Seeing Things Differently -DanP the apologist excuse.

[Morley]

Absolutely. Good observation. I'll bet that the hint that it was intended as a generalization was probably the way it starts out: "It seems that we human beings tend to…”

Yes it was!

In discussions such as the one we’ve been having it is worth pointing out, as you have, that generalizations are OK to make, of course with the caveat that a particular point isn’t necessarily being made as a result of that generalization.

Generalizations don’t prove anything other than under a certain set of circumstances and within certain parameters something might be true.

When discussing free will this might matter.

I believe that you’re right on all counts, my friend.

[Gadianton]

I suppose the question I’m interested in is whether or not, generally speaking, you might find one political persuasion of practice/belief to also have a parallel/corollary with one’s religious belief. And THEN, if there might be connection/relationship between those parallels/corollaries and beliefs in regards to free will.

Identity politics at its best, if you can show that republicans believe in freedom to the core while liberals believe in bondage. Just look at that pic of Dems destroying freedom!

You won't find your connection in Adam Smith or Karl Marx. Libertarian free will and the belief in liberty are completely unrelated concepts, unless they become erroneously entangled in minds of people looking for talking points for Twitter.

Look at it this way MG: Nobody believes in the existence of libertarian free will more strongly than Satan. What fun would it be to destroy the agency of man if agency were a mere illusion? If you're going to rule a totalitarian state, as the ruler, you want to believe that your subjects do in fact possess free will, so that when you dope them up or imprison them, you're taking revenge against someone, you're punishing someone, and forcing someone to submit to your power or acknowledge your greatness. Psychopaths don't get their start by torturing clocks and abusing thermostats.

That leads in to the more interesting questions of how beliefs about free will shape beliefs in moral agency, and how that shapes beliefs about crime and punishment, and that could have political consequences. I'll leave that for another post, but I don't think you'll find much serious correlation beyond simplistic talking points. Among people who sincerely think about the question, it becomes a distinction without a difference.

[Gadianton]

Here are two quotes, one is from the most vocal advocate of hard determinism I can think of, and the other is from the most vocal critic of determinism I can think of.

I simply don’t know in any particular instance — not even Hitler’s — what factors made a person who he is. What combined aspects of childhood upbringing, traumatic psychological experience, flawed moral training, intellectual ability, social pressure, mental illness, defective education, brain chemistry, or the like led a person to act in a particular way? I simply can’t wholly know.

Upon hearing about crimes of this kind, most of us naturally feel that men like Hayes and Komisarjevsky should be held morally responsible for their actions. many of us would feel entirely justified in killing these monsters with our own hands. Do we care that Hayes has since shown signs of remorse and has attempted suicide? Not really. What about the fact that Komisarjevsky was repeatedly raped as a child? I cannot take credit for the fact that I do not have the soul of a psychopath. If I had truly been in Komisarjevsky’s shoes....—that is, if I had his genes and life experience and an identical brain (or soul) in an identical state—I would have acted exactly as he did. Of course, if we learned that both these men had been suffering from brain tumors that explained their violent behavior, our moral intuitions would shift dramatically.

Looks like a distinction without a difference to me. And bear in mind, these aren't "fair minded, meet you in the middle" thinkers on this particular subject. I am talking about, very possibly, the world's most ardent critic of free will, and the worlds most ardent critic of determinism. The most extreme poles of each position. Each thinker shows zero compromise at all on this subject and is highly critical of those who do compromise.

Now consider the divide between economic libertarianism and central planning. If I were to compare the worlds most avoid free-market economist and the most avowed central planner, it would be night and day. Their differences would be severe and very meaningful.

The hardened atheist in me would call "free will" of the gaps, otherwise I'm more comfortable saying that it's a nonsense subject.

[MG 2.0]

Here are two quotes, one is from the most vocal advocate of hard determinism I can think of, and the other is from the most vocal critic of determinism I can think of.

I simply don’t know in any particular instance — not even Hitler’s — what factors made a person who he is. What combined aspects of childhood upbringing, traumatic psychological experience, flawed moral training, intellectual ability, social pressure, mental illness, defective education, brain chemistry, or the like led a person to act in a particular way? I simply can’t wholly know.

Upon hearing about crimes of this kind, most of us naturally feel that men like Hayes and Komisarjevsky should be held morally responsible for their actions. many of us would feel entirely justified in killing these monsters with our own hands. Do we care that Hayes has since shown signs of remorse and has attempted suicide? Not really. What about the fact that Komisarjevsky was repeatedly raped as a child? I cannot take credit for the fact that I do not have the soul of a psychopath. If I had truly been in Komisarjevsky’s shoes....—that is, if I had his genes and life experience and an identical brain (or soul) in an identical state—I would have acted exactly as he did. Of course, if we learned that both these men had been suffering from brain tumors that explained their violent behavior, our moral intuitions would shift dramatically.

Looks like a distinction without a difference to me. And bear in mind, these aren't "fair minded, meet you in the middle" thinkers on this particular subject. I am talking about, very possibly, the world's most ardent critic of free will, and the worlds most ardent critic of determinism. The most extreme poles of each position. Each thinker shows zero compromise at all on this subject and is highly critical of those who do compromise.

Now consider the divide between economic libertarianism and central planning. If I were to compare the worlds most avoid free-market economist and the most avowed central planner, it would be night and day. Their differences would be severe and very meaningful.

The hardened atheist in me would call "free will" of the gaps, otherwise I'm more comfortable saying that it's a nonsense subject.

Yeah, it doesn’t matter how you approach it, free will is still free will. With limitations. I think we discussed that a bit (or more) in this thread. Saying that free will is a nothing burger because it has a range of limitations that seemingly warrant or point to it as being something that doesn’t really warrant discussion doesn’t do it for me.

I suppose you could bring in all the experts you want but at the end of the day, we have free will. At least I know I do, as of today. But who knows what tomorrow brings? Thankfully you and I are able to have a fewer number of limitations than some others might have in being able to carry on this conversation.

It’s interesting that there seems to be a correlation between the amount ‘one has been given’ and the tendency (for some) to be either unwilling or unable to acknowledge the blessings they’ve been given as gifted intellectuals who are able to think outside the box which often limits others. More agency of thought and yet not recognizing it for what it is.

Almost a box of their own making. My opinion.

I know I’m saying this as an observer from only one vantage point in the room. Others are going to see things differently.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

Here are two quotes, one is from the most vocal advocate of hard determinism I can think of, and the other is from the most vocal critic of determinism I can think of.





Looks like a distinction without a difference to me. And bear in mind, these aren't "fair minded, meet you in the middle" thinkers on this particular subject. I am talking about, very possibly, the world's most ardent critic of free will, and the worlds most ardent critic of determinism. The most extreme poles of each position. Each thinker shows zero compromise at all on this subject and is highly critical of those who do compromise.

Now consider the divide between economic libertarianism and central planning. If I were to compare the worlds most avoid free-market economist and the most avowed central planner, it would be night and day. Their differences would be severe and very meaningful.

The hardened atheist in me would call "free will" of the gaps, otherwise I'm more comfortable saying that it's a nonsense subject.

Yeah, it doesn’t matter how you approach it, free will is still free will. With limitations. I think we discussed that a bit (or more) in this thread. Saying that free will is a nothing burger because it has a range of limitations that seemingly warrant or point to it as being something that doesn’t really warrant discussion doesn’t do it for me.

I suppose you could bring in all the experts you want but at the end of the day, we have free will. At least I know I do, as of today. But who knows what tomorrow brings? Thankfully you and I are able to have a fewer number of limitations than some others might have in being able to carry on this conversation.

It’s interesting that there seems to be a correlation between the amount ‘one has been given’ and the tendency (for some) to be either unwilling or unable to acknowledge the blessings they’ve been given as gifted intellectuals who are able to think outside the box which often limits others. More agency of thought and yet not recognizing it for what it is.

