From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Reply to Steve Adams (LONG!) 
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:22:08 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada



These are getting long, but personally, this is the way I like 'em. 
These issues are complicated and need some thought....

In article <adams.715353838@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Aug28.013822.7183@ac.dal.ca>, hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>> In article <adams.714961727@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>
>> Humor me and answer the above question. :) You're saying that people
>> who ALWAYS chose the right way aren't truly free. I'm saying, in certain
>> kinds of situations, you and I ALWAYS choose the right way. This is
>> a fact.  There is no chance at all that I will brutally beat a child
>> who steals my hat.  There is NO possibility of me freely choosing to do
>> that. This is a fact. For 50 points, explain how this can be, in the light
>> of your theory of free will.
>
> "Theology for 500, please, Alex'
>
> Ok.  My hypothesis (and it's only that) is that given truly free will, and
> the real, logical possibility of evil being actualized, someone, somewhere
> will commit an 'evil' act at some point.  Granted, you won't do the things
> you said but what about some lesser 'evil'?  Like say, telling a lie.  Or
> getting too much change and not returning it.  

Funny you mentioned that one, actually... :-)
(I did return it, though, although I have no idea why...)

> Or taking the name of God in
> vain.  Or calling someone a name.  Or cheating on your taxes? I'm not accusing 
> you of anything, just pointing out that 'evil' is anything which separates
> us from God (ie == sin).

Fascinating. This might be another thread...the nature of sin. It is something
I have thought a lot about. If you want to pick it up in another series of
posts, let me know. 

> 
> So while you are correct in saying that you can decide never to commit a
> heinous act, I doubt that you live a sinless (no evil) life.
> 
> +50 :-)

Not just yet! We'll get to the point awarding in a minute! 

Re: Child abuse

>>* WHY will I ALWAYS make the same choice, seeing as how I'm truly free?
>>
>> WHY don't I choose to do them? When a child steals my hat, I do not
>> look at the situation and say: "Hmmm. Free choice time! Will I or won't I
>> beat this child? It doesn't matter which, so I guess I'll..." 
>> 
>> What is the key phrase in that fictional quotation? The one that makes
>> nonsense out of it (and out of the whole concept of free will that you
>> are advocating)?  Ten points if you find it! Bonus points if you can 
>> show how it shows that the concept of free will you are advocating has
>> no relation to reality. 
>> 
> Your basic nature, and your basic makeup, which are products of your
> envirnonment, has lead you to understand that the particular situation does
> not call for the response you have hypothesized.

Now - watch - you have just acknowledged that "free" will is in fact 
"conditioned" will. In other words, my so-called "free" choice is really
an outgrowth of things I have no control over. 

In other words, we make our "free" choices according to what we think is
best, given our nature and environmental conditioning (my position in 
the "nature/nuture" debate is somewhere in the middle. Seems pretty obvious
to me that we have basic natures which define the limits within which
environmental conditioning will affect us).

Now - can you control what you think is best? Are you "free" to choose
what you think is best? In fact, no. A person will ALWAYS choose the
action which seems to them to be best, given their conditioning and
nature. Neither of which they can control. Our decisions, you might say,
are determined by our nature and conditioning. I am NOT advocating a 
scientific determinism, not at all. I am just pointing out that 
"free will" is a completely artificial notion, like "pink unicorn," that
has no connection to reality. We are what we are, and we act according to 
what we are. And we cannot control what we are. 

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.

>  Note well that there ARE
> people who would respond in the way you have noted. 
 
Yes - people for whom their desire to inflict pain/feel powerful outweighs
their sensitivity to violence.  See what I'm saying? This "free choice"
stuff is just baloney. 

> Our reactions to anything are shaped by our environment.

Exactly. 

>  One of the
> componants of the environment of Eden (assuming for the moment that the
> story is literally true) was the serpent.  This componant tempted Eve to do
> something that she hadn't intended to do.  She was shaped and molded by the
> environment.

Eve's curiosity outweighed her fear of death (which makes sense, really,
considering she didn't even know what death was...).  It is this 
internal resolving of conflicting urges that we misleadingly call
"choice."  Choice is a fiction of language, created by the misleading
way we use the word "I."  We say "I chose X,"  as if it were an action
which some entity called "I" were doing, rather than as a description of
a process. It is this process that should be called "I."  

> 
> In the above, I'd say the fictional part was "It doesn't matter which".
> Because now you are talking about a basic, moral system.

Ok, ok, you get the 10 points... :-) 
 
>  And since there
> are systems to explain 'right' from 'wrong' we can act accordingly and do
> not need to think.  Well, I think I can propose a situation that fit
> societal norms yet is repugnant.  Female infanticide was socially
> acceptable in Rome & Greece.  Does that make it any less evil?

A trick question! Evil to us, but not to them, obviously. 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.

> 
> Do I get the 10 points and the bonus? ;-)
 
You get the points, but no bonus! You didn't show how the fact of our
moral sense reveals "free will" to be an artificial notion with no
connection to actuality. You made me do all the work!

