Door 20 (a vision of christian free will)

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you have any evidence that it doesn't? If not then don't base an argument on guess work.

Answer the question , do you really think a cat does this? I'm curious , you seem to have an insight into animal behaviour that could be a massive breakthrough in biology. Our understanding of the world could be changed for ever. Time magazine is holding it's cover for you!

Originally posted by twhitehead
Evolution means that the successful survive. So we see the survivors which are successful animals. But at no point ever is an animal being forced or even encouraged to be successful by evolution or nature.

For example:
Throw 100 modified dice that have random numbers 1 - 6 painted on their sides. take away all dice that show a number less than 3. repe ...[text shortened]... teristics would ever be displayed under the 'forces of evolution' which is total nonsense.

You are also totally overlooking the fact that many animals are also communal as are humans and so display many characteristics that benefit the community. You implications in your earlier posts were that only 'bad' characteristics would ever be displayed under the 'forces of evolution' which is total nonsense.


RESPONSE---

Now you are making a better point here. Animals are also communal and loyal to their gene pool. The concept of the selfish gene explains how animals might also protect each other in a tribal way to further their gene pool. But what happens when they meet a rival gene pool , maybe within the same species?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I realize I have been doing more mind reading than is fair so let me take the trouble to try and find out more about what your position /belief actually is.

If you are given a gun and a stranger who is no threat to you is placed in front of you and I say "shoot him". Will you do it?
If I repeat the experiment 100 or 1000 times will you do it?
You hav ...[text shortened]... at out of a given number of tries you will shoot the stranger a certain percentage of times?

If this is what you think I believe then you have been mind reading although I think my early attempts at misrepresenting free will were flawed so it's probably my fault as well.

The way I see it free will largely constitutes a choice between living according to God's intentions for your life (ie integrity , love , sensitivity, compassion , forgiveness , holiness , hope , surrender , service etc) and the pull of your ego /pride or natural self (arrogance , negativity , violence , hate , revenge , lust, judgement , ruthlessness, inhumanity etc)

We are caught between these two . Call them train tracks if you like . But at certain points we are given the chance to jump the tracks and decide what are going to be the governing forces determining our lives. St Paul talks about what can be thought of as two competing forms of determinism . He says we can be "slaves to sin" (ego pride , natural desires etc) or we can surrender to christ. Christianity also talks about becoming under the 'control' of the Holy Spirit , and God 'using' individuals via his spirit. We are 'given over' to christ.

This is probably a revision of free will on my part but what I think is that we get the choice over what determines our behaviour. Our behaviour is still determined in a way but we can jump tracks with God's help . Our lives are either driven by God's love or by other forces.

So there is nothing random about it really I will not shoot the stranger because it is not a reflection of who I am. However , I also know that the life I am living is not the only life I could have lived. I have jumped tracks or rather allowed God to move the points onto the other track.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Yes yes I know it's genes and instinct that cause animals to be competitive and violent and the process of evolution usually means the less strong and violent get weeded out . Do you really think I don't know this? It's the process as a whole that I am refering to , the process of natural evolution and what the implications are for animal behaviour.

I was originally complaining about this statement:
"You feel the forces of the natural world pulling at you , desire , ego , fear , thoughtless revenge , war , lust , violence , greed."
And then this one:
"Animals are ruled by fear and survival and self preservation, driven by nature to reproduce at all costs."

Your whole implication is that without Gods input as in your vision of free will, all humans would have to do exactly as 'nature' dictates and that that dictation is to go on a killing spree.
And yet the Theory of evolution is able to explain almost all human behavior both good and bad and most of that behavior both good and bad is also observed among animals.
You are claiming that evolution only results in the bad.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The way I see it free will largely constitutes a choice between living according to God's intentions for your life (ie integrity , love , sensitivity, compassion , forgiveness , holiness , hope , surrender , service etc) and the pull of your ego /pride or natural self (arrogance , negativity , violence , hate , revenge , lust, judgement , ruthlessness, inhumanity etc)

I see a similar split personality in humans but I attribute it to the natural balance between selfish behavior and communal behavior that is predicted by the Theory of Evolution and observed in almost all forms of life.
You apparent belief that all bad things are 'natural' explains your previously expressed fear of being an entirely natural being.
Can you show that all these 'natural' tendencies are beneficial? If not then why would they arise in a competitive world?

Originally posted by knightmeister
So there is nothing random about it really I will not shoot the stranger because it is not a reflection of who I am. However , I also know that the life I am living is not the only life I could have lived. I have jumped tracks or rather allowed God to move the points onto the other track.

So your decision to not shoot the stranger is made but a sufficient cause within you. That is contradicting your previous claims.
So how could you live a different life but not shoot the stranger? Seems contradictory to me.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So your decision to not shoot the stranger is made but a sufficient cause within you. That is contradicting your previous claims.
So how could you live a different life but not shoot the stranger? Seems contradictory to me.

Shooting or not shooting the stranger might not be one of those situations where my free will is tested or used because of the nature of my character. For a man brought up in a gun culture in the bronx thios may be a very real choice. My version of free will does not require that every single choice is free or that we are always able to choose against our nature. We either take or don't take the opportunities God offers us to live his way and become the person that he intends us to be , but I think I can manage to avoid shooting a stranger by myself. I don't even own a gun.

My previous version of free will was poorly explained by me so i've gone back to basics. Call this contradictory if you wish.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I see a similar split personality in humans but I attribute it to the natural balance between selfish behavior and communal behavior that is predicted by the Theory of Evolution and observed in almost all forms of life.
You apparent belief that all bad things are 'natural' explains your previously expressed fear of being an entirely natural being.
Can y ...[text shortened]... natural' tendencies are beneficial? If not then why would they arise in a competitive world?

I don't think all natural traits are bad as such ( eg the desire to preserve and look after children). I think some of the bad traits are also the preserve of the enemy (pride , thirst for power etc also). The point about nature is that even if it sometimes seems 'moral' or good , it only really happens by accident as part of gene pool dictates and drives. It's a kind of by product of evolutionary self preservation. Communal behaviour amongst men for example can just as easily turn into racial violence (depending on how broad the commune is considered to be)

Originally posted by knightmeister
So there is nothing random about it really I will not shoot the stranger because it is not a reflection of who I am.

Shooting or not shooting the stranger might not be one of those situations where my free will is tested or used because of the nature of my character. We either take or don't take the opportunities God offers us to live his way and become the person that he intends us to be , but I think I can manage to avoid shooting a stranger by myself. I don't even own a gun.
OK. So my story did not cover your free will. So lets find one that will.
You are walking along the street and you find a wallet with some money and an ID. Do you return it to the owner or keep the money? If we repeat the scenario 1million times will you ever make a different choice? If this too is not a free will choice then please generate a similar format choice that is in your opinion an example of you expressing your free will.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I don't think all natural traits are bad as such ( eg the desire to preserve and look after children). I think some of the bad traits are also the preserve of the enemy (pride , thirst for power etc also).
So where did this 'enemy' get his bad traits from?

The point about nature is that even if it sometimes seems 'moral' or good , it only really happens by accident as part of gene pool dictates and drives. It's a kind of by product of evolutionary self preservation. Communal behavior amongst men for example can just as easily turn into racial violence (depending on how broad the commune is considered to be)
And I could similarly say that God being 'good' and 'moral' is just as arbitrary he could equally have been bad. And why do you need a reason for 'good' to be 'good' anyway?

I also think you have strongly miss-characterized nature as being a terrible bad thing. Do you truly believe that without Gods helping hand you would immediately go out and start killing people? Do you think that us atheists are generally greater sinners than theists? Or does God secretly guide us too? If so do we actually have free will after all? What about people of other religions who pray to a different God /gods/ or no God at all? (Buddhists).

When an animal eats its own young, is that a sin? Is it bad? Why does God allow it? Do animals have free will? Why would it be different for humans?

