topic seems to be going round and round it is very interesting indeed. Even if it has strayed a bit from the main topic of Free Will.

I wanted to interject a reading suggestion here if I may. An excellent read and very easy to follow.
"The Language of God" by Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project.
Here is what the back cover of the book says:

@unknownuser said:

 Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, is one of the world's leading scientists.  He works at the cutting edge of the study of DNA, the code of life.  Yet he is also a man of unshakable faith in God and scripture.
 Dr. Collins believes that faith in God and faith in science can coexist within a person and be harmonious.  In *The Language of God* he makes his case for God and for science.  He has heard every argument against faith from scientists, and he can refute them.  he has also heard the needless rejection of scientific truths by some people of faith, and he can counter them too.  He explains his own journey from atheism to faith, and then takes readers for a stunning tour of modern science to show that physics, chemistry and biology can all fit together with belief in God and the Bible.  The Language of God is essential reading for anyone who wonders about the deepest questions of faith:  Why are we here?  How did we get here?  What does life mean?

Stinkie

"Why are we here? How did we get here? What does life mean?"

These questions I've never trusted, as they all have a "hidden pretext" (hope this makes any sense ). For example: "why are we here?". The question sounds innocent enough, but it actually implies there must be a reason for us being here. It's only a small step to the concept of fate (predestination) from there. And to the concept of an intelligence (God) thinking it all up in advance.

I'm not doing a very good job on explaining this, I think. Any native English speaker feel like getting all Wittgensteinian on the above questions?

tomasz

@chango70 said:

'Free Will', just like the manifold may appear to be locally true at the individual level, you may feel you have 'Free Will' however when you look at the bigger picture it simply isn't true.

Hmm. It is interesting but I am internally not convinced.
BUT
I have recalled something that will bring all our thoughts closer together.
I have an example of what you are writing about from the Bible! I am not joking.
Actually when I am thinking about it right now there are more than just one.
For a sake of this discussion I will mention one that came to my mind first and I have already thought about it several times in the past.

Probably not all are familiar with a story of Peters denial of the Christ.
During the Last Supper, Jesus foretold that Peter, the rock of an emerging Church, would deny association with him three times that same night. Peter was determined to do this THREE times! He obviously had a free will, but ...

The thing is Chango that only someone deeply spiritual can see 'bigger picture'. Watch out Solo & Stinkie! It has to be a Prophet, a Mystic. You all agnostics are scared or just laughing when you hear those nouns. Those things happen, but you are afraid to take a note of them, because it would shake your current view of the reality.

It is same way I am 'afraid' that Chango will come up with something I will not be able to counter. In this occasion I didn't have to. I agree - in a 'bigger picture' Peters seems to be not free. The thing is that, Jesus knew all restraints Pater was bound with , just it. It is amazing to get such an info that you will do something three times what you totally don't want to.

Just to close this post - In a reminiscent scene in John's epilogue, Peter affirms three times that he loves Jesus.

tomasz

@mike lucey said:

The BIG BANG! That's an interesting theory, but what MADE the
big bang? Neil Turok's put a theory forward in his presentation
that it was caused by two parallel universes touching!

What if we could assume that the second parallel universe is a Heaven.
I mean - a spiritual world, so close to our dimension, as Neil says, at a sub-atomic distance?
Big Bang could be just a separation of those Worlds... it makes sense. Isn't it? This is our longing for the unity of those two. At least I know this feeling. That is why this spiritual(second) universe can influence our dimension and when one is aware of the existence of former can see a bigger picture!

plot-paris

wow, this thread progresses fast (took me the best part of an hour to catch up this morning )

Chango: I have to thank you. two of your posts, firstly your clarification about your understanding of religion and secondly the excerpt of wikipedia's definition of "free will" were illuminating.

to describe your idea of religion in other words:
it is a way for us humans to comprehend the non-linear workings of the world with our linear minds. so basically it is like Vray - a biased renderer makes it possible to render an image faster than an unbiased render engine. and for our brain is not fast enough for unbiased, an engine like Vray (religion/philosophy) is a great solution. that means, it can help us getting a better image output with the hardware available and therefore can be a positive thing.

the example of a chess game to understand the illusion of a free will, that arises when you create an 'unlimited'(too much for our comprehension) number possibilities with a limited set of rules, was very helpful and the final piece I needed to to understand.

thank very much again. at last I got a satisfying answer (and more important: explanation!) for the initial question of this thread!

sorgesu

Cornel Wrote:
"My points were (a concise extract):

Whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved, not free.
God knows everything about us. He knows what is the best way to obtain the real freedom.
Humans have relative truth. We have to know the absolute truth, and that Truth will set us free.
I asked if “the free will” is part of “the soul” or of “the spirit”, but no answer…
I presented that the soul is different than the spirit, and animals have no spirit.
I mentioned that atheists cannot explain part of “the soul” and “the entire spirit” .
The nonspiritual person is not able to understand God's works because they are spiritually discerned."
Our will is the result of how we are “wired”, spiritual or nonspiritual.
Be careful, there are philosophers and speculant scientists! See to them that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy!
Physical processes are based on spirituals, not vice-versa! The ‘spiritual world’ determines the ‘material world’.
Do not nullify the Word of God for the sake of your tradition!
Miscellaneous, based on others questions."

