Comments on A Spiritual Diablog: Free Choice:!!!!!!! Post #1

COLORATURA: Free will isn't a black and white issu...

2005-10-28T14:24:00.000-04:00

COLORATURA:

Free will isn't a black and white issue to me either. Personally, I tend to think we probably do have a degree of free choice, despite strong influences on what we do. I don't think the degree of freedom of choice is the same for every person with regard to every issue.

Personally, I've never had the experience of choosing to have greater spiritual or moral awareness. And the more awareness I've had, the less choice I've had. Making a wrong choice "for some reason - ?" - after I've become highly aware of the desirability of the right choice - well, that would be either impossible or next to impossible for me to make such a choice. I can't imagine why I would.

From what I've experienced and seen, people's decisions in the moral/spiritual area are primarily the outcome of how conscious/ ignorant they are. And for me, increases in consciousness have come about as gifts or graces - nothing I chose, and typically not even something I could have foreseen.

I've never said that believing in free will in a way that minimizes or overlooks the role of influences and circumstances on our lives necessarily leads to judgmentalism. But I've noticed that for many people, it tends to increase that tendency.

"If you are born into a pile of shit, you can choose to stay there or not. There are just too many examples of people choosing to get out of the shit successfully, every day. This is not to say that every person with the misfortune of being born into a pile of shit -will- exercise their free will to get out. But the bottom line is, they -all- have the ability."

I think that may be an example of judgmentalism. Even though you haven't actually said that the person who stays in the pile of shit is a pile of shit, it could certainly be read as judgmental-sounding.

You have person A and person B both born into poverty and negative circumstances.

1. They are two different people.

They're born with different levels and kinds of intelligence, different gifts, aptitudes, emotional predispositions...

2. Their circumstanes are not the same.

Two people may both be described as "born into poverty" and yet have very different experiences. Even children raised within the same family aren't treated identically, and can have different and powerful experiences with, say, a mentor or teacher outside the home. The potential differences in the particulars of what two people both "born into poverty" may encounter are practically endless.

So let's say that person A remains in poverty. Person B doesn't.

You reason that because Person A, who is different from Person B, and has a different set of experiences from Person B, manages to get out of poverty, then Person B necessarily could have done so too.

It doesn't add up.

The question in my mind then becomes: why is it important for someone to believe such a thing?

To see that our choices are not perfectly free in no way requires a "victim mentality." All kinds of people see it this way who lack that mentality. And regardless of our views on free choice, any moral person, however he or she got that way, recognizes the importance of trying to become a better person and helping others do the same when they have the opportunity to help.

I too doubt that God intended us to live with victim mentalities - even though it's not mentioned in the Bible.

But there's a lot in the Bible against judgment. So I'd guess that God may like judgmentalism even less.

Coloratura, thanks for hanging in there... I'm not putting you down for being judgmental. So am I. It's just that I think it's not a good thing, so I try not to be.

I think where we are differing here is an interpre...

2005-10-28T10:47:00.000-04:00

I think where we are differing here is an interpretation of the phrase 'free will' (or free choice) - it seems to be a sort of ultimatum in your thought. It's not that black and white for me.

I'm not saying there aren't limitations or influences. I'm saying that the closer one is to being truly conscious, the more likely one is able to act upon the gift of free will. And yes, I believe each and everyone one of us, regardless of our circumstances, is able to reach a higher level of consciousness and take our lives to a higher level than that into which we were born. That too is a choice.

I'm not sure how you're getting that believing in free will leads to being judgmental. I don't think in those terms towards other people, and I don't see how believing in free will necessarily leads to that. What other people do with their lives is frankly, none of my business, with the exception of those that are close to me. And even those are on their own path which is separate, although at times quite parallel, to my own.

So it's not about 'well, I'm more conscious and I am doing better because I am able to choose freely, etc.' It's just about our individual journeys, and the choices we make along our individual paths. Because regardless of any circumstances in the end, we all have choices to make. If you are born into a pile of shit, you can choose to stay there or not. There are just too many examples of people choosing to get out of the shit successfully, every day. This is not to say that every person with the misfortune of being born into a pile of shit -will- exercise their free will to get out. But the bottom line is, they -all- have the ability.

While we are all connected in our humanity, we are all individually responsible for the outcomes of our lives and taking ourselves to the highest level we can get to in the time we have been given on this planet. Not believing otherwise, as I've said earlier, can lead one down the path of the victim mentality and not only is that truly dangerous, it's not living in the way God intended for us to live.

NASRA: Makes sense to me. There are a lot of optio...

2005-10-26T08:10:00.000-04:00

NASRA: Makes sense to me. There are a lot of options existing between good and "pure evil" so to speak - most of our moral choices day by day are of that kind. And then there are plenty of choices that are morally neutral - what color shirt will I buy, etc.

I do not tend to think that as muslim we have free...

2005-10-26T00:47:00.001-04:00

I do not tend to think that as muslim we have free Choice. At times I wondr the choices that are available either good or evil. Dose it only stand on this? Some time this choices what ever there are even if there good they for sure are not furnished with roses...Do I mak any sense ?

Nasra

I do not tend to think that as muslim we have free...

2005-10-26T00:47:00.000-04:00

AMOS: Looks like we may be the only ones left out ...

2005-10-25T19:40:00.000-04:00

AMOS: Looks like we may be the only ones left out here...!

I'm not saying that people who believe something believe something.

But I would say there's a big difference between the examples of irrational belief you cite, and beliefs that are based on reason and experience.

Most of us look before crossing the street. To navigate the world, that's the sort of believing - based on rational thought processes and widely shared experience - that all of us employ.

Reason and experience are also the basis for science and technology. We land men on the moon with this. It has some truth value for sure.

For these sorts of beliefs, so far as I can tell, the "hinge" isn't choice. It's how compelling the idea is based on the evidence of experience and the thought-processes of reason. I never chose to believe that not looking both ways before I cross the street's likely to get me killed. And I couldn't choose to believe otherwise.

That "leap" of coming to the conclusion that even an improbable belief is as likely to be true as one that's more probable based on reason and experience is something I've personally never been able to do in honesty with myself.

"Faith is holding to a belief in the abscence of evidence." You go on to ask, essentially: What can be the basis for such a belief other than an act of will or choice?

Personally, this isn't a choice I'm capable of making. As to what goes on in other people's minds when they describe themselves as making such a choice - I don't know. And I certainly don't know that if it really is a choice, it's a free or nearly free one - a choice that's basically uninfluenced by internal predispositions, desires, or things the person has been taught concerning what faith is.

paul wrote...Many people do speak (and write) abou...

2005-10-25T10:43:00.000-04:00

paul wrote...
Many people do speak (and write) about the power to choose faith or belief - they're usually talking about a religious belief.

I've truly never understood it. I can only believe what I find compelling on the basis of reason as well as I can exercise it, and experience as honestly as I can look at it. It's impossible for me, once that process has happened, to choose to believe differently.

amos
everyone believes what they believe. i'd say that's a sound assumption :-)

and anyone who believes anything believes their "anything believed" to be compelling to their reason and interaction.

what shall we do with my night drinker - who is holding an irrational view of reality? yet, he believes his belief that gremlins are out and about trying to switch his drinking water and replace it with motor oil?

of course, he is an extreme example - the more subtle might be the person who believes that death as a martyr while fighting the infidel is an assurance of paradise and riches in the great beyond - aka a suicide mass murderer. or the person who believes that God is out to get them? or a person that believes that their dead anscestors live in their house with them? or the person who believes that killing a chicken and spitting in a fire while saying something backwards will keep a lion spirit from entering their village at night? or the person who believes a new pair of nikes and a poison cocktail will get them a first class seat on comet kohoutek, etc.?

there are many much more subtle examples than these too :-)

i think it is fundamental that humans tend to place a confidence in the idea that they think true thoughts (the majority of thoughts anyway). i think it is almost a certainty that people who believe something believe it to be true.

i have used the term "faith" as the word for that hinge in our choosing which ushers us into an experience with our held beliefs (and our rejected or ignored beliefs).

i tend to think pastorally - about the care of individuals and their real time journey and steps. if i didn't, i'd be off on some other point either theological (the bondage of the human will) or philosophical (probably how kant changed our thinking on anselm's ontological argument and how that birthed existentialism which has shaded or colored our thinking concerning the veracity of truth or faith claims).

in the realm of religion people have often used a story to explain what i think is one of the main contemporary views of the ideas we get at when we speak of one having "faith" or "belief."

a man goes to sleep and when he awakens he discovers that his lawn has been cut during the night. how did that happen?

i've heard it presented that the possibilities are endless - infinite as to how the grass was cut. these of course ranging from the absurd (maritans came in the night) to the most logical (someone who wishes not to be known has done it).

the infinite possible answers position is one i have literally heard espoused for this scenario.

and let's say we accept that premise for the sake of discussion.

it is here that a leap of reason occurs in the story (though i personally think the first premise is a leap as well).

the leap: therefore, any reasonably sound belief about how the lawn was cut during the night while this man slept is probably as sound as another.

faith is holding to a belief in the abscence of evidence.

faith is choosing to believe which ever explantion comes closest to being believable and rational in the mind and experience of another.

i have a major problem with the reasoning above. largely because reason first tells me that there is one explantion and only one as to how the grass was cut during the night - not an infinite number of answers, not many answers, not a few, not a couple - but one.

the leap of logic was that the assumption of infinite possible answers changed to an infinite number of causes (or ways the night time event happened).

but, i will go even further. a belief in any cause that is not the true cause is untrue.

now, to step back over into religious belief. God or no God. since none of us can see God then there must be an infinite number of choices as to what is out there running in a set from 0 - infinity.

take the same leap as before.

the leap: therefore, any reasonably sound belief about God (or spirituality) is probably as sound as another.

faith is holding to a belief in the abscence of evidence.

faith is choosing to believe which ever explantion comes closest to being believable and rational in the mind and experience of another.

i have the same problem with this - because there is only one answer which can be true. i'm not even positing my personal position at this point as to the nature of the God which might exist. i am logically summarizing that there is only one answer to the question God or no God.

of course, now i have strayed philosophical - and really i am only discussing theism as the object of faith or belief here - and not the whole set which naturally follows.

but, what do we say to the person who believes:
a) there's an infinite number of possibilities as to what is out there (spiritually speaking) ranging from 0 - infinity.
b) any belief therefore (which is reasonable) is as valid as another.
c) faith is holding to a belief in the abscense of evidence (or proof).

i would have to label this as "a spiritually affirming agnosticism." it affirms spirituality and affirms not knowing as well. cognitive dissonance? maybe?

and then i return to what you said:

paul wrote...
Many people do speak (and write) about the power to choose faith or belief - they're usually talking about a religious belief.

I've truly never understood it. I can only believe what I find compelling on the basis of reason as well as I can exercise it, and experience as honestly as I can look at it. It's impossible for me, once that process has happened, to choose to believe differently.

amos
i could have picked an animistic tribe or any other sect for example - but why not pick a thumbnailed version of western thought on faith as espoused by some and held by quite a few.

what are we to say to them - once the process has begun. they too are in a position where choice in changing belief is seemingly impossible?

if we are to suggest - in any of the examples given above - that these people could change or should change - then on what level is that change going to occur? will it not require an act of will to face held beliefs and one's certainty that what they actually believe isn't the case?

peac4d.
amos dettonville

AMOS: No problem at all to keep going, I appreciat...

2005-10-23T17:59:00.000-04:00

AMOS: No problem at all to keep going, I appreciate your thoughts.

If the object of faith/belief is a component of faith/belief... what's the difference? We're still talking about the same two things, only as components.

Are you trying to say that the relationship between belief/faith and its object is especially close in some way? That's why you speak of them as "components?" Does this close relationship obtain for any belief/object pair - or only if it's a religious belief?

What's the nature/significance of the especially close relationship, if my assumptions are correct?

Many people do speak (and write) about the power to choose faith or belief - they're usually talking about a religious belief.

I've truly never understood it. I can only believe what I find compelling on the basis of reason as well as I can exercise it, and experience as honestly as I can look at it. It's impossible for me, once that process has happened, to choose to believe differently.

well, i wasn't going to keep this thread of commen...

2005-10-23T16:21:00.000-04:00

well, i wasn't going to keep this thread of comments going. but, you did such an excellent job of capturing the discussion in your last comment...

the reason i split the hair - on faith/belief is that what one believes (or the object of one's faith) in my thinking *is* a component of faith.

my example (the night water drinkers) is an extreme example. others are much less easy to distinquish (when it comes to rational vs. irrational). i'll skip examples - unless you wish them.

so, with the rational or irrational thoughts [or beliefs] do you think we have the power of will to examine those beliefs, to consider them, to choose to hold them, reject them, or ignore them?

in my language, to this point, do we have the power of will to change our faith in what we believe (right or wrong / rational or irrational)?

peac4d.
amos dettonville

AMOS: Actually I've already got your blog marked a...