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]The point about nature is that even if it sometimes seems 'moral' or good , it only really happens by accident as part of gene pool dictates and drives. It's a kind of by product of evolutionary self preservation. Communal behavior amongst men for example can just as easily turn into racial violence (depending on how broad the commune is considered to ...[text shortened]... y does God allow it? Do animals have free will? Why would it be different for humans?

Or does God secretly guide us too?


....yep , you got it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]The point about nature is that even if it sometimes seems 'moral' or good , it only really happens by accident as part of gene pool dictates and drives. It's a kind of by product of evolutionary self preservation. Communal behavior amongst men for example can just as easily turn into racial violence (depending on how broad the commune is considered to ...[text shortened]... y does God allow it? Do animals have free will? Why would it be different for humans?

Woah! One question at a time mate!

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]The point about nature is that even if it sometimes seems 'moral' or good , it only really happens by accident as part of gene pool dictates and drives. It's a kind of by product of evolutionary self preservation. Communal behavior amongst men for example can just as easily turn into racial violence (depending on how broad the commune is considered to ...[text shortened]... y does God allow it? Do animals have free will? Why would it be different for humans?

Do you truly believe that without Gods helping hand you would immediately go out and start killing people?

...I believe that without God any one of us could be capable of virtually anything.

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]Shooting or not shooting the stranger might not be one of those situations where my free will is tested or used because of the nature of my character. We either take or don't take the opportunities God offers us to live his way and become the person that he intends us to be , but I think I can manage to avoid shooting a stranger by myself. I don't eve ...[text shortened]... e a similar format choice that is in your opinion an example of you expressing your free will.

You are walking along the street and you find a wallet with some money and an ID. Do you return it to the owner or keep the money? If we repeat the scenario 1million times will you ever make a different choice? If this too is not a free will choice then please generate a similar format choice that is in your opinion an example of you expressing your free will. WHITEY

RESPONSE-

Let's say that there is an awful lot of money in there and that I am in debt. I can see from the wallet that the person is probably quite well off and might be able to afford the loss of money. I am unlikely to get caught as it is a secluded spot.

Now there is a battle between real temptation and good conscience. It will take an act of will or 'faith' to do the right thing. The worldly approach might be "go on take it , he won't miss it , you need it" , the higher conscience says " he may not miss it but it's still stealing , God will reward you , what goes around comes around"

What's required is a committment to the way the world is in faith. An act of will if you like. If I choose the higher way God will give me the strength to do what is right , but I may be anxious and my fear of debt might rise up and war with my conscience and convince me that its Ok to keep the wallet. I might rationalise my way out of doing the principled thing (as men often do) or I might choose to have faith and stuill hand the wallet in whilst a friend says "you sap , you could have bought a car with that , and you need one"

Each course of action requires either a committment of principled faith or a lack of committment of one's will to act against greed or fear. So yes there is every likelihood that given a million replays there might well be a few where I don't hand in the walllet. I can choose either way because God will not force me to do the right thing. It has to be a joint effort.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Each course of action requires either a committment of principled faith or a lack of committment of one's will to act against greed or fear. So yes there is every likelihood that given a million replays there might well be a few where I don't hand in the walllet. I can choose either way because God will not force me to do the right thing. It has to be a joint effort.

So essentially, if out of 1 million replays, you chose to keep the money 5 times it means that there is a 0.0005% chance that you will choose to take the money. That means that although your choice is largely caused there is also a random factor in your decision. In programming terms we would say:
"pick a random number between 1 and a million. If it is less than or equal to 5 then keep the money." It also means that the result of the choice is actually out of your control as sometimes it will go one way and sometimes the other with no apparent reason as to why it went a particular way.

Now, the critical reason why you do not like my understanding of free will is that you feel that responsibility cannot be assigned. How and why do you assign responsibility?
If you took the wallet, are you responsible? Does that make you a bad person worthy of punishment?
If we consider that in most cases you would not have taken the wallet then we know that you are actually only 0.0005% bad and it was just your bad luck that you life happened to run along the track that took you down the bad road. It 'could' have been different but it wasn't.