From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Reply to Steve Adams (LONG!) 
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:44:54 GMT

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

>In article <sam.715438559@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>In article <adams.715353838@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>
>So, yesy, radical sudden change is possible, but again, it is 
>according to what seems best to us, and that is outside our control.

Let me turn the tables.  Is there anything I do which is not determined by
my environemnt and conditioning?  If not, then you've come to that thing
which you have said you have rejected : determinism.  For if my reaction
can always be predicted based upon the premised that I must act in the
'best' way, and you can determine this 'best' through some formulaic
construction then alas, there is never a choice, simply determinism.

I think you have gone a bit to far in your application of environment and
conditioning.  If you admit that radical change is possible, isn't it the
case that radical decisions are possilbe?  Things that lie outside our
conditioned set of responses?

I sense a bit of Plato/Socrates here.  If I know the good I will do the
good.  But not necesarily, for one man's good is another man's evil.  It's
that definition thing.

>>This is interesting.  'Best' is a hard thing to define.  It's always a
>>balancing act.  We look at a situation and determine our actions based on a
>>combination of what we think is best and how society will react to a
>>particular action.  Isn't that making a free choice?

>That is what we call "making a free choice," yes. Now, what I want to do
>is look a little closer at this process. If I'm trying to decide between
>my personal morality (for example) and societal morality, what actually
>happens is this: the two possibilities churn around in my brain, 
>projected results of both decisions are examined, and after a while,
>ONE of these possibilities starts to look BETTER than the other, in some
>undefinable way.  We ALWAYS go with what seems best to us - we have no
>choice, you might say.

So, what you are saying here, is that after evaluating all of the
ramifications of a choice, we make a choice that is not 100% best (ie, a
different choice would have been personally better for us) we have still
made the 'best' choice?  How about this: pick between Bush and Clinton and
tell me there is a best choice. ;-)  Shot to death or stabbed? ;-)

>>>If you want to test this contention, go find a child and beat her up,
>>>until she bleeds. It is your free choice, go do it. Now, I'll bet that
>>>even if I placed the most obnoxious kid alive in front of you, a kid
>>>that would benefit mightily from a little reminder that he is not the
>>>center of the cosmos, you would not beat him.  WHy not? "Spare the rod, etc."
>>>You couldn't do it! You might sort of want to, but you would want NOT to
>>>even more.  And there is the crux of my point. We ALWAYS "freely" choose
>>>that which seems to us to be the greatest good. And we cannot control 
>>>what seems to us to be the greatest good. "Free will" is just a very
>>>persistent myth.
>> 
>> I'd say that this particular example is so egregious that just claiming
>> that you won't do it doesn't answer the question.

>I chose <smirk> it because it seemed likely to me that I would be right is 
>assuming that you would be incapable of abusing a child so viciously. Note-
>I said INCAPABLE, and I meant it.  

Of course, I could do it simply to "prove a point", too.  

NOTE TO THE NET.POLICE: this is a hypotheitcal discussion, and given my own
set of morals I would never, ever do such a thing.

>An interesting side point: from that example we can see that the notion of
>free will is essential to a notion of crime as evil. 
Yes.  It absolutely is.  For if everything is as deterministic as you seem
to be proposing, we can't hold anyone responsible, for they did what they
were conditioned to do...

>A more accurate way of dealing with criminals would be to regard them
>as either reformable or non-reformable deviants. They are different from
>people who obey the law - and need to be treated accordingly. Currently
>we regard them as "generic human" making free antisocial choices.
>Thus we feel justified in punishing them to no purpose, and in making
>unreasonable demands that they "change," which they may not be capable of
>doing. Another thread....some day! :-)
Then why the heck are you locking them up, eh? ;-)  I'll leave that to
a new thread..

>>>The point here
>>>is that my actions are DETERMINED by my sense of morality, over which I
>>>have no control. The source of morality is another question (which might
>>>be worth another thread someday :-) but all that matters here is that
>>>we see that our sense of morality (perverted or not) DETERMINES 
>>>how we will act. What we call a"decision" is just the internal resolving
>>>of conflicting urges, according to relative strength.
>> 
>> People can consciously change their personal morality.  Trust me.  I have.

