I don’t think greater knowledge of how the brain physically works changes anything about the reality of the soul. As for brain damage and related matters, I would say that those are not the fault of the soul at all, though how much it impedes the actual will working through the “broken machinery” it has to work with is, again, something I think only God knows. It’s like someone who is legally considered not guilty, or whose guilt is ameliorated, by reason of insanity.
If we were able to exactly map brain activity with the conscious perception of human emotions, thoughts, and decision-making, would that constitute evidence for the non-existence of the soul? Would anything?
I don't think anything would, barring God literally telling us we have no souls, in a way that we could not resist.
So the existence of the soul is non-falsifiable, and thus an article of faith, and there's no point in learning how the brain works to answer any questions about it.
Learning how the brain works has a lot of good points to it—in medicine especially, certainly.
But above all in psychology. Neurons are biased and that emerges as hope. Alongside an overemphasis on negative experience. From the cellular level up we want to endure.
I don’t think greater knowledge of how the brain physically works changes anything about the reality of the soul. As for brain damage and related matters, I would say that those are not the fault of the soul at all, though how much it impedes the actual will working through the “broken machinery” it has to work with is, again, something I think only God knows. It’s like someone who is legally considered not guilty, or whose guilt is ameliorated, by reason of insanity.
If we were able to exactly map brain activity with the conscious perception of human emotions, thoughts, and decision-making, would that constitute evidence for the non-existence of the soul? Would anything?
I don't think anything would, barring God literally telling us we have no souls, in a way that we could not resist.
So the existence of the soul is non-falsifiable, and thus an article of faith, and there's no point in learning how the brain works to answer any questions about it.
Learning how the brain works has a lot of good points to it—in medicine especially, certainly.
After 46 years in medicine not so sure about that
I'm certainly glad about citalopram for my anxiety and depression.
I don’t think greater knowledge of how the brain physically works changes anything about the reality of the soul. As for brain damage and related matters, I would say that those are not the fault of the soul at all, though how much it impedes the actual will working through the “broken machinery” it has to work with is, again, something I think only God knows. It’s like someone who is legally considered not guilty, or whose guilt is ameliorated, by reason of insanity.
If we were able to exactly map brain activity with the conscious perception of human emotions, thoughts, and decision-making, would that constitute evidence for the non-existence of the soul? Would anything?
I don't think anything would, barring God literally telling us we have no souls, in a way that we could not resist.
So the existence of the soul is non-falsifiable, and thus an article of faith
Was the OP simply trying to garner a poll style response to this question?
I don’t think greater knowledge of how the brain physically works changes anything about the reality of the soul. As for brain damage and related matters, I would say that those are not the fault of the soul at all, though how much it impedes the actual will working through the “broken machinery” it has to work with is, again, something I think only God knows. It’s like someone who is legally considered not guilty, or whose guilt is ameliorated, by reason of insanity.
If we were able to exactly map brain activity with the conscious perception of human emotions, thoughts, and decision-making, would that constitute evidence for the non-existence of the soul? Would anything?
I don't think anything would, barring God literally telling us we have no souls, in a way that we could not resist.
So the existence of the soul is non-falsifiable, and thus an article of faith, and there's no point in learning how the brain works to answer any questions about it.
Learning how the brain works has a lot of good points to it—in medicine especially, certainly.
But above all in psychology. Neurons are biased and that emerges as hope. Alongside an overemphasis on negative experience. From the cellular level up we want to endure.
I don’t think greater knowledge of how the brain physically works changes anything about the reality of the soul. As for brain damage and related matters, I would say that those are not the fault of the soul at all, though how much it impedes the actual will working through the “broken machinery” it has to work with is, again, something I think only God knows. It’s like someone who is legally considered not guilty, or whose guilt is ameliorated, by reason of insanity.
If we were able to exactly map brain activity with the conscious perception of human emotions, thoughts, and decision-making, would that constitute evidence for the non-existence of the soul? Would anything?
I don't think anything would, barring God literally telling us we have no souls, in a way that we could not resist.
So the existence of the soul is non-falsifiable, and thus an article of faith, and there's no point in learning how the brain works to answer any questions about it.
Learning how the brain works has a lot of good points to it—in medicine especially, certainly.
After 46 years in medicine not so sure about that
I'm certainly glad about citalopram for my anxiety and depression.
It doesn't have to be disproved. Like all incoherent unjustified untrue belief.
Well, I do disagree about "Like all incoherent unjustified untrue belief," and I also think it's unnecessarily rude (which is why I sighed), but we've argued about that many times before (also why I sighed), and I don't think that debating that will go anywhere, so ... have a nice day, regardless.
Well, I do disagree about "Like all incoherent unjustified untrue belief," and I also think it's unnecessarily rude (which is why I sighed), but we've argued about that many times before (also why I sighed), and I don't think that debating that will go anywhere, so ... have a nice day, regardless.
So you disagree that where light is concerned the absence of it is blackness? Or do you even disagree with blackness? And what's rude about blackness? How does one debate about blackness?
I was also thinking about an aspect of Kendel's earlier post - to paraphrase: the idea that everyone has the same amount of freedom (or free will) runs rather contrary to our varied experiences of life. In that respect, a deterministic universe would be fairer - it wouldn't care about us all equally, with neither fear nor favour.
However, this is not a paraphrase of the points I was making here.
Thanks Kendel. There was something about Berdyaev's assumptions that was a bit neuralgic. The particular point in your post that I had in mind was the following:
Our existence and agency are subject to our surroundings as well as our very composition. Get away from the desk and hang out for a few weeks with brain-injured kids or adults, or with special ed kids. Spend time with residents of senior citizen communities. Learn about the brain-altering affects of certain chemicals such as heroine. Absolute freedom is an illusion. Although Berdyaev doesn't seem to grasp that.
From which, I'd say it follows that
the idea that everyone has the same amount of freedom (or free will) runs rather contrary to our varied experiences of life.
And an implication that occurred to me is that
In that respect, a deterministic universe would be fairer - it wouldn't care about us all equally, with neither fear nor favour
I didn't mean to suggest that this was within the scope of your interests. At that point, I wasn't considering it from what looks like a more existential perspective.
Since you said you were paraphrasing what I said, I assumed you meant you were restating what I said in different words. Which is why I explained thst you hadn't.
It's a point worth discussing, but wasn't a paraphrase of my words.
Well, I do disagree about "Like all incoherent unjustified untrue belief," and I also think it's unnecessarily rude (which is why I sighed), but we've argued about that many times before (also why I sighed), and I don't think that debating that will go anywhere, so ... have a nice day, regardless.
So you disagree that where light is concerned the absence of it is blackness? Or do you even disagree with blackness? And what's rude about blackness? How does one debate about blackness?
I disagree with your characterization of my beliefs as "incoherent unjustified untrue belief," and I am sure you know this because we've been over it ten million times now, and debating it does no good, and I think I can be permitted a "sigh" in response to this maddening situation.
Well, I do disagree about "Like all incoherent unjustified untrue belief," and I also think it's unnecessarily rude (which is why I sighed), but we've argued about that many times before (also why I sighed), and I don't think that debating that will go anywhere, so ... have a nice day, regardless.
So you disagree that where light is concerned the absence of it is blackness? Or do you even disagree with blackness? And what's rude about blackness? How does one debate about blackness?
I disagree with your characterization of my beliefs as "incoherent unjustified untrue belief," and I am sure you know this because we've been over it ten million times now, and debating it does no good, and I think I can be permitted a "sigh" in response to this maddening situation.
Well, I do disagree about "Like all incoherent unjustified untrue belief," and I also think it's unnecessarily rude (which is why I sighed), but we've argued about that many times before (also why I sighed), and I don't think that debating that will go anywhere, so ... have a nice day, regardless.
So you disagree that where light is concerned the absence of it is blackness? Or do you even disagree with blackness? And what's rude about blackness? How does one debate about blackness?
I disagree with your characterization of my beliefs as "incoherent unjustified untrue belief," and I am sure you know this because we've been over it ten million times now, and debating it does no good, and I think I can be permitted a "sigh" in response to this maddening situation.
So, back to the actual topic of the thread...
That's disagreeing with blackness.
(1) We've done this to death and
(2) Using my free will (see, back on topic!), I choose to not help derail this thread into a personal conflict.
I don’t think greater knowledge of how the brain physically works changes anything about the reality of the soul. As for brain damage and related matters, I would say that those are not the fault of the soul at all, though how much it impedes the actual will working through the “broken machinery” it has to work with is, again, something I think only God knows. It’s like someone who is legally considered not guilty, or whose guilt is ameliorated, by reason of insanity.
If we were able to exactly map brain activity with the conscious perception of human emotions, thoughts, and decision-making, would that constitute evidence for the non-existence of the soul? Would anything?
I don't think anything would, barring God literally telling us we have no souls, in a way that we could not resist.
So the existence of the soul is non-falsifiable, and thus an article of faith
Was the OP simply trying to garner a poll style response to this question?
So was that the intent? (I actually do wish the Ship had a poll function. Whether anonymous or not. It could be interesting.)
Well, I do disagree about "Like all incoherent unjustified untrue belief," and I also think it's unnecessarily rude (which is why I sighed), but we've argued about that many times before (also why I sighed), and I don't think that debating that will go anywhere, so ... have a nice day, regardless.
So you disagree that where light is concerned the absence of it is blackness? Or do you even disagree with blackness? And what's rude about blackness? How does one debate about blackness?
I disagree with your characterization of my beliefs as "incoherent unjustified untrue belief," and I am sure you know this because we've been over it ten million times now, and debating it does no good, and I think I can be permitted a "sigh" in response to this maddening situation.
So, back to the actual topic of the thread...
That's disagreeing with blackness.
(1) We've done this to death and
(2) Using my free will (see, back on topic!), I choose to not help derail this thread into a personal conflict.
I don’t think greater knowledge of how the brain physically works changes anything about the reality of the soul. As for brain damage and related matters, I would say that those are not the fault of the soul at all, though how much it impedes the actual will working through the “broken machinery” it has to work with is, again, something I think only God knows. It’s like someone who is legally considered not guilty, or whose guilt is ameliorated, by reason of insanity.
If we were able to exactly map brain activity with the conscious perception of human emotions, thoughts, and decision-making, would that constitute evidence for the non-existence of the soul? Would anything?
I don't think anything would, barring God literally telling us we have no souls, in a way that we could not resist.
So the existence of the soul is non-falsifiable, and thus an article of faith
Was the OP simply trying to garner a poll style response to this question?
So was that the intent? (I actually do wish the Ship had a poll function. Whether anonymous or not. It could be interesting.)
I disagree.
It is perfectly philosophically, logically accurate to say that incoherent unjustified untrue belief in soul, essentialism, including the defense of it by saying it can't be disproved, is a brute fact. Very rude of reason indeed. Nothing can be disproved by science, it doesn't have to. Its infinite remit excludes such unreal, folk propositions. Why such are believed is well within its remit.
I never thought of a poll and I agree with Alan’s comments. But I don’t own the thread just because I opened it.
I wasn't necessarily insisting on it, just reflecting on the fact that the thread had progressed to stating dogmas. On reflection the comment may have been more applicable to the other thread.
Not to worry. I think it’s been pretty high-abstract which may well have been off-putting. But I’ve enjoyed it. It’s always good to hear from you and pease on just about anything.
A bit provocatively, I reflected this morning that because scientific hypotheses are intrinsically falsifiable, I can’t be sure that they confirm a deterministic universe. Even a Plank-probabilistic one! (It is determined but also future-unknown.)
That’s not a natural-supernatural argument, either. The word “open” seems to to have something to say.
Oh yes! I know this comes from the brain of a Victor Meldrew admirer!
I never thought of a poll and I agree with Alan’s comments. But I don’t own the thread just because I opened it.
I wasn't necessarily insisting on it, just reflecting on the fact that the thread had progressed to stating dogmas. On reflection the comment may have been more applicable to the other thread.
Isn’t whether or not things are predestined or free itself already a dogma, or at least a doctrine? To me it starts out that way.
I never thought of a poll and I agree with Alan’s comments. But I don’t own the thread just because I opened it.
I wasn't necessarily insisting on it, just reflecting on the fact that the thread had progressed to stating dogmas. On reflection the comment may have been more applicable to the other thread.
Isn’t whether or not things are predestined or free itself already a dogma, or at least a doctrine? To me it starts out that way.
It's certainly not an Orthodox dogma. Orthodox dogmas are as far as I know exclusively concerned with (a) the Trinity, and (b) the Incarnation. The rest is either "mere" doctrine, or theolgoumena (pious opinions).
It is true that there is tension between Calvinism and Arminian beliefs relating to human choice. To that extent the differences are dogmatic. But that is not the end of the story.
But once the findings of science get involved there is another tension.
Take for example Young Earth Creationism. It is a dogmatic belief, relating to an overarching dogmatic belief about the nature and absence of error in scripture. Science points to observations from the Earth (e.g the great age of rocks) and the Heavens (Sky) which point to the observation that light from distant objects have been travelling towards the Earth for much much longer than the proponents of YEC assert for the age of the Earth.
YEC proponents respond with more and more special case rationalisations. I have YEC friends, decent, caring people, who argue that although they cannot explain the various scientific findings, nevertheless they still hold to YEC as a part of their belief about scripture.
Most Christians accept that YEC has in fact been falsified by scientific findings. The YEC position seems to be almost as absurd as earlier beliefs in flat earth or that the sun revolves around the earth. The findings of science and the related hypotheses, falsifiable though they remain to be, have moved YEC into the incredible category.
But when one considers determinism v freedom
of choice the issue is not so clear cut. I’m not sure that either physical or psychological science findings lead inevitably to determinism. I could be wrong about that. But that seems less important to me than justice issues. I am not clear that an assertion of robust illusion is sufficient to defend the necessary processes of justice. The pain of victims of abuse is real. Short of a clear finding of illness or incompetence, the perpetrators deserve locking up for the safety of potential future victims. Is that process predetermined. Do we share a collective illusion about its significance? The related findings of cruelty, or mental illness? The justification for deprivation of liberty? For the time being, for me personally, such thoughts fall into the category “unlikely to be true”. Possibly even absurd.
These thoughts and questions seem to me to be of a different order to those surrounding YEC for example.
I never thought of a poll and I agree with Alan’s comments. But I don’t own the thread just because I opened it.
I wasn't necessarily insisting on it, just reflecting on the fact that the thread had progressed to stating dogmas. On reflection the comment may have been more applicable to the other thread.
Isn’t whether or not things are predestined or free itself already a dogma, or at least a doctrine? To me it starts out that way.
It's certainly not an Orthodox dogma. Orthodox dogmas are as far as I know exclusively concerned with (a) the Trinity, and (b) the Incarnation. The rest is either "mere" doctrine, or theolgoumena (pious opinions).
Hence “at least a doctrine.” But I think it can be a dogma among some other churches—or even among some sorts of materialism.
I never thought of a poll and I agree with Alan’s comments. But I don’t own the thread just because I opened it.
I wasn't necessarily insisting on it, just reflecting on the fact that the thread had progressed to stating dogmas. On reflection the comment may have been more applicable to the other thread.
Isn’t whether or not things are predestined or free itself already a dogma, or at least a doctrine? To me it starts out that way.
It's certainly not an Orthodox dogma. Orthodox dogmas are as far as I know exclusively concerned with (a) the Trinity, and (b) the Incarnation. The rest is either "mere" doctrine, or theolgoumena (pious opinions).
Hence “at least a doctrine.” But I think it can be a dogma among some other churches—or even among some sorts of materialism.
If any materialist has a dogma they are greatly overstepping their bounds. Which I suppose is the point. But merely stating that all our actions are determined by all that has come before us in the universe isn't a dogma, it's just the limits of science to answer the question. If there is anything beyond all the things and events of the physical world, science has no way of knowing. That's not what science does.
I never thought of a poll and I agree with Alan’s comments. But I don’t own the thread just because I opened it.
I wasn't necessarily insisting on it, just reflecting on the fact that the thread had progressed to stating dogmas. On reflection the comment may have been more applicable to the other thread.
Isn’t whether or not things are predestined or free itself already a dogma, or at least a doctrine? To me it starts out that way.
It's certainly not an Orthodox dogma. Orthodox dogmas are as far as I know exclusively concerned with (a) the Trinity, and (b) the Incarnation. The rest is either "mere" doctrine, or theolgoumena (pious opinions).
Hence “at least a doctrine.” But I think it can be a dogma among some other churches—or even among some sorts of materialism.
If any materialist has a dogma they are greatly overstepping their bounds. Which I suppose is the point. But merely stating that all our actions are determined by all that has come before us in the universe isn't a dogma, it's just the limits of science to answer the question. If there is anything beyond all the things and events of the physical world, science has no way of knowing. That's not what science does.
I absolutely agree! Perhaps I should say "among some sorts of materialists."
I also agree,with mousethief. I would add a codicil. The findings of science re human freedoms are paradoxical. They need to be taken seriously. There are unresolved mysteries in what we as believers call the created order. They challenge our individual and collective vanity. As the Psalmist says in Psalm 8, contemplating the night sky, what are we? And the night sky shows us a universe infinitely vaster than he knew. The findings of science have pulled back the veil, revealed that to our wondering minds. In my case, that magnifies my sense of awe.
At the heart of me, in the deepest place I can find in my own self awareness, that is why I believe life is, emphatically, NOT a tale told by an idiot, all full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. My statement comes from a place, not of vanity, but awe. In the face of that, we are not the measure of all things.
At the heart of me, in the deepest place I can find in my own self awareness, that is why I believe life is, emphatically, NOT a tale told by an idiot, all full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. My statement comes from a place, not of vanity, but awe. In the face of that, we are not the measure of all things.
My response to Will Shak. is "speak for yourself".
It's a tale full of sound and fury all right but the idiot and nothing parts, that's up for debate.
At the heart of me, in the deepest place I can find in my own self awareness, that is why I believe life is, emphatically, NOT a tale told by an idiot, all full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. My statement comes from a place, not of vanity, but awe. In the face of that, we are not the measure of all things.
My response to Will Shak. is "speak for yourself".
It's a tale full of sound and fury all right but the idiot and nothing parts, that's up for debate.
Well, to be fair as well as a bit pedantic, Will Shak was speaking for Macbeth. The words express Macbeth’s feelings upon learning of the death of Luis wife. That those words convey Macbeth’s feelings in that moment doesn’t mean they express Shakespeare’s own thoughts.
It’s relevant. It’s grief-stricken. The language of despair. One analysis I read (and Macbeth has tons of them) is that it was also Shakespeare’s wry comment about drama in the theatre; i.e. not real.
At the heart of me, in the deepest place I can find in my own self awareness, that is why I believe life is, emphatically, NOT a tale told by an idiot, all full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. My statement comes from a place, not of vanity, but awe. In the face of that, we are not the measure of all things.
My response to Will Shak. is "speak for yourself".
It's a tale full of sound and fury all right but the idiot and nothing parts, that's up for debate.
Well, to be fair as well as a bit pedantic, Will Shak was speaking for Macbeth. The words express Macbeth’s feelings upon learning of the death of Luis wife. That those words convey Macbeth’s feelings in that moment doesn’t mean they express Shakespeare’s own thoughts.
It’s relevant. It’s grief-stricken. The language of despair. One analysis I read (and Macbeth has tons of them) is that it was also Shakespeare’s wry comment about drama in the theatre; i.e. not real.
Indeed, Macbeth arguably gets into precisely the issues of predestination and free will, since he’s following a prophecy given to him by the three witches. Though I would argue that he’s always got a choice as to whether to carry out his evil acts…
Well, and that's the problem, isn't it? He could have taken Banquo's stance and decided to do absolutely nothing to help the prophecy along, confident that, if it were a true prophecy, it would find some other way to come true than by him bloodying his own hands.
Well, and that's the problem, isn't it? He could have taken Banquo's stance and decided to do absolutely nothing to help the prophecy along, confident that, if it were a true prophecy, it would find some other way to come true than by him bloodying his own hands.
At the heart of me, in the deepest place I can find in my own self awareness, that is why I believe life is, emphatically, NOT a tale told by an idiot, all full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. My statement comes from a place, not of vanity, but awe. In the face of that, we are not the measure of all things.
My response to Will Shak. is "speak for yourself".
It's a tale full of sound and fury all right but the idiot and nothing parts, that's up for debate.
The words express Macbeth’s feelings upon learning of the death of Luis wife.
I really don’t know how “his” ended up as “Luis”! 🤪
Not discussed so far but I think a few thoughts about predestination as a form of determinism may complement the science-faith dialogue and pease’s “robust illusion” observation.
The conservative evangelical John Piper and I see many things difficulty but in this recent article he does bring to the forefront what seems to me to be good point for discussion.
Predestined and Accountable
Here’s the paradox — not a contradiction, a paradox. Lots of people try to make this out to be a logical contradiction. It’s not. It runs through the whole Bible. Human beings are morally accountable, even though they do not have ultimate self-determination. There is no injustice with God (Romans 9:14). No one is punished who does not truly deserve to be punished. And the measure of the punishment is always in righteous proportion to the measure of the evil. Though God predestines who will be saved and who will not be saved, no one comes into judgment who does not deserve judgment.
This is not a logical contradiction, which so many try to make it out to be. It is a mystery. I don’t think the Bible makes plain how both of these truths — God’s sovereignty and man’s accountability — are in perfect compatibility. But the whole Bible testifies to both truths. They are compatible. The Bible teaches the truth of both. And they are profoundly important to embrace for the good of our souls, and for the integrity of God’s word, and for the health of the church, and for the advancement of God’s mission, and for the glory of God’s grace.
You will notice the use of the words “paradox” and “mystery”. You don’t often see contemporary conservative Christians use those words when considering the truth of scripture. But in this case he has a point. We see both moral accountability and predestination of eternal fate in scripture. Piper does not focus on this but moral accountability is hugely important in the recorded teaching of Jesus. Does he ever argue that we have no choice because God chose to make us that way? I don’t see that myself in the Synoptic gospels though I suppose one might argue that “you did not choose me but I chose you” in John’s gospel, addressed to the disciples, suggests that.
I’d argue that moral accountability (whether you are Christian or not) is the key factor in our sentient life which stops life being a tale told by an idiot signifying nothing. The philopher A J Ayer, not a Christian, argued (in a Radio 4 programme I heard years ago) that he believed people should be “scrupulous”.
Is this an aspect of my “robust illusion” that choices really matter and that choice argues against determinism? Or predestination?
I'd be extremely disappointed @Barnabas62, if you went with the fundamentalism of 'both moral accountability and predestination of eternal fate in scripture'.
It’s hard to argue that they aren’t there in the NT. Piper is right about that.
How they apply to us, even if they apply to us, are rather different questions. You can take it from me that I believe in personal responsibility and that for sure includes moral accountability. Personal conscience is certainly in play in the latter, but I live in community as well. So my moral code is both internal and derived. Isn’t everybody’s?
And ….. in case it isn’t abundantly clear from my contributions here, I’m not a Calvinist. Neither the TULIP kind nor closer to original author. I do believe in the sovereignty of God but that belief hasn’t led me down the predestination or, worse, double predestination rabbit hole. I think that leads one away from the belief that God is good.
We see both moral accountability and predestination of eternal fate in scripture.
I think the best way to see the latter is - as per the Institutes - a form of comfort for those who are saved, rather than as a general rule to try and divide humanity into those who are predestined and those who are not.
And ….. in case it isn’t abundantly clear from my contributions here, I’m not a Calvinist. Neither the TULIP kind nor closer to original author. I do believe in the sovereignty of God but that belief hasn’t led me down the predestination or, worse, double predestination rabbit hole. I think that leads one away from the belief that God is good.
Double predestination isn't worse. It's a logical inevitability of "single" predestination.
It’s hard to argue that they aren’t there in the NT. Piper is right about that.
How they apply to us, even if they apply to us, are rather different questions. You can take it from me that I believe in personal responsibility and that for sure includes moral accountability. Personal conscience is certainly in play in the latter, but I live in community as well. So my moral code is both internal and derived. Isn’t everybody’s?
It's absurd to argue that they're not there. Yes, Piper is right about that. And so he's not right, in orthodox theology, belief, predicated on it. Not in the name of Love.
I too believe in personal responsibility and moral accountability. Now. While I breathe. To you and all here, in every word and action. Of my scintilla of existence. God or no, they can have no influence whatsoever in eternity. Morality is what other people think, internalized in us. All played out on our being evolutionarily pre-wired for experience. External, internal. Having genetic moral instincts. Bias. I'm a liberated, minority genetic liberal now; I do not want to cause any harm, and I want to be fair, to the point of equality of net positive outcome. The majority have other moral instincts equally. Genetic liberals have them too, but equally.
And ….. in case it isn’t abundantly clear from my contributions here, I’m not a Calvinist. Neither the TULIP kind nor closer to original author. I do believe in the sovereignty of God but that belief hasn’t led me down the predestination or, worse, double predestination rabbit hole. I think that leads one away from the belief that God is good.
Glad to hear it. Thought so. But it's not fundamentalist, not orthodox, not true to the text. In which God is not Love.
I agree. But Piper is arguing from the position that the contradiction is only apparent because we don’t know enough to see how it resolves. He has to say that because it is central to his understanding of scripture that there cannot be contradiction in it.
It’s actually progress that he also uses the word mystery! In his understanding scripture is also perspicuous. Not mysterious!
We see both moral accountability and predestination of eternal fate in scripture.
I think the best way to see the latter is - as per the Institutes - a form of comfort for those who are saved, rather than as a general rule to try and divide humanity into those who are predestined and those who are not.
Sure, and I think the Anglican 39 Articles say something about the doctrine of election being for the comfort of believers.
Calvin gets a bad rap in Orthodox circles but I'm prepared to acknowledge that he 'rings true' at times but equally have sympathy with the view @KarlLB has expressed, that, whether he intended to or not, he opened up a slippery slope towards TULIP and double-predestination and all the angst and heart-ache that goes with that.
But then again, plenty of people from the Reformed tradition don't appear to slide down that slippery path.
It strikes me that extreme or neo-Calvinism ends up defeating its object - which is to defend the sovereignty of God. It ends up making God a prisoner of his own irrevocable and eternal decrees.
I'm not advocating 'Process Theology' as an alternative.
I do take heart that Piper is talking about 'mystery' and 'paradox' though.
Given that there is a link between predestination and determinism, (thread purpose!) I think lots of Reformers avoid the slippery slope or the rabbit hole because they see what it leads to, and don’t like it.
It’s a personal observation but I get a sense that Calvin (the lawyer) also didn’t like where his logic was leading, hence his limiting comments in the Institutes.
So you say! I’m not sure you’re necessarily the best judge of that. I’m happier with Rowan Williams’ view that Christianity doesn’t exist to answer all the questions, rather to keep the questions alive.
So I’m subject to the heretical imperative. I ask questions. I wrestle with these things from the perspective of a follower of Jesus for over half a century. And I’m still following.
It's only a "comfort to believers" if everyone else you care about is also a believer. If they are not, it is a source of massive heartache, pain and misery. It's even worse than the standard Evangelical "have to convert to be saved"; if predestination is true then there is every chance that that absolutely cannot happen and it cannot happen because God hasn't decreed that it should - which is functionally equivalent to God decreeing that they won't. So God, in all practical senses, has doomed them to Hell from birth.
If this is true, God is Not Love.
If I believed it, I would never, ever, have had children. Too much risk God would have them on the Hell list and it would be better to never exist.
How do believers in this cope with it without going insane?
Comments
Again, that doesn't disprove the soul.
I'm certainly glad about citalopram for my anxiety and depression.
Was the OP simply trying to garner a poll style response to this question?
It doesn't have to be disproved. Like all incoherent unjustified untrue belief.
I'm very glad you have both.
Sigh.
Both what?
Sighing belief in a soul & decent meds.
At least you didn't 'disagree'.
Well, I do disagree about "Like all incoherent unjustified untrue belief," and I also think it's unnecessarily rude (which is why I sighed), but we've argued about that many times before (also why I sighed), and I don't think that debating that will go anywhere, so ... have a nice day, regardless.
So you disagree that where light is concerned the absence of it is blackness? Or do you even disagree with blackness? And what's rude about blackness? How does one debate about blackness?
Since you said you were paraphrasing what I said, I assumed you meant you were restating what I said in different words. Which is why I explained thst you hadn't.
It's a point worth discussing, but wasn't a paraphrase of my words.
I saw the possible reading of "both" as both anxiety and depression. I waa sure that was NOT what you meant.
Cuh! Fuh! Et tu Brute! Talk abart worse case interpretation!
I disagree with your characterization of my beliefs as "incoherent unjustified untrue belief," and I am sure you know this because we've been over it ten million times now, and debating it does no good, and I think I can be permitted a "sigh" in response to this maddening situation.
So, back to the actual topic of the thread...
That's disagreeing with blackness.
(1) We've done this to death and
(2) Using my free will (see, back on topic!), I choose to not help derail this thread into a personal conflict.
So, @mousethief ,
So was that the intent? (I actually do wish the Ship had a poll function. Whether anonymous or not. It could be interesting.)
I did start a thread in the Styx asking if we could have actual polls, if software permits.
I disagree.
It is perfectly philosophically, logically accurate to say that incoherent unjustified untrue belief in soul, essentialism, including the defense of it by saying it can't be disproved, is a brute fact. Very rude of reason indeed. Nothing can be disproved by science, it doesn't have to. Its infinite remit excludes such unreal, folk propositions. Why such are believed is well within its remit.
I wasn't necessarily insisting on it, just reflecting on the fact that the thread had progressed to stating dogmas. On reflection the comment may have been more applicable to the other thread.
A bit provocatively, I reflected this morning that because scientific hypotheses are intrinsically falsifiable, I can’t be sure that they confirm a deterministic universe. Even a Plank-probabilistic one! (It is determined but also future-unknown.)
That’s not a natural-supernatural argument, either. The word “open” seems to to have something to say.
Oh yes! I know this comes from the brain of a Victor Meldrew admirer!
Isn’t whether or not things are predestined or free itself already a dogma, or at least a doctrine? To me it starts out that way.
It's certainly not an Orthodox dogma. Orthodox dogmas are as far as I know exclusively concerned with (a) the Trinity, and (b) the Incarnation. The rest is either "mere" doctrine, or theolgoumena (pious opinions).
It is true that there is tension between Calvinism and Arminian beliefs relating to human choice. To that extent the differences are dogmatic. But that is not the end of the story.
But once the findings of science get involved there is another tension.
Take for example Young Earth Creationism. It is a dogmatic belief, relating to an overarching dogmatic belief about the nature and absence of error in scripture. Science points to observations from the Earth (e.g the great age of rocks) and the Heavens (Sky) which point to the observation that light from distant objects have been travelling towards the Earth for much much longer than the proponents of YEC assert for the age of the Earth.
YEC proponents respond with more and more special case rationalisations. I have YEC friends, decent, caring people, who argue that although they cannot explain the various scientific findings, nevertheless they still hold to YEC as a part of their belief about scripture.
Most Christians accept that YEC has in fact been falsified by scientific findings. The YEC position seems to be almost as absurd as earlier beliefs in flat earth or that the sun revolves around the earth. The findings of science and the related hypotheses, falsifiable though they remain to be, have moved YEC into the incredible category.
But when one considers determinism v freedom
of choice the issue is not so clear cut. I’m not sure that either physical or psychological science findings lead inevitably to determinism. I could be wrong about that. But that seems less important to me than justice issues. I am not clear that an assertion of robust illusion is sufficient to defend the necessary processes of justice. The pain of victims of abuse is real. Short of a clear finding of illness or incompetence, the perpetrators deserve locking up for the safety of potential future victims. Is that process predetermined. Do we share a collective illusion about its significance? The related findings of cruelty, or mental illness? The justification for deprivation of liberty? For the time being, for me personally, such thoughts fall into the category “unlikely to be true”. Possibly even absurd.
These thoughts and questions seem to me to be of a different order to those surrounding YEC for example.
Hence “at least a doctrine.” But I think it can be a dogma among some other churches—or even among some sorts of materialism.
It doesn't stop some Orthodox behaving as though some other things are dogma though.
If any materialist has a dogma they are greatly overstepping their bounds. Which I suppose is the point. But merely stating that all our actions are determined by all that has come before us in the universe isn't a dogma, it's just the limits of science to answer the question. If there is anything beyond all the things and events of the physical world, science has no way of knowing. That's not what science does.