2005-10-23T13:35:00.000-04:00

AMOS: Actually I've already got your blog marked as one to keep checking in on -

In a nutshell, you use the word "faith" as a synonym for what I call "belief." So for you, I have faith that a water bottle I leave on the nightstand will remain as I left it after I fell asleep. For me, it's a rational belief based on many past experiences.

The gremlin guy and the young people you mention have what I'd call irrational beliefs.

I'm not sure how the fact that some of us have rational beliefs and some irrational demonstrates that either one or both sets of believers "chooses" their beliefs.

For me, if the evidence is strong, I believe - even if it's something I would prefer choosing not to believe.

There are all kinds of explanations for how people develop superstitions and irrational beliefs that don't require us to suppose that these people freely choose them...

I've enjoyed this discussion too -

paul wrote...AMOS: I follow what you're saying in ...

2005-10-22T23:47:00.000-04:00

paul wrote...

AMOS: I follow what you're saying in part - that having faith has an influence on our experiences. I think that any basic mind-set that we have affects our perceptions and experiences.

amos
faith has an object (that which is believed - or thought warranted or viable). as someone noted above, of course we do not live in a vacuum where experiences do not shape perceptions and perceptions shape beliefs held or rejected or ignored.

i have faith - that if i reach over in the dark and grab my capped water bottle and drink from it - i will be experiencing the taste of water and in doing so that will be my experience.

if i had a belief that gremlins (or whatever) might be putting capped water bottles of motor oil beside my bed - then i'd switch on the light before reaching and drinking.

in each case above - my perceptions and my beliefs are still pivoting on my faith. in one case i drink water in the dark. in the other, i drink water in the light. it's at that level that i am speaking when i use the term, "experiences."

paul wrote...
But you lost me with, "If there is a part or aspect of our lives which could be called free to choose - then i'd suggest that it's our faith in what we will believe."

First, I'm just not sure what you mean by faith and belief here; and so I don't know how freedom of choice relates to what you're calling "faith."

amos
faith has an object - it believes something (whether true, false, distorted, etc.). my guy drinking water in the dark who has a belief that gremlins are out and about to put motor oil into his water bottle during the night has chosen to accept that belief. the guy who doesn't believe that anything has changed in his bed side water bottle during the night also has chosen to believe that it is safe to reach over in the dark, take the bottle, remove the cap and drink it.

either belief can be tested and deemed warranted or unwarranted. the dark drinker and the light drinker have both chosen to put their faith in a belief - in this case each has a held belief. we could add those who might reject or ignore either beielf as well.

a belief held, rejected, ignored, ect. is faith. these actions, are choices made, tacitly, explicitly, unconsiously, etc. but, they are choices made concerning what one will put their faith in.

it may take a great show of will for the light drinker to test the warrant of his belief in the motor oil gremlins of the night and to come to a place of being free from having to turn on the light to have a midnight sip of water.

i don't really mean this as a joke. my 20 years of working with children and youth has presented me with many young people who have held incredibly outrageous beliefs and put their faith heavily upon those beliefs - to the point of near starvation, loss of health, loss of life. and that's just the extreme cases - it's a very everyday kind of matter. to accept (reject, et.al) a perception or belief is an act of faith. making those choices is a matter of the will, IMHO.

i have a series of writings - a bit dusty - but i'll post them at my rabit51 blog. if you have time - it should make my position a bit more clear. if not, no big. i have enjoyed the discussion - i'll hop ahead and read the latest now. thank you again for the blog.

peac4d.
amos dettonville

AMOS: I follow what you're saying in part - that h...

2005-10-22T15:21:00.000-04:00

AMOS: I follow what you're saying in part - that having faith has an influence on our experiences. I think that any basic mind-set that we have affects our perceptions and experiences.

But you lost me with, "If there is a part or aspect of our lives which could be called free to choose - then i'd suggest that it's our faith in what we will believe." First, I'm just not sure what you mean by faith and belief here; and so I don't know how freedom of choice relates to what you're calling "faith."

paul wrote...AMOS: ...Reduced to the essentials, i...

2005-10-22T13:34:00.000-04:00

paul wrote...

AMOS: ...Reduced to the essentials, it still sounds to me like you're contrasting faith as belief - I'm assuming Christian belief in Jesus as Savior - with our own experiences. And that you equate truth with this belief, and experience as something that tends to confuse and mislead. No?