>I believe you. I would just word the matter differently. In some circumstances,
>it seems better to some people to change their personal morality than to stay
>with the old one.  This is not something they have any control over. It's
>still "nature" and environmental conditioning at work. 

So, you are insisting that nothing I do is of my own true freedom, but is
100% condidtioned by environment and past events.  Voila.  Determinism.
Hmm.  I know some Calvinists who would love you!

>>OK.  I'll go check it out.  I agree that many Christians ignore the message
>>of the Gospel.  My studies have led me to discard a large portion of the
>>framework that was built over time, in favor of seeking out the message of
>>Gospel.

>Righty-ho! We'll get to that in a minute! :)

I knew I was in for trouble when I wrote that...;-)

>> As such, I'm constrained by what the documents reveal.  I am
>> certainly no Biblical Scholar (at least, not yet), and I often disagree
>> greatly with the orthodox interpretations of what is found there.

>I admit that I am puzzled by your unhesitating embrace of the Bible.

It stems from the basic building blocks I began with, being raised Roman 
Catholic, and is one of the things I have not discarded.  Nor am I prepared
to do that.  Yet.

>> Well, I have to admit that I do have a problem with this.  It is exactly
>> this that I struggle with.  But I am not prepared to discard the Bible. 

>Fair enough. That might be the next thing you want to explain. 

It is very, very difficult to discard a foundation on which so much is
built.  Granted, I've changed the structure of the building radically, and
remodelled it.  But I'm not prepared to completely raze the building and
dig up the foundation.

>Either that, or re-evaluate your faith in St. Paul. "St. Paulianity..."
'Paulist' is the usual epithet...I honestly came very close to rejecting
the whole of Pauline writing, but I did not.

>>You've pointed out the
>>problems with that, and the discussion is helpfull.  I do not, at this
>>point, have an answer.  I don't know how an all-loving God could damn
>>someone to Hell...I don't.  Hence the constant search for a theological
>>answer.  And free will is the best I can do.  For the moment.

>I respect your integrity. I think "free will" is likely to be the 
>next orthodox postion you abandon....maybe! :)

Could well be.  I tend to try to stay with a method of thought until it is
completely unworkable.  But I sure try hard...;-)

>On reflection, one way out of this tangled mess seems to be to reject
>entirely the Pauline understanding of Christ. Paul was just a man. LIke me.
>Like you. I've had hallucinations - Paul could have too. We have seen
>(maybe! :) that Pauline theology breaks down.  If you agree that this is
>the case, you are free to approach the Gospels, the Apocrphya, the
>Gnostic gospels, the whole range of Christian literature, with a fresh
>mind.   The only reason the Gospels are your only allowable source is
>because Paul's minions said so.  If you confess ignorance of whether or
>not THEY are right, then you can look at EVERYTHING we know about Jesus
>and come to your own understanding.

Of course, you don't know it, but I've done this...note above where I said
I came real close to rejecting Paul's writings...it was during that period.
I had a conversation with another t.r.m'r on the subject, actually more on
form criticism than anything, and told him the same thing.  I'm not ready
to reject the canon.

>Right now, it looks to me that you're tied in knots by a theology that
>has 2,000 years of tradition behind it, but is nevertheless the work
>of one man, for the most part. 

The 'orthodox' answer to that is, of course, that Paul was divinely
inspired.

>>>...reject salvation/damnation or omnicience...etc...
>>
>>Yep.  John Hick did this.  And was condemend by numerous theologians.  You
>>might notice that I keep bringing Hick & Iraneaus into the discussion.  They
>>answered the problem with universal salvation.  And Iraneaus did it back in
>>the 2nd century...

>I don't like Iranaeus because he was so virulently Catholic/apostolic.

Everyone has thei problems!  That doesn't mean we should completely disregard 
what he had to say.  After all, he rejected free will and the fall! You ought
to love him for that!

>According to him, if you didn't recognize the authority of the bishops, the 
>successors of Peter &co. , you were a heretic, servant of Satan, etc.
>He was very mean to my favorite kind of Christians, the Gnostics. <sniff>

Well, the typical anti-orthodox group was hunted down like rabid dogs and
put out of their misery by whatever orthodoxy was in vogue.  I realize that
over time orthodoxy has shifted...

>> I've come back and forth on this issue of salvation...if I could once and
>> for all work out scriptural references and Iraneaus, I'd be in line with
>> Hick and Iraneaus.

>If you do it, let me know. I have basically abandoned Pauline orthodoxy,
>and in so doing my "right" to call myself a Christian. Christians say 
>I'm an atheist, since I think Yahweh was a poetic figure and Jesus was
>essentially a poetic, not a literal, speaker.  If I was "allowed" to,
>I'd call myself a Christian, Gnostic strain. My dark secret is out!
>Don't tell anyone!! :)

Hmm.  I would never have guessed.  Honestly.  I have more or less come to
the conclusion that Genesis, at least ch 1-9 is poetry, and does not
reflect real history in any way that we currently understand it.  The
message is still clear to me...at least for now, based on Pauline
Christianity.

>>>>I don't deny that I've responded with doctrinal assertions, though you'll
>>>>find that my assertions often differ with 'accepted' ideas...heck, I've
>>>>been called a heretic around here more than once!
>> 
>>>Hartigan's law - "Every intelligent Christian ends up a heretic." 
>> 
>> I concur. ;-)

>Gee, my first disciple! :)

Amen, and preach it, brother! ;-)  [sorry, couldn't resist]

[my comments on taking Paul with the rest of the Bible deleted]
>This, I don't understand. If basic assumptions lead to chaos and contradiction,
>then it seems possible that one or more of those assumptions need examining.
>Comment?
See above about tearing up the foundation....there are more complex issues
to this too, than just my own personal beliefs.  Mostly based on issues
within my family, etc.  That too, makes it difficult to do.

>>>And sooooo.....(heh heh) this leads us to ask the musical question:
>>>what MIGHT the true understanding of the salvation business be, since
>>>we can see that St. Paul's version breaks down under close scrutiny?
>> 
>> When I find out, I'll let you know.  Just don't hold your breath!

>Read (if you haven't) "The Gnostic Gospels" by Elaine Pagels, and see if
>you can find a copy of the Gospel of Thomas, for another look at the
>salvation/damnation business. One that avoids the dead-end of Pauline
>thought.

Haven't read that particular one, but I have looked at the Gospel of Thomas
and others (Gospel of Truth, etc).  I will take another look at this.

> 
>>  Not specifically you.  In other words, if we can conceive an idea that has
>> real possibilites, someone will do it.  Bungee Jumping and Skydiving seem
>> to prove the point...;-)

>This is experimentally true, I agree. But when we throw an omnipotent God
>into the equation, it messes it up. He can create people who can 
>conceive possiblities, but who have no desire to actualize them. If he
>can create one, he can create 5, 10, 100 billion.

But I think this goes back to my comments about evil actually existing.

>>>>This example will surely be quite different than God's actions, but the
>>>>point is the same.  If I create something out of clay, do I not have the
>>>>right to destroy it?  Granted it isn't sentient, but I'm the creator so I
>>>>can destroy it.
>> 
>>>How cruel! Surely you don't mean this? Forgive me, but even to me, a 
>>>godless heathen atheist, this seems immoral in the profoundest sense of
>>>the word! 
>> 
>> Cruel?  To destroy a clay figurine that I constructed?

>Not in the case of the figurine, but I assume you intend this analogy to
>apply to beings with lives of their own, with what you might call "souls."
>If you do, then I have to agree with my above comments. I can't believe you
>are saying this out of personal feeling. I'm sure you are just
>rationally following out the implications of somebody else's doctrine.

You have a point about following the doctrine to its logical conclusion.
And yes, I did mean it the way you took it...and I have a tough time
supporting my own *$&#&$( conclusion.  Wonderful.

>> Herein lies a large part of the problem, I think.  Definitions of good and
>> evil.  Religion tends to identify 'good' with the will of God.  Thus,
>> anything God does (He cannot act against His will) is, by definition good.
>> 
>> We may not think so...just ask Job.

>Right. I think we've covered this above. You've said that you really have no
>idea about this matter, and that you lean towards a rejection of this doctrine 
>anyway. Still - when you think about it, it's bloody nasty, isn't it? 

Yep.  It sure looks that way from my perspective.  Which is of course why I
immediately retreat to using God's perspective, though I have no real clue
as to what that is.

Intellectual honesty sucks.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15600 alt.atheism:16516