castus Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 The bottom line, between either determinism or free will, is that both require an ultimate reason as to the 'why', or else they logically fall apart pretty fast. Attempting to absolutely confirm a subjective methodology is contradictory - which is what I believe Stefan is attempting without realizing. Any argument for the case of free will cannot be differentiated without an objective truth statement that confirms an ultimate value - first - then or accompanied by, a recognition via testing.... In other words, one cannot promote legitimately something like free will without first recognizing a moral law, thus a moral law giver (a totality of things outside of you at least). The concept of free will isn't even something 'invokable' without first acknowledging some higher unseen thing /purpose, thus at least with that notion alone, your left with the quandary of leaping to a faith lily pad, yet claiming to ride the pursuit of human reasoning alone. Put another way, it's guessing to reason before reason to guess. Within the confines of materialism, its more consistent logically to at least believe in determinism. /shrug Regardless, there is no natural mechanism that could ever validate human reasoning and convey it entirely (100%) to a different mind without it fundamentally breaking the laws that hold the universe together. From this concept we can stand to reason that no matter what one says, there will always be an element that drives us but we can never fully explain the essence of it. A duality really. An example at the the highest level, that I believe is related: the idea of omni* whatever, are labels for values that can never be fully revealed without the receiver being in the process also equal, right? Its complete reveal becomes contradictory, correct? Thus it stands to reason, establishing the view that the acquisition of knowledge alone as 'the way' requires not only the equal hefty gold stamp to authenticate the claim for human reasoning alone, but also, who could even receive the revelation that meaning is derived wholly from material perception? Evidence only goes so far before the pursuit of evidence becomes the complacent guise of skepticism. Again, humanity, by its own inherent limitations, will never be able to fill this cup without magically changing the way the universe works in kind. Please know, that one can indeed be labeled 'reasonable', but it is in reference to a being by nature (not just a something) that is the ultimate representation of reason - from totality. This string of thought also relates to the predicament in which the sciences are inherently limited, thus proportionally require to rely on the concept of faith to actually drive them in reality; it's inexorable. So, what this means Stefan, that at times, what you are really saying to your audience is sorta like a painting - but with the subtle deficit of no ultimate reasoning behind it (incoherent in the end). Like smoke and mirrors or - borrowing from the concept of faith via nature's operation. Or better, a painting in the dark. I'd like to tie this issue with your view on government too - where your overall sense on sound government is great, but as to the the reason to even entertain it, well, I believe that's where things fall short; that the spiritual health is key to a peaceful, prosperous society - that is the ultimate reason to do good that relates to something beyond our mere perception of meaning. I'd further make the argument that this society must understand at least the notion that there must be a being with the nature of supreme totality - thus all powerful, but elusive to us - and yet also the capability that must remain rational to us - the standard we can recognize out of the madness of said totality, and lastly, evident within Nature. Christianity explains this with an amazing view with both substance and essence in mind: as the Father, Son, Holy Spirit; touching on a compounding message of the logical and empirical - to relate on multiple levels. It's evocative emotionally as well intellectually. Consider this, the story of the prodigal son alone for example can turn hearts with little explanation. Free will is quite a thing within a biblical view, as I reckon some believers advocate determinism, while some make the case for free will (but inferring creation as ant farm imo). I believe in the biblical whopper of both - respective of course to the idea of the Godhead and some of their qualities: the nature of God the Father & God the Son Jesus Christ & the Holy Spirit. That there is a part of God we can not completely understand - like the design (the conceptual, the Father), that we may commune with Him via His reveal rational side (Jesus Christ, the interface, the cornerstone), and that His spirit becomes our motivation/attitude (and there's more to say on that). He may thus know what we will do, and drive everything to the best possible course for the sake of the innocent/redeemed, but there is still the ability to operate as free moral agents. I hope this rant doesn't sound too harsh. I do enjoy your show, regardless of some of the differences we may have. Regards, CF
Recommended Posts