AMOS
i think i must have been unclear somewhere along the line?

mostly, i am of this opinion that faith once held produces experiences. faith places it's belief (faith in action) in an object and follows.

i think a part of healthy growth as a human is learning that our experiences do not drive us (the core spiritual us) but our faith does.

fact (any fact - pick the least spiritually sounding one you can think of), faith, and experience were walking along a high wire. faith did fine as long as she kept her eyes on fact, but when she turned to look at experience, she stumbled and fell.

and experience tumbled off after her.

the moral of the story, at first blush, isn't the tension between fact vs experience - or tested thinking vs distorted thinking or whatever...

it's that little faith doesn't recognize how she is having the experiences that she is having. the narrator in the story is quitely saying, "she didn't understand that her experiences were following her and not the other way around."

as they say in the country - "don't be like a dog chasing its tail."

that hind part which naturally follows that front part will only lead you in circles if that front part starts to follow that hind part. though, it looks like dogs enjoy themselves when they chase their tails - doesn't it? :-)

at any rate, MMV, a dog following its nose down a bonafide rabbit trail and another dog chasing his tail (per the analogy) are two dogs having experiences. in the value of a dog's day - both experiences probably are valid and quite on target.

if there is a part or aspect of our lives which could be called free to choose - then i'd suggest that it's our faith in what we will believe.

we live what we believe, everything else is just talk.

peac4d.
amos dettonville

LA COLORATURA: I know what you mean - it's okay wi...

2005-10-22T10:41:00.000-04:00

LA COLORATURA: I know what you mean - it's okay with me too that we disagree, I can tell just looking at your blog that we tend to like and enjoy the same sorts of things - and are both quite moral!

I guess I'm just genuinely puzzled at your train of thought on this particualar issue.

In your previous comments, you seemed to argue for a strong theoretical free choice position - like we're perfectly free to choose at every moment.

But the examples you gave, like the one about the ghetto, all involve the following:

Different people. People are never exactly alike, and tend to vary widely in genetic make up, talent and ability, emotional reactions, levels of intelligence, etc.

People in situations, such as poverty, that are similar in some aspects, but, after all, differ greatly. Even children the same age raised in the same family aren't really in exactly the same circumstances. Their parents won't treat them identically, they'll have a different set of experiences and interactions with the world every day of their lives...

And then, when you find that different people in circumstances with limited similarity behave differently, you take this as proof of free choice.

I just don't get it.

But here, in this comment, you make a practical rather than theoretical argument, saying:
"Believing in free will opens up far more doors for ourselves than believing other things does."

Couldn't you just believe in using one's own degree of free choice - which to me appears real, but limited - to the fullest? Or believe in doing your best, giving your best effort? There are any number of moral and practical reasons for doing that.

I do it myself. It isn't necessary for me to believe that those who aren't as "good as I am" choose to be that way in perfect freedom. In fact, because of the kind of inate individual differences and differences of circumstance that I've pointed to, I don't see how it's possible to conclude that anyone chooses in perfect freedom.

It's even possible we're all doing the best we can - that one's person's "best" can be dismal, even horrible, by someone else's standards.

But who am I to impose my standards and judge a life whose inner details, and circumstantial details, and how the two interacted to help limit and influence his or her choices?

You say this isn't judgment, but I can't think of a better word...

'One problem with an extreme "free choice" positio...

2005-10-22T01:03:00.000-04:00

'One problem with an extreme "free choice" position is that it can lead us to congratulate ourselves and judge others.'

...not sure why you think that will lead people to judge. I don't think that's a fair assumption. And it is an assumption... Could it happen? Certainly, but that is not to say that it would be the norm. Believing otherwise, however, is yet another way to hold ourselves back. Why is it out of the question that all of us, any of us, can become everything we want to be? Okay, yes, some of us will have certain limitations, etc. But I still think that believing in free will opens up far more doors for ourselves than believing other things does.

Anyway, I think it's clear our views are not at all the same on this... and that is totally okay with me... :P

SIRBARRETT: I think you put your finger on why mos...

2005-10-21T16:27:00.000-04:00

SIRBARRETT: I think you put your finger on why most of us, me included, do believe that we have a degree of choice. Experiences like directing our attention and self monitoring definitely FEEL as if we could choose or not choose. But since, after we make what feels like a choice, we can never return for a retry to see if we really could have done it differently, it seems to me we can never know or prove that we really had a choice.