Almost a box of their own making. My opinion.

I know I’m saying this as an observer from only one vantage point in the room. Others are going to see things differently.

Regards,
MG

You are the one making the box. You are the one spending large amounts of effort drawing “connections” in ways that elevate yourself and disparage others.

You do not know that you have free will. You may believe that you have free will. You may have faith that you have free will. You may be unable to imagine that you don’t have free will. But you don’t know. And to claim that you do is sheer arrogance.

[Morley]

It’s interesting that there seems to be a correlation between the amount ‘one has been given’ and the tendency (for some) to be either unwilling or unable to acknowledge the blessings they’ve been given as gifted intellectuals who are able to think outside the box which often limits others. More agency of thought and yet not recognizing it for what it is.

Not sure what you're talking about, MG. I'm not aware of anyone here who who is unable or unwilling to acknowledge the privileges and advantages that they've been granted. Everyone I've read here seems to recognize how lucky they are, compared to many others.

[MG 2.0]

It’s interesting that there seems to be a correlation between the amount ‘one has been given’ and the tendency (for some) to be either unwilling or unable to acknowledge the blessings they’ve been given as gifted intellectuals who are able to think outside the box which often limits others. More agency of thought and yet not recognizing it for what it is.

Not sure what you're talking about, MG. I'm not aware of anyone here who who is unable or unwilling to acknowledge the privileges and advantages that they've been granted. Everyone I've read here seems to recognize how lucky they are, compared to many others.

Go back and read the first two paragraphs that you didn’t quote. Limitations. We all have them. There are those that either don’t see or are unwilling to see those limitations in themselves (the inability to accept and/or describe free will for example) that essentially disallow them to make conclusive statements about the free will that others claim to have.

Res Ipsa did just that in the post immediately following mine.

That’s the box I’m referring to.

My point, as I think I’ve already made, is that those that claim to have an additional measure of intelligence, health, freedom, education, or what have you, ought to be the humblest of all. The Savior himself has taught that where much is given much is expected. And for those in this ‘blessed’ category of humans to then use that additional light and knowledge and agency to then disparage that very gift that allows them to conclusively tell others they do not have free will, that it is an illusion, is the pinnacle of arrogance and hubris, in my humble opinion of course.

It is interesting, at least to me, that there seems to be such an adamant stand some are taking here against free will.

I would expect there may be motives for that. Just as I may have motives for believing that free will exists.

So why is it something that has to keep propelling us around the block again and again?

Why not accept the fact that we may see the world differently?

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

MG, for whatever reason, isn't really able or willing to understand what the various positions in an argument are whether it's this topic or any number of other topics. I didn't expect much more from his response.

I'll point out one more thing about the free will discussion. I disagree with Sam when he talks about the huge rift this topic is capable of causing. Perhaps it's true, as understood by the least-common denominator -- eh hum.

One of the quotes I provided comes from a sermon that also brings up the idea of an "empty hell". I think that's really important, and that is the crux of the matter. Similar to the "empty hell" writer, I also used to find Calvinism reprehensible. But after I thought about it more, I realized the problem wasn't the belief in "choice", but belief in hell. Giving a person libertarian free will and then shrugging your shoulders when they end up picking hell is hardly an improvement. "I don't care if you accept Christ or go to hell, it's your choice!" It's almost worse.

I think it really comes down to whether you're an "empty hell" or a "full hell" type of person. The discussion of free-will and determinism because so abstract, with even competent thinkers locking horns over what "free-will" means in the first place, that the average person will adapt their flippant position on determinism/free will to fit their position on punishment.

Back in the day, when I listened to radio ministries on the radio to and from work, the negation of free will always came up in the same context. These ministers are always "full hell" ministers. Saying "it's your choice!" poses a serious problem. What if you choose Christ, become saved, but then go off and sin like crazy, or worse, join the church across the street? It's really problematic when you work because you're saved, because what if you quit working? Where did the holy sprit go? Election has the answer -- you were never saved in the first place. If you say the sinner's prayer, and then start babbling in tongues, you might just be faking it. It's possible you're non-elect trying to be something you're not. A Truly lovely idea.