>>>The specific idea of 'evil' is not simply horrible, terrible things.  All
>>>sin (that is, that which separates us from God) is evil.  I would be
>>>willing to bet loads of money that you sin (whether you happen to be
>>>Christian or not). 
>> 
>>Who, me???  Nahhh....
> No sin?  I find that hard to believe! ;-)  Not Christian?  That I believe! ;-)
> Remember, what you considder 'sin' may not be the same as what I considder
> sin.  And since we're looking at my theology, I get to make that
> determination...;-)

Fair enough. By your standards, I sin continuously. Personally, I think
Catholic-derived Christianity is a horrible misreading of Jesus life
and message. But for more details of "Sean Hartigan's adventures in
Christianity," go look at my post of Aug. 28 or 29 entitled 
"Dialogue on Faith, Certainty, ex-Christians [was Re: The Light]"

>>>>And since God is omnipotent, and therefore BY DEFINITION always gets
>>>>what he wants,  he WANTS evil to exist, he WANTS people to fail, be separate
>>>>from him, etc. 
>>>                
>>>No, I disagree. 
>> 
>>Ok - watch this carefully. If I may point out, your response to this consists
>>completely of unprovable assertions. I mention this because I know how easy
>>it is to get in the habit of responding from the internal textbook instead
>>of using our own noodle. 
>
> Since God is an unprovable assertion, this isn't particularly surprising.
> I'll see what you have to say and do my best to respond.

What I was getting at is that it seems to me that one has to reevaluate
one's description of God. I'm not saying deny God, but the traditional
theology (made by humans) is flawed. Having faith in God is one thing. 
Having faith in St. Paul and the council of Nicaea is another! Unless
they live in your heart, too! :-)
 
>>...but the reasoning is questioning if this is compatible with the
>>supposed "omni" characteristics of God. You haven't responded to the argument
>>yet.
> Sure it is.  To borrow a quote from Job "Though he slay me, yet will I hope
> in Him".  The book of Job is a pretty long answer to this whole problem.
> The old maxim "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away" comes from this
> book, too.

The Lord essentially tells Job - who do think you are? I do what I want and
I don't have to tell you anything!  This is fine - but again, NT (Pauline)
theology wants God to be all-loving, all-forgiving.   If you want to 
believe in a sovereign God who can do what he wants, hey, no skin off my nose. 
But that contradicts something ELSE you want to believe, which is that he
is a nice guy.  Everybody knows all-powerful sovereigns have to break a
few eggs to make those omelettes...but you (and a lot of other folks)
want to have it both ways.

>>>  But, God has provided a way
>>> for all of us to reconcile ourselves to Him - Jesus Christ.  I do not claim
>>> that it is an 'unintended' or 'unforseen' consequence.  God knew *exactly*
>>> what would happen, but chose to create anyway.
>> 
>> Ok - so you accept foreknowledge then. That's something - it means you're
>> stuck with the nasty dilemma outlined below.  Notice that you have not 
>> responded to the above argument with anything other than doctrinal 
>> assertions. You haven't dealt with the argument at all except to say,
>> "I disagree." Just pointing this out. Forgive me if I don't eat my words
>> just yet...:)
> No problem!  I have run into the same problem that theologians much more
> skilled than I have run into.  Namely Calvin, Augustine, Luther, etc.  

You have a chance that they blew - to use your own noodle and see what 
they refused to see (God can't be all-loving and still create souls 
who will damn themselves) or else cheerfully accepted (eg. Calvin). 
You don't want to be a Calvinist. Calvin saw the dilemma I am
pointing out to you and said "Ok! God must want certain people to be
damned! Fine with me - I'm not one of 'em."  Your other choices are:
1. accept the contradictory theology anyway (God DOES love all those
sinners he created, but is going to send them to Hell anyway) and
while away the happy hours spinning sophistries about how it's not
REALLY a contradiction - it's a "mystery."

2. Reject one or both of the contradictory positions. That is, reject
the salvation/damnation doctrine, or the omniscience/omnipotence/all-
loving doctrine.


> 
> 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." 

>>> Well, I don't happen to agree.  I don't see that God is to blame for this.
>>> Sure, he is *responsible*, but the individual is to blame. 
>>                 
>> Maybe - but he IS to blame for creating a being that he KNOWS is going to
>> damn itself to eternal hell. And he didn't have to. 
> Well, there are some philosophical arguments about this.  Most people would
> consider creating better than not creating.  Something being better than
> nothing. 

Pain better than absence of pain?  
 
> It seems clear to me that God had a choice as to whether or not to 
> create, and whether or not to give free will.  And my comments evolve from
> that point.  That once God created the logical possiblity of evil (in other
> words, for a true free choice to exist, evil in some form had to exist), it
> was done.  And eventually some being would exercise free will by chosing
> the 'wrong' option.

There is no "possibility" involved. Free will is a myth. This doesn't 
prevent us from acting as if we were free, indeed we have no choice at
all in the matter! We are "condemned to freedom," as Sartre put it. 
This means that the process which is us continues in such a way that
we MUST choose what seems to us to be best. So we have no escape 
from "choice," but our choice is an outgrowth of our nature and conditioning.  

That is to say, we are free, but our freedom is the manifestation of a
process beyond our control, because we are it!

> Remember, for freely given worship and love to be truly free, the actual,
> logical possiblity of NOT doing so had to exist.

"Truly free" in the sense you mean it is meaningful only inside a conceptual
model of life that I hope we can agree is one-sided and therefore false.
It only tells HALF of the story. 
 
>>But he did it anyway. Nice guy.  Do I leave a kid alone in a room with a 
>>gas can and a lighter?  After all, it's his free choice whether or not to 
>>play with the lighter....   I wouldn't do this to a kid I hated, let alone 
>>one of my own children. >od's supposed action is worse - after all, he KNOWS 
>>beforehand that the kid is going to play with the lighter. BEnefits of 
>>foreknowledge.  But you're saying God sends the kid in anyway, just so he can 
>>exercise his "free choice." 
>
> One needs to know the PURPOSE of the actions.  God's purpose appears to be
> freely given love and worship.  Beyond that, there is only speculation as
> to how things will turn out in the end.  Eschatology and soterolgy are
> higly speculative, with little direct evidence given other than spotty
> references in the Bible that are couched highly in allegory, metaphor,
> poetry, etc.

So you're saying that you really DON'T believe in the salvation'damnation
doctrine. Jeez - why didn't you say so!!! :-)

That is to say, you're admitting your ignorance, if I read you right.
That's all I could ask for, except that you see that the doctrine is
inherently contradictory, and therefore not from God, but from 
St. Paul and his fanatical minions. 

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?

>>AND *important*  Since God does do this, and he doesn;t HAVE to, it means
>>he must WANT some people to go to Hell and suffer forever. He must WANT it,
>>because if he didn't he just wouldn't create those people. Christianity
>>says he did.  Forgive me if I am not overcome with adoration for such
>>a "loving" being.
>
> I understand your problem with this.  There are people who God knows will
> commit acts and damn themselves to Hell.  Questions arise about this,
> though. 

> Did these people chose their paths themselves? 

Meaningless. See the free will stuff above. God created both their nature
and the environment into which they were born. He is responsible for 
their "choices" therefore.
 
> Are they serving God's will?  
 
If they are, then he is not very loving, in my opinion, or he is not 
omnipotent. You see, there is really no way out of this one!
 
> Perhaps one of the reasons for the existance of evil (theodicy is just as
> muddled as eschatology) is education and growth.  And to show us what is
> good. 

He could have created us with this knowledge (complete with an internal
CONCEPT of what evil would be if anyone wanted to do it.)
 
> I still hold to the arguemnt that if the logical possiblity of evil exists,
> it will be actualized at some point.

This is based on an erroneous understanding of how we make decisions. See
(way) above. "Possibility" doesn't enter it. It's not a problem of
probabilities.  

 Your doctrine reduces to:
"if the logical possibility of X happening exists, it will happen at some
point," 

 If we substitute "Sean beating a child" for "X," we see that your
doctrine is false anyway.
According to you, the logical possibility that X (me beating a kid) exists,
but this will never happen.  Sorry, mate, but your doctrine is completely
wrong.  If you want to know WHY it is wrong, go back to our chat on free will.

>>> Any comments on the resolution of this are purely speculation.  It is
>>> within God's purview to do as He pleases. 
>> 
>>Maybe so - but we don't have to love him for it, if he wants to be a 
>>bastard like that. Love for a being that does stuff like that is
>>just horrifying, in my view. Inhuman in the extreme. Like the love the
>>SS had for Hitler:  "After all, he's good to US..." 
>
> Perhaps so.  But, God and Hitler are quite different, in my opinion.  It is
> within God's perview to do as He pleases with His creation.  Hitler has no
> such claim.

So it's okay for God to be an S.O.B of unparalellable stature? Fine, deny
the doctrine that he is all-loving...your minister won't be happy! :)

The traditional doctrine says that he can do whatever he pleases, BUT that
what he actually does is act according to his all-loving nature, and so
we should love him for his Goodness, etc. etc.  If he really does
create souls knowing that they will damn themselves, than THIS aspect of
the doctrine must be false, as this is not loving in any way we understand 
the word.
 
> 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! 
 
> How about a fictional example.  Dr. Tsung creates 'Data' and 'Lore', two
> human-like computers.  One turns out good, the other bad.  Is it OK to turn
> off Lore?  How about Data?  If one and not the other, why?  Who gets to
> decide?  Remember the legal ruling: Data is a toaster!  Are we any
> different compared to God?

Are we different than human-like computers?  Look - God makes the rules,
right? So he can do whatever he @%$% well pleases, and that becomes "good"
by definition, in your book. So if God creates beings that will damn themselves
to Hell, that is "Good" by defintion. Fine - but that is incredibly inhuman
and only the most ruthless rationalist could embrace such a doctrine, let
alone have the slightest attraction towards any being capable of that kind
of behaviour, which revolts me. I cannot help but find it profoundly
insensitive, uncaring, and infinitely cruel.

Sugar!!! I have to go!!! Just about everything is covered above, though,
I think. If you feel I've missed something important, let me know, and
I'll do another "followup" and hit it. 

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca
In a big rush!!!!

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc