Plantinga’s “Significant Freedom”

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

There arrives your dilemma. You would need to provide a suitable argument to suggest that the creation by god of humans is not deterministic

Quite simply, god has no pending deterministic issues, and we, being made in his image, also have none. IOW we are qualitatively identical.
Quantitatively of course the difference is vast.

Kind of like qualitatively there is no difference between the ocean and a drop of ocean water (both taste salty), however qualitatively there are numerous differences (you don’t find such a vast array of marine life existing in the drop water, for eg)

 

[lightgigantic]

Greenberg

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
A circle by definition cannot be a square since the two are mutually exclusive.
It’s not clear how one could argue the same for hell and eternity (actually, one could argue the opposite, that only scope for eternal life is in connection to god – since god is eternal – if one argues that one achieves hell by being disconnected to god, it’s not clear how that can be anything but temporary) ”
Here is a nice read for you:
“ In the new eternal life, God will be everything to His creatures, not only to the good but also to the wicked, not only to those who love Him, but likewise to those who hate Him. But how will those who hate Him endure to have everything from the hands of Him Whom they detest? Oh, what an eternal torment is this, what an eternal fire, what a gnashing of teeth!

http://www.stnectariospress.com/pari...er_of_fire.htm

Note how it is not presented in a philosophical language ”

“

Atheists fault however that if god could create a person who is perfectly moral, there is no clear reason why everyone could not be created in that way (of course they argue on the strength of deterministic reasoning ... but such reasoning makes it difficult to conceive of how free will exists) ”
Free will can be an enormous burden that many people would rather not bear. And it becomes an immense burden when the prospects are that you have to "get it right" in this one lifetime and figure out to believe in the right God/the right way, or burn in hell for all eternity.

Hence many explain it in terms of deterministic paradigms

In addition, many people will, at least privately to themselves, admit that they are pansies and that they feel guilty for whenever they say no, even when it is to a door-to-door salesman. So for these people to conceive they had originally been such swines to deliberately, in full knowledge, turn their backs on God - this is a difficult task. Nowadays, one has difficulty saying no to a trifle, but at some previous point, one was so proud to say no in regards to something that has had such enormous consequences as falling into a world of suffering, possibly to forever stay stuck in it??
Although anyone who has had some experience with abusive relationships will know first hand how one's self-confidence progressively diminishes in some circumstances (and how the afore-mentioned scenario of going from saying no to God to having difficulty ever saying no to anything is a plausible one), these things are quite difficult to stomach, although they can be empirically and logically shown to exist.

It’s kind of indicative of this age – to be possessed of a greatly weak existence embroiled with all sorts of painful artificial demands and very real lackings punctuated by an equally great inflated sense of pride – advertising successfully works this situation to its advantage ...

“

I guess it’s a step towards clearing up the definitions of terms. ”
Which goes back to the who-has-it-right problem.

Actually it’s the first step of philosophical discussion (ie determining the logical/reasonable merit of something) – for instance if I understand a fire to be x and if you understand water to be x, we can discuss whether x cleanses or burns the skin till the cows come home and get nowhere.
You find that even polished academic atheists tend to prefer attacking theistic claims on the grounds of logic and plausibility since it is far more easier than deconstructing theism while standing outside of its prescriptive requirements ... IOW they tend to not outright disregard god for example, but say, ok, if god is true, and what you are saying about him is also true, then that will result in situation A, B,C which has problems D,E, F etc etc. .... actually a lot of the discussion between the two parties is clearing up exactly how this world and we ourselves exist in relation to god (IOW it’s a case of establishing the terminology)

“

Often atheists will launch into attacks on issues of theistically defined free will because they are hopelessly addicted to thinking in reductionist/deterministic paradigms (ie that all of our actions, psychological state of mind etc are determined by an intricate array of electrons etc so morality/reward/punishment/etc are completely relative, etc etc) . ”
They are hopelessly addicted to thinking in reductionist/deterministic paradigms? This is an unkind thing to say, at least that. It's like telling a student "You're a basket case! Off with you. You'll never learn."

Quite simply, reductionist/deterministic paradigms are diametrically opposed to transcendental ones. To assume that everything (even things beyond one’s direct perception) conform with the reductionistic/deterministic constitutes a type of fanaticism. Personally I have no problem with reductionism and determinism – it works fine for repairing a car or crossing the street – but I certainly don’t feel that all claims to reality must subscribe to it.

“

Plantinga eloquently offers something clearly distinct from deterministic fields. ”
Theoretically, yes.

Dialogue between atheists and theists is always on the grounds of theory, mainly because atheism is essentially a theoretical outlook (there is no possibility of directly perceiving that there is no god, since it requires omniscience, omnipotence, etc and most other things that god has)

But how is one to make use of such a definition of freedom, unless one has the power of direct perception??

I’m sure I understand your q

There are many implications for accepting a deterministic outlook of free will – in short, all issues of reward/punishment/justice etc become completely relative since any action (whether good, bad or anywhere in between) is ultimately determined by something beyond one’s control.
So you could argue that having a strong sense of justice, etc and that there is something inherently wrong with moral relativism, etc , etc is making use of such a definition

 

[SnakeLord]

Quite simply, god has no pending deterministic issues, and we, being made in his image, also have none. IOW we are qualitatively identical.
Quantitatively of course the difference is vast.

Kind of like qualitatively there is no difference between the ocean and a drop of ocean water (both taste salty), however qualitatively there are numerous differences (you don’t find such a vast array of marine life existing in the drop water, for eg)

Apologies, but your statement doesn't seem to make much sense. I asked you to offer a suitable argument to show that the creation of living organisms by a god would not be deterministic to which you seemingly respond with: [pp] 'it wouldn't be for us or him', and that's that.

If that is somehow considered a suitable argument then Bob and Jane remains.

Your ending paragraph is entirely useless and irrelevant.

 

[lightgigantic]

Apologies, but your statement doesn't seem to make much sense. I asked you to offer a suitable argument to show that the creation of living organisms by a god would not be deterministic to which you seemingly respond with: [pp] 'it wouldn't be for us or him', and that's that.

If that is somehow considered a suitable argument then Bob and Jane remains.

Your ending paragraph is entirely useless and irrelevant.

so you want to argue that there is some reason why two entities not affected by deterministic issues cannot exist simultaneously together, with one being the provider and the other being the one who recieves provisions?

... please go ahead

 

[lightgigantic]

Exactly! Without God, free will is plausible.

It still doesn't make things any clearer ...

If god came down and said "you had free will" suddenly we wouldn't have it?
And in the mean time, if god doesn't come down (or if he doesn't exist) free will can continue on nicely?

 

[SnakeLord]

so you want to argue that there is some reason why two entities not affected by deterministic issues cannot exist simultaneously together, with one being the provider and the other being the one who recieves provisions?

What?

Kindly go back to page (1), read the discussion and then explain to me how any of this is relevant to any of that.

 

[lightgigantic]

What?

Kindly go back to page (1), read the discussion and then explain to me how any of this is relevant to any of that.

You suggested that the living entity must exist in a deterministic paradigm

I suggested that is not the case

You suggested that unless the living entity is deterministic, then there is absolutely no case for god to exist

I suggested that if you want to say that, you have to clearly establish why two living entities not affected by deterministic issues cannot exist in which one is the provider and the other receives provisions.
Your three points that attempt to fault the issue are only relevant if the relationship is outside of god being the absolute provider.
(what scope do we have to act in a way that doesn't require resources of some sort)?

 

[SnakeLord]

You suggested that the living entity must exist in a deterministic paradigm

You're getting slightly lost here. Let's recap quickly to bring this back on track:

The original statements are with regard to the 'problem of evil' - the concept that if you have a perfectly good god then evil should not exist. This is countered by the concept of 'free will' - in this specific instance Plantinga's "free will defence".

To this I mentioned Bob and Jane (B), that worked as a direct comparison to Adam and Eve (A) and showed very easily how one can have free will and solely good behaviour.

You asked me if there was any difference in their creation to which I said 'no' and showed that if you were to contend that the creation of (B) is somehow different from (A), [anymore 'forced'] then you would need to provide a suitable argument to show it.

I then explained that such argument would entail one or more of the following:

1. Without intent

2. Without knowledge

3. Without choice

And then went on to explain the problems with those (3) factors.

I then briefly mentioned the issue with the notion of a perfectly good god that allows evil to serve the greater good.

I have, since then, been waiting for your suitable argument to show how the creation of (B) would be any different from the creation of (A). I am still waiting, so if you don't mind.

Thanks.

 

[greenberg]

Exactly! Without God, free will is plausible.

And in a godless conception of the Universe, free will is overwhelming.

 

[greenberg]

I’m still not quite sure I follow. I’m not sure why we would require god to inform us that we have free will.

If you'd be a pansy, you'd surely know why such divine information would be necessary.

It’s kind of like something we are using 24/7 to a greater or lesser extent

I do not think this is common knowledge.

It seems run-of-the-mill people use the notion of freedom mostly only when it suits them - like when they point out how they did this or that "all by themselves, of their own choice", or when they wish to point fingers and assign blame. Some other times, it suits them to plead for determinism.

 

[greenberg]

Often atheists will launch into attacks on issues of theistically defined free will because they are hopelessly addicted to thinking in reductionist/deterministic paradigms (ie that all of our actions, psychological state of mind etc are determined by an intricate array of electrons etc so morality/reward/punishment/etc are completely relative, etc etc) .

They are hopelessly addicted to thinking in reductionist/deterministic paradigms? This is an unkind thing to say, at least that. It's like telling a student "You're a basket case! Off with you. You'll never learn."

Quite simply, reductionist/deterministic paradigms are diametrically opposed to transcendental ones. To assume that everything (even things beyond one’s direct perception) conform with the reductionistic/deterministic constitutes a type of fanaticism. Personally I have no problem with reductionism and determinism – it works fine for repairing a car or crossing the street – but I certainly don’t feel that all claims to reality must subscribe to it.

Again: My point is that you said They are hopelessly addicted to thinking in reductionist/deterministic paradigms. So there is no hope for them? They are souls who are bound to stay in samsara forever, they are souls who cannot change their conditioning / or whose conditioning cannot be changed? That no matter how much they try, no matter how much they might eventually see the error of their ways, they are still going to stay stuck?

Note that for example in Christianity, this is a valid possibility: some Christian doctrines say that after death, one cannot affect anymore whether one will end up in heaven or in hell; so if one ended up in hell, but then changed their mind and still wanted to subject themselves unto God and thus come into heaven, this would then not be possible anymore - so that Christian doctrine.
And then there is the Buddhist doctrine on icchantikas, also about living beings who are going to stay stuck in samsara forever.
So it's not like what you're suggesting is something completely foreign.

But does Vaishnavism actually contain such a doctrine? About people who are going to forever stay stuck in samsara? Or is there a doctrine that states that some entanglements in material nature are such that one can never become free from them?


I am not sure what exactly you meant in your post, but when someone says to me that I am "hopelessly this or that", then I understand this as them telling me that no matter what I would do -no matter what, including praying, practice, and so on- it would all be for naught. As if all I would touch would turn to stone and nothing could help against that. That I might as well give up. And often, this is precisely what they mean.

We normally identify with our views, so much so that we don't see them as views (and thus as something relative, as something that can change), but instead as "who we really are". So when a person or a person's views are called "hopeless", "a basket case", "hopelessly addicted/lost", this means stating that this - hopeless, a basket case, hopelessly addicted/lost - is who they really are. As if their souls were somehow crucially different from other souls.

Perhaps you simply meant that reductionism and determinism are paths that do not lead to liberation or true knowledge of self and God. I think this should be clearly stated so. Unless They are hopelessly addicted to thinking in reductionist/deterministic paradigms is used for the sheer shock value of such a statement, or you are actually stating that there is a doctrine that states that some entanglements in material nature are such that one can never become free from them?

Phenomena in samsara are subject to change and imperfection, and such is also the case with holding views - normally, our attachment to particular views changes over time, gets weaker or stronger, and our views change too, we do learn this or that new thing that affects our views, or the force of oblivion, aging, illness and death do their part in changing our views. So I find it hard to believe that there would be views that one could be "hopelessly addicted to".

Just find some hardcore atheist or determinist, meet with him on his regular Saturday night drinking marathons, and at 2 AM he'll likely tell you many things that are not typical at all for someone who calls himself an atheist or reductionist.

 

[Nasor]

This third statement of Plantinga’s has as a foundation that god created creatures with the freedom to choose moral good. This freedom, however, allows creatures to chose evil as well. So it is not within god’s capacity to create a world containing moral good yet no moral evil. Along with the assertion that god exists, evil also exists.

The key to this fallacy is failure to distinguish between evil exiting as a hypothetical concept and evil exiting as an active presence in the world. One could argue that it's impossible for light to exist without darkness also existing - but that doesn't mean that I can't set up many lamps in my house and eliminate any trace of darkness. Similarly, if you define evil as "that which goes against god's will," then so long as god's will exists it will also be necessary for evil to exist as a hypothetical concept. That doesn't mean that god couldn't have created a world where people freely choose good, rather than the world he apparently decided to create where many people choose evil.

“A person is free with respect to action A at a time t only if no causal laws and antecedent conditions determine either that he performs A at t or that he refrains from not doing so”

Well sure, that's a pretty standard definition of free will. But that doesn't really address the objection. The problem is that unless you want to argue that god doesn't know what people will do in advance and can be surprised by their decisions, there is no difference with respect to free will between creating a human who will choose to sin vs. creating a human who does not choose to sin. If you want to argue that god is taking away a person's free will by creating a person who he knows with certainty won't choose to sin, then isn't he also taking away a person's free will if he creates a person who he knows with certainty will sin? Either way, god is choosing between different options that have different known outcomes.

 

[Nasor]

lightgigantic, do you believe that god knows what choices people will make in advance, or not? You seem to believe that if god decides to create a person who he knows will not choose to sin, that this is somehow destroying the free will of the person who he creates. But unless you want to argue that god doesn't know people's actions in advance, he will always know every choice that that anyone he creates will make. If you're going to argue that when god decides to create a person who he knows will not choose to sin this destroys the free will of the person by "locking them in" to a path that will not lead to any decision to sin, then when god creates a person who he knows will choose to sin, isn't that person equally "locked in" on his path?

In many ways I'm just repeating what others have already said, but it seems necessary because you still haven't addressed this point. Suppose god is deciding who to create. He knows that person A will choose to sin, while he knows that person B will choose not to sin. Why does person B have any less free will than person A? In both cases god knows in advance, at the time of their creation, whether or not they will sin (even though the person himself hasn't made the decision yet). Of course as I said you can avoid this problem if you want to claim that god doesn't know what people will do in advance, but I'm somehow doubtful that you will be willing to make that concession.

 

[greenberg]

Nasor,


Why, according to you, is the problem of evil relevant?

A foolishly basic question, at first glance, to be sure, but one that shouldn't be glossed over if we are to seriously delve into the problem of evil.

 

[Nasor]

Nasor,


Why, according to you, is the problem of evil relevant?

Several reasons. Most importantly, I think it forces people to examine the logical consequences of their beliefs about god. For example if one believes that god is omniscient and has foreknowledge of everyone's choices, then why would god choose to create a person who will do evil and be destined for hell, rather than a person who will do godly things and be destined for heaven?

Also, it forces people to examine the god's moral culpability for the state of the world. Most christians think of god as perfect and loving, and attribute evil in the world to people. But if god deliberately creates people who he knows with certainty will eventually do specific evil acts, doesn't god share some of the responsibility for those specific evil acts? Is a god who chooses to create rapists and serial killers consistent with the idea that god is perfect and loving? Why did god create Adam and Eve, rather than snakelord's hypothetical Bob and Jane?

I think these are interesting issues that most people never think about, or try desperately to avoid addressing.

 

[lightgigantic]

Again: My point is that you said They are hopelessly addicted to thinking in reductionist/deterministic paradigms. So there is no hope for them? They are souls who are bound to stay in samsara forever, they are souls who cannot change their conditioning / or whose conditioning cannot be changed? That no matter how much they try, no matter how much they might eventually see the error of their ways, they are still going to stay stuck?

they can change the moment their hope changes.
Kind of like as long as one insists on pouring milk into cups that are turned upside down, they have no hope of filling it up - its all simply a question of changing strategies

Note that for example in Christianity, this is a valid possibility: some Christian doctrines say that after death, one cannot affect anymore whether one will end up in heaven or in hell; so if one ended up in hell, but then changed their mind and still wanted to subject themselves unto God and thus come into heaven, this would then not be possible anymore - so that Christian doctrine.
And then there is the Buddhist doctrine on icchantikas, also about living beings who are going to stay stuck in samsara forever.
So it's not like what you're suggesting is something completely foreign.

But does Vaishnavism actually contain such a doctrine? About people who are going to forever stay stuck in samsara? Or is there a doctrine that states that some entanglements in material nature are such that one can never become free from them?

there is the idea that the middle planetary system (which includes us here at the moment) is the sphere of "action" meaning that one simply goes to the upper planets to expend one's pious credits or alternatively to the lower one to fix up an account seriously in the red - but even then there are odd exceptions to this case

I am not sure what exactly you meant in your post, but when someone says to me that I am "hopelessly this or that", then I understand this as them telling me that no matter what I would do -no matter what, including praying, practice, and so on- it would all be for naught. As if all I would touch would turn to stone and nothing could help against that. That I might as well give up. And often, this is precisely what they mean.

I was meaning that as long as a certain modus operandi is in place, an unsuccessful result is 100% predictable - just depends how stubborn the person is in question

We normally identify with our views, so much so that we don't see them as views (and thus as something relative, as something that can change), but instead as "who we really are". So when a person or a person's views are called "hopeless", "a basket case", "hopelessly addicted/lost", this means stating that this - hopeless, a basket case, hopelessly addicted/lost - is who they really are. As if their souls were somehow crucially different from other souls.

for as long as one is unable to detach from issues of false ego, the result is predictable - material nature however, while an inferior potency than ourselves, is more powerful by quantity - so the idea is that an eternity with material nature, migrating from heaven to hell and back again, is enough to wear down even the most stubborn of false egos ... so the only real issue of eternity is that in the spiritual atmosphere (or, waking up to one's real self ... so to speak)

Perhaps you simply meant that reductionism and determinism are paths that do not lead to liberation or true knowledge of self and God. I think this should be clearly stated so. Unless They are hopelessly addicted to thinking in reductionist/deterministic paradigms is used for the sheer shock value of such a statement, or you are actually stating that there is a doctrine that states that some entanglements in material nature are such that one can never become free from them?

as long as the addiction to deterministic paradigms exists, a certain result ensues

Phenomena in samsara are subject to change and imperfection, and such is also the case with holding views - normally, our attachment to particular views changes over time, gets weaker or stronger, and our views change too, we do learn this or that new thing that affects our views, or the force of oblivion, aging, illness and death do their part in changing our views. So I find it hard to believe that there would be views that one could be "hopelessly addicted to".

actually at the core of false ego is the bodily conception of life (I am this body ... which will quite soon desist)

Just find some hardcore atheist or determinist, meet with him on his regular Saturday night drinking marathons, and at 2 AM he'll likely tell you many things that are not typical at all for someone who calls himself an atheist or reductionist.

lol
sure

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

It still doesn't make things any clearer ...