The point is, determinism isn't in principle an "empty hell" idea in principle. It can go either way, as with libertarians also.

[Morley]

Not sure what you're talking about, MG. I'm not aware of anyone here who who is unable or unwilling to acknowledge the privileges and advantages that they've been granted. Everyone I've read here seems to recognize how lucky they are, compared to many others.

Go back and read the first two paragraphs that you didn’t quote. Limitations. We all have them. There are those that either don’t see or are unwilling to see those limitations in themselves (the inability to accept and/or describe free will for example) that essentially disallow them to make conclusive statements about the free will that others claim to have.

I'm still not sure what you're talking about. I'm not aware of anyone here who who is unable or unwilling to acknowledge the limitations and the disadvantages that they carry. Everyone I've read here seems to recognize how constrained they personally are.

My point, as I think I’ve already made, is that those that claim to have an additional measure of intelligence, health, freedom, education, or what have you, ought to be the humblest of all. The Savior himself has taught that where much is given much is expected. And for those in this ‘blessed’ category of humans to then use that additional light and knowledge and agency to then disparage that very gift that allows them to conclusively tell others they do not have free will, that it is an illusion, is the pinnacle of arrogance and hubris, in my humble opinion of course.

Who here has claimed "to have an additional measure of intelligence, health, freedom, education, or what have you"?

The only one I've read here lately who is explicitly claiming to have an additional measure of anything is you. You're claiming to have the light and spirit of Christ and then turning around and using it to rebuke everyone else.

It is interesting, at least to me, that there seems to be such an adamant stand some are taking here against free will.

Recognizing or believing in free will and being humble (or whatever it is you're talking about) are not the same thing.

I would expect there may be motives for that. Just as I may have motives for believing that free will exists.

What are these motives you suspect others are holstering?

Why not accept the fact that we may see the world differently?

Seriously? Who here does not "accept the fact that we may see the world differently? " Maybe you'll quote someone who seems to think we all see the world in the same way?

[Morley]

MG, for whatever reason, isn't really able or willing to understand what the various positions in an argument are whether it's this topic or any number of other topics. I didn't expect much more from his response.

I'll point out one more thing about the free will discussion. I disagree with Sam when he talks about the huge rift this topic is capable of causing. Perhaps it's true, as understood by the least-common denominator -- eh hum.

One of the quotes I provided comes from a sermon that also brings up the idea of an "empty hell". I think that's really important, and that is the crux of the matter. Similar to the "empty hell" writer, I also used to find Calvinism reprehensible. But after I thought about it more, I realized the problem wasn't the belief in "choice", but belief in hell. Giving a person libertarian free will and then shrugging your shoulders when they end up picking hell is hardly an improvement. "I don't care if you accept Christ or go to hell, it's your choice!" It's almost worse.

I think it really comes down to whether you're an "empty hell" or a "full hell" type of person. The discussion of free-will and determinism because so abstract, with even competent thinkers locking horns over what "free-will" means in the first place, that the average person will adapt their flippant position on determinism/free will to fit their position on punishment.

Back in the day, when I listened to radio ministries on the radio to and from work, the negation of free will always came up in the same context. These ministers are always "full hell" ministers. Saying "it's your choice!" poses a serious problem. What if you choose Christ, become saved, but then go off and sin like crazy, or worse, join the church across the street? It's really problematic when you work because you're saved, because what if you quit working? Where did the holy sprit go? Election has the answer -- you were never saved in the first place. If you say the sinner's prayer, and then start babbling in tongues, you might just be faking it. It's possible you're non-elect trying to be something you're not. A Truly lovely idea.

The point is, determinism isn't in principle an "empty hell" idea in principle. It can go either way, as with libertarians also.

Gad, I'm loving this stuff.