Free Will and the Nature of Heaven

[Fr8monkey]

Because we have to earn our place in heaven. You don't deserve to go into heaven unless you've lived a good life.

Now we need a good life to advance. I thought it was an unerring belief that God cloned himself into his son and sacrificed himself for himself to cover his past errors of making a failed copy of mankind only to become a zombie to tell us "see I told you." then disapperar to be with himself in Heaven.

Can you not see how foolish you look right now?

Yes indeed.. Maybe that pot calling itself black around Mars is true.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Now we need a good life to advance.

Depends on the denomination.

 

[Fr8monkey]

So now you see why this is all a joke, right? You have 50 ways to assend, yet everyone says they are right and everone else is wrong. Man created religon to control the masses and everyone of them acts the same.

You know the difference between a cult and religon?

Spoiler :

The number of believers.

 

[aelf]

I see that the arguments being employed by the OP quickly descend to elementary school levels. Oh, well, yet another of those religion threads.

Atheists would do themselves a great favour if they knew what they were talking about (i.e. the religion they are criticising). As it is a lot of them just hide behind the fact that most religious people are too dumb to explain what they believe in properly or subscribe to idiotic interpretations. Yeah, admittedly it's a very easy target, but going for it hardly proves much.

 

[Gustave5436]

Heaven and Hell most likely do not exist. Why engage in pointless arguments about them?

To point out the authoritarianism inherent to religion.

 

[Camikaze]

1. There is both sin and free will in Heaven.
(...)
(1) is unacceptable to Heaven-believing theists, and I know of no theist who disputes that conclusion.

Why is this unacceptable? Free will, I would think, is above small sins. And so, if heaven is the best possible place, the grand utopia, then it would include that which is the best thing- free will.

And also, this is assuming that the theist in question is of the opinion that your existence in heaven is of the same nature as your existence on Earth, or in life.

 

[Greizer85]

I see that the arguments being employed by the OP quickly descend to elementary school levels. Oh, well, yet another of those religion threads.

Atheists would do themselves a great favour if they knew what they were talking about (i.e. the religion they are criticising). As it is a lot of them just hide behind the fact that most religious people are too dumb to explain what they believe in properly or subscribe to idiotic interpretations. Yeah, admittedly it's a very easy target, but going for it hardly proves much.

Well mr. philosopher, why not try and improve said arguments? You are an atheist, iirc. And even if not, you could play devil's advocate.

Still waiting for a comment from Warman et al to that link I gave earlier, here it is again:
http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm If even half of that is true, you don't really have a leg to stand on.

 

[aelf]

Well mr. philosopher,

I try my best to learn.

why not try and improve said arguments? You are an atheist, iirc. And even if not, you could play devil's advocate.

Yeah, I do that. I always point out, for example, that the meaning of religious faith that is taken for granted is not necessarily the only or the best meaning of it. But what's the point? Someone would repeatedly quote the definition of some online dictionary and use that as a supporting argument. Heck, I even quoted an extract from wiki (which should suit them pretty well) to show the better meaning of religious faith, but no one seems to bother to read it.

Also, I find it extremely idiotic that people would criticise, say, Islamic faith without knowing anything about it. How do you (not referring to you) know that they approach faith like how you perceive "mainstream Christians" (which, by the way, is as meaningful as talking about "mainstream Americans") do?

In addition, people seem to have very vague understanding of what it means to hold a belief. I'm aware that there are different views on it, and calling a specific mode of thinking "belief" might be treading on thin ice in terms of the accuracy of jargon, but there's a difference between certain knowledge, which might require a posteriori proof, and an intellectual assent based on reasonable probability. When you talk about belief, what are you really talking about? I would say both, and as such belief doesn't strictly require empirical evidence, which one might not have access to when holding normal mundane beliefs anyway. I've read a treatise by Locke on this, and I think he analyzes it pretty well. If you're interested, I'll look up the title.

On that note, religious people have some pretty good reasons for holding their beliefs. The one I'm most familiar with right now is to do with ethics. What determines our morality? I'm quite skeptical towards evolutionary ethics, since it's leaves the door pretty wide open to relativism, and I think there are objective truths that remain truths even if our conditions are very different. So what is the source of morality? I'm not saying that God is necessarily the answer. In fact, I don't think so. But are there substantive debates about such issues in the usual religion threads?

So, what can we expect on the net? The usual train of fools, no doubt. If I want insight, I go to the "Ask a Theologian" thread, where I notice there's a distinct absence of the usual crows who preach atheism like a cult.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

One could argue that free will/agency is less about deciding what to do in each circumstance and more to do with deciding what kind of person one wants to be. We would not have complete free will per se in each instance, not because we are not free but because we are bound by decisions we freely made earlier. (The second Matrix movie argued this quite strongly, iirc.)

It seems to me that hesed love requires free will, but then alters the nature of a person to the point that choosing to turn away from one's commitment becomes impossible. Thus, in heaven we would not exactly have free will, but our will would still from external coercion or manipulation.

Since God is hesed, he/she/it would have no more free will than the saints.

 

[Fr8monkey]

Why is this unacceptable? Free will, I would think, is above small sins. And so, if heaven is the best possible place, the grand utopia, then it would include that which is the best thing- free will.

And also, this is assuming that the theist in question is of the opinion that your existence in heaven is of the same nature as your existence on Earth, or in life.

If sin keeps you from getting into heaven; why would God allow it once you get there?
As to the second part, iHeaven is a place that has no actual specific description in religous text, so how can us simple mortals describe it without using what we know about here on Earth?

 

[Greizer85]

Yeah, I do that. I always point out, for example, that the meaning of religious faith that is taken for granted is not necessarily the only or the best meaning of it. But what's the point? Someone would repeatedly quote the definition of some online dictionary and use that as a supporting argument. Heck, I even quoted an extract from wiki (which should suit them pretty well) to show the better meaning of religious faith, but no one seems to bother to read it.

Where did you quote that? I couldn't find it in this thread.

Also, I find it extremely idiotic that people would criticise, say, Islamic faith without knowing anything about it. How do you (not referring to you) know that they approach faith like how you perceive "mainstream Christians" (which, by the way, is as meaningful as talking about "mainstream Americans") do?

I admit that I know little about Islam (have yet to read the Quran), so I usually refrain from commenting on its doctrine. Its outside 'symptoms' (e.g. the treatment of women by extremist sects) however get no mercy from me.

In addition, people seem to have very vague understanding of what it means to hold a belief. I'm aware that there are different views on it, and calling a specific mode of thinking "belief" might be treading on thin ice in terms of the accuracy of jargon, but there's a difference between certain knowledge, which might require a posteriori proof, and an intellectual assent based on reasonable probability. When you talk about belief, what are you really talking about? I would say both, and as such belief doesn't strictly require empirical evidence, which one might not have access to when holding normal mundane beliefs anyway. I've read a treatise by Locke on this, and I think he analyzes it pretty well. If you're interested, I'll look up the title.

Well, I rarely read philosophical stuff (I usually find it boring ), but if it's a short enough title, I guess I could read it. As to different ideas of belief, yeah, I 'believe' in atoms even though I haven't seen them with my own eyes. Even trusting your senses requires a certain amount of belief. Imo belief in God is problematic because of lack of proof and, ultimately, because having a God is unnecessary. I've seen evolutionary explanations dismantle the 'eye argument', and the Big Bang is more believable than an abstract entity, as far as making stuff out of nothing can be believable. Tbh (the Christian) God's only remaining bastion seems to me to lie in the idea that He can somehow dictate morality, an idea I find hard to stomach even if it were true.

On that note, religious people have some pretty good reasons for holding their beliefs. The one I'm most familiar with right now is to do with ethics. What determines our morality? I'm quite skeptical towards evolutionary ethics, since it's leaves the door pretty wide open to relativism, and I think there are objective truths that remain truths even if our conditions are very different. So what is the source of morality? I'm not saying that God is necessarily the answer. In fact, I don't think so. But are there substantive debates about such issues in the usual religion threads?

The source of morality? Human conscience, and codes based on the most common variants of it. And where does conscience come from? I think I know the answer, but I'm not sure you'll like it; click at your own risk:

Spoiler :

Evolution.

Sure, I hate relativism too, but even though technically there is no objective base for morality, in practice almost no one wants murderers roaming the streets. And as long as we have democracy, it's unlikely to happen.

So, what can we expect on the net? The usual train of fools, no doubt. If I want insight, I go to the "Ask a Theologian" thread, where I notice there's a distinct absence of the usual crows who preach atheism like a cult.

I might do that eventually, but right now one night without sleep is enough... I could ask Plotinus what he thinks about that link I posted, though.

One could argue that free will/agency is less about deciding what to do in each circumstance and more to do with deciding what kind of person one wants to be. We would not have complete free will per se in each instance, not because we are not free but because we are bound by decisions we freely made earlier. (The second Matrix movie argued this quite strongly, iirc.)

It seems to me that hesed love requires free will, but then alters the nature of a person to the point that choosing to turn away from one's commitment becomes impossible. Thus, in heaven we would not exactly have free will, but our will would still from external coercion or manipulation.

Since God is hesed, he/she/it would have no more free will than the saints.

Then how did the Devil rebel? Did God make him do it? If He is like you say He is, then He couldn't have done it. If God is incapable of evil, He should by extension have been incapable of creating Lucifer, since that makes Him 'guilty be association', or, to put it more aptly, 'conception'.

Further, it doesn't seem so saintly to me to kill infants and give leprosy to disbelievers, etc...

 

[aelf]

Where did you quote that? I couldn't find it in this thread.

It's not here, sorry. But I'm sure it has occurred to you by now that this isn't the only religion thread around lately...

I admit that I know little about Islam (have yet to read the Quran), so I usually refrain from commenting on its doctrine. Its outside 'symptoms' (e.g. the treatment of women by extremist sects) however get no mercy from me.

Be careful to separate social customs from religious practices.

Well, I rarely read philosophical stuff (I usually find it boring ), but if it's a short enough title, I guess I could read it.

I'm afraid it's pretty long and really boring. I had to read it for a class.

As to different ideas of belief, yeah, I 'believe' in atoms even though I haven't seen them with my own eyes. Even trusting your senses requires a certain amount of belief. Imo belief in God is problematic because of lack of proof and, ultimately, because having a God is unnecessary. I've seen evolutionary explanations dismantle the 'eye argument', and the Big Bang is more believable than an abstract entity, as far as making stuff out of nothing can be believable. Tbh (the Christian) God's only remaining bastion seems to me to lie in the idea that He can somehow dictate morality, an idea I find hard to stomach even if it were true.

I think that's all pretty valid. I personally think that the debate hinges strongly on whether having a God is necessary, and there are reasons to believe so.

The source of morality? Human conscience, and codes based on the most common variants of it.

Human conscience can't be a source of morality, perhaps unless you're into intuitionism, which quickly led to emotivism (a brand of relativism) in the history of ethical thought anyway. There's only so much that you can say about morality if it comes down to what we feel is right or wrong. It collapses quite easily into the notion that moral judgements are only expressions of our feelings towards a certain subject (i.e. emotivism). You can probably see why already.

And where does conscience come from? I think I know the answer, but I'm not sure you'll like it; click at your own risk:

Spoiler :

Evolution.

Yes, our conscience is probably developed through evolution. It serves as a pretty good guide, but as I said it probably isn't what morality is all about.

Sure, I hate relativism too, but even though technically there is no objective base for morality, in practice almost no one wants murderers roaming the streets. And as long as we have democracy, it's unlikely to happen.

The fact that people generally do not like wanton killing has to do with certain universal values. Tracing the source of these values can lead to several different conclusions, one of which is God.

 

[Fr8monkey]

Yes, our conscience is probably developed through evolution. It serves as a pretty good guide, but as I said it probably isn't what morality is all about.

The fact that people generally do not like wanton killing has to do with certain universal values. Tracing the source of these values can lead to several different conclusions, one of which is God.

I think morality is a learned behavior. Over eons, a being learns thruogh trial and error what is good for others is good for them.

 

[aelf]

I think morality is a learned behavior. Over eons, a being learns thruogh trial and error what is good for others is good for them.

Don't think so. Some things are inherently good. Your argument allows for the possibility that certain groups of people might be justified in thinking that wanton killing is acceptable or even good (eg. the practice of hunting helots as the Spartan rite of passage). That's tantamount to relativism, which is morally abhorrent since I think the only way you can stop a bad deed is through legal positivism of some sort. And since the strong is likely to bend social rules for their own purposes, it's in great danger of turning into nihilism. That's a great tumble.

 

[warpus]

The fact that people generally do not like wanton killing has to do with certain universal values. Tracing the source of these values can lead to several different conclusions, one of which is God.

It appears to be universal because it's very easy to construct a logical argument condemning murder. It just makes sense not to allow it. There is no need for God in this argument.

 

[Fr8monkey]

You mention the practice of hunting helots as the Spartan rite of passage. Remember to the Spartans, that is moral to them.. it is all relitive. To the Aztecs, it is moral to do human sacrifice. The Spanish show up and are appaled and show them they (Aztecs) are immoral by systematicly slaughtering them and destroying their whole society. Who is the most moral in that situation? I say both.

 

[Greizer85]

Human conscience can't be a source of morality, perhaps unless you're into intuitionism, which quickly led to emotivism (a brand of relativism) in the history of ethical thought anyway. There's only so much that you can say about morality if it comes down to what we feel is right or wrong. It collapses quite easily into the notion that moral judgements are only expressions of our feelings towards a certain subject (i.e. emotivism). You can probably see why already.

Yes, our conscience is probably developed through evolution. It serves as a pretty good guide, but as I said it probably isn't what morality is all about.

The fact that people generally do not like wanton killing has to do with certain universal values. Tracing the source of these values can lead to several different conclusions, one of which is God.

Tbh I don't give much thought to morality. What's important is the law; whether someone does something that is to me 'immoral' doesn't mean much to me as long as it's lawful. Ofc the law must be [collectively] just enough, and there we run into morality again.

It could be said that the law is a compromise between different moralities, as well as practicality, while each particular morality is a compromise between the different personal feelings* of its adherent(s), as well as practicality. What is practical is a lot less hazy than what is 'right', thankfully. In practice (heh) as things are written down these compromises become rather permanent, and there is also the problem that not many people have a say in the decisions in the first place. Hence many irrational and/or abusive laws and moral rules (train archery or go to jail; eat this flesh only on Sunday, etc.).

*note that with "personal feelings" I don't mean intuitive whims, but rather carefully considered stands on different issues which are based on inward reflection (outside observations coming to the picture in the form of 'practicality'). I admit that it is a fairly bad choice of words.

Wanton killing is generally very bad for a species' survival; that is why we have inherent instincts against it.

Also yes, the Spartans et al were moral according to their standards, which turns my stomach but it cannot be helped.

 

[Bill3000]

Human conscience can't be a source of morality, perhaps unless you're into intuitionism, which quickly led to emotivism (a brand of relativism)

Emotivism isn't moral relativist. Moral relativism still requires that moral sentences express propositions (capable of being true or false) - just that the truth or falseness depends on subjective conditions such as place in time and culture. Emotivism states that ethical sentences arn't propositions, and thus arn't capable of being true or false, and instead express emotional attitudes.

Moral intuitionism is moral realist, and so it can't "quickly lead to emotivism."

Don't confuse moral anti-realism with moral relativism.

Probably best if you ignore sticking to philosophical terms that lay people won't understand unless you understand them yourself and explain them.

 

[Ayatollah So]

It takes something more to make the right choices in the absence of certainty and with other tempting options at hand. This is actually pretty basic stuff that any run-of-the-mill Christian should be able to say.

Being basic and familiar doesn't make it true or even coherent. It's more impressive NOT to be tempted by the options that would tempt most people. For example, Adam Sandler's successful graduation from his Anger Management course (I didn't see the movie, so if that's not how it ends pretend it did) is less impressive than the peaceful campaign by Indians to end British rule.

 

[aelf]

It appears to be universal because it's very easy to construct a logical argument condemning murder. It just makes sense not to allow it. There is no need for God in this argument.

Leaving the logical argument unspecified is your problem here.

You mention the practice of hunting helots as the Spartan rite of passage. Remember to the Spartans, that is moral to them.. it is all relitive. To the Aztecs, it is moral to do human sacrifice. The Spanish show up and are appaled and show them they (Aztecs) are immoral by systematicly slaughtering them and destroying their whole society. Who is the most moral in that situation? I say both.

Yeah, so you're just a plain relativist. And I'd say a nihilist too. Sorry, but I don't buy it at all, and I think it basically hamstrings you by preventing you from dealing with ethical issues meaningfully. You fully deserve to fall into one of your 'grey area' situations and suffer the consequences, a guy who can't run away from the wolf created by his beliefs. You'd have to pay the price.

Tbh I don't give much thought to morality. What's important is the law; whether someone does something that is to me 'immoral' doesn't mean much to me as long as it's lawful. Ofc the law must be [collectively] just enough, and there we run into morality again.

Yeah, like I said, legal positivism. Unfortunately, it's an unsatisfactory answer because you'd probably agree yourself that there are instances where laws are unjust. In fact, you said so yourself. If that's the case, there must be right and wrong outside of the legal context.

It could be said that the law is a compromise between different moralities, as well as practicality, while each particular morality is a compromise between the different personal feelings* of its adherent(s), as well as practicality. What is practical is a lot less hazy than what is 'right', thankfully. In practice (heh) as things are written down these compromises become rather permanent, and there is also the problem that not many people have a say in the decisions in the first place. Hence many irrational and/or abusive laws and moral rules (train archery or go to jail; eat this flesh only on Sunday, etc.).

Fortunately, these sentiments can be accounted for and explained in a non-relativist ethical framework. Like I said, there are universal values, and IMO tracing their source yields several possible conclusions.

*note that with "personal feelings" I don't mean intuitive whims, but rather carefully considered stands on different issues which are based on inward reflection (outside observations coming to the picture in the form of 'practicality'). I admit that it is a fairly bad choice of words.

What do you base these reflections on, then?

Wanton killing is generally very bad for a species' survival; that is why we have inherent instincts against it.

It might be generally bad, but what makes those instances where it might be good for the species' survival bad?

Also yes, the Spartans et al were moral according to their standards, which turns my stomach but it cannot be helped.

I believe that we have standards by which we can judge another culture's practices, otherwise we get into all sorts of awkward ethical situations. It doesn't go so far as saying that the culture is evil, but it does mean that we can criticise practices that fall below the standards.

Emotivism isn't moral relativist. Moral relativism still requires that moral sentences express propositions (capable of being true or false) - just that the truth or falseness depends on subjective conditions such as place in time and culture. Emotivism states that ethical sentences arn't propositions, and thus arn't capable of being true or false, and instead express emotional attitudes.

I admit I get pretty rusty with the terms and I seem to have a pretty bad memory. But the result seems pretty much the same to me. Saying that the truth is relative leads to no coherent conclusions and ends any prospect of dialectical resolution to ethical questions. I don't even know how there can really be truth if it's relative. So what makes it actually so different from saying that moral judgements are meaningless?

Maybe I should've been more careful with the terms (as usual?). I went by my imperfect memory, where there is a certain connection between the two based on arguments against relativism. Nevertheless, I think it's good for me to just throw my knowledge out there and get corrected if it's wrong or imprecise.

Moral intuitionism is moral realist, and so it can't "quickly lead to emotivism."

Well, I'm basing this on the actual developments:

When Moore and the other non-naturalists defended substantive moral judgements, they often said baldly that the judgements were self-evident, so anyone who denied them was morally blind. To the later generation this was unacceptably dogmatic, and the failing was even more plainly present in non-cognitivism, which pictured moral debate as the mere venting of emotions or issuing of commands.

Ayer accepted Moore's arguments about the naturalistic fallacy, and since Moore's talk of ‘non-natural properties’ seemed to Ayer just nonsense, he was led to emphasize and analyze further the non-cognitive ingredient in evaluation which Moore had identified. Suppose one says to a cannibal, ‘You acted wrongly in eating your prisoner.’ Ayer thought one is not stating anything more than if one had simply said, ‘You ate your prisoner’. Rather, one is evincing moral disapproval of it. It is as if one had said, ‘You ate your prisoner’ in a peculiar tone of horror, or written it with the addition of some special exclamation marks.

Probably best if you ignore sticking to philosophical terms that lay people won't understand unless you understand them yourself and explain them.

It was just convenient in the original instance.