Well, some people are better at adapting to their ...

2005-10-21T11:19:00.000-04:00

Well, some people are better at adapting to their goals than others because they choose goals that are easier to accomplish or more difficult. Then they are motivated according to their drives and whether they are desperate to achieve or not. What makes people motivated? Generally, people enjoy doing what they're good at, so the possiblity is there for us only to choose to do things that we are naturally drawn to, but I believe that although there are genetic and environmental factors that affect our decisions without our control, we also have the ability to call attention to our senses or our higher cognitive processes, thus influencing the way we react to our dilemmas. Self-monitoring is a learned ability that takes practice, but like you said, it greatly improves your chances of staying on track. It's like we have an "on" and "off" switch to all our judgements. We might know that certain things will appeal to us and others won't but we have the freedom to choose whether to look at a particular stimuli, or call attention to a certain sense. I believe in willed intelligence just as much as I do in willed ignorance. For example, I think we only gain a taste for a certain kind of music by deliberately listening to it long enough to pass judgement. Many times there may be music playing, but we aren't actively listening to it. I think that's the difference. It has something to do with consciousness, though I'm not sure how we can be sure that we're sure of anything, so consciousness is a mystery. Our will comes about from the decision-making process in the frontal lobe, but maybe that's only the spot where we execute what has already been forwarded by another reflexive mechanism which (I agree with you) may not be under our control. I've heard the stories of identical twins being separated at birth and then reunited only to find that they have both chosen wives with the same name, or use the same brand of toothpaste, or drive the same car. Is this coincedence or predetermination? Maybe based on genetics and the time and place you happen to be in DOES play a large part in how you develop, and as a result, choose, but I think that what makes you you is how you temper yourself to react -how you enjoy choosing the things that make you happy, or the people you love. Though two identical twins might subconsciously choose a wife with the same name, they will treat her differently, and as a result, form a different kind of relationship with her than the other. There is no way to quantify love, though I think loving is on some level an act of free will. It would be depressing to think that we were meant to love only one person uncontrollably. That doesn't give us much of a chance of finding them. Anyway, I'm not looking to solve this problem, but it is interesting discussing it, so thanks for bringing it up.

LA COLORATURA: "Fully conscious" to me sounds like...

2005-10-21T09:31:00.000-04:00

LA COLORATURA: "Fully conscious" to me sounds like "enlightened" or "not ignorant..."

If you're saying that because one person rose above a major adversity all people in the same situation must be able to, it doesn't follow. We are different in how and in what ways we're intelligent and in all sorts of aptitudes and emotional predispositions, and in all kinds of particulars about circumstances that are allegedly "the same." For example, one person living in a ghetto may find a mentor, another may not... I could go on and on.

See today's post... One problem with an extreme "free choice" position is that it can lead us to congratulate ourselves and judge others.

EMILYJANE: I don't know anything about the theory, but couldn't it also be that groups of similar beings living in similar circumstance become ready to develop a new technology at about the same time?

But I definitely follow your "critical mass" idea as far as a group of people goes that do have contact with each other. In that sense, you could say that right now, our species as a whole is in process of making its own habitat unlivable. Hopefully we'll pull back from that brink...

You quote, "Maybe we shouldn't work so hard at choosing God. Maybe we should relax and let God choose us." That's how it's felt to me. Receptiveness, and the attendant lifting of ignorance in some degree, - that's what's made me a better person.

And have I "freely chosen" to be receptive? I don't know, I kind of doubt it, and it doesn't matter in any practical sense.

SIRBARRETT: Oh, I see... We had different things in mind by "react." I was thinking more of what's sometimes called "reactivity" or "the reactive mind" in Buddhism. You were talking about practises for REDUCING that sort of reactivity to the outer world.

I don't think that the ability, stronger in some persons than others, to assume control over their lifestyles, reflect, exert willpower etc. proves free will over determinsm. Did they freely choose to have these abilities? These abilities are great assets when it comes to personal and spiritual growth, great mechanisms, so to speak, for getting and staying on track.

But who knows why some people are better at such things than others?

Paul, what you said about reactions not being our ...

