Can there be free will in a world where pre-destiny exists?

Hi- Although I agree that as a whole, practitioners of Islam are not oppressive, some men of Islam are very much concerned with keeping women in a lowly place. I can't get with that.

I agree wholeheartedly with that. It's absolutely disgusting. And they cover up their behaviour by saying their religion teaches them to do so. It gives all Muslims a bad name.

Then again, some Hindu customs that are just like that. Teaching generations that people are better by birth and some are so unclean they should not touched, eaten with and they should not drink from your well.

And so on. I don't think I need to delve into the disgusting aspects of all the organised religions of the world.

What do they have in common though? God and so I look for the historic references (2000 years ago, a Son of God walked the earth, was killed, rose up. Note to self: Didn't die? Couldn't be killed? Not mortal? Understudy! Understudy!)

Above all else, history has taught me to avoid paying any tithes and tributes.

I think religion is rather intrinsic to this discussion, but larryace nailed the spirit of it. Bravo everyone indeed.
 
I can assure you that I'm accurate.

I can assure you that I'm not ... spectators be warned :)

Love the funnel analogy, Gretscho. I've heard said that in life you give up your dreams one by one until there's nothing left.

Daz, will look at the Dennett link when I get home and not incurring roaming fees. I've seen a vid of him ... definitely in the new breed of rationalist philosophy.

Reggae, I don't see religion as intrinsic to this discussion apart from its intersection with philosophy ... reality keeps doing its thing no matter what speculative supernatural beliefs we hold.

Having said that I'm just back from seeing the Sistine Chapel and St Peters Basilica and I can imagine those places producing an amazing vibe if not for the maddening crowds. Spiritual? I don't know but they are easily the most artistic places I've seen in my life so that level of dedication and inspiration are super special.
 
I can assure you that I'm not ... spectators be warned :)

Daz, will look at the Dennett link when I get home and not incurring roaming fees. I've seen a vid of him ... definitely in the new breed of rationalist philosophy.
.

Do it! You won't regret it... I had a look at Sam Harris speeches and if you think THAT was nitty gritty you haven't seen anything yet. =)
 
Last edited:
I can assure you that I'm not ... spectators be warned :)

Love the funnel analogy, Gretscho. I've heard said that in life you give up your dreams one by one until there's nothing left.

Daz, will look at the Dennett link when I get home and not incurring roaming fees. I've seen a vid of him ... definitely in the new breed of rationalist philosophy.

Reggae, I don't see religion as intrinsic to this discussion apart from its intersection with philosophy ... reality keeps doing its thing no matter what speculative supernatural beliefs we hold.

Having said that I'm just back from seeing the Sistine Chapel and St Peters Basilica and I can imagine those places producing an amazing vibe if not for the maddening crowds. Spiritual? I don't know but they are easily the most artistic places I've seen in my life so that level of dedication and inspiration are super special.

I want to see the Sistine Chapel and St Peter's Basilica :(

I just think the concept of pre-destiny implies some sort of over-arching framework or influence. Call it God, the Devil, call it cosmic confluence, whatever :)
 
(2000 years ago, a Son of God walked the earth, was killed, rose up. Note to self: Didn't die? Couldn't be killed? Not mortal? Understudy! Understudy!)

Few of my favorite questions:
1. What about people born BEFORE 2000 years ago?
2. What about people born, lived, and died somewhere the 'word of god' had not reached (e.g. the Americas for about 1500 years)?
3. What about mentally deficient people or those who die too young and therefore are not physically capable of understanding the story?

Seems (according to some) all of these people should be burning in hell for all eternity, through no fault of their own. Hmm, something just doesn't seem right to me.


I just think the concept of pre-destiny implies some sort of over-arching framework or influence. Call it God, the Devil, call it cosmic confluence, whatever :)

...or call it nature or physics.
 
Believe me, Abe, throughout Italy I have been clutching my bag to the point where I've worn through the (disappointingly frail) leather. What a scene!

I want to see the Sistine Chapel and St Peter's Basilica :(

I just think the concept of pre-destiny implies some sort of over-arching framework or influence. Call it God, the Devil, call it cosmic confluence, whatever :)

Actually, while those places may hold potential for some kind of spiritual experience, the crowds are so thick that it's more about survival. Testimony to the cynicism of the monuments' owners.

Maybe destiny can be set by a "what" rather than a "who"? ... the very first quantum fluctuation that set off the big bang? That might have lead to a knock on reaction that could have been inevitable (assuming that quantum strangeness is actually predictable, if not by us at this stage) which ...

I'm just guessing, of course ... as is everyone, though many are not comfortable admitting that for some reason. I would think that ignorance of the ultimate truths is hardly cause for shame or concern :)
 
I dont see a mutual exclusion between the illusion of independance from external event effect on ones cognitive process(free will) and limited causality perception(existance of pre-destiny).

Both are limited perceptions of a larger whole....only popularly interacting within a limited definition range that is loose in its logic.
 
Last edited:
Inspired in part by this thread, I've started reading Sam Harris's book on the concept of free will called, startlingly, "Free Will".

One of the ideas in the book, alluded to here, is the notion that brain scans can show the decision (or "decision") to act in subjects before the subjects themselves are aware of the decision. The conclusion reached is that if you began to move before before you were conscious of a decision to move, the decision is really a subsequent rationalisation of what you were already doing.

Well, I have an alternative hypothesis. Our reactions to stimuli need to be fast because way back when, our survival relied upon our ability to react quickly. (Insert quick and the dead joke here.) Reactions must be based in a very primitive part of our brains.

Verbalising our reactions would have arrived much later, in a more sophisticated part of our brains.

What I think happens is that we process and act on a stimulus faster than we can verbalise what we have done, but it remains a conscious decision.
 
There are situations where we make rational decisions and situations where we simply 'switch off'. At work, I 'switch off' when I'm making interventions and simply follow a protocol that has been laid down and then reflect upon it later. I'm not going into what precisely I do but in some instances, those reactions have proved important.

On a slightly odd note, I came across a real situation on Friday. I care greatly for animals. I'm a vegetarian and have been for a few years. One of my work colleagues found a dying pigeon and moved it somewhere out of harm. A few hours later, it's still there and clearly suffering - necrotising, twitching, the lot. At that point I made a decision that I would end the pigeon's suffering as quickly and as painlessly as I could with the tools available to me. Without going into the gruesome details, the pigeon's neck was broken and I buried it.

I was discussing it with my co-worker today and he came to the same conclusion about the pigeon as I did - he just didn't feel that he could've taken the action that I did. What is it in my own make-up that means I can make those decisions and carry them out? Is it a morbid, dark streak? Is it some kind of moral duty? Did I enjoy killing the pigeon?

I don't know the answers to any of the questions other than to say that no matter what my reasoning or sensations were, I did the right thing. It's odd.
 
Stumbled across this thread.

Did anyone mention Jonathan Edwards yet?

He gives the clearest Christian viewpoint on the subject from a reformed perspective, which is my perspective FYI.

The trick is how you define free will.

If free will is the ability to make choices within your desires, limited abilities and existence, then great. But the limits are legion, enough that none of us are truly "free" in the sense that you might think. We are bound to our desires and to our natures. We also cannot actualize every choice we might want to make. Only God is truly free in that He can do anything He wants.

To answer bobrush's questions:

To God, we are evil, already condemned, destined for Hell, all of us. The infinite holiness of God demands this. Implying that God owes all people a chance to be saved is missing the point entirely.

This planet is a holding cell for a condemned race already on death row. We are all born evil, opposed to the things of God from day 1 of our existence, the fact that we can't act on this evil until we develop our faculties a bit is somewhat irrelevant to the sentence. Somewhat in the sense that as we accumulate more crimes, our punishment increases.

The logic Paul uses in Romans is simple, we are all under the sentence of death, and the fact that we die is the proof. So the fact that people of any age and capacity can die, is proof of the judgement of God on everyone. Remember that Adam and Eve were conditionally immortal before the fall.

You may think you don't deserve to die, but your opinion isn't the one that matters if God is real.

God is under no obligation to save, or even offer the opportunity to be saved to anyone at all, any more than a governor is obligated to pardon all (or any) condemned criminals in his jurisdiction.

But God in His mercy decided to save some, and in no way did He make an effort to provide all people the option to be saved. That only occurs at the very end when the Gospel is preached to all nations.

However, children and others with limited capacity are generally believed to go to Heaven if they die, but God again is under no obligation to do it that way - it is an act of mercy, not of obligation.

And if all this seems bizarre to you, remember that is how you self-declare yourself to be His enemy, a rebel, from a race of rebels, living on a planet where an insurrection is in progress, one that will be dealt with eventually, God in His mercy is staving it off a bit, but not necessarily for your benefit.

And if you truly want the ultimate answer as to why, again Romans tells us directly, God created the world to put Himself on display, to show both His mercy by saving some and His holiness by condemning the rest. You really want to be on the side of mercy. Notice that nobody will escape serving His purposes, you have no freedom whatsoever in that respect.

But in a sense, the Bible teaches that limited "free-will" and predestination coexist, anticipating this question by a few millennia.
 
There is a deep philosophical question here - and I thought long about this years ago studying philosophy - do we truly decide our path(s) in life? Because in the end there is only one path, the path we choose.

What I do know for certain; any world with "government" other than self-government is not free.

;)
Anarchists-throwing-flowers.PNG
 
Stumbled across this thread.

Did anyone mention Jonathan Edwards yet?

He gives the clearest Christian viewpoint on the subject from a reformed perspective, which is my perspective FYI.

The trick is how you define free will.

If free will is the ability to make choices within your desires, limited abilities and existence, then great. But the limits are legion, enough that none of us are truly "free" in the sense that you might think. We are bound to our desires and to our natures. We also cannot actualize every choice we might want to make. Only God is truly free in that He can do anything He wants.

To answer bobrush's questions:

To God, we are evil, already condemned, destined for Hell, all of us. The infinite holiness of God demands this. Implying that God owes all people a chance to be saved is missing the point entirely.

This planet is a holding cell for a condemned race already on death row. We are all born evil, opposed to the things of God from day 1 of our existence, the fact that we can't act on this evil until we develop our faculties a bit is somewhat irrelevant to the sentence. Somewhat in the sense that as we accumulate more crimes, our punishment increases.

The logic Paul uses in Romans is simple, we are all under the sentence of death, and the fact that we die is the proof. So the fact that people of any age and capacity can die, is proof of the judgement of God on everyone. Remember that Adam and Eve were conditionally immortal before the fall.

You may think you don't deserve to die, but your opinion isn't the one that matters if God is real.

God is under no obligation to save, or even offer the opportunity to be saved to anyone at all, any more than a governor is obligated to pardon all (or any) condemned criminals in his jurisdiction.

But God in His mercy decided to save some, and in no way did He make an effort to provide all people the option to be saved. That only occurs at the very end when the Gospel is preached to all nations.

However, children and others with limited capacity are generally believed to go to Heaven if they die, but God again is under no obligation to do it that way - it is an act of mercy, not of obligation.

And if all this seems bizarre to you, remember that is how you self-declare yourself to be His enemy, a rebel, from a race of rebels, living on a planet where an insurrection is in progress, one that will be dealt with eventually, God in His mercy is staving it off a bit, but not necessarily for your benefit.

And if you truly want the ultimate answer as to why, again Romans tells us directly, God created the world to put Himself on display, to show both His mercy by saving some and His holiness by condemning the rest. You really want to be on the side of mercy. Notice that nobody will escape serving His purposes, you have no freedom whatsoever in that respect.

But in a sense, the Bible teaches that limited "free-will" and predestination coexist, anticipating this question by a few millennia.

Yeah, yeah. My six year old swears she once saw the tooth fairy too.
 
Last edited:

Never before have my eyebrows actually shot up *above* my head.

Be aware that there are many viewpoints on religion, and lack of religion, on here, and and yours has no claim on absolute truth.

This is not the start of a religious discussion; it is the end of one.
 
Stumbled across this thread.

To answer bobrush's questions:

To God, we are evil, already condemned, destined for Hell, all of us. ...

This planet is a holding cell for a condemned race already on death row. We are all born evil, ...
...in no way did He make an effort to provide all people the option to be saved.

However, children and others with limited capacity are generally believed to go to Heaven if they die, but God again is under no obligation to do it that way - it is an act of mercy, not of obligation.

... God created the world to put Himself on display, to show ... His holiness by condemning the rest.
...you have no freedom whatsoever in that respect.

Thank you for answering my questions.
 
Last edited:
Mankind does not have the choice of when we are born or when we should die (provided you don't take your own life, of course) but we do have control of our destiny.
 
I agree wholeheartedly with that. It's absolutely disgusting. And they cover up their behaviour by saying their religion teaches them to do so. It gives all Muslims a bad name.

Then again, some Hindu customs that are just like that. Teaching generations that people are better by birth and some are so unclean they should not touched, eaten with and they should not drink from your well.

And so on. I don't think I need to delve into the disgusting aspects of all the organised religions of the world.

What do they have in common though? God and so I look for the historic references (2000 years ago, a Son of God walked the earth, was killed, rose up. Note to self: Didn't die? Couldn't be killed? Not mortal? Understudy! Understudy!)

Above all else, history has taught me to avoid paying any tithes and tributes.

I think religion is rather intrinsic to this discussion, but larryace nailed the spirit of it. Bravo everyone indeed.

Your post made me think that karma is an extremely damaging concept, downright evil.

We have a Disneyland Western understanding of karma. In far Eastern religions it is used to justify an oppressive caste system, social injustice and repression. If you were born poor, diseased, malnourished and oppressed, you're living out bad karma from a previous life. If someone is wealthy and powerful, it is because of good karma in a past life. That is the natural order of things.
 
Your post made me think that karma is an extremely damaging concept, downright evil.

We have a Disneyland Western understanding of karma. In far Eastern religions it is used to justify an oppressive caste system, social injustice and repression. If you were born poor, diseased, malnourished and oppressed, you're living out bad karma from a previous life. If someone is wealthy and powerful, it is because of good karma in a past life. That is the natural order of things.

Not sure where karma fit into my post, but you can think of it as "what goes around comes around" or "as you sow, so shall you reap". It's a simple concept. Indians believe in rebirth, being born after you die in a cycle that is intended to purify your soul. Karma plays a role in balancing that out.

After that, there's a heaven and hell too, much in the same way that Christianity portrays them. In that sense, and I'm espousing views that might seem radical to many Hindus, rebirth on earth is similar to the concept of purgatory.

As far as oppressive caste systems or social injustice, etc., that's the fallout of historical battles won and lost. With a good dose of religious wrong-doing to boot.

Of course, believing that such behaviour and ways of life are limited to India or the Far East is the result of long periods of indoctrination via the news and other information flows, to be blunt.

When I was young, I watched the movies about happy American families and saw picturesque suburban neighbourhoods and communal harmony. And I thought it was just like that.

No one lived in an apartment, there was no smell of urine in the streets and subways, everyone went to college.

I never knew that until the 60s, if a black man rode in a bus, he would be thrown off. Or that women were forced to sell their bodies for money and were then beaten up by a pimp that would take the majority of their earnings for himself and give them drugs instead. Or that politicians took kickbacks and sold out their nation in return for money from Chinese Communists and wealthy Arabs that could buy up Wall Street and make sure that the small investor always loses.

I mean, look at Linda Lovelace. That woman to this date keeps screaming about how she was exploited. I have no doubt in my mind she and her family suffered on account of Deep Throat, even as others made money and it became a part of "popular culture".

And if I have to touch upon religion, it disgusts me that children were abused by men of the cloth and then protected by their peers.

I suppose the danger in making statements like the one you quoted was that it would be misinterpreted. The caste system has been abolished. Social injustice has been abolished too, apparently. That they still persist (albeit on a much smaller scale) speaks volumes about the regard for "human rights" and "moral values" in this place. Much in the same way that poverty and hunger do in America.

In that respect, the US threw off the yoke of colonial oppression over 200 years ago. India did it about 65 years ago. Systematic plundering of resources and subjugation of people without regard have left it a poor nation. You've heard of Mahatma Gandhi? Then you'll know that he was shot dead, much in the way of Abraham Lincoln, a good man. Why? Because he suggested that the Congress Party (which rules India now, but was originally fought to fight for Independence), should be dissolved once freedom was achieved. He was against untouchability and other superstitious nonsense.

People want these social evils to persist because they can benefit from it. But people with brains know it is wrong and should be stopped.
 
Not sure where karma fit into my post, but you can think of it as "what goes around comes around" or "as you sow, so shall you reap". It's a simple concept. Indians believe in rebirth, being born after you die in a cycle that is intended to purify your soul. Karma plays a role in balancing that out.

After that, there's a heaven and hell too, much in the same way that Christianity portrays them. In that sense, and I'm espousing views that might seem radical to many Hindus, rebirth on earth is similar to the concept of purgatory.

As far as oppressive caste systems or social injustice, etc., that's the fallout of historical battles won and lost. With a good dose of religious wrong-doing to boot.

Of course, believing that such behaviour and ways of life are limited to India or the Far East is the result of long periods of indoctrination via the news and other information flows, to be blunt.

When I was young, I watched the movies about happy American families and saw picturesque suburban neighbourhoods and communal harmony. And I thought it was just like that.

No one lived in an apartment, there was no smell of urine in the streets and subways, everyone went to college.

I never knew that until the 60s, if a black man rode in a bus, he would be thrown off. Or that women were forced to sell their bodies for money and were then beaten up by a pimp that would take the majority of their earnings for himself and give them drugs instead. Or that politicians took kickbacks and sold out their nation in return for money from Chinese Communists and wealthy Arabs that could buy up Wall Street and make sure that the small investor always loses.

I mean, look at Linda Lovelace. That woman to this date keeps screaming about how she was exploited. I have no doubt in my mind she and her family suffered on account of Deep Throat, even as others made money and it became a part of "popular culture".

And if I have to touch upon religion, it disgusts me that children were abused by men of the cloth and then protected by their peers.

I suppose the danger in making statements like the one you quoted was that it would be misinterpreted. The caste system has been abolished. Social injustice has been abolished too, apparently. That they still persist (albeit on a much smaller scale) speaks volumes about the regard for "human rights" and "moral values" in this place. Much in the same way that poverty and hunger do in America.

In that respect, the US threw off the yoke of colonial oppression over 200 years ago. India did it about 65 years ago. Systematic plundering of resources and subjugation of people without regard have left it a poor nation. You've heard of Mahatma Gandhi? Then you'll know that he was shot dead, much in the way of Abraham Lincoln, a good man. Why? Because he suggested that the Congress Party (which rules India now, but was originally fought to fight for Independence), should be dissolved once freedom was achieved. He was against untouchability and other superstitious nonsense.

People want these social evils to persist because they can benefit from it. But people with brains know it is wrong and should be stopped.

Love.

________________
 
Back
Top