If god came down and said "you had free will" suddenly we wouldn't have it?
And in the mean time, if god doesn't come down (or if he doesn't exist) free will can continue on nicely?

Exactly, without a God your will is as free as it can get. Nevermind all the bad stuff that goes with it. Nevermind that you believe God would not allow it. If we have free will then there has never been a time in the history of man where God has actually made contact.

To say God gave us free will, the will to do it His way, means free will doesn't exist. At least you could still believe in a God. Free will is the undoing of God.

 

[scorpius]

This third statement of Plantinga’s has as a foundation that god created creatures with the freedom to choose moral good. This freedom, however, allows creatures to chose evil as well. So it is not within god’s capacity to create a world containing moral good yet no moral evil.

so how is it possible for people in Heaven to have free will and not to sin then?

Mackie and Anthony Flew assail this claim by asking why a god who is all powerful be unable to create a world with free creatures who always abide by moral good. Plantinga responds by reminding his critics that god cannot be subject to illogical assertations. As t married bachelors or square circles cannot be brought about by god, neither can a world of free living entities who always act morally..

why not,
isnt god omnipotent,able to do anything!?

so why cant he create people with free will and still UNABLE to sin?

like I said ,in Heaven its all free will and NOT sin anywhere,or is Heaven Illogical..yeah me thinks so?

 

[greenberg]

Several reasons. Most importantly, I think it forces people to examine the logical consequences of their beliefs about god. For example if one believes that god is omniscient and has foreknowledge of everyone's choices, then why would god choose to create a person who will do evil and be destined for hell, rather than a person who will do godly things and be destined for heaven?

Also, it forces people to examine the god's moral culpability for the state of the world. Most christians think of god as perfect and loving, and attribute evil in the world to people. But if god deliberately creates people who he knows with certainty will eventually do specific evil acts, doesn't god share some of the responsibility for those specific evil acts? Is a god who chooses to create rapists and serial killers consistent with the idea that god is perfect and loving? Why did god create Adam and Eve, rather than snakelord's hypothetical Bob and Jane?

I think, and I have noted this several times before on these forums, that there definitely are fatal problems with mainstream Christian conceptions of heaven, hell, selfhood, goodness, evil, free will, human action, God's creation. Problems that, for example, Hindu conceptions of these phenomena successfully avoid or solve, as far as I can see.

So for me, the issue becomes then how come I still give so much relevance to those Christian conceptions. I presume that in my case, it comes down to some basic methods of my cognition, namely the underlying assumption that fear or urgency can make better decisions than reason can. And this is actually true, in the case of an unintelligent, untrained, uneducated reason. And by "intelligence, training, education", I here don't mean these things in the worldly sense, as in "good education and competence in science and informal logic", although this plays a part too. I mean more the "intelligence, training, education" that are about things that would truly make me happy. A vague notion, to be sure, yet at the end of the day, it is true happiness I want, and worldly pursuits ultimately don't provide it.

But furthermore, those Christian conceptions are relevant because they point at how unsolvable the issue is of peacefully coexisting with Christians who hold those conceptions. It's a horrifying thought.

 

[greenberg]

they can change the moment their hope changes.
Kind of like as long as one insists on pouring milk into cups that are turned upside down, they have no hope of filling it up - its all simply a question of changing strategies

...
I was meaning that as long as a certain modus operandi is in place, an unsuccessful result is 100% predictable - just depends how stubborn the person is in question

Sure. But would you say to a determinist/reductionist "You are hopelessly addicted to thinking in reductionist/deterministic paradigms"? Because in a way you did that already - there are determinists/reductions reading this forum, and they feel you've just told them that they are basket cases ... so they turn away from goodness and theism even more.

But alas, it's your approach. Perhaps by speaking this not so inviting way, you are better able to accomplish that the audience separates into the wheat and the chaff, and the chaff leave on their own, not wasting your time, whereas the wheat endure the criticism, thinking it is for their good ...