2005-10-20T22:58:00.000-04:00

Paul, what you said about reactions not being our choice, raises another question. What about the case of yogis, where people learn to control and monitor their reactions, so that they can even deliberately change the way their bodies are reacting to an environment? For example, there are cases of people going into meditation and relaxing their bodies and minds to the point where they can lower their heart-rate, or their temperature deliberately! To me that seems to be an example where someone has trained themselves to react a certain way, and so they have had control of their reactions. Perhaps it is 'compulsive' because people organize their lives into rituals that affect the way they react to the world, but isn't that us choosing to test ourselves, and shape our own behaviour in certain ways? That's just socialization! Whether the values be in order to become a more generous person, a more forgiving person, a more clear-headed person, or a stronger spirit. I think it proves that we have free will for people to go to so much trouble to adopt a routine based on their beliefs and assumptions that SOMETIMES affects them in a positive way. Call that religion, or ideology, or faith, or whatever. Faith is an exercise of the free will not in what it believes, but how it believes. Of course we could debate for hours what beliefs are epistemologically correct, but we don't have time. I'm not one to say what is right or wrong, because it gets political whenever I try to prescribe one lifestyle for everyone, but though we cannot control our entire reality, we may be able to change our perspective on it, and thereby react to it differently than if we were to give up trying to find meaning in anything at all. To me testing your beliefs is an important reason why we should have a feature such as free will that make up our psyche as a species. It's a convincing argument that determinism is just one way of categorizing something that is too phenomenal to try to describe otherwise. I don't think determinism outrules the possibility of free will. What if we were determined to do whatever it was we wanted?

Maybe we shouldn't work so hard at choosing God. M...

2005-10-20T22:06:00.000-04:00

Maybe we shouldn't work so hard at choosing God. Maybe we should relax and let God choose us -- whether that's at a formal church service or through disciplined meditation or through a quiet day at the shore.

This reminded me of the quote from the Bible: we love because He first loved us. I recently discovered that Muslims believe something similar: Allah brings to Him whom he wills (something like that).

The link didn't print up right. It should end: j...

2005-10-20T22:00:00.000-04:00

The link didn't print up right. It should end: jul_2001.html

As I was reading through these posts, I started th...

2005-10-20T21:55:00.000-04:00

As I was reading through these posts, I started thinking about the hundreth monkey syndrome:

Perhaps you are familiar with " the hundredth monkey phenomenon." It relates to critical mass in the world of consciousness, and how an idea, or a learned behavior, shifts from being a private practice to a group, or universal practice.

According to legend, observers noticed that after a certain number of (they picked the number 100 as an example), monkeys living on a Japanese island learned to wash their potatoes before eating them, monkeys on neighboring islands began to alter their behavior and began washing their potatoes also. What made this so remarkable is that there was no direct contact between the monkeys on the islands.

Rupert Sheldrake, the brilliant scientist who developed the theory of morphic resonance, suggests that this is the way new ideas come into being. Enough people (or monkeys, or lab rats, or whatever) began doing something a new way, and then everyone begins to do it that way-without a long, gradual learning curve.

http://www.innerpeacemusic.com/newsletter/2001/jul_2001.html

Most of us tend to put a lot of emphasis on the individual, but if there is such a thing as morphic resonance, free will may not be a matter soley of individual choice. Collective choice may also play a role. Theoretically, it is possible that if enough people choose to act peacefully, with love, a critical mass would be reached and all of humanity would begin to act this way. Theoretically, I suppose the opposite would also be true, but so much violence and hate would most likely wipe out the human race. In terms of spirituality and evolution of the species (not to mention the evolution of spirituality), the latter scenario would not lead to the best form of adaptation.

I suspect there are levels of consciousness most of us don't have access to. We don't know what we don't know, and if we knew, would we frame the free will versus determinism debate differently?

'I'm not completely sure we're all talking about t...

2005-10-20T21:21:00.000-04:00

'I'm not completely sure we're all talking about the same thing. For one thing, for myself, and most of those posting, our feeling seems to be that we do have a degree of free choice, but it's not perfectly free. There are influences, some of them strong.'

Again, I disagree. It's a matter of consciousness. The proof is that there are those that are able to overcome their circumstances (myself included.) There have been wonderful examples of children from ghettos have been aware enough at a very young age to make the right choices to get them (thankfully) the hell out of there. And that's just one example. There are all kinds of examples of people transforming there lives in various ways, at various times and stages in their life... I believe that it comes down to a matter of consciousness. And when we are fully conscious then we are able to fully exploit - in the best sense of the word - the incredible gift of free choice that God has given us all.

There is a real danger in not admitting to ourselves that we are fully in control and that God wants it that way. And that danger is victimization. It's a tough old world out there and just too, too easy lean upon our 'influences' as a way to keep ourselves back - whether we are doing so consciously or not. And I’m not saying those influences aren’t there, but they aren’t the end all: free choice is the end all.

It all comes back to being conscious. I'm not saying that we are always making free choices unconsciously, as you state. I'm saying (or attempted to say) that we are always making choices but when we are truly conscious we can then act on God's greatest gift (other than life itself), which is free choice.

I'm also not saying that all choices made before becoming truly conscious are not free, just perhaps less free, or less of those choices are truly free choices.

But I think I've made my point here (hopefully, this time, anyway)... man, I hope you've got good bandwith 'cuz your email inbox has got to be overloading with these comments every day...!

I love reading this blog, so I hope you keep it up!

P.s. I'm having no trouble reading the 66 comments on here...

AMOS AND EVERYBODY: Is anyone else having Amos' tr...

2005-10-20T18:11:00.000-04:00

AMOS AND EVERYBODY: Is anyone else having Amos' trouble with viewing comments because of the browser? Please let me know. I don't even know what a browser is. I'd need to talk to my webmeister sis...

Amos, I didn't have the impression you were slamming anything.

Reduced to the essentials, it still sounds to me like you're contrasting faith as belief - I'm assuming Christian belief in Jesus as Savior - with our own experiences. And that you equate truth with this belief, and experience as something that tends to confuse and mislead. No?

paul,a lot (most of the comments) are not showing ...

2005-10-20T14:54:00.000-04:00

paul,
a lot (most of the comments) are not showing up in my browser (on this page - the response page).

i apologize if i gave you the impression that i was slamming your statements beginning with "all is good in the world, justice... etc." that certainly was not my intent.

i rather, was trying to use that line as an example of what i would term as, "external pressures and conflicts" which challenge our belief. that being, one side of the coin, as "internal pressures and conflicts" form another set of challenges to our belief.

in a way, i was simply trying to unpack the idea of "experiences" which tend to call us to look away from the object of our faith. it's an over simplification - but probably two decent categories for "descriptive" purposes concerning the "experiences" which vie for position in our walks of faith.

again, an over simplified analogy would be like: i walk into a bookstore, my experience is a bookstore. i bite into a hotdog, my experience is a hotdog. i step off the empire state building (barring a parachute or great fortune) my experience will be one of falling and then the sudden stop.

is my faith free? sitting at the free discretion of my will? it might be free, in the sense of choice between different directions - but it certainly is not free from the tugs and pulls of inner and outer stressors, conflicts, and pressures.

there's a point in the analogy of fact, faith, and experience walking along on a high wire. faith did fine as long as she looked at fact. but when faith turned to look at experience, she tumbled off the wire and experience followed her.

the moral of the story, is that our experiences follow our faith and not the other way around. it's something which, IMHO, people of faith often missunderstand - because faith choices are known first and initially by the experiences of faith in action.

because walking in belief is like that. one can be convinced of A. yet one can continually meet the outside pressure and conflicts of B and C and E all suggesting that A is going to cause them to experience B,C,and E or worse.

let's say, before that person ever began to believe in A (which at the beginning produced among other things F "serenity" and G "peace")

that person had a long held belief in D ("I don't deserve to be happy and serene" and "peace in life is impossible for me").

and so they believe in A (actively, not merely mental affirmation or acceptance - but a kind of building one's life with a confidence in A) and B,C,E, come from without challenging the veracity of A by making the experience of believing in A painful to hard.

all of this, plus some internal insecurities of personal failings seems to reinforce a long held belief in D from within.

and here you have faith on the wire - looking at A which was believed - and being pulled by B,C,D,E, with such a bombarding presence that faith feels almost compelled to look at B-E and to look away from A.

and so we meet faith mid-journey and ask, "faith, do you believe in A?" i think the answer might be something like, "I want to...." or "I used to...." or "I am trying to...." or "I am not sure anymore...." or "I don't think so...." and there's probably many more theme and variations on that....

anyway, i hope this makes my input a bit more clear.

you got a great discussion going - if you find this blows your blog to pieces - with too many comments for the format - i'd be more than willing to see if i can help with discussion space or learning how tweak this blogger format so it will work with so many comments.