From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Reply to Steve Adams (LONG!) 
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:43:48 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <sam.715438559@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>In article <adams.715353838@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
> Sean: 
>>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. 
>
> Sure, let's go...;-)  Start a new thread.

Ok...let's wait a little while, though, until I can get a few other threads 
tidied up.

>>> 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. 
> 
> I think what we are doing here is arguing over the meaning of 'free'.  We
> always have a choice.  But many, many things affect our choice.  Things we
> have no control over.  But that doesn't preclude radical change.  My
> parents and I disagree on many, many issues.  Or better, my brother and I
> disagree massively on isssues.  Or basic environment was similar, but we've
> come to completely different conclusions and resolutions.  So although I
> agree with you that conditioning happens, I think it can be overthrown.

What can happen is this: we can suddenly switch from one pattern of
environmental conditioning to another which seems BETTER from the
point of view of either our nature or our old conditioning. 
Example: I convert to Christianity because I have an experience which
seems to fit better with the new pattern (Xianity) than the old 
(Zoroastrianism or whatever).   OR - because I just like it better for
no apparent reason (it seems better to my nature/temperament). 

So, yesy, radical sudden change is possible, but again, it is 
according to what seems best to us, and that is outside our control.
 
>>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. 
>
> 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.

Now, the next thing you might say is, "Well, I can deliberately choose
the thing that seems to me to be worse!"  The answer of course, is yes.
But what you are doing when you do this, is setting up another
decision - will I do what I think is best in situation A or will I 
reject it as a demonstration of free will?   Whichever of THOSE two
options seems best is what you will do, and afterwards, the conventions of
our language dictate that you describe the affair thusly: "I made a 
decision." 
 
>>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.  
 
> Chose a smaller evil to
> attempt to prevent a larger evil.  A famous example was Neville Chamberlin
> who chose to allow Germany territory to stop a war.  So in this case,
> selling out some people in East-Central Europe was less evil than the
> consequeces : World War.

What I am talking about applies equally to "deciding" what to have for lunch,
and "deciding" whether or not to drop the bomb on Hiroshima. Chamberlain
did what everyone does all the time - what seemed to him to be best.

A note on "best" : NOT equivalent to moral "best," but rather to
personal quality best.  For Jeff Dahmer, killing people seemed better 
than not killing them, even though he no doubt knew it was morally wrong
according to his society, and probably his conscience. The pleasure
of killing outweighed the pleasure of conforming to his moral code.
And this is not something that he or anybody can do anything about. 

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. 
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! :-)

>>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. 

>>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]"
> 
> 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! :)

>>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! :-)
> 
> Paul's writings make up a large portion of the New Testament.  One of my
> assumptions is that the Bible accurately reflects God's interaction with
> men.

Yes, you have said that this is one of your basis assumptions. But why have 
faith in Paul?  He was just a guy. It is one thing to have faith in God
based on subjective experience. It is another to have faith in St. Paul.
We have no more reason to believe him than to believe the thousands of
other people who claim to have direct revelation from God. Before you
say something like "yeah, well, Paul makes sense in light of X, Y, Z"
let me just add that the same claim can be made about Joseph Smith,
Sun Myung Moon, what's-her-name the Adventist founder, etc etc.
 
> 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.
 
> As for Nicea, it was an attempt to formulate a basic creed for the church
> and resolve the Arian heresy (which, by the way, is what the Jehovah's
> Witnesses have adopted).   The concepts laid down at Nicea were beleived by
> large sections of the church from the period of Paul on.  

True, and disbelieved by sections near as large. I guess I'm wondering
why this faith in St. Paul and the Bible?

>>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.
> 
> 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. 

> As
> such, I must develop an system where it all fits. 

Either that, or re-evaluate your faith in St. Paul. "St. Paulianity..."
 
> 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! :)

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.

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. 

>>...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.
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>

> 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!! :)
 
>>>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! :)


>>>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!!! :-)
> 
> I don't know!  That's the whole point!  I freely admit that I don't know!
> 
>>That is to say, you're admitting your ignorance, if I read you right.
> Yep...I made it even clearer now!
> 
>>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. 
>
> Well, given my basic assumptions (which I am not prepared to abandon), I have 
> to take Paul along with everything else in the Bible.

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?

>>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.

> 
>>> I still hold to the arguemnt that if the logical possiblity of evil exists,
>>> it will be actualized at some point.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> No, this isn't what I was trying to say.  I was trying to say that if there
> is a logical possibility that X will happen, someone, somewhere will do it.

I think my point still holds. You are making an assumption based on 
observation.  However, if ONE person can not do X because of 
temperament/conditioning, than omnipotent God can create 5 billion
who will not do X. 
 
>  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.

> 
>>>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.

>>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.
> 
> 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? 

I look forward to your comments on the free will stuff!

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc