The Moral Implications of Agnosticism and other Comprimises

[cgannon64]

Well, keep in mind I side with Hume on the definition of free will, that we possess it if, upon making a choice, we could have made a different choice if we had different pyschological dispositions.

I kinda like that definition of free will, mainly because it seems to conclude right in the definition that what we consider our 'will' is subject to many, many things outside of our control. (Which is something athiests seem to disregard when they speak so highly of free will when juxtaposed against God's omniscience.)

But anyway, no, I don't think that means time is concluded. At least not necessarily. Even if God exists and he does so outside of time, it's still reasonably possible, as far as I can tell, that time spans an infinite range. (And God could still see all of it, having infinite powers of sight.) Now if time spans a finite range, then yes, I guess that'd mean time would have to be concluded in a sense.

Yes, I was assuming that time is finite - something the Bible seems to predict. (Unless, I suppose, you consider the Apocalypse to be the end of mankind and not the universe.)

 

[WillJ]

I knew your philosophy - my point was that it's much harder for me to find flaws in yours than for you to find flaws in mine, since yours doesn't posit very much.

That's of course what's so great about it.

(The only real qualm I've ever had with athiesm/agnosticism is that it leaves morality baseless.)

[stereotypical Black woman voice]: Oh no you didn't!

EDIT: A did a little reading on the Catholic Encyclopedia, hoping there was some garing obvious answer, but sadly, there isn't. After a surprisingly extensive explanation of the omniscient/free will problem (you'd think they would hide that somewhere) they ended with this: "Whichever way we turn we are bound ultimately to encounter a mystery, and, when there is a question of choosing between a theory which refers the mystery to God Himself and one which only saves the truth of human freedom by making free-will itself a mystery, most theologians naturally prefer the former alternative."

Oy. Something I've thought myself: If it comes down to it, I'm choosing God over free will. Free will seems like an illusion to many athiests and psychologists, anyway.

So where exactly does that leave us in the discussion concerning evil and suffering?

 

[WillJ]

I kinda like that definition of free will, mainly because it seems to conclude right in the definition that what we consider our 'will' is subject to many, many things outside of our control. (Which is something athiests seem to disregard when they speak so highly of free will when juxtaposed against God's omniscience.)

Sorry, you confused me there.

 

[cgannon64]

The Jesuit school, on the other hand -- with whom probably a majority of independent theologians agree -- using the scientia media maintains that we ought to conceive God's knowledge of future free acts not as being dependent and consequent upon decrees of His will, but in its character as hypothetical knowledge or being antecedent to them. God knows in the scientia media what Peter would do if in given circumstances he were to receive a certain aid, and this before any absolute decree to give that aid is supposed. Thus there is no predetermination by the Divine of what the human will freely chooses; it is not because God foreknows (having foredecreed) a certain free act that that act takes place, but God foreknows it in the first instance because as a matter of fact it is going to take place; He knows it as a hypothetical objective fact before it becomes an object of the scientia visionis -- or rather this is how, in order to safeguard human liberty, we must conceive Him as knowing it.

A backpedalling, you may call it - but perhaps it is how we should define omniscience in the first place?

EDIT: What I meant to say is that Hume's definition of free will acknowledges the importance of "pyschological dispositions". What I meant with the parenthetical comment was that athiests, when they bring up the free will/omniscience conundrum, seem to forget that free will doesn't stand too well on its own legs anyway, what with other's influences and our will's being subject to our "pyschological dispositions".

EDIT: Well, the part I just quoted leaves human suffering and sin still on our shoulders, I think. It leaves it as I often say it is, with God having foresaw our sin and considering it worthy of all the good we would produce. (Which, I think, may still hold up if eliminate free will entirely.)

 

[punkbass2000]

It should not be a shock to anyone who has read any of my posts on this topic in the past few months or so. But, I shouldn't expect you to know all of my positions on every issue - just as you shouldn't expect me not to give all of my definitions and positions before every post.

I don't expect every definition. Relevant ones are nice, though. Nonetheless, you didn't give it, so I did. I don't see the issue here.

Anyway, being able to choose or not choose God is not equal to being able to choose or not choose the ability to fly. This is because God is the highest good, and our position regarding him is of ultimate importance. Surely you can understand how the ability to make the most important choice of one's existence is relevant to one's free will?

Well, even presuming that it's true that this is the most important choice of one's existence, would it not have been God's decision that this became the most important choice?

A more troubling question you and I should worry ourselves with is, if God is outside of time, does that mean that time is already concluded? That, in itself, negates free will - God's omniscience is besides the point.

Less trouble if you don't believe in this "time" concept

 

[The Last Conformist]

(The only real qualm I've ever had with athiesm/agnosticism is that it leaves morality baseless.)

And how is Christianity different? According to you, to act morally is to account in accordance with God's nature; this is as arbitrary a claim as any an atheist or agnostic could come up with.