Date: Wednesday, 6 January 1993 19:02:23 MST
X-Mailer: TMail version 1.16R
From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com>
Organization: Nobody but me -- really
Subject: Brainwashing & Free Will (was: Torture etc.)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: world

For various reasons this is not a live issue to me, but I mentioned
the referenced thread to a coworker & we came up with an interesting
conjecture.  I'm throwing it out to the net.xtians who care about
such things for discussion:

Premise: there exist techniques (drugs, sensory deprivation) which
can RELIABLY shatter any human personality, however strong.  Using
these techniques, it would be possible to make a permanent
"conversion" of anyone from their former beliefs.  The result is a
comittment as tenacious as any other; the subject will be faithful
to the point of death if necessary.

Test Case: a highly religious person (pick one of your favorite
martytrs if you like) falls into the hands of brainwashers who do
such a 180 on him.  The subject then goes on to become the next
[Hitler|Caligula|Stalin|etc.].  What effect does this have on his
personal salvation?

Disclaimer: Calvinists won't have any problem with this since they'll
see the torture as proof that the individual wasn't scheduled for
salvation.  SO, to keep things simple, can we please PRESUME the
doctrine of free will?

Thesis: the Most Merciful recognizes that the subject never FREELY
assented to his new allegiance, and treats the brainwaashing
like death: the subject is judged according to his former life.

Problems with thesis: 1) when is the cutoff? Does brainwashing from
birth count?  If not, why not?  2) How extreme does the brainwashing
have to be?  Where is the line between brainwashing and miscellaneous
environmental factors?  3) Doesn't this leave the subject with a
blank check to perform evil, and no reason at all to repent?  Doesn't
it take us right back to the classic problem "why do the evil prosper?"

Antithesis: The subject is judged according to his life, entire.  No
distinction between extreme & irresistable influences such as
brainwashing and incidental ones such as a passing conversation; only
results count.  We presume that there is always SOME opportunity for
repentance, even in the hands of a brainwasher who kills his victims
as soon as they "choose evil."

Problem with antithesis: This REALLY flies in the face of sense and
any sense of justice.  Calling the actions of a freshly brainwashed
individual "free will" redefines the term out of all recognition.

Synthesis A: if the subject's personality has, as coworker put it,
been "shattered and rebuilt" to suit the brainwasher, it makes no
sense to claim identity between the former and latter selves just
because they inhabit the same body and share some memories.  Could
not the Most Merciful take the soul of the victim to its reward and
leave another in its place to make its own (likely doomed) course?
(This could get bound up with the abortion/ensoulment brouhaha, but
let's please consider the circumstances extreme!)

Problems with synthesis A: 1) It doesn't avoid the margin-definition
problems of the thesis (esp. the degree of coercion one).  2) It
seems to fly in the face of a LOT of xtian tradition (not a problem
for me, but then I'm really just a bystander here anyway -- dcs).

Cute corollary to synthesis 1: The reverse would presumably be true
as well: brainwashing from evil to good would also result in a new
soul.  Gives a whole new meaning to "born again," no?

Synthesis B: Suggestions welcome.


--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---
--- Note new network address:                dcs@witsend.tnet.com ---
--- Author (and everything else!) of TMail  (DOS mail/news shell) ---
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish