Ask a Theologian III

[Eran of Arcadia]

I think he means that Protestant fundamentalism didn't appear until several centuries after Protestantism itself did.

 

[Plotinus]

The point is that if you really think that later developments in Christianity are not legitimate, that is a much stronger argument against Protestantism, and particularly later versions of Protestantism such as fundamentalism, than it is against anything in Catholicism - let alone something that developed within the first two centuries of the church.

 

[timtofly]

Do you think that in light of the United States of America and it's founding Fathers and the reality that their goal has so been changed after 200 years; it could also be that the 2nd or 3rd century Church Fathers and their goals have also not been diluted and changed?

Is it plausible that one today could go back to the 1st and 2nd century Fathers and start afresh?

 

[Plotinus]

Do you think that in light of the United States of America and it's founding Fathers and the reality that their goal has so been changed after 200 years; it could also be that the 2nd or 3rd century Church Fathers and their goals have also not been diluted and changed?

Change is inevitable, for the simple reason that people in antiquity thought quite differently from people today. No-one today could plausibly take on the mindset of an ancient person.

Is it plausible that one today could go back to the 1st and 2nd century Fathers and start afresh?

No, for precisely the reason given above. It would be impossible, because no matter how much like the early fathers one became, there would always be this fundamental difference: a person today, trying to imitate the fathers, would be trying to imitate the fathers - which, obviously, they never were themselves. One might legitimately try to re-interpret the spirit of the church fathers in the context of modern society, but that would produce something very different from what the church fathers did, because modern society (including the person making the effort) is so different. Take, for example, the New Monasticism movement, which tries to take the spirit of the early monastics and re-interpret it in a modern context. The result is something very different from early monasticism. Someone who tried to do exactly what the early Christians did and believe what they did couldn't possibly succeed, and if they did, it wouldn't be a true recreation of early Christianity, but only a fake imitation, like a Sealed Knot Civil War battle.

 

[timtofly]

So in other words, the Catholic church today could be totally wrong and not even know it?

 

[uppi]

So in other words, the Catholic church today could be totally wrong and not even know it?

Or in even other words, Protestant fundamentalists today could be even more wrong and not even know it. They certainly do not believe what the early Christians did.

 

[Plotinus]

Anyone could be totally wrong and not know it, about anything, at least in theory. But the Catholic Church doesn't claim to be exactly the same as the early church. It claims to be the same institution, and to remain true to the beliefs of the first Christians - but in the sense of being a legitimate development of those beliefs (i.e., making explicit what was implicit in the doctrines articulated by the first Christians). There is nothing impossible about that.

 

[Kyriakos]

But "free will" isn't normally considered something that does anything at all. It's a property that the mind has (if it has it at all). When I do something freely, it's not the case that my free will has done it - I have done it, through the exercising of my free will.

Even if free will were a faculty which literally controls others, I don't see that that would make it necessarily more complicated. On the contrary, it might be perfectly simple. A steering wheel determines which direction the car goes in, but the steering wheel is not the most complicated part of the car.



But what does "chance" have to do with it? The whole organism is the result of more than mere chance, because there is more to evolution than chance - we are the way that we are because we have evolved through the operation of the law of natural selection, which produces complicated beings like us precisely because it is not mere chance. I don't really see why free will - supposing we have it at all - is any harder to explain on that picture than anything else. And even if there were something special about free will which couldn't be explained by reference to the normal physical explanations for the rest of us, why would that have any bearing on life after death? Perhaps we have free will because God caused us to have it, and it didn't evolve naturally at all, but still, that doesn't mean it survives our death or that there is anything to us that can survive death.



Can't a brain be a free agent, though? Or can't free agency be explained purely physiologically, at least in theory? An agent can make changes to itself: for example, I can freely decide to learn something with the aim of changing how knowledgeable I am. That can be true whether I am a purely physical being or not.

Interesting that you should liken free will to the steering will of an automobile. However i do not think this is fair, since to me it seems more probable that it is likened to a mechanism which moves in so many ways that it enables the psyche to alter in as many ways. You could claim that the steering wheel also moves in as many ways as the car moves, but then again it is not as complicated as the other parts simply because the number of actions it performs is so limited; on the contrary free will seems to perform a vast number of "moves", moves which probably are not part of the psychical developments it brings forward.
And there have been cases of people who lost their free will, due to a number of reasons. They ended up having pronouncedly cyclical thoughts, and fixed ideas, as if they could only venture from one fixed idea to the next, and back, without ever being able to advance. It seems to me, therefore, that free will is both existent and very delicate and crucial for the psyche, since it appears to determine the whole event of the person's mental development and well-being.

I am of the view that the brain is a free agent, to some extent, but in a different quality than the person as a whole is a free agent. The brain seems to calculate endlessly everything which is below consciousness. Thus it controls that part, which is by far the largest part of one's psyche. However it does seem to be bound to let go of its control, if it is asked to do it, by which i mean mostly being asked metaphorically, ie if the person either decides consciously, or unconsciously achieves it, to expand his control of the psyche to a deeper level. Of course no matter how deep a level of control one has, the unconscious self seems to always be vastly larger. After all evolution seems to have made it so, in order for the conscious self to be free to be occupied with whatever it likes.
And it does seem to me that if man was purely a creation of some meaningless evolution, then free will should not at all have to exist, since the unconscious self could very well be the only agent, leading to man being more animal-like. But even if free will was developed through meaningless evolution it still appears to me to be the pinnacle of the mental phenomenon.

 

[Meteor Man]

So in other words, the Catholic church today could be totally wrong and not even know it?

Not to mention, if you are a Catholic, then you believe that God acts through heads of the Church, (the Pope, Bishops, priests, deacons, ect.), so the Church essentially stays relatively the same (changes have occurred) to an extent, ie. the Church will never condone abortion. Stuff like that.

 

[Plotinus]

Interesting that you should liken free will to the steering will of an automobile. However i do not think this is fair, since to me it seems more probable that it is likened to a mechanism which moves in so many ways that it enables the psyche to alter in as many ways. You could claim that the steering wheel also moves in as many ways as the car moves, but then again it is not as complicated as the other parts simply because the number of actions it performs is so limited; on the contrary free will seems to perform a vast number of "moves", moves which probably are not part of the psychical developments it brings forward.

By that argument, a sphere is far more complicated than a cube, because a sphere can roll in a vast number of directions whereas a cube can roll in only four directions.

And there have been cases of people who lost their free will, due to a number of reasons. They ended up having pronouncedly cyclical thoughts, and fixed ideas, as if they could only venture from one fixed idea to the next, and back, without ever being able to advance. It seems to me, therefore, that free will is both existent and very delicate and crucial for the psyche, since it appears to determine the whole event of the person's mental development and well-being.

You keep talking about "free will", but it seems to me you're just talking about the will, that is, our ability to choose. It's debateable whether we have free will but we certainly have the ability to choose. The people you mention have lost that ability. So certainly it's important. But I just don't see what it's got to do with life after death.

I am of the view that the brain is a free agent, to some extent, but in a different quality than the person as a whole is a free agent. The brain seems to calculate endlessly everything which is below consciousness. Thus it controls that part, which is by far the largest part of one's psyche. However it does seem to be bound to let go of its control, if it is asked to do it, by which i mean mostly being asked metaphorically, ie if the person either decides consciously, or unconsciously achieves it, to expand his control of the psyche to a deeper level. Of course no matter how deep a level of control one has, the unconscious self seems to always be vastly larger. After all evolution seems to have made it so, in order for the conscious self to be free to be occupied with whatever it likes.

But if you accept that the brain controls the unconscious mind, why can't it also control the conscious mind?

And it does seem to me that if man was purely a creation of some meaningless evolution, then free will should not at all have to exist, since the unconscious self could very well be the only agent, leading to man being more animal-like. But even if free will was developed through meaningless evolution it still appears to me to be the pinnacle of the mental phenomenon.

Evolution isn't efficient. If it were, the world would consist entirely of bacteria. It's because evolution takes all sorts of weird routes, many of which are sub-optimal, that we have the diversity of life that we see. Just like human history - it would probably be more efficient if human beings all lived in a single benevolent communist state, but things just haven't worked out that way because history doesn't tend towards the efficient. Certainly we might be more efficient creatures without a conscious will, but you could say that about lots of mental and physiological features that we have, or which other creatures have. It doesn't prove in the slightest that these features are not the product of evolution. And, as I say, even if it did, what has that got to do with life after death?

 

[Kyriakos]

By that argument, a sphere is far more complicated than a cube, because a sphere can roll in a vast number of directions whereas a cube can roll in only four directions.



You keep talking about "free will", but it seems to me you're just talking about the will, that is, our ability to choose. It's debateable whether we have free will but we certainly have the ability to choose. The people you mention have lost that ability. So certainly it's important. But I just don't see what it's got to do with life after death.



But if you accept that the brain controls the unconscious mind, why can't it also control the conscious mind?



Evolution isn't efficient. If it were, the world would consist entirely of bacteria. It's because evolution takes all sorts of weird routes, many of which are sub-optimal, that we have the diversity of life that we see. Just like human history - it would probably be more efficient if human beings all lived in a single benevolent communist state, but things just haven't worked out that way because history doesn't tend towards the efficient. Certainly we might be more efficient creatures without a conscious will, but you could say that about lots of mental and physiological features that we have, or which other creatures have. It doesn't prove in the slightest that these features are not the product of evolution. And, as I say, even if it did, what has that got to do with life after death?

In my view "free will" is free up to a degree, precisely because the brain itself has control too. However this does not diminish its quality of being free, since, as i argued, the brain gives up control when the person is determined (either consciously or unconsciously) to expand his own mental horizons.
Perhaps it is easier to examine this using an example which is not purely mental, since it deals with physiology. It seems obvious to me that something inside the brain controls the well-being of the body, in a way which is not conscious to the person. Something determines the ability of the body to function properly, making endless calculations, which are not conscious. Furthermore it would have been a very bad idea for the person to attempt to consciously control such things, since ultimately it is not the position of the conscious self to control them.
That said, as i once again mentioned in another thread, there have been cases of people who appear to have "broken into" such calculations of the mind regarding physiological matters, with devastating effects. Franz Kafka might have been one of them, if one is to make something out of his endless notes about his bodily functions.
Generally my point is that the obvious existence of a control from the deeper brain does not negate the existence of a "free" will, since ultimately it seems that the free will has predominance potentially over the controlling brain.

 

[Plotinus]

Generally my point is that the obvious existence of a control from the deeper brain does not negate the existence of a "free" will, since ultimately it seems that the free will has predominance potentially over the controlling brain.

The powers of the brain don't mean that there is no free will, but similarly, they don't mean that there is one either. I don't see any reason why the faculty of choice can't be explained in physiological terms as readily as any other mental phenomenon (assuming that mental phenomena can be explained in these terms to start with). If the brain has the ability to control some actions (as it obviously does), why can't it have the ability to control others? It seems to me that you're assuming some kind of dichotomy between the brain and the agent, so that the brain "controls" some things and the agent "controls" others, wresting "control" of actions away from the brain. But if choice and will are functions of the brain, then there is no such dichotomy - the agent is the brain, or at least, is the physiological system of which the brain is part. It seems fairly common sensical to me to say that my brain is part of me - and is the part that I use to think and make decisions - just as my stomach is part of me, and is the part I use to digest food.

 

[Kyriakos]

The powers of the brain don't mean that there is no free will, but similarly, they don't mean that there is one either. I don't see any reason why the faculty of choice can't be explained in physiological terms as readily as any other mental phenomenon (assuming that mental phenomena can be explained in these terms to start with). If the brain has the ability to control some actions (as it obviously does), why can't it have the ability to control others? It seems to me that you're assuming some kind of dichotomy between the brain and the agent, so that the brain "controls" some things and the agent "controls" others, wresting "control" of actions away from the brain. But if choice and will are functions of the brain, then there is no such dichotomy - the agent is the brain, or at least, is the physiological system of which the brain is part. It seems fairly common sensical to me to say that my brain is part of me - and is the part that I use to think and make decisions - just as my stomach is part of me, and is the part I use to digest food.

I think that it can indeed be argued that there exists a dichotomy, insofar as the deeper "mechanism" or whatever it may be called in the brain controls most of its functions, but the free will can be used to expand one's consciousness into areas which originally were part of the unconscious psyche.
It is a very long discussion, but it seems to me that the mere existence of a phenomenon such as consciousness has to mean that below it there are vastly more complicated mechanisms that enable it. From the little i do know of modern psychology theory it is understood that the unconscious part of the psyche is hugely larger than the conscious one. Perhaps it follows from that that evolution of our minds made it so, with the goal of enabling exactly a state where free will can ensure we are relatively free to be occupied with what we want to, whereas in other circumstances we would be forced to sink inside our world of thought, and be involved in endless labyrinthine thoughts.
And although it is by no means seen by me as a proof of there being an afterlife, it does seem at least possible that there could be a connection between a free will and a meaningful development of the psyche, one which could indeed, in theory, have an effect on an afterlife. At least it seems that the free will enables such a state of deliberation, whereas if things were different there would not be any serious parameter of choice.

 

[Plotinus]

I think that it can indeed be argued that there exists a dichotomy, insofar as the deeper "mechanism" or whatever it may be called in the brain controls most of its functions, but the free will can be used to expand one's consciousness into areas which originally were part of the unconscious psyche.

What do you mean? I can't exercise conscious control over my heartbeat (at least not directly) or the other things that are controlled by the unconscious mind.

It is a very long discussion, but it seems to me that the mere existence of a phenomenon such as consciousness has to mean that below it there are vastly more complicated mechanisms that enable it. From the little i do know of modern psychology theory it is understood that the unconscious part of the psyche is hugely larger than the conscious one.

Yes, I think all this is true, although I don't really know what it means to talk about the "size" of a mind or part of one.

Perhaps it follows from that that evolution of our minds made it so, with the goal of enabling exactly a state where free will can ensure we are relatively free to be occupied with what we want to, whereas in other circumstances we would be forced to sink inside our world of thought, and be involved in endless labyrinthine thoughts.

I don't really know what you mean by this. Evolution doesn't have goals, it just happens. And I don't really understand what you mean by being sunk inside the world of thought as opposed to being occupied by other things, or why free will makes a difference to that. I can imagine a being without free will that isn't occupied in its own thoughts. Given that it's by no means certain that we have free will ourselves, we might be such beings. Alternatively, given that you seem to mean will when you say "free will", I can imagine a being with no volition which nevertheless is not trapped in its own thoughts. A dragonfly probably falls into that category.

And although it is by no means seen by me as a proof of there being an afterlife, it does seem at least possible that there could be a connection between a free will and a meaningful development of the psyche, one which could indeed, in theory, have an effect on an afterlife. At least it seems that the free will enables such a state of deliberation, whereas if things were different there would not be any serious parameter of choice.

I don't see what the connection is between the ability to choose and the possibility of surviving one's own death. Why do you think free will could have an effect on life after death?

 

[Kyriakos]

What do you mean? I can't exercise conscious control over my heartbeat (at least not directly) or the other things that are controlled by the unconscious mind.

Not sure if one can, some people have claimed they could, but i was mostly referring to calculations of the deeper psyche having to do with the creation and sustaining of a consciousness. For example in normal circumstances you do not have control of the moment you fall asleep. However it has been documented that some people managed to control that entry point to the unconscious, and witnessed the flow and ebb of mental calculations being done below.

Yes, I think all this is true, although I don't really know what it means to talk about the "size" of a mind or part of one.

Probably an error of choice of words on my part, i meant that the world of the mental phenomenon below consciousness is vastly larger than the one which is conscious.

I don't really know what you mean by this. Evolution doesn't have goals, it just happens. And I don't really understand what you mean by being sunk inside the world of thought as opposed to being occupied by other things, or why free will makes a difference to that. I can imagine a being without free will that isn't occupied in its own thoughts. Given that it's by no means certain that we have free will ourselves, we might be such beings. Alternatively, given that you seem to mean will when you say "free will", I can imagine a being with no volition which nevertheless is not trapped in its own thoughts. A dragonfly probably falls into that category.

I am not sure we do know, though, what goes on with such entities. I recall the quite poetic, if not generally pointless, phrase "Deus est anima brutorum" (God is the soul of the animals). It does seem likely that primitive organisms such as insects live in an eternal present.

I don't see what the connection is between the ability to choose and the possibility of surviving one's own death. Why do you think free will could have an effect on life after death?

I am claiming something different, namely that if there was no free will then it would seem even more unlikely that an afterlife linked to this one exists, for the mere reason that man would not be deemed as a free agent- free to some extent at least, and therefore he could not be held accountable for his thoughts and actions.

I would also like to comment a bit on your claim that i am talking about a simple "will" and not a free will.

It depends on what you actually mean by "free". I have already noted that i think the freedom of our will exists to a degree, but at the same time it is possible to expand it, thus it is not seen by me as less free, at least potentially. Definitely there exist as many variations of "freedom" of will as there exist individual people. I gave an example of a pronouncedly unfree-willed individual, one who is lost in fixed patterns of thought, and cannot escape them. But this is just an extreme, perhaps an antithesis of it exists as well, some person who is so free that it becomes almost unbearable.
Most people seem to be in some median state of freedom/lack of it. Most people, after all, do not seem to be occupied with such questions anyway, or do so in a scattered manner, which does not usually amount to any change.
However i think that empirical knowledge tells us that one can indeed increase the amount of freedom of his will, and it is seen by me as a freedom in the psyche, since that is our main dwelling place.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Is there any validity to Arianism whatsoever?

 

[Plotinus]

I am not sure we do know, though, what goes on with such entities. I recall the quite poetic, if not generally pointless, phrase "Deus est anima brutorum" (God is the soul of the animals). It does seem likely that primitive organisms such as insects live in an eternal present.

What does that mean? Clearly they're as temporal as we are. Do you mean that they have no memories? It seems to me that any animal that can learn, no matter how little, must have some kind of memory.

I am claiming something different, namely that if there was no free will then it would seem even more unlikely that an afterlife linked to this one exists, for the mere reason that man would not be deemed as a free agent- free to some extent at least, and therefore he could not be held accountable for his thoughts and actions.

But again, what's the connection between being held accountable for our actions and life after death?

I would also like to comment a bit on your claim that i am talking about a simple "will" and not a free will.

It depends on what you actually mean by "free". I have already noted that i think the freedom of our will exists to a degree, but at the same time it is possible to expand it, thus it is not seen by me as less free, at least potentially. Definitely there exist as many variations of "freedom" of will as there exist individual people. I gave an example of a pronouncedly unfree-willed individual, one who is lost in fixed patterns of thought, and cannot escape them. But this is just an extreme, perhaps an antithesis of it exists as well, some person who is so free that it becomes almost unbearable.
Most people seem to be in some median state of freedom/lack of it. Most people, after all, do not seem to be occupied with such questions anyway, or do so in a scattered manner, which does not usually amount to any change.
However i think that empirical knowledge tells us that one can indeed increase the amount of freedom of his will, and it is seen by me as a freedom in the psyche, since that is our main dwelling place.

I would agree that freedom is a matter of degree, at least if one has a compatibilist understanding of free will. Of course, some people have a very different concept of free will. (But they're wrong!)

Is there any validity to Arianism whatsoever?

What do you mean by "validity"? (I said before that you over-use that word - I really don't think it has any meaning at all in a context like this.)

 

[GhostWriter16]

What do you mean by "validity"? (I said before that you over-use that word - I really don't think it has any meaning at all in a context like this.)

OK sorry. Is there any possible way to argue for it from the Bible? And if so, how?

 

[Plotinus]

OK sorry. Is there any possible way to argue for it from the Bible? And if so, how?

Of course. The classic texts that the Arians appealed to the most are:

The Father is greater than I.

And

The Lord created me at the beginning of his work.

The latter text is spoken by "Wisdom", traditionally taken to be identical with the Son.

They also appealed to:

Therefore God has highly exalted him...

(which implies that he was not exalted before)

You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness.
Therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions...

(which implies that he was rewarded and therefore did not enjoy all blessedness to start with)

...having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs...

(which implies both that he is similar in kind to the angels, though better, and that he is created or made)

...who was faithful to him who appointed him, just as Moses also was faithful in all God's house...

(which implies that he was appointed by God and therefore not divine, and also similar to Moses, though better)

Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.

(which implies that he wasn't Lord before)

And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

(which implies that God and Jesus are distinct)

These texts and others are discussed by Athanasius in Against the Arians showing that they were used by real Arians in support of their views.

Plus of course there are plenty of texts suggesting that Jesus was limited in knowledge, power, etc. One might take these to imply that he was not divine (assuming that being limited in these ways is incompatible with being divine, which is open to question).

 

[GhostWriter16]

Of course. The classic texts that the Arians appealed to the most are:



And



The latter text is spoken by "Wisdom", traditionally taken to be identical with the Son.

Plus of course there are plenty of texts suggesting that Jesus was limited in knowledge, power, etc. One might take these to imply that he was not divine (assuming that being limited in these ways is incompatible with being divine, which is open to question).

So, would you suggest Trinitarianism (Based on the Bible) is incorrect, or would you say both sides could be argued, or something else?

I don't see why the Proverbs verse is talking about Jesus Christ at all. It could certainly be "Wisdom" but why would people assume it was talking about the Son?

"The Father is Greater than I" could be valid, but you could more easily argue that he was simply less while on Earth since he made himself less. And yeah, he was limited of knowledge since he made himself Human, not because he wasn't divine.