Predestination and Free Will

[Mr. Tweedy]

Steve, that is fascinating!  I love it!  Sorry I have don't any comments to add to it at the moment...

[Mr. Tweedy]

Sorry if it seems like I'm running a rut here, but I want to bring up the idea of perspective again.

Anybody with more than a passing interest in science-fiction is familiar with the idea of time-dialation.  Simply put, when you go really fast, time slows down for you.  The "twin paradox" is usually used as an analogy: You have two twins, say Joe and Jane.  Joe stays on Earth while Jane goes zooming around the galaxy at light speed.  When Jane comes back, Joe will be older than than she is, because she has experienced time-dilation and he has not.  (I'm sure you've all heard this example a million times.)  Let's say Joe ends up being 100 and Jane is still just 10.

Now, by my understanding of Relativity, there is no arbiter between Joe and Jane's clocks.  The fact that Joe has experienced the passage of 100 years and Jane has only experienced 10 might tempt us to ask the question "Whose clock is right?  Was it really 100 years or was it really only 10?"  The answer to that question is "Yes."  As much as it offends our sensibilities, it really was 100 years and it also really was 10.

Relativity produces lots of other similar effects.  "Is the mass of this brick 1 kg or 10 kg?"  "Is this rod one foot long or three?"  "Yes" to both questions.

I don't know that it will satisfy anyone else, but I think the answer to free-will vs. predestination is along similar lines.  I think both are ultimately different terms for the same thing.  When you ask "either or" the answer is "yes," although that answer is counterintuitive.  The answers don't contradict each other: It's just a matter of where one is standing when one asks the question.

Someone in the timeline says "I have free will" and he is right.  Someone outside says "his future is fixed," and that is also right.

And no, I can't really wrap my mind around that idea myself.  But, if we're dealing with eternity and infinity and the nature of being, would you really expect to be able to totally grasp it?  Because we do not have access to an "outside" view, the best we can do is resort to metaphors, and they will never be exact.

[ClintMemo]

If you abstract that more, it looks like "I am defining A and B as two mutually exclusive things that can exist at the same time.  This is allowable because I am defining it that way."

This is why terms need to be defined in an arguement.  You are doing the same thing, by basically saying Free Will cannot exist if the future is set.
And since the nitpick comb is still out, I'm saying that Free Will and a Set Future are not mutually exclusive.

I'm interested in how you would define "Free Will" and "fate" such that they are not mutually exclusive without including that in the definitions. 

...some people find comfort in the idea that the future is always open to change, while others find comfort in the idea that the timeline is static.

Oh, I can definitely agree with that.   I've read essays by atheists claiming they felt great relief in knowing they were masters of their own destiny and others who felt great sadness in knowing that their was no one above looking out for them.  It very much depends on the person and their outlook.  A positive "freewiller" might think they can do anything while a negative one might take an attitude of "everything's all their fault."  A positive fatalist might feel saved while a negative one might feel doomed.

[Rachel Swirsky]

Are you looking at this from a religious or an atheistic pov, Clint? If you don't mind saying? (I have a number of atheistic-minded arguments that I haven't brought in, as I have the sense I'm the only atheist actively participating in the conversation.)

[ClintMemo]

Are you looking at this from a religious or an atheistic pov, Clint? If you don't mind saying? (I have a number of atheistic-minded arguments that I haven't brought in, as I have the sense I'm the only atheist actively participating in the conversation.)

I was raised a Catholic. (I used to joke that "I was raised Catholic, but I'm in recovery now.")  I've always been a bit of a doubter.
These days I'm about two baby steps from becoming an Atheist, but I'm not sure how much of that is an emotional reaction to all the bad things I see being done in the name of religion combined with the lack of seeing any evidence that God exists.

Right now, I put myself firmly in the "undecided" camp.

I think the "official" atheist position is that God may exist, but they won't believe it until someone shows them evidence as such.  I have two very good friends who are what I jokingly refer to as "devout atheists."  They not only believe that there is no God, but will argue to try to prove their point. I also have other friends that are Christians with varying degrees of devoutness (is that a real word? ).
I would also point out that almost every week, I get together with a group of friends to play D&D which includes one of the atheists, his teenage daughter (whom he is allowing to decide for herself), a devout Christian/Former minister, two baptists, and two others who are not religious and we all get along just fine.

[Mr. Tweedy]

These days I'm about two baby steps from becoming an Atheist, but I'm not sure how much of that is an emotional reaction to all the bad things I see being done in the name of religion combined with the lack of seeing any evidence that God exists.

Let's not forget all the bad things that have done in the name of atheism.  Communism killed many millions of people in the 20th century, and it was a devoutly atheistic system.

I think the "official" atheist position is that God may exist, but they won't believe it until someone shows them evidence as such. 

I think the word for that is "agnostic."  An atheist disbelieves in God.  An agnostic isn't sure.

[slic]

I'm interested in how you would define "Free Will" and "fate" such that they are not mutually exclusive without including that in the definitions.

The same way I've defined it in previous posts.

Free will of an individual is when that person makes a choice - whether it is to stay home or go to work, answer this post or not.  Even deciding that there is no Free Will, by my definition, is free will.  It doesn't matter to the definition if someone else already knows what you will decide.

I think the "official" atheist position is that God may exist...

I thought an atheist didn't believe in God at all.  And Merriam Webster agrees: "one who believes "that there is no deity

I think, ClintMemo, that you an agnostic:
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

out-posted by Mr. Tweedy, but I've already typed it so it stays

[slic]

Let's not forget all the bad things that have done in the name of atheism.  Communism killed many millions of people in the 20th century, and it was a devoutly atheistic system

I think you are muddying the waters here.  People in Russia or Cuba didn't take up arms in the name of atheism - it wasn't like the Crusades.  In the case of Stalin, in my humble opionion, it was in a large part a way removing competing authority, namely the Church.

[Rachel Swirsky]

Let's not forget all the bad things that have done in the name of atheism.  Communism killed many millions of people in the 20th century, and it was a devoutly atheistic system.

Good point. It was an atheistic *system*. That's different from being in the name of atheism, for the same reason that the actions of the Catholic church are supposed to be different from the actions of the American government.

And devout + atheist is a linguistic oxy moron which is used as a rhetorical formation to minimize the atheist position by suggesting (through the contradiction in the words) that it's hypocritical. Don't think I don't notice.

Now, we can either stop talking about this, or it can move to another thread, but if you're going to repeat unsubstantiated memes, then it's unlikely to be a pleasant conversation.

[Mr. Tweedy]

Let's not forget all the bad things that have done in the name of atheism.  Communism killed many millions of people in the 20th century, and it was a devoutly atheistic system.

Good point. It was an atheistic *system*. That's different from being in the name of atheism, for the same reason that the actions of the Catholic church are supposed to be different from the actions of the American government.

And devout + atheist is a linguistic oxy moron which is used as a rhetorical formation to minimize the atheist position by suggesting (through the contradiction in the words) that it's hypocritical. Don't think I don't notice.

Heh heh.  Funny you noticed, because I hadn't.  I don't think atheism is hypocritcal: There are plenty of honest atheists out there.  I don't mean to "minimize" anything.  What I am saying is that I think atheism is a religion and that you can be devout or you can flirt with it, just like with any other belief system.  You probably know (and are probably annoyed by) people who call themselves atheists but still toss up a prayer now and then.  Such people are not devout.  They aren't wholly committed to their atheism.  I'm assuming you are committed, in which case, good for you.  I like when people really believe what they claim.

I think you are muddying the waters here.  People in Russia or Cuba didn't take up arms in the name of atheism - it wasn't like the Crusades.  In the case of Stalin, in my humble opionion, it was in a large part a way removing competing authority, namely the Church.

The Crusades weren't really about religion either (as I understand them).  They were about power and ecconomics and politics: Religion was just an excuse to go kill people and take their stuff.  Just goes to show that any religion can be explioted by bad people to justify their bad deeds.

And now we're way off topic.  Appologies, everyone.  Predestination...

[ClintMemo]

I've been down the "killing in the name of God" vs "killing in the name of Atheism" road before and I don't really want to revisit it.  He-who-must-not-be-named-for-fear-of-invoking-Godwin's-law was Catholic, Stalin was raised as some version of Christian. China's leader (Mao?) was an atheist.  In the "who killed more" contest, let's call the 20th century a draw.


btw, I know that "devout atheist" is an oxymoron. I used to call my friends that simply to push their buttons.  Sorry if I pushed anyone else's.

The position of "I believe there is no God" is stronger than "I do not believe there is a God."  There is a subtle but distinct difference.

Maybe "Agnostic" is how I should refer to myself, though other definitions I've seen don't exactly coincide with Webster.

[Rachel Swirsky]

What I am saying is that I think atheism is a religion

Yes, I know. That's what's implied in the word "devout."

However, atheism is not a religion. Atheism has been politically constructed as a religion for the purpose of making it out to be hypocritical -- atheism is the absence of religion, so to refer to it *as* a religion is to suggest that atheists are hypocrites who actually do possess religion. That implication is embedded in the linguistic construction itself.

[Rachel Swirsky]

btw, I know that "devout atheist" is an oxymoron. I used to call my friends that simply to push their buttons.

Not really. The joking context came through.

[JaredAxelrod]

  A positive "freewiller" might think they can do anything while a negative one might take an attitude of "everything's all their fault."

I find it remarkable that some people would look at a the concept of being the only one responsible for their actions, and deem that to be a negatative trait.

[ClintMemo]

Heh heh.  Funny you noticed, because I hadn't.  I don't think atheism is hypocritcal: There are plenty of honest atheists out there.  I don't mean to "minimize" anything.  What I am saying is that I think atheism is a religion and that you can be devout or you can flirt with it, just like with any other belief system.  You probably know (and are probably annoyed by) people who call themselves atheists but still toss up a prayer now and then.  Such people are not devout.  They aren't wholly committed to their atheism.  I'm assuming you are committed, in which case, good for you.  I like when people really believe what they claim.

To repeat an atheist saying - "Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby."
"Devout" has a religious connotation and is the wrong word to use when describing atheists. "Committed" is a better choice.

Just goes to show that any religion can be explioted by bad people to justify their bad deeds.

At the risk of going further off-topic, I'll add that one of "bad things I've seen done in the name of religion" is people who are non-believers (because they obviously don't "practice what they preach"), pretending to be believers, manipulating believers into doing what they want.  When those actions were merely "send me money" (like the televangelist scandals of the late 1980's), I didn't get that upset because I just thought is was a case of fools being taken by a con artist.  Today, it's far more than that.  I'm sure that has happened throughout history, but I haven't experienced it until the lat decade or so.

And now we're way off topic.  Appologies, everyone.  Predestination...

It was destined to happen...

[ClintMemo]

  A positive "freewiller" might think they can do anything while a negative one might take an attitude of "everything's all their fault."

I find it remarkable that some people would look at a the concept of being the only one responsible for their actions, and deem that to be a negatative trait.

Oh, I see it all the time.  It depends on their self-image and how much they dwell on their failures.  Convincing yourself that you are not capable of doing anything right can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.  When you are primarily concerned with what you've done wrong, adding the idea that all the mistakes you make are no one's fault but yours only makes you feel worse. If you can blame your mistakes on someone else, you give yourself an out.
I think dodging responsibility is epidemic in the U.S. but that's another topic.

[sirana]

To repeat an atheist saying - "Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby."

Ah you beat me to it...
I'll still offer my version:

"If Atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color."

[Thaurismunths]

Heh heh.  Funny you noticed, because I hadn't.  I don't think atheism is hypocritcal: There are plenty of honest atheists out there.  I don't mean to "minimize" anything.  What I am saying is that I think atheism is a religion and that you can be devout or you can flirt with it, just like with any other belief system.  You probably know (and are probably annoyed by) people who call themselves atheists but still toss up a prayer now and then.  Such people are not devout.  They aren't wholly committed to their atheism.  I'm assuming you are committed, in which case, good for you.  I like when people really believe what they claim.

To repeat an atheist saying - "Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby."
"Devout" has a religious connotation and is the wrong word to use when describing atheists. "Committed" is a better choice.

Just goes to show that any religion can be explioted by bad people to justify their bad deeds.

At the risk of going further off-topic, I'll add that one of "bad things I've seen done in the name of religion" is people who are non-believers (because they obviously don't "practice what they preach"), pretending to be believers, manipulating believers into doing what they want.  When those actions were merely "send me money" (like the televangelist scandals of the late 1980's), I didn't get that upset because I just thought is was a case of fools being taken by a con artist.  Today, it's far more than that.  I'm sure that has happened throughout history, but I haven't experienced it until the lat decade or so.

And now we're way off topic.  Appologies, everyone.  Predestination...

It was destined to happen...

This is me siding with Mr. Tweedy, saying ya'll might want to pause and think really hard about where this thread is going.
We've been down this slippery slope before. Recently.

[ClintMemo]

quickly turning the ship back on course...

I'm interested in how you would define "Free Will" and "fate" such that they are not mutually exclusive without including that in the definitions.

The same way I've defined it in previous posts.
Free will of an individual is when that person makes a choice - whether it is to stay home or go to work, answer this post or not.  Even deciding that there is no Free Will, by my definition, is free will. 

I submit that there is a difference between "deciding" something and "recognizing" something.  I could recognize that I lack free will, just as I would recognize that the screen is gray. 

It doesn't matter to the definition if someone else already knows what you will decide.

Each definition on it's own is allowable, just not taken together.
It's no different than "an immovable object" vs "an irresistible force" or a "universal solvent" vs an "indestructible substance."

[Listener]

Recently we implemented forums on our website (http://www.11alive.com).  Being in the Bible Belt, there's a lot of religious people here.  Interestingly, and SFEley may be able to shed more light on this, the farther you get from the exact center of Atlanta the more religious people are, at least within the Georgia boundaries.

If you skim through some of the forum entries about news where someone died or a crime was committed, you see a lot of eye-for-an-eye commentary and a lot of posts along the lines of "Jesus loves you, (fill in deceased person's name here), and God has a plan".

That whole setup was just so I could get to this point, which I just thought of after moderating about 200 posts on our forums and then reading this thread:

The people who believe most fervently in their religion -- usually, but not always, Christianity, at least in my experience -- are the most likely to say "God has a plan".  But the more stringently one follows Christian beliefs, the more one should believe in the literal tenets of that faith.  The being Christians call God endowed humanity with free will.  But they don't want to accept that things aren't happening because they chose them to happen; they'd prefer to believe that the being they call God is guiding them on their path.

I don't think it's possible to have it both ways.

"I don't care what you believe. Just believe." -Shepherd Book

[slic]

quickly turning the ship back on course...

hard a port, bearing 270

I submit that there is a difference between "deciding" something and "recognizing" something.  I could recognize that I lack free will, just as I would recognize that the screen is gray.

I could recognize the screen is gray and decide to call it white.  This is starting to become an argeument more along the lines of Perception versus Absolute Truth (see below).  I say if you freely decide things, you have free will - the end.  If God has the Big Book of Everything and my entire family tree is in there from ape to space faring colonist, it make not a whit of difference to my free will/decision making self.

If I have a universal solvent, by definition, it's a universal solvent until I find something that it can't dissolve.  There is little point worrying about the stuff it can't dissolve until we find some.  I'm not going to worry about Aliens planting thoughts/decisions into my mind until there's some proof of it happening,


In the arguement of Perception versus Absolute Truth, I strongly feel that there is no Absolute Truth - outside of our own senses we have no idea what goes on in the world - therefore everything is perception.  When a colour-blind guy and I can see the same colour sky then you can start talking Absolute Truth.

[Mr. Tweedy]

In the arguement of Perception versus Absolute Truth, I strongly feel that there is no Absolute Truth - outside of our own senses we have no idea what goes on in the world - therefore everything is perception.  When a colour-blind guy and I can see the same colour sky then you can start talking Absolute Truth.

If there's no Absolute Truth, then what are you and the color-blind guy percieving?  Perception requires some input, correct?

"Blue" is just a description of the sky, not the sky itself.

[ClintMemo]

Z minus 10000 meters.

quickly turning the ship back on course...

hard a port, bearing 270

I submit that there is a difference between "deciding" something and "recognizing" something.  I could recognize that I lack free will, just as I would recognize that the screen is gray.

I could recognize the screen is gray and decide to call it white. 

Yes, you could, the point being that you know the difference.
[/quote]

I say if you freely decide things, you have free will - the end. 
[/quote]
I can go with that.

If God has the Big Book of Everything and my entire family tree is in there from ape to space faring colonist, it make not a whit of difference to my free will/decision making self.

so it's not the end?

If I have a universal solvent, by definition, it's a universal solvent until I find something that it can't dissolve.  There is little point worrying about the stuff it can't dissolve until we find some. 

The difference between "dissolves everything that we know of" and "dissolves everything" is the same as the difference between "knows all that is knowable" and "knows everything"

In the arguement of Perception versus Absolute Truth, I strongly feel that there is no Absolute Truth - outside of our own senses we have no idea what goes on in the world - therefore everything is perception.  When a colour-blind guy and I can see the same colour sky then you can start talking Absolute Truth.

Well, I'll admit that I've never gotten into a debate about Perception versus Absolute Truth but my immediate thought is "how can someone who believes in an all knowing/infallible God NOT believe in an Absolute Truth, since anything God knew would be true (by definition) and therefore be absolute?"

[Mr. Tweedy]

Anybody seen "Minority Report?"  It gives a very interesting treatment to this topic.  (And it's really cool.)

[slic]

Cap'n someone's taken ahold of the wheel ag'in

If there's no Absolute Truth, then what are you and the color-blind guy percieving?  Perception requires some input, correct?

Let's make sure we've got our definitions right.
Absolute Truth is something that is true for me, you, the cat, a tree, etc. 

As for inputs, there are Physical Truths - the colour of the sky, gravity, pretty much all the hard science facts that we know.  But we have no idea that this Truths/Rules are the same everywhere.

Can an Absolute Truth change, is it conditional?  What about the sky and blind people?