Sunday, July 19, 2009
My Solution to the Mind-Body Problem, and the Reconciliation of God's Sovereignty With Free Will
Say what you will about Free Advice, but we tackle deep issues on this blog. No chatter about Joe the Plumber here (except when it's important).
In a previous post, I listed some of the major problems with materialism, which is the view that the only "real" things are atoms and energy, and everything else is subordinate to them. So for example, the materialist says that disembodied thoughts are "really" just patterns of electrical and chemical reactions in your nervous system, and one commenter (Tokyo Tom) went so far as to say that "2+2=4" is just a model we have of the physical universe, which has been falsified by the discoveries of relativity and quantum mechanics.
In the present post, I want to lay out my working hypothesis for how to reconcile the apparently objective laws of physics governing the physical universe, with the equally apparently objective fact that human subjective desires influence events in this physical universe. (In other words, it seems that minds exist and affect inanimate matter, even though staring at the molecular level there doesn't seem to be mind power coming in from an alternate dimension.) At the same time, my theory will explain how God can be the ultimate Designer of the universe, in which every event happens with His permission, and yet we humans still have free will and can choose to sin or to obey Him.
============================
Imagine a computer programmer who makes a program that simulates a ball moving around the monitor. The program is entirely deterministic; the programmer could tell you beforehand what the exact position of the ball will be on the monitor, at any future time. The ball's entire life cycle of movements are already embedded at t=0 in the software.
The programmer asks his buddy to sit down in front of the computer and watch the ball. Now here's the freaky thing: Wherever the guy moves his eyes, that's where the ball goes to on the monitor. So if the guy stares at the ball, it's motionless. But then if he slowly starts looking to the left, the ball follows his gaze. He can try to "trick" the ball and suddenly dart his eyes to the opposite corner of the monitor, and BAM the ball instantly responds to his eye movement.
The guy keeps this up for a good 10 minutes, and it never fails. So he is obviously perfectly certain that he is controlling the ball. He hypothesizes that there must be a camera in the computer that notes his eye movements and then translates them into the appropriate pixels to light up on the monitor.
But actually, the programmer tells him that's not what's going on at all. The ball's movements are completely pre-determined by the software. The trick is, the programmer predicted perfectly what his buddy's eye movements would be. This is inconceivable to the buddy, because how could the programmer have known that RIGHT NOW he would zoom his eyes to the top left of the monitor? And yet, he can call in computer experts who can look over the machine, and they assure him that there is no way his eye movements are transmitting information into the computer. The ball's movements "originate" entirely from within the hardware and software; there is no mechanism for the guy's eye movements to influence the state of the machine (in any relevant sense--of course in reality if he flicks his eyes around a lot, the room gets hotter and this influences the computer etc.).
So that's my theory of how God designed the physical universe to interact with our souls. (As C.S. Lewis said, you don't have a soul, you are a soul--you have a body.) The physical universe is completely distinct from the spirit world (I'm sorry secularists but that's an accurate term for what I'm talking about), and the quarks or other elementary particles in it, obey the laws of physics. Maybe our scientists are wrong in the exact nature of those laws, but the point is, there is a body of very economical laws governing physical matter and its behavior.
However, God designed these laws (and the initial state of the physical universe) such that it appears to us that we exercise (limited) control over the material universe. That's why I can apparently control my fingers as I now type. It's true, scientists can bore ever deeper into the processes governing the cells in my fingers, and they are never going to see injections of commands coming from my soul. But it sure seems as if my mind controls my fingers, and by the positivist's own criterion of predictive power, it is a very strong hypothesis indeed.
As far as free will goes, God designed our souls such that we really do have free choice. In principle, our wills are independent of His. Yet God is also omniscient, and so He knew beforehand what we would choose to do when we (somewhat simplistically) think we are influencing the physical universe.
In other words, God had to solve an unimaginably complex problem when designing the universe. It is akin to solving a huge economics model to find the equilibrium. God had to choose the initial state of the universe, and dictate the laws governing those physical particles, such that every human who would ever live, would be fooled into thinking his or her subjective desires influenced the unfolding events, and that things could go one way or the other, depending on the person's choice. Even though that belief was mistaken, in a sense it would still be true, since the laws of the universe (and its state at any moment) were originally designed with those choices in mind.
As a final point, "miracles" do not occur, in the sense of a violation of the laws of physics. The laws of physics are simply patterns describing how the atoms operate. If Jesus walks on water and thus violates the "laws" of physics, then they weren't really laws, were they? In my interpretation, Jesus really did walk on water, raise the dead, etc., but nothing miraculous happened at the subatomic level. Rather, God had designed the universe such that these "impossible" (from a normal everyday human viewpoint) events were the necessary unfolding of the laws of physics, preordained from the first moment of creation.
============================
In a previous post, I listed some of the major problems with materialism, which is the view that the only "real" things are atoms and energy, and everything else is subordinate to them. So for example, the materialist says that disembodied thoughts are "really" just patterns of electrical and chemical reactions in your nervous system, and one commenter (Tokyo Tom) went so far as to say that "2+2=4" is just a model we have of the physical universe, which has been falsified by the discoveries of relativity and quantum mechanics.
In the present post, I want to lay out my working hypothesis for how to reconcile the apparently objective laws of physics governing the physical universe, with the equally apparently objective fact that human subjective desires influence events in this physical universe. (In other words, it seems that minds exist and affect inanimate matter, even though staring at the molecular level there doesn't seem to be mind power coming in from an alternate dimension.) At the same time, my theory will explain how God can be the ultimate Designer of the universe, in which every event happens with His permission, and yet we humans still have free will and can choose to sin or to obey Him.
Imagine a computer programmer who makes a program that simulates a ball moving around the monitor. The program is entirely deterministic; the programmer could tell you beforehand what the exact position of the ball will be on the monitor, at any future time. The ball's entire life cycle of movements are already embedded at t=0 in the software.
The programmer asks his buddy to sit down in front of the computer and watch the ball. Now here's the freaky thing: Wherever the guy moves his eyes, that's where the ball goes to on the monitor. So if the guy stares at the ball, it's motionless. But then if he slowly starts looking to the left, the ball follows his gaze. He can try to "trick" the ball and suddenly dart his eyes to the opposite corner of the monitor, and BAM the ball instantly responds to his eye movement.
The guy keeps this up for a good 10 minutes, and it never fails. So he is obviously perfectly certain that he is controlling the ball. He hypothesizes that there must be a camera in the computer that notes his eye movements and then translates them into the appropriate pixels to light up on the monitor.
But actually, the programmer tells him that's not what's going on at all. The ball's movements are completely pre-determined by the software. The trick is, the programmer predicted perfectly what his buddy's eye movements would be. This is inconceivable to the buddy, because how could the programmer have known that RIGHT NOW he would zoom his eyes to the top left of the monitor? And yet, he can call in computer experts who can look over the machine, and they assure him that there is no way his eye movements are transmitting information into the computer. The ball's movements "originate" entirely from within the hardware and software; there is no mechanism for the guy's eye movements to influence the state of the machine (in any relevant sense--of course in reality if he flicks his eyes around a lot, the room gets hotter and this influences the computer etc.).
So that's my theory of how God designed the physical universe to interact with our souls. (As C.S. Lewis said, you don't have a soul, you are a soul--you have a body.) The physical universe is completely distinct from the spirit world (I'm sorry secularists but that's an accurate term for what I'm talking about), and the quarks or other elementary particles in it, obey the laws of physics. Maybe our scientists are wrong in the exact nature of those laws, but the point is, there is a body of very economical laws governing physical matter and its behavior.
However, God designed these laws (and the initial state of the physical universe) such that it appears to us that we exercise (limited) control over the material universe. That's why I can apparently control my fingers as I now type. It's true, scientists can bore ever deeper into the processes governing the cells in my fingers, and they are never going to see injections of commands coming from my soul. But it sure seems as if my mind controls my fingers, and by the positivist's own criterion of predictive power, it is a very strong hypothesis indeed.
As far as free will goes, God designed our souls such that we really do have free choice. In principle, our wills are independent of His. Yet God is also omniscient, and so He knew beforehand what we would choose to do when we (somewhat simplistically) think we are influencing the physical universe.
In other words, God had to solve an unimaginably complex problem when designing the universe. It is akin to solving a huge economics model to find the equilibrium. God had to choose the initial state of the universe, and dictate the laws governing those physical particles, such that every human who would ever live, would be fooled into thinking his or her subjective desires influenced the unfolding events, and that things could go one way or the other, depending on the person's choice. Even though that belief was mistaken, in a sense it would still be true, since the laws of the universe (and its state at any moment) were originally designed with those choices in mind.
As a final point, "miracles" do not occur, in the sense of a violation of the laws of physics. The laws of physics are simply patterns describing how the atoms operate. If Jesus walks on water and thus violates the "laws" of physics, then they weren't really laws, were they? In my interpretation, Jesus really did walk on water, raise the dead, etc., but nothing miraculous happened at the subatomic level. Rather, God had designed the universe such that these "impossible" (from a normal everyday human viewpoint) events were the necessary unfolding of the laws of physics, preordained from the first moment of creation.
Comments:
"God had to choose the initial state of the universe, and dictate the laws governing those physical particles, such that every human who would ever live, would be fooled into thinking his or her subjective desires influenced the unfolding events, and that things could go one way or the other, depending on the person's choice."
God`s task was actually much more difficult, Bob, since He had to also set up nall the rules so that paramecium think they can swim, caterpillars think they can change into butterflies, butterflies think they can fly thousands of miles to Mexico to overwinter, birds "think" they can catch butterflies, etc., but so that only humans would think that THEY alone "think" before they Do whatever God preordained.
AND he had to put everthing in motion so that the would be a planet with an iron-nickel core and atmosphere that protect life from harmful solar and cosmic radiation, with lots of water from early comet bombardment, and so that critters would evolve into wide variety, so that it would finally a
start to rain for the first time ever after Noah built the ark, etc.
"God designed these laws (and the initial state of the physical universe) such that it appears to us that we exercise (limited) control over the material universe. That's why I can apparently control my fingers as I now type. It's true, scientists can bore ever deeper into the processes governing the cells in my fingers, and they are never going to see injections of commands coming from my soul. But it sure seems as if my mind controls my fingers, and by the positivist's own criterion of predictive power, it is a very strong hypothesis indeed."
Bob, just as every other living creature, we actually DO exercise (limited) control over the material universe. Not
only do you appear to control your fingers, but you DO control them - for as long as you`re alive, conscious, nerves aren`t damaged etc - just like an elephant controls it`s trunk, a squid its arms, and a butterfly its wings.
That you have control over your body is no evidence that you have a "mind" other than your brain, just as it is true for any other living creature.
"As far as free will goes, God designed our souls such that we really do have free choice. In principle, our wills are independent of His."
I`ll leave for others to discuss the apparent paradox between God afore-determining everything, including your fingers moving, and men having free will.
I just want to know whether any other life form also cts on its own, or pursuant to pursuant to plans fixed by God before the universe was open for business.
God`s task was actually much more difficult, Bob, since He had to also set up nall the rules so that paramecium think they can swim, caterpillars think they can change into butterflies, butterflies think they can fly thousands of miles to Mexico to overwinter, birds "think" they can catch butterflies, etc., but so that only humans would think that THEY alone "think" before they Do whatever God preordained.
AND he had to put everthing in motion so that the would be a planet with an iron-nickel core and atmosphere that protect life from harmful solar and cosmic radiation, with lots of water from early comet bombardment, and so that critters would evolve into wide variety, so that it would finally a
start to rain for the first time ever after Noah built the ark, etc.
"God designed these laws (and the initial state of the physical universe) such that it appears to us that we exercise (limited) control over the material universe. That's why I can apparently control my fingers as I now type. It's true, scientists can bore ever deeper into the processes governing the cells in my fingers, and they are never going to see injections of commands coming from my soul. But it sure seems as if my mind controls my fingers, and by the positivist's own criterion of predictive power, it is a very strong hypothesis indeed."
Bob, just as every other living creature, we actually DO exercise (limited) control over the material universe. Not
only do you appear to control your fingers, but you DO control them - for as long as you`re alive, conscious, nerves aren`t damaged etc - just like an elephant controls it`s trunk, a squid its arms, and a butterfly its wings.
That you have control over your body is no evidence that you have a "mind" other than your brain, just as it is true for any other living creature.
"As far as free will goes, God designed our souls such that we really do have free choice. In principle, our wills are independent of His."
I`ll leave for others to discuss the apparent paradox between God afore-determining everything, including your fingers moving, and men having free will.
I just want to know whether any other life form also cts on its own, or pursuant to pursuant to plans fixed by God before the universe was open for business.
Interesting solution. Honestly, I can't say that I've thought nearly as much about the Mind-Body problem as about the Sovereignty-Free Will problem. I like how this solves it all in one swoop.
A couple uncomfortable points:
(1) I don't think it's accurate to say that people are "fooled" into thinking they have an impact on physical events. In fact, people's souls DO have an impact on physical events. And, in fact, they have an impact on current physical events. It just happens that God - having a "bird's eye view" of time - took into account the present state of our souls when determining the entire history of physical events so that physical events would (in a limited way) reflect the will of our souls at this present moment. So, it's not the least bit inaccurate to say that my fingers are hitting the keys on my keyboard because I just now decided that they should - which means I'm not "fooled" into thinking that because such a thought is perfectly accurate.
(2) On the same point, you seem to imply that God has intentionally deceived mankind (he designed things such that "every human... would be fooled") - which feels like it makes God a liar. Such a claim is difficult to reconcile with Scripture.
My guess is that this is just imprecise wording - that, or I might be misreading some of what you say.
A couple uncomfortable points:
(1) I don't think it's accurate to say that people are "fooled" into thinking they have an impact on physical events. In fact, people's souls DO have an impact on physical events. And, in fact, they have an impact on current physical events. It just happens that God - having a "bird's eye view" of time - took into account the present state of our souls when determining the entire history of physical events so that physical events would (in a limited way) reflect the will of our souls at this present moment. So, it's not the least bit inaccurate to say that my fingers are hitting the keys on my keyboard because I just now decided that they should - which means I'm not "fooled" into thinking that because such a thought is perfectly accurate.
(2) On the same point, you seem to imply that God has intentionally deceived mankind (he designed things such that "every human... would be fooled") - which feels like it makes God a liar. Such a claim is difficult to reconcile with Scripture.
My guess is that this is just imprecise wording - that, or I might be misreading some of what you say.
Lucas,
"Fooled" might be the wrong word. From my description of the theory, you can tell the sense in which I think we really do influence what happens, and the sense in which the materialists are also right--"No the state of the universe at t+45 is determined by the laws of physics and the state of the universe at t+44."
(BTW I am implicitly assuming that there is a sense in which the material universe is deterministic. Even if you go hog wild with quantum effects, I am saying that I don't need to posit that that is where 'free will' comes into play, the way some people do.)
"Fooled" might be the wrong word. From my description of the theory, you can tell the sense in which I think we really do influence what happens, and the sense in which the materialists are also right--"No the state of the universe at t+45 is determined by the laws of physics and the state of the universe at t+44."
(BTW I am implicitly assuming that there is a sense in which the material universe is deterministic. Even if you go hog wild with quantum effects, I am saying that I don't need to posit that that is where 'free will' comes into play, the way some people do.)
Curtis, so far as I know the moon landing was real. I was curious to see what the conspiracy theorists said about it, but a bunch of their objections I thought were self-evidently silly, and I found websites going through and answering the remaining, decent objections.
Great theory. Now all you have to do is prove there's a programmer (i.e., a god).
# posted by 
: July 19, 2009 at 8:17 PM
: July 19, 2009 at 8:17 PM
Bob,
Good, good.
In that case, I'm pretty sure I agree as far as I can tell. And, as you note, this has the benefit of working even if we allow for a deterministic material universe. All we really need is a God that has a bird's eye view of time, sufficient power to create the physical world, and a respect for the free will of His creatures.
I also like how this theory emphasizes that, with a deterministic, atheistic view of the material world, free will is an illusion. But, once we allow for a Creator God with the right attributes (all of which are often claimed by Christian theologians), one can resolve a real free will with a deterministic material world. Very cool.
Good, good.
In that case, I'm pretty sure I agree as far as I can tell. And, as you note, this has the benefit of working even if we allow for a deterministic material universe. All we really need is a God that has a bird's eye view of time, sufficient power to create the physical world, and a respect for the free will of His creatures.
I also like how this theory emphasizes that, with a deterministic, atheistic view of the material world, free will is an illusion. But, once we allow for a Creator God with the right attributes (all of which are often claimed by Christian theologians), one can resolve a real free will with a deterministic material world. Very cool.
"the materialist says that disembodied thoughts are "really" just patterns of electrical and chemical reactions in your nervous system,"
This is not a correct summary; the "materialist" says there are no "disembodied" thoughts, viz. that thoughts occur only in brains. No brains, no thoughts.
Thoughts of course are MORE than "just" patterns of electrical and chemical reactions in one`s nervous system; conscious and unconscious brain activity is bthe way we make decisions and instruct our bodies to act - whether we`re a bird, and octopus, a chimp or a human.
And our brains (and sense organs) are of course very very sophisticated information processing systems.
Humans may at sometimes and to some degree be aware of the decisions they make, but all living creatures use their minds to make decisions.
That`s what God gave them life (and brains) for.
This is not a correct summary; the "materialist" says there are no "disembodied" thoughts, viz. that thoughts occur only in brains. No brains, no thoughts.
Thoughts of course are MORE than "just" patterns of electrical and chemical reactions in one`s nervous system; conscious and unconscious brain activity is bthe way we make decisions and instruct our bodies to act - whether we`re a bird, and octopus, a chimp or a human.
And our brains (and sense organs) are of course very very sophisticated information processing systems.
Humans may at sometimes and to some degree be aware of the decisions they make, but all living creatures use their minds to make decisions.
That`s what God gave them life (and brains) for.
"(Tokyo Tom) went so far as to say that "2+2=4" is just a model we have of the physical universe, which has been falsified by the discoveries of relativity and quantum mechanics."
More accurately, I haven`t said that 2+2=4 has been "falsified", but been shown to be true only within certain parameters.
More accurately, I haven`t said that 2+2=4 has been "falsified", but been shown to be true only within certain parameters.
Tom, are "mind" and "brain" interchangeable words for you? (That's not a trick question, I'm genuinely asking.)
Tom, do you believe in free will? What if it turns out that the physical universe is deterministic, i.e. the state of the universe at t=45 is completely determined by its state at t=44? How can you say that I "decide" to do something?
Tom, do you believe in free will? What if it turns out that the physical universe is deterministic, i.e. the state of the universe at t=45 is completely determined by its state at t=44? How can you say that I "decide" to do something?
"As a final point, "miracles" do not occur, in the sense of a violation of the laws of physics. The laws of physics are simply patterns describing how the atoms operate. If Jesus walks on water and thus violates the "laws" of physics, then they weren't really laws, were they? In my interpretation, Jesus really did walk on water, raise the dead, etc., but nothing miraculous happened at the subatomic level. Rather, God had designed the universe such that these "impossible" (from a normal everyday human viewpoint) events were the necessary unfolding of the laws of physics, preordained from the first moment of creation."
Chapter 8 of Miracles by C.S. Lewis deals specifically with this question. He believes that a supernatural interference with the natural world is not a violation of natural laws but an intervention into the set context of the natural law which will pick up as before once the intervention ceases. I really ought to read that book again.
Chapter 8 of Miracles by C.S. Lewis deals specifically with this question. He believes that a supernatural interference with the natural world is not a violation of natural laws but an intervention into the set context of the natural law which will pick up as before once the intervention ceases. I really ought to read that book again.
"Tom, are "mind" and "brain" interchangeable words for you?"
Pretty much. Mind is a rather sloppy term for what we call the functioning of a conscious human brain. Sloppy, as it:
- ignores that other animals also think and decide;
- ignores that the mind has no existence outside of a live brain;
- distracts us from thinking about how brains work; and
- ignores that brains work and make decisions without conscious thought, both when we`re awake and sleeping.
"Tom, do you believe in free will?
Yes, within limits. Just as we clearly make conscious decisions, we also make unconscious/subconscious decisions, like the rest of animal Creation that has nervous systems.
We don`t freely choose to dilate/narrow our pupils in response to light, to shiver when cold, dump adrenalin into our bloodstream, to be hungry or thirsty, or to be nauseus when alcohol or motion has our cochleas spiniing. Our brains make all kinds of sophisicated, even split-second decisions for us all the time without conscious thought.
But obviously, we can and do decide many things. This is true for most other animals as well, which choose where/what to eat, to rest, who to accept as a mate, when and how much caution to exercise, whether to seek reciprocal assistance, etc.
"What if it turns out that the physical universe is deterministic, i.e. the state of the universe at t=45 is completely determined by its state at t=44? How can you say that I "decide" to do something?"
Bob, does this line of questioning lead to any useful results? Sure, I don`t comment here unless something (including your direct query) catches my eye, but is my response "determined" by the fact of you posting? I can choose what I say and how I say it, whether to elicit agreement from someone else or whether to flame them.
If the acts of all living creatures was "determined" by pre-existing circumstances rather than by choice, then no animals would have brains (there would have been no advantage to any creature to have a greater decision-making ability than any others), and parental/personal and group investments in education, morality, cooperation, self-discipline would all be meaningless.
The reason why we (and other animals, obviously) make choices (AND try to remember, observe and "learn", so as to improve our decisionmaking ability) is that these activities and investments are all valuable, and NOT meaningless.
That being said, our ability to make decisions and to learn, and even somewhat the range of choices that we make are to some degree limited by nature, past experience, learned skills, genetic endowment (inherited reflexes, flexibility, computing firepower, what sense we have), nutrition & hormonal balance, physical capacity etc.
We are not all equal, but the whole purpose of brains is to improve our decision-making ability, not to limit our choices.
As Gene recently noted, wild pigeons and birds try to avoid anything hurled in their direction, while city birds, though still wary, have learned to recognize feeding time.
Pretty much. Mind is a rather sloppy term for what we call the functioning of a conscious human brain. Sloppy, as it:
- ignores that other animals also think and decide;
- ignores that the mind has no existence outside of a live brain;
- distracts us from thinking about how brains work; and
- ignores that brains work and make decisions without conscious thought, both when we`re awake and sleeping.
"Tom, do you believe in free will?
Yes, within limits. Just as we clearly make conscious decisions, we also make unconscious/subconscious decisions, like the rest of animal Creation that has nervous systems.
We don`t freely choose to dilate/narrow our pupils in response to light, to shiver when cold, dump adrenalin into our bloodstream, to be hungry or thirsty, or to be nauseus when alcohol or motion has our cochleas spiniing. Our brains make all kinds of sophisicated, even split-second decisions for us all the time without conscious thought.
But obviously, we can and do decide many things. This is true for most other animals as well, which choose where/what to eat, to rest, who to accept as a mate, when and how much caution to exercise, whether to seek reciprocal assistance, etc.
"What if it turns out that the physical universe is deterministic, i.e. the state of the universe at t=45 is completely determined by its state at t=44? How can you say that I "decide" to do something?"
Bob, does this line of questioning lead to any useful results? Sure, I don`t comment here unless something (including your direct query) catches my eye, but is my response "determined" by the fact of you posting? I can choose what I say and how I say it, whether to elicit agreement from someone else or whether to flame them.
If the acts of all living creatures was "determined" by pre-existing circumstances rather than by choice, then no animals would have brains (there would have been no advantage to any creature to have a greater decision-making ability than any others), and parental/personal and group investments in education, morality, cooperation, self-discipline would all be meaningless.
The reason why we (and other animals, obviously) make choices (AND try to remember, observe and "learn", so as to improve our decisionmaking ability) is that these activities and investments are all valuable, and NOT meaningless.
That being said, our ability to make decisions and to learn, and even somewhat the range of choices that we make are to some degree limited by nature, past experience, learned skills, genetic endowment (inherited reflexes, flexibility, computing firepower, what sense we have), nutrition & hormonal balance, physical capacity etc.
We are not all equal, but the whole purpose of brains is to improve our decision-making ability, not to limit our choices.
As Gene recently noted, wild pigeons and birds try to avoid anything hurled in their direction, while city birds, though still wary, have learned to recognize feeding time.
OK Tom it sounds to me as if your solution to the mind-body problem is to say minds don't exist. (Note that it's not called the brain-body problem; the brain is part of the body so there's no problem understanding how it influences the body.)
And as far as the deterministic stuff: You keep giving me reasons to reject your own worldview. You think that our intentions etc. are "really" just a product of our physical bodies, which are composed of atoms that in turn obey the laws of physics (though we aren't sure what those laws are). Right?
So, if that's your worldview, I don't see how we can possibly have free will. You think you choose to eat a ham sandwich for lunch, but that's only because the state of your nervous system and the moment of decision caused you to "decide" in that manner.
You haven't explained why your worldview doesn't lead to that outcome; instead you've just tried to explain why that outcome is silly. Right, which is why I think your worldview is silly.
And as far as the deterministic stuff: You keep giving me reasons to reject your own worldview. You think that our intentions etc. are "really" just a product of our physical bodies, which are composed of atoms that in turn obey the laws of physics (though we aren't sure what those laws are). Right?
So, if that's your worldview, I don't see how we can possibly have free will. You think you choose to eat a ham sandwich for lunch, but that's only because the state of your nervous system and the moment of decision caused you to "decide" in that manner.
You haven't explained why your worldview doesn't lead to that outcome; instead you've just tried to explain why that outcome is silly. Right, which is why I think your worldview is silly.
Dear Bob,
I certainly am interested in your novel attempt put forth here. Unfortunately, you have not designed an original construction of this problem, and assuredly not one which is compatible with both orthodox Christian theism and human liberty. Your construction seems to be a type of deistic view of the universe. In your analogy, you merely substitute the clockmaker with an ingenious computer programmer. Please correct me if I mistake! This leads to a definition of "miracle" which redefines the word (to an event which is inherently natural). The 19th century German higher critics beat you to this vista about 150 years ago. The first thing any modern theology student learns in a freshman survey of Old Testament, is that the German higher critics first posited that the Israelites crossed the “yam-sup” when a zephyr blew the shallow water offshore just long enough, then changed direction and drowned the Egyptian army in 6 inches of water and mud.
God, as you present him in your analogy, is at best only weakly transcendent and not at all imminent. His only supreme characteristic is that he is smart enough to solve a bunch of partial differential equations, and then write some code to build a quite complicated computer game. Although I am cautious not to stray too much, I even think that a panentheistic view of God is much closer to orthodox than the one you put forth here. Again, I may mistake your view, and would welcome correction.
I love your Sunday postings on theology (please don't mishear my comment). However, the danger is that most of us are not theologians, and it is very easy to stray off into random musings, many of which have already been dealt with by previous scholars. Surprisingly, I must make a similar argument to one that Peter Boettke often puts forth. Most amateurs miss some essential background into these types of questions from both a theological and philosophical perspective. Anyone seriously interested in this problem really needs to go back and carefully study Aristotle, Paul, Augustine and Aquinas, and then later scholars. From that platform, we may build forward. I am not assuming that you have not done this. I almost always appreciate your ideas very much, and somehow regret that I am compelled by conscience to criticize this particular posting.
I certainly am interested in your novel attempt put forth here. Unfortunately, you have not designed an original construction of this problem, and assuredly not one which is compatible with both orthodox Christian theism and human liberty. Your construction seems to be a type of deistic view of the universe. In your analogy, you merely substitute the clockmaker with an ingenious computer programmer. Please correct me if I mistake! This leads to a definition of "miracle" which redefines the word (to an event which is inherently natural). The 19th century German higher critics beat you to this vista about 150 years ago. The first thing any modern theology student learns in a freshman survey of Old Testament, is that the German higher critics first posited that the Israelites crossed the “yam-sup” when a zephyr blew the shallow water offshore just long enough, then changed direction and drowned the Egyptian army in 6 inches of water and mud.
God, as you present him in your analogy, is at best only weakly transcendent and not at all imminent. His only supreme characteristic is that he is smart enough to solve a bunch of partial differential equations, and then write some code to build a quite complicated computer game. Although I am cautious not to stray too much, I even think that a panentheistic view of God is much closer to orthodox than the one you put forth here. Again, I may mistake your view, and would welcome correction.
I love your Sunday postings on theology (please don't mishear my comment). However, the danger is that most of us are not theologians, and it is very easy to stray off into random musings, many of which have already been dealt with by previous scholars. Surprisingly, I must make a similar argument to one that Peter Boettke often puts forth. Most amateurs miss some essential background into these types of questions from both a theological and philosophical perspective. Anyone seriously interested in this problem really needs to go back and carefully study Aristotle, Paul, Augustine and Aquinas, and then later scholars. From that platform, we may build forward. I am not assuming that you have not done this. I almost always appreciate your ideas very much, and somehow regret that I am compelled by conscience to criticize this particular posting.
# posted by : July 20, 2009 at 11:58 AM
: July 20, 2009 at 11:58 AM
KSralla,
Very good, thanks for the kick in the pants. I'll make you a deal: I am going to post my Sunday musings here, even though I admit I haven't read nearly enough Aristotle, Aquinas, etc. And then, when I say something dumb (or "discover" something ancient), your job is to point it out so I improve my position. (I'm being serious; I realize the above might appear to some as a flippant comeback.)
I understand what you're saying, but I think you are wrong in saying my theory makes God into "just" a computer programmer. What I am describing is unimaginably complicated. If you really think through the implications of it, I think it shows the majesty of what God did. Think of it--by positing just a few simple rules (apparently), governing how atoms interact, He was able to foster this entire universe in which people's bodies are (apparently) controlled by their souls and have conversations, get married, have kids, play football, study the heavens, etc. It is almost inconceivable that such a feat could be accomplished, and yet that's what I think He did.
Let me turn the tables on you: How could my view not be correct? Take the case of miracles. Are you saying that atoms obey certain rules for 99.9999% of the time, but then obey different rules when God parted the Red Sea etc.?
Even if that's what you believe, then notice that, by definition, those atoms didn't violate the "laws" of physics. The laws are simply much less economical than we originally thought.
For example, a modern physicist might casually say, "Newton's laws are right most of the time," but really he thinks that Newton's laws are not the actual laws of physics, and that there is a more general set of rules that are always obeyed.
Very good, thanks for the kick in the pants. I'll make you a deal: I am going to post my Sunday musings here, even though I admit I haven't read nearly enough Aristotle, Aquinas, etc. And then, when I say something dumb (or "discover" something ancient), your job is to point it out so I improve my position. (I'm being serious; I realize the above might appear to some as a flippant comeback.)
I understand what you're saying, but I think you are wrong in saying my theory makes God into "just" a computer programmer. What I am describing is unimaginably complicated. If you really think through the implications of it, I think it shows the majesty of what God did. Think of it--by positing just a few simple rules (apparently), governing how atoms interact, He was able to foster this entire universe in which people's bodies are (apparently) controlled by their souls and have conversations, get married, have kids, play football, study the heavens, etc. It is almost inconceivable that such a feat could be accomplished, and yet that's what I think He did.
Let me turn the tables on you: How could my view not be correct? Take the case of miracles. Are you saying that atoms obey certain rules for 99.9999% of the time, but then obey different rules when God parted the Red Sea etc.?
Even if that's what you believe, then notice that, by definition, those atoms didn't violate the "laws" of physics. The laws are simply much less economical than we originally thought.
For example, a modern physicist might casually say, "Newton's laws are right most of the time," but really he thinks that Newton's laws are not the actual laws of physics, and that there is a more general set of rules that are always obeyed.
Bob, sorry, but it`s your worldview that doesn`t hold any water.
We can see that the purpose of a nervous system is to help animals to make decisions, and can see an increasing degree of sophistication and decision-making ability in life-forms, and you choose to call that flexibility and its products all determined by prior conditions?
No, I haven`t proven that having intelligence means in increasing degree of flexibility and freedom in decision-making doesn`t mean that the decisions are not all pre-determined, but isn`t in rather obvious that the smart an animal is, the less is pre-determined?
(And isn`t it you who has the burden anyway, since you position that everything IS predetermined by God, but somehow he just makes it seem, while all of life goes through purposeless motions (the purposes are only God`s), that we and other animals are actually freely deciding for ourselves?)
And because you think feel you have free will, you insist that somehow free will must exist independently of the brain and body?
Yes, I think we have free will, but it is obviously constrained.
You can`t choose to hold your breathe and maintain consciousness indefinitely; even trained persons will get insufficient oxygen to maintain consciousness, faint, and their subconscious brain decide for them to start breathing. Virtually all of our "emotional" reactions to events are preconscious, though they may register consciously as they occur.
I know it gets in the way of armchair philosphizing, but you might actually try reading something about what congnitive scients have learned about consciousness and decision-making. Antonio Damasio`s "The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness" is a good start; Vilayanur Ramachandran also is a very interesting read.
All of this learn about how our brains/"minds" work was all preordained by God. You might want to check out what He wanted inquiring minds to know.
"just tried to explain why that outcome is silly."
More precisely, I`ve said there is obvious middle ground between insistence on "free will" and the FACT that man and all other animal life DOES decide, but along a spectrum of limits (what jellyfish and insects do is more determined than what more intellegient creatures do). Pure determinism is silly; so is pure free will.
"why I think your worldview is silly"
Say what? Because it rather clear both that there is no pure free will, even as brains allow us to make decisions about how, when and in what manner to act, recognizing that there is a tension is silly?
The use of "silly" is simply a device by you to stop thinking. But maybe that`s what God really wants. It`s why He gave us beer, after all.
We can see that the purpose of a nervous system is to help animals to make decisions, and can see an increasing degree of sophistication and decision-making ability in life-forms, and you choose to call that flexibility and its products all determined by prior conditions?
No, I haven`t proven that having intelligence means in increasing degree of flexibility and freedom in decision-making doesn`t mean that the decisions are not all pre-determined, but isn`t in rather obvious that the smart an animal is, the less is pre-determined?
(And isn`t it you who has the burden anyway, since you position that everything IS predetermined by God, but somehow he just makes it seem, while all of life goes through purposeless motions (the purposes are only God`s), that we and other animals are actually freely deciding for ourselves?)
And because you think feel you have free will, you insist that somehow free will must exist independently of the brain and body?
Yes, I think we have free will, but it is obviously constrained.
You can`t choose to hold your breathe and maintain consciousness indefinitely; even trained persons will get insufficient oxygen to maintain consciousness, faint, and their subconscious brain decide for them to start breathing. Virtually all of our "emotional" reactions to events are preconscious, though they may register consciously as they occur.
I know it gets in the way of armchair philosphizing, but you might actually try reading something about what congnitive scients have learned about consciousness and decision-making. Antonio Damasio`s "The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness" is a good start; Vilayanur Ramachandran also is a very interesting read.
All of this learn about how our brains/"minds" work was all preordained by God. You might want to check out what He wanted inquiring minds to know.
"just tried to explain why that outcome is silly."
More precisely, I`ve said there is obvious middle ground between insistence on "free will" and the FACT that man and all other animal life DOES decide, but along a spectrum of limits (what jellyfish and insects do is more determined than what more intellegient creatures do). Pure determinism is silly; so is pure free will.
"why I think your worldview is silly"
Say what? Because it rather clear both that there is no pure free will, even as brains allow us to make decisions about how, when and in what manner to act, recognizing that there is a tension is silly?
The use of "silly" is simply a device by you to stop thinking. But maybe that`s what God really wants. It`s why He gave us beer, after all.
# posted by : July 20, 2009 at 12:58 PM
: July 20, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Bob, have you analyzed Newcomb's Paradox? Much of the debate on it is over semantic confusion, but once you get past it I think there's an interesting question at the heart of it.
It seems to me to be the same scenario as your programmer with the predetermined ball movement, with the extra circumstance that you are now interacting with the programmer and placing bets with him on where the ball will go next.
-Matt Beller
It seems to me to be the same scenario as your programmer with the predetermined ball movement, with the extra circumstance that you are now interacting with the programmer and placing bets with him on where the ball will go next.
-Matt Beller
# posted by : July 20, 2009 at 1:48 PM
: July 20, 2009 at 1:48 PM
KSralla,
I think you have a very good point re: immanence/transcendence and such.
My first impression was actually somewhat like yours regarding the deistic tendency in the argument. But, I resolved a lot of those in my mind pretty quickly. Here's how:
(1) As far as immanence goes... I see two solutions. First, the laws of physics and the physical world we find ourselves in did not make themselves, nor do they maintain themselves. So, God is necessary as a Sustainer. This requires divine immanence. (This is a very orthodox view - in fact roughly Eastern Orthodox, as far as I can tell.) Second, if by immanence we mean that God takes an active part in the unfolding of events, then this is still true. It works something like this: God decides He wants X to happen at time T. Being outside time, at time 0, God establishes the universe so that X happens at time T. This happened most notably with the life of Jesus. If we believe (as I think is orthodox) that God is outside of time, then God takes an active role in the present specifically through His act in Creation.
Obviously, this theory doesn't capture all the intricacies of the divine nature. But, that's only enough to make it incomplete, not incorrect.
I think you have a very good point re: immanence/transcendence and such.
My first impression was actually somewhat like yours regarding the deistic tendency in the argument. But, I resolved a lot of those in my mind pretty quickly. Here's how:
(1) As far as immanence goes... I see two solutions. First, the laws of physics and the physical world we find ourselves in did not make themselves, nor do they maintain themselves. So, God is necessary as a Sustainer. This requires divine immanence. (This is a very orthodox view - in fact roughly Eastern Orthodox, as far as I can tell.) Second, if by immanence we mean that God takes an active part in the unfolding of events, then this is still true. It works something like this: God decides He wants X to happen at time T. Being outside time, at time 0, God establishes the universe so that X happens at time T. This happened most notably with the life of Jesus. If we believe (as I think is orthodox) that God is outside of time, then God takes an active role in the present specifically through His act in Creation.
Obviously, this theory doesn't capture all the intricacies of the divine nature. But, that's only enough to make it incomplete, not incorrect.
"Take the case of miracles. Are you saying that atoms obey certain rules for 99.9999% of the time, but then obey different rules when God parted the Red Sea etc.?
"Even if that's what you believe, then notice that, by definition, those atoms didn't violate the "laws" of physics. The laws are simply much less economical than we originally thought.
"For example, a modern physicist might casually say, "Newton's laws are right most of the time," but really he thinks that Newton's laws are not the actual laws of physics, and that there is a more general set of rules that are always obeyed."
Seems to me we agree 100% here.
Objectively, it certainly seems that there ARE rules to the universe, but our understanding and communication of them is imperfect and imprecise.
Now what about that "objective" moral order than neither Gene nor you seems so keen to actually discuss?
"Even if that's what you believe, then notice that, by definition, those atoms didn't violate the "laws" of physics. The laws are simply much less economical than we originally thought.
"For example, a modern physicist might casually say, "Newton's laws are right most of the time," but really he thinks that Newton's laws are not the actual laws of physics, and that there is a more general set of rules that are always obeyed."
Seems to me we agree 100% here.
Objectively, it certainly seems that there ARE rules to the universe, but our understanding and communication of them is imperfect and imprecise.
Now what about that "objective" moral order than neither Gene nor you seems so keen to actually discuss?
Lucas,
Thank you for your comments. My point above was that Bob’s construction is a 19th century concept that is almost identical to what is formally known as the Laplace demon (Pierre-Simon Laplace). It is a consequence of Newtonian concepts of physics which gives rise to particularly 17th-19th century concepts of natural law and naturalistic determinism. Although there are some interesting attributes of God which may be understood by such a construction, it mainly misses the higher view of God that is portrayed in scriptures.
Allow me to risk besmirching the character of God by attempting to exposit a flavor of his transcendent and immanent aspects as have been understood by some noted theologians. I will then make a futile (but I hope useful) attempt to cast this view in the face of some very general physics.
The God of the Bible simultaneously exists both outside the bounds of the physical universe (a portion of his creation), but also pervades it in varying modes, according to his good pleasure (sovereign will). As Thomas Aquinas pointed out, all creature beings (physical reality) are contingent upon the existence of the Supreme Being. It might then be understood that while God is ontologically separate from creatures, yet this separateness does not bar him from merging his being with that of his created beings, both living and inanimate. In fact, Christian theology holds that God magnificently performed this in the highest sense during the incarnation (Christ being both fully human and fully divine), but also duplicates his imminence in a different mode when each person is “born again” of the Spirit. Jesus even compared the ushering in of the kingdom of God to leaven working through some dough.
I think it further follows that some form of God’s power of will (whatever mode of his being this may be) molds and shapes all of physical reality down to the infinitely smallest fundamental particles, according to his good pleasure and decrees. Although humans can possibly only calculate the probability that a sub-atomic particle will appear at some point in space-time, each fundamental particle must obey the sovereign decrees of the almighty, even though the result of these decrees may on some scale appear (to us) to take the form of random stochastic noise.
God is certainly not bound by any physics. According to his transcendence and omni-science, he can perfectly predict the future of all reality, since he views all time, space, matter, and energy from the perfect vantage point (heaven is his footstool) outside the physical dimensions. However in his imminence, he also divinely reaches into both the physical and spiritual domain of reality at whatever place and time he chooses, all the while, his essential being resting comfortably outside and beyond the physical realm. To illustrate, God may be compared to a baker, and all of physical reality is his dough. He bends it and shapes it with his divine hands according to the mysteries of his hidden decrees, like a baker kneads a lump of dough. The baker created the dough, he invades the dough through the working of his hands, yet he is fundamentally separate from the dough.
God *is* therefore perfect natural law (total omni-science) in the same sense that God is love and God is justice. Natural law as concieved by science is imperfect and incomplete natural law imperfectly understood by imperfect human beings.
Thank you for your comments. My point above was that Bob’s construction is a 19th century concept that is almost identical to what is formally known as the Laplace demon (Pierre-Simon Laplace). It is a consequence of Newtonian concepts of physics which gives rise to particularly 17th-19th century concepts of natural law and naturalistic determinism. Although there are some interesting attributes of God which may be understood by such a construction, it mainly misses the higher view of God that is portrayed in scriptures.
Allow me to risk besmirching the character of God by attempting to exposit a flavor of his transcendent and immanent aspects as have been understood by some noted theologians. I will then make a futile (but I hope useful) attempt to cast this view in the face of some very general physics.
The God of the Bible simultaneously exists both outside the bounds of the physical universe (a portion of his creation), but also pervades it in varying modes, according to his good pleasure (sovereign will). As Thomas Aquinas pointed out, all creature beings (physical reality) are contingent upon the existence of the Supreme Being. It might then be understood that while God is ontologically separate from creatures, yet this separateness does not bar him from merging his being with that of his created beings, both living and inanimate. In fact, Christian theology holds that God magnificently performed this in the highest sense during the incarnation (Christ being both fully human and fully divine), but also duplicates his imminence in a different mode when each person is “born again” of the Spirit. Jesus even compared the ushering in of the kingdom of God to leaven working through some dough.
I think it further follows that some form of God’s power of will (whatever mode of his being this may be) molds and shapes all of physical reality down to the infinitely smallest fundamental particles, according to his good pleasure and decrees. Although humans can possibly only calculate the probability that a sub-atomic particle will appear at some point in space-time, each fundamental particle must obey the sovereign decrees of the almighty, even though the result of these decrees may on some scale appear (to us) to take the form of random stochastic noise.
God is certainly not bound by any physics. According to his transcendence and omni-science, he can perfectly predict the future of all reality, since he views all time, space, matter, and energy from the perfect vantage point (heaven is his footstool) outside the physical dimensions. However in his imminence, he also divinely reaches into both the physical and spiritual domain of reality at whatever place and time he chooses, all the while, his essential being resting comfortably outside and beyond the physical realm. To illustrate, God may be compared to a baker, and all of physical reality is his dough. He bends it and shapes it with his divine hands according to the mysteries of his hidden decrees, like a baker kneads a lump of dough. The baker created the dough, he invades the dough through the working of his hands, yet he is fundamentally separate from the dough.
God *is* therefore perfect natural law (total omni-science) in the same sense that God is love and God is justice. Natural law as concieved by science is imperfect and incomplete natural law imperfectly understood by imperfect human beings.
# posted by : July 22, 2009 at 12:54 PM
: July 22, 2009 at 12:54 PM
KSralla wrote: God is certainly not bound by any physics.
You're misunderstanding my position. Suppose I said, "These paintings represent Picasso's 'blue period.'"
Can you imagine someone objecting, "What are you talking about? Picasso was the artist, he could use whatever color he wanted. Stop trying to put constraints on Picasso's creativity." ?
It's not the case that God set up the initial conditions of the universe, and then ceased to act and watched from a distance. No, since God created time itself, He is directly responsible for the state of the universe at t=34324 as He was at t=0.
But because we are embedded in time, and only experience the states of the universe in succession, He related them to each other so that we could gradually perceive a pattern. The universe at t=45 doesn't suddenly radically change by t=46 so that we can't even relate the one to the other. If that's how God deployed His omnipotence, we would be completely bewildered.
(Obviously I am assuming a Newtonian universe with discrete time periods, but that's just for ease of exposition.)
You're misunderstanding my position. Suppose I said, "These paintings represent Picasso's 'blue period.'"
Can you imagine someone objecting, "What are you talking about? Picasso was the artist, he could use whatever color he wanted. Stop trying to put constraints on Picasso's creativity." ?
It's not the case that God set up the initial conditions of the universe, and then ceased to act and watched from a distance. No, since God created time itself, He is directly responsible for the state of the universe at t=34324 as He was at t=0.
But because we are embedded in time, and only experience the states of the universe in succession, He related them to each other so that we could gradually perceive a pattern. The universe at t=45 doesn't suddenly radically change by t=46 so that we can't even relate the one to the other. If that's how God deployed His omnipotence, we would be completely bewildered.
(Obviously I am assuming a Newtonian universe with discrete time periods, but that's just for ease of exposition.)
TokyoTom wrote:
Objectively, it certainly seems that there ARE rules to the universe, but our understanding and communication of them is imperfect and imprecise.
Now what about that "objective" moral order than neither Gene nor you seems so keen to actually discuss?
Tom, my answer to the second paragraph above, is to refer you to the first paragraph above.
My position is that there are objectively true moral rules. People may not agree on them, but that's because at least one person in such a dispute is wrong. There is a definite fact of the matter, as to who shot JFK, even though people will probably never be able to settle the matter to everyone's satisfaction.
There is as much agreement on the fact that "you shouldn't torture a baby for kicks" as there is on any other factual statement. Some people would say, "You can't prove that, that's just your utterance of a subjective feeling," but by the same token there are people who deny 2+2=4. (*clears throat*)
Like I said, I don't know what point there is for us to pursue this, since you think that only concepts relating directly to physical objects are objective. So it would be impossible for me to convince you that moral rules are objective, when you deny that anything intangible could be objectively true.
It would be as if you denied the existence of dogs, and then said, "But now that we've argued that for a while, let's talk about these alleged 'cocker spaniels' that you keep yapping about."
Objectively, it certainly seems that there ARE rules to the universe, but our understanding and communication of them is imperfect and imprecise.
Now what about that "objective" moral order than neither Gene nor you seems so keen to actually discuss?
Tom, my answer to the second paragraph above, is to refer you to the first paragraph above.
My position is that there are objectively true moral rules. People may not agree on them, but that's because at least one person in such a dispute is wrong. There is a definite fact of the matter, as to who shot JFK, even though people will probably never be able to settle the matter to everyone's satisfaction.
There is as much agreement on the fact that "you shouldn't torture a baby for kicks" as there is on any other factual statement. Some people would say, "You can't prove that, that's just your utterance of a subjective feeling," but by the same token there are people who deny 2+2=4. (*clears throat*)
Like I said, I don't know what point there is for us to pursue this, since you think that only concepts relating directly to physical objects are objective. So it would be impossible for me to convince you that moral rules are objective, when you deny that anything intangible could be objectively true.
It would be as if you denied the existence of dogs, and then said, "But now that we've argued that for a while, let's talk about these alleged 'cocker spaniels' that you keep yapping about."
From what I understand of your proposed model, God in eternity had a plan to create the universe and man according to his good pleasure. To accomplish his plan, he decided to perfectly pre-program (first in his mind) all initial conditions (state of everything at t=0) and boundary conditions (rules or laws) of his planned creation. These rules were such that they would allow all his purposes and plans for his creation to come to pass exactly as he wished. Since God in his omniscience perfectly initialized physical reality, and also had perfect omniscience of all his laws, he necessarily foreknew perfectly the position of every fundamental particle in his creation after t=0. Then, in his first and decisive creative act, God initialized and spun up the universe, and let it expand according to his foreordained plan.
This model supposedly gives God perfect dominion over his creation through his omniscience, but since he can never violate his own pre-ordained rules (or else God would be a lawbreaker), conscious creatures (Man) maintain a degree of freedom to choose their actions, based on the fact that they are free from God’s active intrusion into their world. Only when each man freely chooses to believe in God (Christ), can that man then obtain fellowship (friendship) with the creator and be granted immortality outside of the physical creation.
Is this your model? If I have this right, then we can continue the discussion
This model supposedly gives God perfect dominion over his creation through his omniscience, but since he can never violate his own pre-ordained rules (or else God would be a lawbreaker), conscious creatures (Man) maintain a degree of freedom to choose their actions, based on the fact that they are free from God’s active intrusion into their world. Only when each man freely chooses to believe in God (Christ), can that man then obtain fellowship (friendship) with the creator and be granted immortality outside of the physical creation.
Is this your model? If I have this right, then we can continue the discussion
# posted by : July 23, 2009 at 3:13 PM
: July 23, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Bob says: “The laws of physics are simply patterns describing how the atoms operate”
No! In *Bob Murphy's* model (as I understand it), the laws of physics are much more than simply patterns. They are God's own fixed boundary conditions or rules that govern and place limits on everything going on within the deterministic universe. Unless God violates his own rules (becoming a lawbreaker), then he must (according to his nature) allow the physical universe to expand and evolve according to these rules, and has in effect banned himself from pervading his physical creation at t=X. That might be an acceptable model if it were consistent with the image of the Judeo-Christian God portrayed in scripture. It is not.
No! In *Bob Murphy's* model (as I understand it), the laws of physics are much more than simply patterns. They are God's own fixed boundary conditions or rules that govern and place limits on everything going on within the deterministic universe. Unless God violates his own rules (becoming a lawbreaker), then he must (according to his nature) allow the physical universe to expand and evolve according to these rules, and has in effect banned himself from pervading his physical creation at t=X. That might be an acceptable model if it were consistent with the image of the Judeo-Christian God portrayed in scripture. It is not.
# posted by : July 23, 2009 at 5:34 PM
: July 23, 2009 at 5:34 PM
I don't know what point there is for us to pursue this, since you think that only concepts relating directly to physical objects are objective. So it would be impossible for me to convince you that moral rules are objective, when you deny that anything intangible could be objectively true.
Bob, you keep overstating my position, but even so a conversation that explores what you and Gene mean when you keep yapping about "objective moral rules" would still be useful, if only to understand what is is YOU think you mean. We might even find that our schema for understanding moral behavior overlap in the same universe!
"you deny that anything intangible could be objectively true": matter AND energy, Bob, and the "real rules" of the universe (which our written "rules" get pretty accurate in describing).
Of course this conversation, the thoughts that buzzed about in our heads and the prior experiences, cultural learning and mental hard wiring all have objective existences.
Likewise, we can objectively observe human behavior, surmise that we behave (and think) within certain parameters, and come up with descriptions of such parameters - which would differ for different species and would vary somewhat within mankind with age, gender, culture, mental capacity etc.
Is that what you are saying when you assert that there is an objective moral order?
Or are you suggesting that the "moral order" you find objective applies to all lifeforms, not just man, and will continue even if man were to be extinguished?
Or am I wiser not to ask you to yap anymore (still licking my wounds for rousing Gene)?
Post a Comment
Bob, you keep overstating my position, but even so a conversation that explores what you and Gene mean when you keep yapping about "objective moral rules" would still be useful, if only to understand what is is YOU think you mean. We might even find that our schema for understanding moral behavior overlap in the same universe!
"you deny that anything intangible could be objectively true": matter AND energy, Bob, and the "real rules" of the universe (which our written "rules" get pretty accurate in describing).
Of course this conversation, the thoughts that buzzed about in our heads and the prior experiences, cultural learning and mental hard wiring all have objective existences.
Likewise, we can objectively observe human behavior, surmise that we behave (and think) within certain parameters, and come up with descriptions of such parameters - which would differ for different species and would vary somewhat within mankind with age, gender, culture, mental capacity etc.
Is that what you are saying when you assert that there is an objective moral order?
Or are you suggesting that the "moral order" you find objective applies to all lifeforms, not just man, and will continue even if man were to be extinguished?
Or am I wiser not to ask you to yap anymore (still licking my wounds for rousing Gene)?
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]