I absolutely agree! Perhaps I should say "among some sorts of materialists."
At the heart of me, in the deepest place I can find in my own self awareness, that is why I believe life is, emphatically, NOT a tale told by an idiot, all full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. My statement comes from a place, not of vanity, but awe. In the face of that, we are not the measure of all things.
My response to Will Shak. is "speak for yourself".
It's a tale full of sound and fury all right but the idiot and nothing parts, that's up for debate.
AFF
/tangent
Yes, this.
That also makes sense!
Amen!
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
The conservative evangelical John Piper and I see many things difficulty but in this recent article he does bring to the forefront what seems to me to be good point for discussion.
You will notice the use of the words “paradox” and “mystery”. You don’t often see contemporary conservative Christians use those words when considering the truth of scripture. But in this case he has a point. We see both moral accountability and predestination of eternal fate in scripture. Piper does not focus on this but moral accountability is hugely important in the recorded teaching of Jesus. Does he ever argue that we have no choice because God chose to make us that way? I don’t see that myself in the Synoptic gospels though I suppose one might argue that “you did not choose me but I chose you” in John’s gospel, addressed to the disciples, suggests that.
I’d argue that moral accountability (whether you are Christian or not) is the key factor in our sentient life which stops life being a tale told by an idiot signifying nothing. The philopher A J Ayer, not a Christian, argued (in a Radio 4 programme I heard years ago) that he believed people should be “scrupulous”.
Is this an aspect of my “robust illusion” that choices really matter and that choice argues against determinism? Or predestination?
How they apply to us, even if they apply to us, are rather different questions. You can take it from me that I believe in personal responsibility and that for sure includes moral accountability. Personal conscience is certainly in play in the latter, but I live in community as well. So my moral code is both internal and derived. Isn’t everybody’s?
I think the best way to see the latter is - as per the Institutes - a form of comfort for those who are saved, rather than as a general rule to try and divide humanity into those who are predestined and those who are not.
Double predestination isn't worse. It's a logical inevitability of "single" predestination.
It's absurd to argue that they're not there. Yes, Piper is right about that. And so he's not right, in orthodox theology, belief, predicated on it. Not in the name of Love.
I too believe in personal responsibility and moral accountability. Now. While I breathe. To you and all here, in every word and action. Of my scintilla of existence. God or no, they can have no influence whatsoever in eternity. Morality is what other people think, internalized in us. All played out on our being evolutionarily pre-wired for experience. External, internal. Having genetic moral instincts. Bias. I'm a liberated, minority genetic liberal now; I do not want to cause any harm, and I want to be fair, to the point of equality of net positive outcome. The majority have other moral instincts equally. Genetic liberals have them too, but equally.
Glad to hear it. Thought so. But it's not fundamentalist, not orthodox, not true to the text. In which God is not Love.
I agree. But Piper is arguing from the position that the contradiction is only apparent because we don’t know enough to see how it resolves. He has to say that because it is central to his understanding of scripture that there cannot be contradiction in it.
It’s actually progress that he also uses the word mystery! In his understanding scripture is also perspicuous. Not mysterious!
Sure, and I think the Anglican 39 Articles say something about the doctrine of election being for the comfort of believers.
Calvin gets a bad rap in Orthodox circles but I'm prepared to acknowledge that he 'rings true' at times but equally have sympathy with the view @KarlLB has expressed, that, whether he intended to or not, he opened up a slippery slope towards TULIP and double-predestination and all the angst and heart-ache that goes with that.
But then again, plenty of people from the Reformed tradition don't appear to slide down that slippery path.
It strikes me that extreme or neo-Calvinism ends up defeating its object - which is to defend the sovereignty of God. It ends up making God a prisoner of his own irrevocable and eternal decrees.
I'm not advocating 'Process Theology' as an alternative.
I do take heart that Piper is talking about 'mystery' and 'paradox' though.
Perhaps he'll end up 'both/and'? 😉
Given that there is a link between predestination and determinism, (thread purpose!) I think lots of Reformers avoid the slippery slope or the rabbit hole because they see what it leads to, and don’t like it.
It’s a personal observation but I get a sense that Calvin (the lawyer) also didn’t like where his logic was leading, hence his limiting comments in the Institutes.
So you say! I’m not sure you’re necessarily the best judge of that. I’m happier with Rowan Williams’ view that Christianity doesn’t exist to answer all the questions, rather to keep the questions alive.
So I’m subject to the heretical imperative. I ask questions. I wrestle with these things from the perspective of a follower of Jesus for over half a century. And I’m still following.
If this is true, God is Not Love.
If I believed it, I would never, ever, have had children. Too much risk God would have them on the Hell list and it would be better to never exist.
How do believers in this cope with it without going insane?
Besides, second guessing the mercy of God is an arrogant thing to do.