Cornel, while in this particular subject, your posts are on topic, in far too many others you interject some bible quote where none is required.

Your list above is very helpful to your points, finally being in plain language and not couched in cryptic quotes from gthe scriptures.

Much of what you say above, however are statements of your beileif and/or admonishments.
Basically what you are saying above is, you cannot enter into a discussion to try and convince non-spiritual people of anything in the scriptures because they are incapable of understanding. Your sole answer to eveyone's question's here who are asking you to use reason, because that is their playing field on which they base their argument and undestanding, your sole answer is, you guys can't possibly understand. So you won't discuss in a way that is convincing to these people and you are telling them that they aren't capable of understanding. So save your breath.

Or, don't just pound us with what you believe. Tell us how you came to believe. Perhaps if we follow your thought process on how you came to believe the dogma, we may have a better understanding of your "reasoning". But this is a discussion, with people explaining their points of view in a philosophical exchange. If your thoughts on philosophical exhanges are "Be careful, there are philosophers and speculant scientists! See to them that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy!" then just refrain from participating.

Mike Lucey

I believe that for Cornel the Bible IS the Word of God. His
inner being has evolved this way and believes this. That is
all that should matter for him. The proof that the Bible is
the Word of God for him is simply that his accepts it as so
being.

I haven't converted to his believes but I accept them as being
true for him. I also accept the believes of the Amazon Tribes
when it comes to their beliefs in relation the Creator. Maybe
even more readily as it would appear to be part of natural
evolution.

I would imagine they came to this belief by their Free Will.
This to me is a more convincing case that there must be a Creator.
However I do have doubts that the Creator does in fact interact
with us via prophets and such like. But again I don't doubt that
these prophets believed that they were receiving messages from
the Creator. That is their way of evolving!

I have to ask myself the question, Why would the Creator want
or need to manifest himself to us? He created us via evolution
and it would appear gave us (all creatures) free will in varying
degrees. Why would he need to make his further wishes known
to us. After all he did include the instructions on the box in
the first place and he doesn't make mistakes!

Surely in making us the way we are, Creator seeking in the case of
humans, would be enough! In the case of other animals with lessor
gray matter the inbuilt manufacture's instruction (respect for nature
in their case) would appear to be working! They dont need reassurance
that there is more to it when they cease to exist. Maybe for us its
the Greedy Gene that is kicking in when it comes to thoughts of a
afterlife! Maybe it could be said the Greedy Gene has created the
God that is in the Bible!

The manufacture's instructions are on the box! In our case I think
they are probably in our minds. The trouble with humans is that our
minds have developed to a level that can ask questions about the
Creator.

Oh! to be a simple dog and not have all these questions, just get
along NATURALLY with what the Creator had it mind for us without
all the complications and confusions

Now, my next thought is reincarnation .... nuf said

Mike

pbacot

You don't need the "greed gene", Mike, to have these human hangups. Can you say a dog knows he or his mate will die? (One might say "we can't know what a dog knows". C'mon use your head and observation. What do you think?) Every human understands this--at least somewheres after 25 years. Possibly elephants and some others ponder this, but I think this knowledge of death is essential to the humans asking these questions, which lead to the "free will" question.

And for some, it is not the simple desire to live longer, but the question of why am I "conscious" only to suffer and die? The "desire" to keep alive is essential to being alive, it is hard-wired to the simplest organism. Like sex, we wouldn't be here without it.

Note that burial customs are central to human life, the longest-lived culture in the world was based on them. And of course religion itself seeks to manipulate the questions people have.

Still one can choose to be donkey, only looking for the feedbag and occasionally singing a song at night. (Did i just go political with this?)

Sometimes the question is enough. Asked of every generation. Answered many times over. "I am That I am." "That thou art." "To be or not to be." "I think therefore I am." "Do be do be do." And what you say you?

Mike Lucey

“To be is to do”–Socrates.
“To do is to be”–Jean-Paul Sartre.
“Do be do be do”–Frank Sinatra.

plot-paris

"To be or not to be, that is the question" William Shakespeare

weird, all these philosophers/writers just assembled the same words to sound intelligent

solo

chango70

@plot-paris said:

wow, this thread progresses fast (took me the best part of an hour to catch up this morning )

Chango: I have to thank you. two of your posts, firstly your clarification about your understanding of religion and secondly the excerpt of wikipedia's definition of "free will" were illuminating.

to describe your idea of religion in other words:
it is a way for us humans to comprehend the non-linear workings of the world with our linear minds. so basically it is like Vray - a biased renderer makes it possible to render an image faster than an unbiased render engine. and for our brain is not fast enough for unbiased, an engine like Vray (religion/philosophy) is a great solution. that means, it can help us getting a better image output with the hardware available and therefore can be a positive thing.

the example of a chess game to understand the illusion of a free will, that arises when you create an 'unlimited'(too much for our comprehension) number possibilities with a limited set of rules, was very helpful and the final piece I needed to to understand.

thank very much again. at last I got a satisfying answer (and more important: explanation!) for the initial question of this thread!

I am really flattered that you find my thoughts useful. Interesting analogy with Vray! (very imaginative!) I do however think that Vray analogy is probably better applied to the scientific methodology as they are both mathematical models that can create approximations of the real world. Just like algorithms get better, so can scientific theory. Religion on the other hand, to expound from your analogy would be more like impressionist paintings. Impressionism doesn't hold accurate rendering of the world as a priority. It is an AESTHETIC INTERPRETATION of the world that creates it's own self-consistent value system of what is good or bad. Better impressionist painting is not dependent on creating more fedelity. To use a concept from system theory it would be described as a 'closed system' with and endogenous set of rules. Religion is not so different in this respect. I like to think of religion as an aesthetic and ontological interpretation of the world that doesn't really have much to offer when it comes to explaining the real world (material world where things obey rules) but has tremendous value when it comes to personal worlds (psychological).

chango70

@mike lucey said:

“To be is to do”–Socrates.
“To do is to be”–Jean-Paul Sartre.
“Do be do be do”–Frank Sinatra.

chango70

@unknownuser said:

Chango wrote:
“…the price of consistence is DOGMA (Bible quoting by our very own Cornel is one fine example).”

No, Chango,
it’s not a “dogma”, it’s just a ‘habit’. To be dogmatic, I have to be characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles. I use The Word of God because it’s proved, trusted and unghangeable.
How are your words, Chango?! Tomorrow, with conventional large smile you are able to tell me: sorry Cornel, I changed my mind…!

Chango wrote:
“Jesus was the original non-conformist. A social revolutionary not willing to accept the status quo. This fact seem to be lost on the Christian Church who became the status quo. Cornel don't let some silly deciple of Jesus cloud your judgement about him. Ignore what they SAY look at what Jesus DID in his life. Its not hard to see he is closer to Che Guevara than the Pope.”

My questions: A) What was wrong in Jesus life?! B) Jesus must be closer to the Pope or vice-versa?!

…because I ‘said’before:
“. Regarding Karen Armstrong she's superficial and tendentious! Her religious Books and speeches are ‘perfumed’ and loaded with traditionalism, ethics, and ecumenism. It’s a masked socialism, widely used in the strategy of globalization.”

Chango wrote:
“ Mike, Karen Armstrong is a fantastic scholar on World religion. I read her seminal book on Islam and She is able to contextualize origins of the religion without expressly making judgement better than anyone else I've come across …”

Chango,
I read a lot, during many decenniums, about religion and philosophy. I recommend you to study complete works of at least an author sach as Mircea Eliade (thirty years as director of History of Religions department at the University of Chicago). Behold a partial list of his works:

The Quest: History and Meaning in Religion;
A History of Religious Ideas, vol. I, From the Stone Age to the Eleusinian Mysteries;
A History of Religious Ideas, vol. II, From Gautama Buddha to the Triumph of Christianity;
The History of Religious Ideas, vol. III, From Muhammad to the Age of the Reforms;
Encyclopedia of Religion (seventeen volumes)
Patterns in Comparative Religion;
The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion;
Myths, Dreams and Mysteries: the Encounter between Contemporary Faiths and Archaic Realities;
Images and Symbols: Studies in Religious Symbolism;
Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy;

Cornel

LOL Cornel here is a definition on dagma:

"Dogma (the plural is either dogmata or dogmas, Greek δόγμα, plural δόγματα) is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from."

That, I am affraid in my humble opinion is how your arguments tend to come across as the definition stated above. Do you dispute the fact that you think the Bible is authoritative?

Plenty of things were wrong in Jesus's life time, foreign occupation, social and political injustice, marginalisation of whole sector of society, corruption, misuse of power to name just a few.
Karen Armstrong may not be the most immaculate scholar on religion but her semi-insider status allows her to bridge the critical gap between academic theology and popular understanding. I don't have time for someone like Mircea Eliade because ultimately religion doesn't interest me that much. However that is not to say I don't appreciate the effort and scholarcism that went into such undertaking as the list you mentioned.

I have full respect to scholars such as Mircea Eliade and have come across Patterns in Comparative Religion in my reading (he is one of the founders of comparative Religious study). From you utterances I find it difficult to believe that you have read his body of work, infact any of it. In order to carry out any scholastic endeavour one need to have certain 'critical disjunction' from the subject matter at hand. Even the titles suggest a pan-historic and BROAD scope in his studies on religions and identification of common patterns in world religions. Your utterance betray an extremely narrow focus which anyone with knowledge endowed by reading someone like Mircea Eliad would not behave. One other thing. Many of Mircea Eliad's writing are quite out of date. Our understanding of world religions have moved a long way since 1950s in the days of anthropologists like Evans-Prichard used to rule the roost.